A few photos from around Pittsburgh Sunday afternoon
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=322123
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=322124
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=322126
Enjoy, Tom
Many thanks for those 'photos which not only show trains but some great shots of Pittsburgh.
It was sad to see the missing rails in the first 'photo; however, that applies to many large railroad stations in the UK not just the United States.
They’re all nice, but I especially like the 1st 2 - rarely seen and very creative compositions in an urban area, with different juxtapositions of the tracks crossing the streets at an angle, and the locomotives quite prominent. This shows us that the good photos don’t all have to be out in the country someplace.
Where did you shoot these from, if you are free to tell us ? I doubt if it was another bridge - a parking garage, or did you make some special arrangements for access to an office building, or what ?
From the Picasso-esque angles of the buildings in the background/ sideground - some of which may be part of the design, esp. in the 2nd linked photo - I suspect you were using a short focal length/ ‘fisheye’ type lens. But even with that, the background bridge in that photo is large enough to be recognizable and of decent size. So, if you don’t mind sharing some tips/ ‘secrets’ - which lens did you use, and how did you set these up ?
Thanks for sharing !
Great shots, especially the 3rd one.
On the 2nd picture, I think most people would have taken that shot when the front of the lead locomotive was in the center of the frame. Thanks for waiting until the 3rd locomotive was in the center, I think that makes for a far more interesting picture.
[tup] Agree with Dale’s 2nd paragraph, above. Not so much with the 1st para. - I’ve seen that view, or one just like it, before - it’s kind of a cliche or stereotype, but well-done, for sure. But the other 2 views are in the rare or ‘never-seen/done-before’ category, which is what sets them apart.
Just my [2c] worth, that’s all. Thanks again for sharing ALL of them.
- Paul North.
Excellent shots. I really like how you’ve included the trains in their environment. The use of the ultrawide angle is especially sublime in the first two. Well done!
I’m not a photographer, so I can’t comment on the technical side of these shots. They’ve got trains in them, and the third one is clearly identifiable as Pittsburgh (cliche or not). So they’re good pictures to me.
Interestingly, none of them shows the gritty, smoky, industrial side of Pittsburgh (or evidence thereof) that was the basis for railroads around there (not positive or negative–just sayin’!).
In the second picture, is it the lens type that gives the track in the lower right the very close tie spacing?
James - Good eye/ catch on the tie spacing ! But the answer is - Probably not. A common specification for tie spacing on sharp mainline curves like that is ‘‘24 ties per 39 ft. rail-length’’, which works out to a spacing of 19-1/2’‘. Since main line ties here in the Eastern US are commonly ‘‘No. 5 size’’ = 7’’ thick x 9’’ wide, the top of the tie would take up 9’’ = 46 % or almost half - of that 19-1/2’’ space, leaving only 10-1/2’’ = 54 % of that spacing for the ballast stone in tie ‘crib’ between the ties. So that’s not an optical effect or illusion - they’re likely really spaced that closely.
- Paul North.
Paul, thank you. Maybe it is my suspicious mind or I’m paranoid (hey! THEY might be out to get me! [;)] ); when I look at a picture, I check out what is not the focal point. In the third photo, one of the first things I noticed was the submarine docked on the left bank of the river. [:P]