Hey Pittsburgh people - is this real??? - Page 2

TAMR159 · 09-05-2009, 04:24 PM

Where's all this hostility coming from? He can't talk about it without getting into some serious trouble, so he's suggesting someone who won't get into trouble spill the beans instead. It drives me nuts how some people on this forum chastise others because they can't take a minute to see things from their point of view.

That being said, they're both obviously Canadian Pacific units...I'm working on getting the exact numbers.

travsirocz · 09-05-2009, 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TAMR159

Where's all this hostility coming from? He can't talk about it without getting into some serious trouble, so he's suggesting someone who won't get into trouble spill the beans instead. It drives me nuts how some people on this forum chastise others because they can't take a minute to see things from their point of view.

That being said, they're both obviously Canadian Pacific units...I'm working on getting the exact numbers.

Maybe if he can't say anything he shouldn't have said anything in the first place.

Joe the Photog · 09-05-2009, 04:40 PM

My beef with him is that he came off as bragging that he knows something we don't, but he's not telling. I stayed away from these kids on the playground. No one liked them. If I read him wrong, then that's on me. I don't think I did though.

About these units, I find the rumors and speculation funny.

About the movie, Denzel Washington? Really? When I first heard about the movie, I thought it would be some low budget made for cable movie. At least it's not starring Steven Seagal.

Or Rob Lowe.

nikos1 · 09-05-2009, 05:12 PM

It still going to fail never the less if that paint scheme is any indication.

Joe the Photog · 09-05-2009, 05:45 PM

I thinkthe paint looks really good. Certainly better and more original IMHO compared to CSX or NS.

Frederick · 09-05-2009, 10:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nikos1

Are there really that many spare AC44's that they can be used for film making? Seems a bit absurd that they would rent a AC44 instead of a old SD40 for much less.

A few months ago, CP sidelined some AC4400s and even a few GEVOs.

JimThias · 09-06-2009, 01:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freericks

but the local production folk who did all the hard work getting those units painted and prepped are probably pretty annoyed.

How so?

Quote:

Originally Posted by nikos1

It still going to fail never the less if that paint scheme is any indication.

It'll fail because the only people who will care about seeing this movie are railfans. One weekend of excessive foam to mop up and then this movie makes nothing.

Freericks · 09-06-2009, 01:09 AM

Not sure I understand your question, Jim... but what I was saying was no one at 20th Century Fox cares about someone seeing the paint scheme on a prop (which is what the engines are). It's not a significant part of the movie to them (not like seeing ET before the movie came out).

That being said, with all of these folks who are in the know posting cryptic notes about not being able to talk about it, I'm guessing that someone involved in the production did tell them that they had to stay quiet, and that person was someone involved with the locomotives themelves (not sure who or why) but probably someone who had a hand in prepping them for the shoot. And, taking that one step further, they likely didn't want to see their newly painted engines posted on line.

Did I answer your question, or did I really not understand what you were asking?

JimThias · 09-06-2009, 01:18 AM

I was asking how they'd be annoyed. I mean, really...it's a frickin' locomotive that no one cares about.

Freericks · 09-06-2009, 01:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimThias

I was asking how they'd be annoyed. I mean, really...it's a frickin' locomotive that no one cares about.

Yes, when you put it so eloquently, I can see the weight of your arguement.

PLEzero · 09-06-2009, 01:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freericks

Nthey likely didn't want to see their newly painted engines posted on line.

I'm pretty certain no one cares if a few foamers take some photos of their train sitting on a siding. I think it's a little more important to them to keep the crew and cast safe from movie fans. But it seems as though most individuals on this forum have too much foam popping out of their ears to realize there is more to life than trains.

JimThias · 09-06-2009, 01:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freericks

Yes, when you put it so eloquently, I can see the weight of your arguement.

I'm just in one of those moods today.

Freericks · 09-06-2009, 01:44 AM

Yes... I know the feeling.

