Western Railroad Discussion > Copy19 and Red ... your opinion?

Copy19 and Red ... see the message below. Perhaps you also should explain that railroads have railroad police, and unauthorized modifications (especially to something as important as locomotive identity markings potentially involved in train movement authority) is tampering. I and my fellow crewmen (and train dispatchers) take train and locomotive identification seriously. I don't want any confusion about which locomotive (and TRAIN) I am meeting, or clearing for into a siding, or workly jointly with on a stretch of track.

David, why not change the lens on stop lights in your home community because you aren't happy with their color? How about spray painting speed signs because you don't like the font used by the state highway department? Are you serious?

If I get a Track Warrant, for example, with box 7 checked so that my authority to occupy the main track is "Not in effect until after arrival of (train)" ... I want to know for sure what the other train is. Let's say the track warrant says the other train is the UP 1982. But someone has gone out and painted over the UP reporting marks, and all I see on the front of an opposing locomotive numbered 1982 is a big Mopac logo on the front nose. So this train must be MP 1982. Or is it? Do you think an engineer on BNSF or KCS will necessarily know that UP has a Mopac heritage unit numbered UP 1982? Railroads operate jointly over a lot of trackage in this country.

David, ever hear of the term "cornfield meet"?

While the heritage locomotives are drawing a lot of attention and comment ... suggesting that someone could, would or should paint out anything related to train movement and locomotive and train identification is bordering on being dangerous. Besides, any railroad's paint scheme is the railroad's property. Something doesn't "look good" from a railfan perspective? Frankly, too bad. If you really want to change it, buy the railroad. Let's keep the interest short of entering railroad property and messin' with something which can be important to train crew safety. Railfanning isn't about moving trains at speed and preventing collisions. Operating rules are. Nor is fanning about suggesting or implying that locomotives can and maybe should be "paint doctored" because you or someone else doesn't like something on the paint scheme.

Whether you or I like those initials is inconsequential. Don't even hint at someone messing with safety. Sorry if this is like a ton of bricks, but your comment is irresponsible.


Date: July 30, 2005 17:22
Re: Systemwide coverage for the UP Heritage Units?
Author: David.Curlee
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


TopcoatSmith Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> TCS - not bad, don't like the initials next to the
> #boards but not bad ...

Me neither. Something tells me that someone (i.e. train crew, locomotive shop, railfan, etc.) will take it upon themselves to buy the same color paint in pint size and paint over the UP letters when nobody is looking.

Uh, sorry, I'm not sure how my comment is irresponsible when I wasn't at all suggesting that it *should* be done. Knowing how people are so passionate to these "Heritage" railraods, it wouldn't suprise me if someone did what I said earlier.

By the way, of the thousands of BN and ATSF locomotives given a patch job renumbering, I'd say about 95% of them still have the Santa Fe cigar band or BN logo on the nose. Unless you can see the sides of the cab, you have no idea whether it is ATSF or BNSF, or BN or BNSF.

One thing I've always wondered about is why BNSF always uses AMTK as reporting marks when referring to the Amtrak California CDTX units, which are even labeled as such now. BNSF uses the initials AMTK when giving warrants and on box 7's, and perhaps other things as well.

A couple weeks ago, Amtrak train #3 was followed no more than a hundred miles behind by the AOE, running under AMTK 3 WEST across the BNSF Seligman and Needles Subdivisions.

In such a case The Southwest Chief would be identified by it's engine number, as is the case on BNSF track warrants anyway. Sometimes dispatchers will informally call it by the train number, but any paperwork or verbal mandatory directives would be addressed to the engine number and direction. Many times the track warrant will be issued to "Engine Unknown", in which case the crew would contact the dispatcher and get the address corrected prior to departure, or before entering BNSF property.

SurflinerHogger Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In such a case The Southwest Chief would be
> identified by it's engine number, as is the case
> on BNSF track warrants anyway. Sometimes
> dispatchers will informally call it by the train
> number, but any paperwork or verbal mandatory
> directives would be addressed to the engine number
> and direction. Many times the track warrant will
> be issued to "Engine Unknown", in which case the
> crew would contact the dispatcher and get the
> address corrected prior to departure, or before
> entering BNSF property.

On the Surfliners, what about if a cabcar is leading? Do they list the cabcar, the locomotive number, or the train number?

How is having a unit painted in "new" heritage paint any different than a patched unit
that hasn't been repainted yet? Someone could just as easily remove the UP markings
on one of those too...

In that case it would most likely be given the cab unit number (if operating in push mode).

scannergeek Wrote:
>
> On the Surfliners, what about if a cabcar is
> leading? Do they list the cabcar, the locomotive
> number, or the train number?


