Nope not a chance, but yesterday’s Wall Street Journal online version illustrated a story about UP buying more locomotives with a gorgeous color shot – of a bright and shiny gas turbine No. 18! A few fellows posted comments about that on their site.
Ah well … for a brief moment … [:(]
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203315804577209511105401168.html
Dave Nelson
Ah, if only…
I recognize where that photo was taken, the Illinios Railroad Museum! I think they repainted a few years ago, the first time I went it’s paint was pretty faded.
Thamks for sharing!
Acela
I don’t know about other newspapers but the Chicago Tribune will credit a photo as a file photo if that’s what is used.
You think this is bad journalism!
Yesterday, first on MSNBC and later on CNN, they reported a problem with cracks in the wings on the new, 600 passenger, Airbus 380, the worlds largest airliner. (not serious)
In both cases, as the news item was read, the networks showed film of a Boeing 747 taking off. That should upset Boeing.
Well now, the news media exhibit little knowledge of airplanes, as well as of anything connected with railroads. Or do they rely upon ignorance on the part of the public to excuse their laziness when looking for illustrations?
It wouldn’t have taken any more effort to show a photo of a steam locomotive instead. [:-,]
Of course, most readers wouldn’t have noticed. [:-^]
http://www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/highsm.13375/
“Union Pacific to acquire new locomotives”
I’d expect a foul-up like that from the rest of the mainline media, but I would have expected better from the Wall Street Journal. Oh well, “Sic transit gloria mundi…”
The print version didn’t have that great photo, only the rendering next to the graph, which also appears further down near the bottom of the linked article - but with “X-12>” (sic) showing in the numberboard instead ! (The “X-18” for the train number in the photo makes a whole lot more sense - since the turbines were exclusively freight locomotives - and most of us here know enough about that to understand why.)
Very definitely at Illinois Railway Museum. No. 18 is on their roster (see below). And, yes, it was repainted recently.
http://www.irm.org/cgi-bin/rsearch.cgi?diesel=Union+Pacific+Railroad=18
Does that mean the’re not buying any new ‘white boxcars’ as well?
This is Much Ado About Nothing. I’d hardly call the situation a foul-up. Newspapers and magazines will routinely use file photos or something similar to illustrate a story when a current photo is unavailable.
But wait…scroll down at this link and there’s an Artist’s conception of UP’s new “Big Blow”:
http://turbotrain.net/cingl.htm
(Yeah…I know, it’s about a month and a half early for posts like this)…
Boy that would be grat though! I wish I could have seen a turbine!
Ahh well an exploding ES44AC is still neat lol
-Justin
Bubbajustin:
Back in 2007 there was a discussion of the UP Steam/Turbine/electric #8080 or as it was renumbered #80 ( Ala 8444 to 844[:-^] )
#80 was a hybrid comprised of a kit bashed oddity by UP Shop forces [and others] was put together from parts of an ALCO PA, an GNR W-1 and a tender that was laying about.
Here’s the linked Thread…Hope you enjoy!
http://cs.trains.com/TRCCS/forums/p/102524/1193065.aspx
[:-^]
Choosing to show the Union Pacific Gas Turbine was an asthetic choice.
The Gas Turbine has much more beautiful lines than the chunky GE ES44 or EMD SD70Ace diesel locos.
The graphics editor might also be an O Gauge railroader or know an O gauge operator who has many of the Union Pacific Gas Turbine models offered by Lionel and MTH.
Andrew Falconer
OK, as far as foul-ups go the Wall Street Journal’s using a photo of a gas turbine locomotive isn’t a big one, but bear in mind this is how media credibility is lost, not in one fell swoop but bit by bit, a wrong picture here, a misquote there, lazy reporting or proof reading, you name it and I’m sure we’ve all seen it. Someone once said a person will believe everything he reads in the newspaper until the paper reports on something the reader knows something about and gets it all wrong. Then he never trusts the paper again, because NOW he thinks “what else have they gotten wrong?”. I think we’ve all been in that situation at one time or another, haven’t we?
If they wanted to be the most factual in their photographic representation they could have published GE and EMD diesel locomotives still in primer paint.
Andrew