Csxt

WisconsinCentral · 10-24-2010, 11:09 PM

CSXT are the reporting marks for any CSX owned engine. Glad we got this cleared up...

I know this isn't really the place for this, but honestly how come people can't all be on the same page with something so easy as this? While looking through pictures today I searched a particular engine and only got a few shots turn up. Later while searching on the www I got a shot from RP turn up a few links down with, amazingly, the incorrect reporting marks.

It's not that hard, and ignorance can't always be to blame. Joe V, a screener I believe, never correctly identifies the engine thus searching correctly won't bring up any of his shots...

This is the same way with alot of the WC 6900's, GTW 59XX's, and anything else with the CN noodle on the long hood.

Off the soap box I go...

Alec

Joe the Photog · 10-24-2010, 11:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WisconsinCentral

CSXT are the reporting marks for any CSX owned engine.

Thank you! That irritates me to no end. Also, how one of the best old time shooters on these boards can't correctly ID a Southern Railway engine blows me away. He who shall remain nameless puts them down as SR, not SOU. Reporting mark mistakes are always my biggest pet peeve here.

bigbassloyd · 10-25-2010, 12:42 AM

So why aren't they being rejected? Hell was raised about having to put the railroad ID with the symbol...

Loyd L.

Ween · 10-25-2010, 01:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WisconsinCentral

Joe V, a screener I believe...

Who the heck is Joe V? Is he related to Bon Joe V?
http://www.railpictures.net/us/

sd9 · 10-25-2010, 02:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WisconsinCentral

This is the same way with alot of the WC 6900's, GTW 59XX's, and anything else with the CN noodle on the long hood.

Off the soap box I go...

Alec

So...what is with the WC, GTW... what are you referring too on those?

Joe the Photog · 10-25-2010, 05:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigbassloyd

So why aren't they being rejected? Hell was raised about having to put the railroad ID with the symbol...

PhotoID: 342725
Photograph © Chuck Rippel

PhotoID: 342699
Photograph © Joe Vittitoe

First two pages of pics, I found this. Joe V. was not the person I was talking about earlier though.

coborn35 · 10-25-2010, 05:21 AM

Hey pot your black!

PhotoID: 231142
Photograph © Alec Holmes

Last time I checked the CP owned the SD60's, not the Soo Line...
I have been going back and changing all my titles because very few on railpics realize they are putting the owning railroad in wrong.

I would also like to note that the RP Search Function is not to be trusted. A search for "Two Harbors" turns up nothing, yet I have at least 5 shots from Two Harbors on there...

WisconsinCentral · 10-25-2010, 05:38 AM

Not so fast, Mr. Medlin.

The Soo Line Railroad is still a holding company. The engine is SOO 6034. The reporting marks have not changed, thus the engine is still SOO 6034. Riiiiight? So, identifying the lead unit by railroad (which is what they want), it is a Soo Line locomotive.

SD9, the CN doesn't change reporting marks when repainting power, and many of their long-term leased power was given WC, GTW, and IC reporting marks in the past. People seemed to only look at the CN logo and assume it's a CN engine, which it is not. If it says IC under the cab, it's an IC engine. It's not there for show, it means something. Yet so many just say it's CN 6924, or CN 6122, etc.

Alec

WisconsinCentral · 10-25-2010, 05:49 AM

And, if we are going to nitpick on a totally different subject matter (IE: Railroad ownership and FRA certified reporting marks) , let me just say that....

"Hey pot your black!" is incorrect.

What we want to do in this scenario is replace the offending word, your, with the proper word, you're.

(Take with a grain of salt, I'm just having fun!)

coborn35 · 10-25-2010, 05:59 AM

I was being mostly facetious anyway. I'm with you. The Canadian Pacific still owns the engine. The Soo Line only exists on paper.
Also you are incorrect. They do not want the lead unit identified by railroad. They want it identified by the railroad to which the lead unit belongs. Reporting marks stay the same, but railroad does not. For example the WC #6900. Should read Canadian National's WC #6900.

WisconsinCentral · 10-25-2010, 06:11 AM

Woops, I guess I had something else different in mind...

