 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General ModelsRailroadsRocketsRadio Controlled Air ModelsHelicoptersLand ModelsWater ModelsModelGeeks.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Model Forum / General / Railroads / December 2004Identification of a railcar...
Can someone help me out with this? Found in Raleigh, NC, in 2004, in a private fenced lot. Couldn't get close enough to see any reporting marks. http://www.castlegraphics.com/graphic/transportation/rail/unk_passenger_car_rale igh_nc_apr14_2004.jpg What original railroad and car, if anyone knows? Cheers! Jan Kohl Castle Graphics www.castlegraphics.com >Can someone help me out with this? Found in Raleigh, NC, in 2004, in a >private fenced lot. Couldn't get close enough to see any reporting marks. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >Castle Graphics >www.castlegraphics.com It is a Budd RDC-9...which is a cabless, single-engine version of the RDC-1 (RDC-1 has cabs at both ends, and two diesel engines). Being an RDC-9 narrows it down...only two roads purchased them, those being the Boston & Maine and Canadian National. Thanks, Steve and everyone for the input, I'll update the page to reflect that. I don't like not knowing what something is (or not being able to tell others)... Cheers! Jan >>Can someone help me out with this? Found in Raleigh, NC, in 2004, in a >>private fenced lot. Couldn't get close enough to see any reporting marks. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Being an RDC-9 narrows it down...only two roads purchased them, those > being the Boston & Maine and Canadian National. It's a RDC-1. Built by Budd between 1949-62. 336 were made and over 2 dozen roads had them. Without a look a a builder's plate there's no way of knowing who owned this car originally. I believe the end door is non-standard. Statistically since Boston and Maine owned 109 of the units or 34.4% of the production it's most likely it was orginally a B&M unit. Eric "Can someone help me out with this? Found in Raleigh, NC, in 2004, in a private fenced lot. Couldn't get close enough to see any reporting marks." http://www.castlegraphics.com/graphic/transportation/rail/unk_passenger_car_rale igh_nc_apr14_2004.jpg What original railroad and car, if anyone knows? >It's a RDC-1. Built by Budd between 1949-62. 336 were made and over 2 >dozen roads had them. If it is an RDC-1, then it would have end cab windows. This car does NOT, and the ends appear to be original, though as you noted below, the door is non-standard. Without the cab windows, it is an RDC-9. >Without a look a a builder's plate there's no way of knowing who owned >this car originally. I believe the end door is non-standard. >It's a RDC-1. Built by Budd between 1949-62. 336 were made and over 2 >dozen roads had them. If it is an RDC-1, then it would have end cab windows. This car does NOT, and the ends appear to be original, though as you noted below, the door is non-standard. Without the cab windows, it is an RDC-9. Another item that lends credence to my statement about it being an RDC-9.....note that there is NO engine compartment right near the front truck. RDC-9's had only ONE engine, vs. two on RDC-1,2,3,4. >Without a look a a builder's plate there's no way of knowing who owned >this car originally. I believe the end door is non-standard. The two pictures are of RDC Budd Railcars and the top one is one of 14 RDC Rail Budd Cars on Vancouver island operating on the Esquimalt and Namimio Railway which will shortly be in local hands once agai after 100 plus years...It will no longer be owned by Canadian Pacific Railways and part of the track owned by railamerica..But locals hope to buy that part of the line back as well. Located in Victoria BC Canada ..35 miles from seattle washinton state usa via ferry and 3 hours by ferry from vancouver bc canada. Brock R Bailey Victoria BC Canada http://www.cordovabaystation.ca/month/rusl11.htm http://www.castlegraphics.com/graphic/transportation/rail/unk_passenger_car_rale igh_nc_apr14_2004.jpg > Can someone help me out with this? Found in Raleigh, NC, in 2004, in a > private fenced lot. Couldn't get close enough to see any reporting marks. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Castle Graphics > www.castlegraphics.com > http://www.cordovabaystation.ca/month/rusl11.htm Still with the arrogant (and utterly mistaken) Mickeysoft propaganda. All it means is the eedjit was too poor an HTML programmer to create a site without Mickeysoft non-standard coding.  SignatureSteve "The liberties of the people never were nor ever will be secure when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." - Patrick Henry Steve Caple <stevecaple@commoncast.net>, In a message on Sun, 5 Dec 2004 14:58:17 -0800, wrote : SC> On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 21:51:58 GMT, Brock Bailey wrote: SC> > http://www.cordovabaystation.ca/month/rusl11.htm SC> SC> Still with the arrogant (and utterly mistaken) Mickeysoft propaganda. All SC> it means is the eedjit was too poor an HTML programmer to create a site SC> without Mickeysoft non-standard coding. Just really *stupid* boilerplate JavaScript. Disabling JavaScript shows the page just fine with Mozilla (Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i586; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030717). The JavaScript is making an *unnecessary* test. The page can be downloaded with wget and 'viewed' with lynx. The *HTML* is actually quite standard and portable -- nothing wrong with the HTML, other than the *crap* in the <SCRIPT> ... </SCRIPT> tags, and even that is *syntacticly* correct. Just stupid. The JavaScript is doing somewhat bogus ("impossible") things: preventing right mouse clicks (to allow things like "save page as", "view page source", "save image as", etc.). And disabling 'text copy' (eg 'copy-and-paste'). Between disabling JavaScript in Mozilla, Netscape, etc., wget, and Lynx, these hacks are trivial to get around. There really is no sane point in bothering. I *suspect* that JavaScript can probably be disabled with InterNet Explorer too (don't know -- don't have a system where IE will run -- I run a 100% pure Linux shop here). Disabling JavaScript has no affect on actually visiting or navigating at http://www.cordovabaystation.ca/ other than bypassing their *stupid* and useless copy protection games. They really should put a proper copyright notice (there is none) and leave it at that. What is *really* strange is that the JavaScript functions test for Netscape! There is no reason to re-direct if the browser is not IE! Whoever wrote the JavaScript is clueless. Also: pages have MacOS newlines (CRs without NLs). I sent a 'telegram' to Agent at Cordova Bay Station explaining all of this. SC> SC> -- SC> Steve SC> SC> "The liberties of the people never were nor ever will be secure when the SC> transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." SC> SC> - Patrick Henry SC> \/ Robert Heller ||InterNet: heller@cs.umass.edu http://vis-www.cs.umass.edu/~heller || heller@deepsoft.com http://www.deepsoft.com /\FidoNet: 1:321/153 > their *stupid* and useless copy protection games I've always thought that the height of pretentiousness. Especially from this guy! Like I want his page code! SignatureSteve Fox Spews . . . and idiots lap it up. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.