The Surfliners are always addressed by the engine number, pushing or pulling. We have never, nor did AT&SF, address The Surfliners or San Diegans by cabcar number. Same with the Metrolink commutes. Some of the BNSF crews will call out the cabcar number after a roll by when we're pushing, but we don't use that number for anything other than a record of the consist.

SurflinerHogger Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In such a case The Southwest Chief would be
> identified by it's engine number, as is the case
> on BNSF track warrants anyway. Sometimes
> dispatchers will informally call it by the train
> number, but any paperwork or verbal mandatory
> directives would be addressed to the engine number
> and direction. Many times the track warrant will
> be issued to "Engine Unknown", in which case the
> crew would contact the dispatcher and get the
> address corrected prior to departure, or before
> entering BNSF property.

Isn't it up to the dispatcher and train crews to be disciplined enough to say the proper things in this situation? Seems like that would be a hard habit to break when on all other days, you can say "train 3" or "train 4" without a problem.

SurflinerHogger Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Surfliners are always addressed by the engine
> number, pushing or pulling. We have never, nor
> did AT&SF, address The Surfliners or San
> Diegans by cabcar number. Same with the Metrolink
> commutes. Some of the BNSF crews will call out
> the cabcar number after a roll by when we're
> pushing, but we don't use that number for anything
> other than a record of the consist.

When Amtrak has an NPCU leading a train (ex-F40PH cabcar), BNSF uses this number as the identifying unit, which makes no sense compared to how they handle passenger-carrying cabcars elsewhere. I guess if it looks like a locomotive, they consider it to be one.

so you're saying that if you call yourself out to the 'spatcher as the MP1982, you're somehow get into a cornfield meet with another locomotive with MP initials? Don't exactly get your point beyond the illegal defacing point. Of the normal RR radio conversations I hear, there is always someone calling out the incorrect initials for both UP and BNSF. Even when the loco is identified correctly, I've heard "SPXXXX" called out for a patch UP numbered unit or vice versa with "UPXXXX" called out for an unpatched SP unit. I also know for a fact that there are a few locos out there with the UP number or intials crossed out inside the cab - yup done by your own co-employees. So don't point the defacing threat finger only at railfans...

If identification gets to be a problem they can just slap yellow patches on the units and a UP shield on the front. Then they'll be just like all the other heritage locos running around the system.

Ted in Davis

OK...first, I think making them "UP" locomotives alleviated a lot of confusion...A LOT. It would be very difficult, roster-wise, to have one WP unit, one CNW unit, one SP unit....and so on. I'm sure in the cabs, there are very visible stickers stating "UP1983", as is the case on most locomotives.

I think that the UP wanted to honor its heritage...but...did not want to leave any doubt in anyone's mind WHOSE locomotive this was, or, whose heritage it represents...thus the standard UP Shield on the hindquarters.

If you want to know what I think of the units, they are in a odd way, something along the lines of what I was expecting. The silver trucks gave that part of it away. Did I REALLY think there would be no UP markings on these units? No. Would it have served any PR purpose to the general public if these units had been denuded of any reference to the UP? I can't really see any.

Do I like the units? Yes. It would have been very easy to do a straight 1980 version of the MP and WP paint schemes. However, as the UP scheme itself has evolved since 1980, I think that what they were trying to achieve was a look that said "What if these companies had remained in business today?". The look they would sport if these companies had retained their identities into the 21st Century, as the KCS has.

What railroad looks exactly like it did in 1980 (Class One)? The UPRR itself comes closer than any other RR in that respect. But...it has evolved, too, with a combination of patriotic touches, retro touches, and, modernistic features.

I think Form 19 indicated that this was a case of some people who did not have to do this at all having some fun while honoring the company's heritage. I think this was achieved. I cannot wait to see the rest of the series. I am very curious about the SP unit. Now...there's a good example. How imaginative would it be to paint an SD70ACe in grey and scarlet? To see how that would look, you only have to imagine the SP SD70M's that have only been rebuilt/repainted in the past year. So...here's a case of suspense: which path will the SP unit take? Will it be a modernistic rendering of the Daylight livery, or of the Black Widow livery? Will there be any grey/scarlet in in at all? This one I'm curious about...heck...I'm curious about them ALL! Yes...I want to see the MKT unit yesterday. Same with the Rio Grande (the Rio Grande unit has the potential to end up being a very colorful unit).

I can understand the disappointment of some....but...I like them. I think that the UP has donated enough Western Pacific Geeps, and what have you, in historically accurate colors, to justify their painting the most modern EMD in a modernistic/revisionist livery...a what might have been livery.

As for any employee, or fan, defacing the units in any way, I'd be offended. But...neither do I think that the writer who referred to that was being dead on serious about it.