Here's where I stand on this issue. I always labeled my CN painted/patched engines as CN by railroad, with WC or IC reporting marks. But for an untouched engine such as the SOO 6034, I'm going to label that as Soo Line for search purposes and because for the most part I'm showing the Soo Line. Technically I hope most understand that the SOO has been gone for nearly 20 years now, but since the reporting marks are still SOO you can't go wrong.

Alec

sd9 · 10-25-2010, 06:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WisconsinCentral

Not so fast, Mr. Medlin.

SD9, the CN doesn't change reporting marks when repainting power, and many of their long-term leased power was given WC, GTW, and IC reporting marks in the past. People seemed to only look at the CN logo and assume it's a CN engine, which it is not. If it says IC under the cab, it's an IC engine. It's not there for show, it means something. Yet so many just say it's CN 6924, or CN 6122, etc.

Alec

So, EJ&E will still be EJE as in the latest repaint of the 668, right? Now,under the heading of Locomotive Details should it be Canadian National Railway or Elgin, Joliet & Eastern Railway, I understood that when CN took over they are still operating as the EJ&E the way the agreement was done, in the examples below which one is right? (I suppose I should be dropping the ampersand on the Locomotive number)

PhotoID: 340047
Photograph © Bill Grenchik

PhotoID: 342322
Photograph © Brandon Kilgore

Bill

coborn35 · 10-25-2010, 06:42 AM

Brandon's.
CN should be the railroad listed, with reporting marks EJE.
See my two DMIR examples:

PhotoID: 341097
Photograph © Max Medlin

PhotoID: 340120
Photograph © Max Medlin

Bryan Jones · 10-25-2010, 08:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WisconsinCentral

Woops, I guess I had something else different in mind...

Here's where I stand on this issue. I always labeled my CN painted/patched engines as CN by railroad, with WC or IC reporting marks. But for an untouched engine such as the SOO 6034, I'm going to label that as Soo Line for search purposes and because for the most part I'm showing the Soo Line. Technically I hope most understand that the SOO has been gone for nearly 20 years now, but since the reporting marks are still SOO you can't go wrong.

Alec

I agree with what you are saying here. In this case yes the Soo Line is gone, but the reporting marks are valid. And just to stir the pot. While deep down in the paperwork Soo Line #6034 may be owned by CP, there is already a CP SD40-2 #6034 at the same time and in the case of the entire Soo SD60/60M fleet those same numbers are carried by a like number of CP SD40-2's. 2 different locomotives owned by the same railroad, same road number, but different reporting marks.

Bryan Jones
Brooks,KY

crazytiger · 10-25-2010, 01:21 PM

There should never be ANY ampersands in Reporting Marks. That screws the link, because ampersands mean something in HTML code. Also, I agree you should put down the reporting marks that are on the engine and the railroad that the unit was numbered as. I.E., a patched unit should be identified using the railroad who patched it, but an unpatched should not be.

Doug Wolfe · 10-25-2010, 01:31 PM

Along the same lines, when I do a search for UP engines they never come up. A glitch in the system maybe?

Or, am I misspelling UP?

crazytiger · 10-25-2010, 01:51 PM

I've never had the problem, Doug. I would put in Union Pacific as the railroad and then put the number down below without specifying anything else and you'll probably get it.

Joe the Photog · 10-25-2010, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crazytiger

There should never be ANY ampersands in Reporting Marks.

Which makes it bad how many people on one of the latest night sessions put in N&W for the reporting marks, not NW. Also, B&O and C&O reporting marks seem to be ampersanded a lot of the time on RP. Drives me crazy.

coborn35 · 10-25-2010, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryan Jones

I agree with what you are saying here. In this case yes the Soo Line is gone, but the reporting marks are valid. And just to stir the pot. While deep down in the paperwork Soo Line #6034 may be owned by CP, there is already a CP SD40-2 #6034 at the same time and in the case of the entire Soo SD60/60M fleet those same numbers are carried by a like number of CP SD40-2's. 2 different locomotives owned by the same railroad, same road number, but different reporting marks.

