CP would get the maximum on-line mileage from Montreal by sending the unit to
Baltimore via Vermont. CP promoted that routing into the 1980s. So its presence
in Vermont is not evidence that it isn't being sent to scrap.
Don Thomas
----- Original Message -----
From: Doug Cummings
To: cpsig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2008 2:49 AM
Subject: Re: [cpsig] Re: CP 8906
How do you know the first caption is correct? There are glaring errors in
that caption as it is. He can't get the date right, every photo has a
different date, so how can he get any of the other details right? I know
what I am looking at and it isn't a locomotive headed to the scrappers. And
obviously whoever wrote the caption is guessing. And if it was going to
scrap, just suppose, why would it be in Vermont? That is a long way out of
the way. Striegel was located in Baltimore. You are grasping at straws to
try and convince us you are right. And read the caption for the last photo,
it tells you what the fellow at the switch was doing. And it wasn't what you
came up with. You have your mind made up and don't want to listen to any
evidence to the contrary.
Doug
> Sorry Doug, but that proves nothing. The fellow at the switch stand
> is just as likely to be throwing the switch for that B&M switcher in
> the distance to come over to pick up the dead 8906, which then also
> answers the question of why they would be coupled together in the
> broadside photo.
>
> A person in the cab could easily be a yard helper, checking out an
> exotic beast or taking a break until the yard engine can get across
> and he has to release the hand brake. In the days when most workers
> cared, naturally he would close the window when he left.
>
> And don't forget the message in posting 11796, which I have copied
> below. That is hard to ignore, except it was probably the prime mover
> that Streigel wanted, not the traction motors.
>
> Walt's comment about the builders plate does not surprise me, since I
> bought a CLC diamond from a scrapyard in 1969. Cost was $5.00 but I
> had to remove it from the engine myself. The railways were not aware
> of how collectible they would become.
>
> John Sutherland
>
> ===== 11796 ======
>
> Re: Train Master in Vermont?
>
> It looks like CLC Fan wins. Photographer Haskel says:
>
> "It was enroute to a dealer to have the traction motors removed and
> then I presume to be Scrapped."
>
> With the builder plate on! It's possible that the date on the slide
> mount was not clear.
>
> Walt Lankenau
>
> ===== 11796 ======
>
>
> --- In cpsig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Doug Cummings" <DougCummings@...> wrote:
>>
>>
>> There is another photo which shows more of the yard and you can see
> a fellow
>> standing at the switch which is ahead of 8906. Obviously waiting to
> throw
>> it. (photo 258869) It is taken a minute or two after the first one
> as the
>> train in the background has moved further down the track. If you
> don't want
>> to believe it is a working locomotive, so be it, but I have seen
> nothing in
>> any of these photos to suggest otherwise. In another photo of 8906
> in the
>> yard the cab window is closed. In these two the cab window is open.
> 8906 is
>> in different locations in the yard in both photos. It looks like the
>> engineers hand is on the arm rest in one photo.
>>
>> Doug