I think that 15 or 20 years down the road, all of these units will be sought after museum pieces, like the GN "Hustle Muscle" unit that has been written about recently. I think that people will have a much different perspective on these units at that time. 15 or 20 years from now...I think that whoever tries to acquire one of these units will probably want them to look as much like they do now as possible. I may be wrong about this...but I really do think that they will be good preservation material down the road, either by a straight UP historical group, or, by one of the fallen flag historical groups.

David.Curlee Wrote:
>
> Isn't it up to the dispatcher and train crews to
> be disciplined enough to say the proper things in
> this situation? Seems like that would be a hard
> habit to break when on all other days, you can say
> "train 3" or "train 4" without a problem.


Yes. And we are. For instance, if a dispatcher calls and says something like "BNSF San Bernardino Sub to Amtrak 64, you'll be there at Soto for a few until I can clear this U.P. out of the plant at Hobart." That's an informal piece of information the DS is passing along and there is no need to identify the engine. By saying Amtrak 64, he told me all I needed to know. If there was another Amtrak 64 somewhere out there listening, they would know it's me because they most likely would not be stopped at the exact same location. Now, change this scenario to a flagging situation with the same train and it would sound like this, "Amtrak 461 East, after stopping, you have authority to pass the signal indicating stop at CP Soto for an Eastward movement main 2 to main 2." I would then repeat the instruction using the engine number and not the train number. It's not hard at all to remember the difference between a simple informational conversation and a mandatory directive. I know some you folks think we're just old garden variety low-life ignorant blue collar scum out here, but I can assure you that's not the case. We can and most often do have a rational thought process. Just like real people.

Heard in the 10 car over the radio one night: "Santa Fe 677 west to Amtrak #3 over", "This is Amtrak train number 4 over", "OK, Amtrak train number 4 with engine number 3 ... your third unit is on fire ! ... over"

Other than taggers, most of those defacing locomotives are the crews themselves - peeling numbers off the sides of the cabs (I think Evan was at Redondo the afternoon when the UPee came across with a scotchlite 4 stuck on the nose under the shield, peeled off the fireman's side of the cab).Get off your high horse, David isn't going to deface the pretty choo-choo, merely saying that it's possible someone might.



TCS - corndog meet at der wienerschnitzel

SurflinerHogger Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes. And we are. For instance, if a dispatcher
> calls and says something like "BNSF San Bernardino
> Sub to Amtrak 64, you'll be there at Soto for a
> few until I can clear this U.P. out of the plant
> at Hobart." That's an informal piece of
> information the DS is passing along and there is
> no need to identify the engine. By saying Amtrak
> 64, he told me all I needed to know. If there was
> another Amtrak 64 somewhere out there listening,
> they would know it's me because they most likely
> would not be stopped at the exact same location.
> Now, change this scenario to a flagging situation
> with the same train and it would sound like this,
> "Amtrak 461 East, after stopping, you have
> authority to pass the signal indicating stop at CP
> Soto for an Eastward movement main 2 to main 2."
> I would then repeat the instruction using the
> engine number and not the train number. It's not
> hard at all to remember the difference between a
> simple informational conversation and a mandatory
> directive. I know some you folks think we're just
> old garden variety low-life ignorant blue collar
> scum out here, but I can assure you that's not the
> case. We can and most often do have a rational
> thought process. Just like real people.

I wasn't implying you or anyone else lacked a rational thought process. Sure, the DS will identify you by engine number when necessary, but in conversing with other trains, what if the dispatcher said, "DS12 to BNSF xxxx, is Amtrak 3 by you?" forgetting that two forms of an "Amtrak 3" are out there, the train itself, and the engine number AMTK 3 WEST on another train. I guess it just depends who the dispatcher is, and if they are sloppy or not.

Nobody is on any high horse here. He implied someone might or should paint over the number board initials to make the units look the way they think they should look. You yourself said that some crew members are removing and reapplying decals (like those ONION PACIFIC units). That's the whole point! Get a life, move on to another hobby if this one is so frustrating and get on with the job.

I'm not arguing with you David. The fact is that in all the years I've been out here there have been plenty of times when train numbers and engine numbers have been on the same territory without any confusion on the part of the dispatchers or crews. I've heard engine numbers that match my train number on a few occasions, in which case both myself and the dispatcher will address each other appropriately. We listen pretty darn carefully to those radios and instances when there could be potential conflicts are always monitored carefully on both ends of the radio. Informative communications using abbreviations when heavy radio traffic justifies are really not considered "sloppy". Matter of fact, I don't consider myself "sloppy", nor do I recall ever working with any dispatchers that I would call "sloppy". I guess you have to do the job every day to experience and understand what I'm trying to convey. I understand what you're saying though.