Bryan Jones
Brooks,KY

So? I don't see how that has anything to do with anything....?

coborn35 · 10-25-2010, 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crazytiger

There should never be ANY ampersands in Reporting Marks. That screws the link, because ampersands mean something in HTML code. Also, I agree you should put down the reporting marks that are on the engine and the railroad that the unit was numbered as. I.E., a patched unit should be identified using the railroad who patched it, but an unpatched should not be.

No! You are wrong. Read the RP rules. Its really not that hard. Its one sentence. Read it. My word.
I dont care if the unit is purple, green and polka dotted with orange zig zags and the reporting marks DMIRWCGTWEJEBLE #26364782828464.
If the CN owns it, thats the railroad you list it under!

Chase55671 · 10-25-2010, 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryan Jones

While deep down in the paperwork Soo Line #6034 may be owned by CP, there is already a CP SD40-2 #6034 at the same time and in the case of the entire Soo SD60/60M fleet those same numbers are carried by a like number of CP SD40-2's. 2

Bryan Jones
Brooks,KY

Quote:

Originally Posted by coborn35

No! You are wrong. Read the RP rules. Its really not that hard. Its one sentence. Read it. My word.
I dont care if the unit is purple, green and polka dotted with orange zig zags and the reporting marks DMIRWCGTWEJEBLE #26364782828464.
If the CN owns it, thats the railroad you list it under!

Interesting point by Bryan. If CP already has a 6034 (of their own, i.e., in their own paint, etc.), what do you do with SOO 6034, supposedly also owned by CP?

One would only think that SOO 6034 would then be the correct reporting mark.

Chase

nikos1 · 10-25-2010, 05:48 PM

It says list the railroad the lead unit belongs to. In that case it would still be SOO, since the unit belongs to the SOO line holding company subsidary of CP, or whatever it is. Even if it was a fallen flag the rules would still apply, the CNW twins go under CNW because the units still have CNW reporting marks, not UP.
Now lets not even start on the Hartwell again.....

WisconsinCentral · 10-25-2010, 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by coborn35

No! You are wrong. Read the RP rules. Its really not that hard. Its one sentence. Read it. My word.
I dont care if the unit is purple, green and polka dotted with orange zig zags and the reporting marks DMIRWCGTWEJEBLE #26364782828464.
If the CN owns it, thats the railroad you list it under!

Nope. I want people to be able to see my picture of a SOO LINE SD60 if they click SOO LINE on the drop down. RP is all about views. And if I click Wisconsin Central I want to see WC engines.

By your logic engines on long term lease should be identified as such too. Meaning the WC SDL39's, most if not all of the WC SD45's, the SOO MP15AC's, and countless others that are technically not owned by their operating railroad should be identified as their paper owner.

It comes down to reporting marks. Each railroad has an assigned reporting mark(s), and for the benefit of not having a ridiculous musical chair game of finding a friggin picture depending on the year it was taken, we should just label the engine as what railroad it's reporting marks show.

Alec

coborn35 · 10-25-2010, 05:58 PM

Ok guys really? This is starting to get stupid. The SOO doesn't own anything. Sure maybe they exist on paper but deep down the CP still owns them.
Chase, no duh SOO is the correct reporting mark, do you see CPR markings on them?
CNW twins DO NOT go under CNW, they go under UP, because they are OWNED by the UP.

Its like no one on here knows anything about trains.

Reporting marks: Usually 3-4 letter combos used to designate ownership. For example, the #6024. CP has a number #6024. For railpictures purposes its labeled "Canadian Pacific Railway" "CP #6024" Oh no, CP buys the SOO Line. Do you guys think the SOO units are still around because the CP wants railfans to get pictures? No, its because they don't want to have to go through and renumber a bunch of units. The SD60 will now read "Canadian Pacific Railway" " SOO #6024" Reporting marks do not change with ownership. Only if the CP goes down and spray paints new reporting marks on the engine will they change.

coborn35 · 10-25-2010, 06:00 PM

Well you know what Alec, how about you give an email to Chris Starnes and Chris Kilroy and tell them that their website is wrong. I don't care what you want to see, follow the guidelines set by RP.