Old 10-24-2010, 10:09 PM   #1
WisconsinCentral
Senior Member
 
WisconsinCentral's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: New Brighton Minnesota
Posts: 361
Exclamation Csxt

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
__________________
The future is uncertain, so take the shots now.
http://www.railpictures.net/showphotos.php?userid=8714
WisconsinCentral is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2010, 10:21 PM   #2
Joe the Photog
Senior Member
 
Joe the Photog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Columbia, SC
Posts: 7,895
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WisconsinCentral View Post
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.
__________________
Joe the Photog Dot Com
Joe the Photog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2010, 11:42 PM   #3
bigbassloyd
Senior Member
 
bigbassloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Hilldale, West Virginia
Posts: 3,730
Default

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

Loyd L.
__________________
Social Media elevates the absurd and mediocre to a point where they aren't anymore, and that is a tragedy.

My personal photography site
bigbassloyd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2010, 12:51 AM   #4
Ween
Senior Member
 
Ween's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,861
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WisconsinCentral View Post
Joe V, a screener I believe...
Who the heck is Joe V? Is he related to Bon Joe V?
http://www.railpictures.net/us/
__________________
Ween is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2010, 01:02 AM   #5
sd9
Senior Member
 
sd9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 799
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WisconsinCentral View Post

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?
sd9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2010, 04:08 AM   #6
Joe the Photog
Senior Member
 
Joe the Photog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Columbia, SC
Posts: 7,895
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbassloyd View Post
So why aren't they being rejected? Hell was raised about having to put the railroad ID with the symbol...
Image © Chuck Rippel
PhotoID: 342725
Photograph © Chuck Rippel

Image © Joe Vittitoe
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.
__________________
Joe the Photog Dot Com
Joe the Photog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2010, 04:21 AM   #7
coborn35
Senior Member
 
coborn35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Duluth, MN
Posts: 1,398
Default

Hey pot your black!
Image © Alec Holmes
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...
__________________
I personally have had a problem with those trying to tell us to turn railroad photography into an "art form." It's fine for them to do so, I welcome it in fact, but what I do have a problem with is that the practitioners of the more "arty" shots, I have found, tend to look down their nose's at others who are shooting more "mundane" shots.
Railroad photography is what you make of it, but one way is not "better" than another, IMHO. Unless you have a pole right thought the nose of the engine! -SG

Last edited by coborn35; 10-25-2010 at 04:27 AM.
coborn35 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2010, 04:38 AM   #8
WisconsinCentral
Senior Member
 
WisconsinCentral's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: New Brighton Minnesota
Posts: 361
Default

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
__________________
The future is uncertain, so take the shots now.
http://www.railpictures.net/showphotos.php?userid=8714

Last edited by WisconsinCentral; 10-25-2010 at 04:41 AM.
WisconsinCentral is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2010, 04:49 AM   #9
WisconsinCentral
Senior Member
 
WisconsinCentral's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: New Brighton Minnesota
Posts: 361
Default

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!)
__________________
The future is uncertain, so take the shots now.
http://www.railpictures.net/showphotos.php?userid=8714
WisconsinCentral is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2010, 04:59 AM   #10
coborn35
Senior Member
 
coborn35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Duluth, MN
Posts: 1,398
Default

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.
__________________
I personally have had a problem with those trying to tell us to turn railroad photography into an "art form." It's fine for them to do so, I welcome it in fact, but what I do have a problem with is that the practitioners of the more "arty" shots, I have found, tend to look down their nose's at others who are shooting more "mundane" shots.
Railroad photography is what you make of it, but one way is not "better" than another, IMHO. Unless you have a pole right thought the nose of the engine! -SG
coborn35 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2010, 05:11 AM   #11
WisconsinCentral
Senior Member
 
WisconsinCentral's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: New Brighton Minnesota
Posts: 361
Default

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
__________________
The future is uncertain, so take the shots now.
http://www.railpictures.net/showphotos.php?userid=8714
WisconsinCentral is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2010, 05:34 AM   #12
sd9
Senior Member
 
sd9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 799
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WisconsinCentral View Post
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)
Image © Bill Grenchik
PhotoID: 340047
Photograph © Bill Grenchik

Image © Brandon Kilgore
PhotoID: 342322
Photograph © Brandon Kilgore


Bill
sd9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2010, 05:42 AM   #13
coborn35
Senior Member
 
coborn35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Duluth, MN
Posts: 1,398
Default

Brandon's.
CN should be the railroad listed, with reporting marks EJE.
See my two DMIR examples:
Image © Max Medlin
PhotoID: 341097
Photograph © Max Medlin

Image © Max Medlin
PhotoID: 340120
Photograph © Max Medlin
__________________
I personally have had a problem with those trying to tell us to turn railroad photography into an "art form." It's fine for them to do so, I welcome it in fact, but what I do have a problem with is that the practitioners of the more "arty" shots, I have found, tend to look down their nose's at others who are shooting more "mundane" shots.
Railroad photography is what you make of it, but one way is not "better" than another, IMHO. Unless you have a pole right thought the nose of the engine! -SG
coborn35 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2010, 07:26 AM   #14
Bryan Jones
Senior Member
 