BarrySr · 09-06-2009, 11:45 AM

steambrake · 09-06-2009, 12:25 PM

I'm sure the producers would like to shoot the movie without worrying about seeing photographers, etc., in shots, having to ask (or pay people) to move out of sight. It's very standard to have non-production people who are in some way involved with the production sign non-disclosure agreements. There are always going to be a few fans in the right place at the right time, but keeping the shooting schedule (and train movements) quiet may help keep delays to a minimum. In any case this film will undoubtedly involve plenty of CGI.

The premise of the movie is centered around an unmanned runaway train carrying a cargo of chemicals. An engineer and conductor are chasing the train in a separate locomotive, trying to stop it before it derails...

Stephen

travsirocz · 09-06-2009, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steambrake

The premise of the movie is centered around an unmanned runaway train carrying a cargo of chemicals. An engineer and conductor are chasing the train in a separate locomotive, trying to stop it before it derails...

I hope there aren't any sharp curves, or low clearance tunnels for the men on top of the train to miss!

Freericks · 09-06-2009, 04:20 PM

I remeber a TVMovie with the same plot about 1975 - think. Will have to look it up when I have a chance.

Joe the Photog · 09-06-2009, 06:00 PM

An interesting question is how one should put those shots in the database as -- under their CP reporting marks and numbers or as the fictinal AWVR? From Hi-Railers two shots, I can't figure out if he knows these are movie pieces and is trying not to say or if he thinks they're AVR units and an AVR train.

JimThias · 09-06-2009, 07:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steambrake

The premise of the movie is centered around an unmanned runaway train carrying a cargo of chemicals. An engineer and conductor are chasing the train in a separate locomotive, trying to stop it before it derails...

I hope they aren't spending much money on this flick. I really can't see there being enough railfans available to fill the theaters after the first weekend of release.

JRMDC · 09-06-2009, 09:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimThias

It'll fail because the only people who will care about seeing this movie are railfans. One weekend of excessive foam to mop up and then this movie makes nothing.

Making yesterday's post #32 doesn't give Jim enough satisfaction, so he comes back today:

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimThias

I hope they aren't spending much money on this flick. I really can't see there being enough railfans available to fill the theaters after the first weekend of release.

Joe the Photog · 09-07-2009, 12:01 AM

It's got Denzel in it. It's going to attract a lot of folks and make some money based just on Mr. Washington

rathman11 · 09-07-2009, 03:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freericks

I remeber a TVMovie with the same plot about 1975 - think. Will have to look it up when I have a chance.

Could you possibly be thinking of the TV movie "Atomic Train"? I know back in the late 90's, I think it was 1999, there was a movie called Atomic Train that aired on NBC. It was about a runaway nuclear train that derails and blows up. The blast levels the city of Denver.

After a quick google search, wikipedia confirmed by thoughts. Here is the link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_Train

Freericks · 09-07-2009, 03:32 AM

No, not Atomic Train (I was actually in the TV Movie department at NBC when Atomic Train was made, although it wasn't my project, it belonged to my colleague). This was a movie from back when I was a kid. I remember watching it with my brother. The air date would be more like 1974 or 1975 and it involved them catching a runaway train with another locomotive.

I'll look it up when I get home (I'm out of town this week), unless someone else here on the list happens to have the Merrill book on 1970s TV movies.

JimThias · 09-07-2009, 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freericks

No, not Atomic Train (I was actually in the TV Movie department at NBC when Atomic Train was made, although it wasn't my project, it belonged to my colleague). This was a movie from back when I was a kid. I remember watching it with my brother. The air date would be more like 1974 or 1975 and it involved them catching a runaway train with another locomotive.

I'll look it up when I get home (I'm out of town this week), unless someone else here on the list happens to have the Merrill book on 1970s TV movies.

Is that the one with the runaway FP40 (or whatever it was)? There's one scene where they have to build a switch by hand and when the locomotive comes, they trackworkers hold the rail in place with long poles because they didn't get it spiked in time. I remember that one from the 70s, but can never remember the name.

Freericks · 09-07-2009, 11:05 PM

Believe it or not, I never saw Atomic Train (even though I worked there at the time... sort of pathetic... I know).