Comments: 16
Rockyrailroad578 [2015-04-05 20:59:46 +0000 UTC]
I see what you mean there!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Engine97 In reply to Rockyrailroad578 [2015-04-05 21:10:54 +0000 UTC]
The difference is crazy! I can't believe it was numbered 734.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Rockyrailroad578 In reply to Engine97 [2015-04-05 22:40:43 +0000 UTC]
Next rebuild, they should consider renumbering her.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Engine97 In reply to Rockyrailroad578 [2015-04-05 23:02:05 +0000 UTC]
Everyone knows her as 734, it would be bad for business.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Rockyrailroad578 In reply to Engine97 [2015-04-05 23:04:28 +0000 UTC]
Here, borrow this;
Now go back to when she was new, and re-arrange the headlight and markers.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
railguy365 [2015-04-05 20:47:01 +0000 UTC]
Wow! No kidding about the 834. WMSR should fix her up to become 834. Nice job with the editing.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Engine97 In reply to railguy365 [2015-04-05 20:48:58 +0000 UTC]
Thanks. I agree, but they said "It's 21 years too late". Maybe some day for a photo freight they will.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
railguy365 In reply to Engine97 [2015-04-05 21:41:17 +0000 UTC]
They did that a few years ago for a Lerro charter.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Engine97 In reply to railguy365 [2015-04-05 21:48:02 +0000 UTC]
It was renumbered 729 I think
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
railguy365 In reply to Engine97 [2015-04-05 23:13:10 +0000 UTC]
That sounds about right.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
SAR500 [2015-04-05 20:39:44 +0000 UTC]
Very nice shot
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
SAR500 In reply to Engine97 [2015-04-05 20:46:08 +0000 UTC]
Ah still nice machine though
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Engine97 In reply to SAR500 [2015-04-05 20:49:09 +0000 UTC]
Agreed
👍: 0 ⏩: 1