Bryan Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Brooks,KY
Posts: 131
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WisconsinCentral View Post
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
Bryan Jones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2010, 12:21 PM   #15
crazytiger
Senior Member
 
crazytiger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: NS Greenville District
Posts: 1,473
Default

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.
__________________
Peter Lewis | Portfolio | Profile | Flickr | Facebook

Canon EOS 40D
Canon EF 50 f/1.8 II
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L USM
Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM


Quote:
Originally Posted by A Friend
everytime i see non-train photos of yours i think, "so much talent. wasted on trains."
crazytiger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2010, 12:31 PM   #16
Doug Wolfe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 181
Default

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?
Doug Wolfe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2010, 12:51 PM   #17
crazytiger
Senior Member
 
crazytiger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: NS Greenville District
Posts: 1,473
Default

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.
__________________
Peter Lewis | Portfolio | Profile | Flickr | Facebook

Canon EOS 40D
Canon EF 50 f/1.8 II
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L USM
Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM


Quote:
Originally Posted by A Friend
everytime i see non-train photos of yours i think, "so much talent. wasted on trains."
crazytiger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2010, 03:48 PM   #18
Joe the Photog
Senior Member
 
Joe the Photog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Columbia, SC
Posts: 7,895
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by crazytiger View Post
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.
__________________
Joe the Photog Dot Com
Joe the Photog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2010, 04:06 PM   #19
coborn35
Senior Member
 
coborn35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Duluth, MN
Posts: 1,398
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Jones View Post
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....?
__________________
I personally have had a problem with those trying to tell us to turn railroad photography into an "art form." It's fine for them to do so, I welcome it in fact, but what I do have a problem with is that the practitioners of the more "arty" shots, I have found, tend to look down their nose's at others who are shooting more "mundane" shots.
Railroad photography is what you make of it, but one way is not "better" than another, IMHO. Unless you have a pole right thought the nose of the engine! -SG
coborn35 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2010, 04:09 PM   #20
coborn35
Senior Member
 
coborn35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Duluth, MN
Posts: 1,398
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by crazytiger View Post
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!
__________________
I personally have had a problem with those trying to tell us to turn railroad photography into an "art form." It's fine for them to do so, I welcome it in fact, but what I do have a problem with is that the practitioners of the more "arty" shots, I have found, tend to look down their nose's at others who are shooting more "mundane" shots.
Railroad photography is what you make of it, but one way is not "better" than another, IMHO. Unless you have a pole right thought the nose of the engine! -SG
coborn35 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2010, 04:19 PM   #21
Chase55671
RailPictures.Net Crew
 
Chase55671's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Nitro, WV
Posts: 2,194
Send a message via AIM to Chase55671 Send a message via MSN to Chase55671
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Jones View Post
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 View Post
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
__________________
Chase Gunnoe
Railpictures.Net Crew
Rail-Videos.Net Crew
Click here to view my photos at Railpictures.Net
SLR Night Photography Tutorial | Railpictures.Net Beginners Guide
Chase55671 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2010, 04:48 PM   #22
nikos1
Senior Member
 
nikos1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,775
Default

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.....
__________________


Wedge shots of blue HLCX SD60's http://www.railpictures.net/showphotos.php?userid=7861

More wedge shots of blue HLCX SD60's http://nikos1.rrpicturearchives.net/

Video wedge shots of blue HLCX SD60's
http://youtube.com/profile?user=nikosjk1
nikos1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2010, 04:57 PM   #23
WisconsinCentral
Senior Member
 
WisconsinCentral's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: New Brighton Minnesota
Posts: 361
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by coborn35 View Post
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
__________________
The future is uncertain, so take the shots now.
http://www.railpictures.net/showphotos.php?userid=8714
WisconsinCentral is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2010, 04:58 PM   #24
coborn35
Senior Member
 
coborn35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Duluth, MN
Posts: 1,398
Default

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.
__________________
I personally have had a problem with those trying to tell us to turn railroad photography into an "art form." It's fine for them to do so, I welcome it in fact, but what I do have a problem with is that the practitioners of the more "arty" shots, I have found, tend to look down their nose's at others who are shooting more "mundane" shots.
Railroad photography is what you make of it, but one way is not "better" than another, IMHO. Unless you have a pole right thought the nose of the engine! -SG
coborn35 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2010, 05:00 PM   #25
coborn35
Senior Member
 
coborn35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Duluth, MN
Posts: 1,398
Default

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.
__________________
I personally have had a problem with those trying to tell us to turn railroad photography into an "art form." It's fine for them to do so, I welcome it in fact, but what I do have a problem with is that the practitioners of the more "arty" shots, I have found, tend to look down their nose's at others who are shooting more "mundane" shots.
Railroad photography is what you make of it, but one way is not "better" than another, IMHO. Unless you have a pole right thought the nose of the engine! -SG
coborn35 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:58 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.