TrainmasterGT
Resident Youtuber
Not going to release route this anywhere, but I though the shot looked nice.
-GT
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Thanks Fam <3That is too funny, I have seen that Flex Seal Paint or Tape on Commercial, supposed to work quite well on sealing anything you can think of.......
Nice shot for sure....
That is too funny, I have seen that Flex Seal Paint or Tape on Commercial, supposed to work quite well on sealing anything you can think of.......
Nice shot for sure....
Wow, they look awesome. Is the first two cars from exposition flyer pack 3?Getting rather close to completion with Blackwater Branch.
A rare lash-up of NP #802 and foreign power SP&S #54 works the Western Timber Products mill in North Blackwater on a spring morning.
Joint line stock is still (in some respect) considered foreign power. You can think of it as D&RGW being foreign power on the Mopac even though they're both Gould roads, or UP power being considered foreign stock to the PRR in the early 1870s even though PRR owned a majority share in the UP before Gould took it over...Wasn't the Spokane, Portland and Seattle jointly owned by the Great Northern and Northern Pacific? If so, then SP&S #54 wouldn't be considered foreign power, right?
Joint line stock is still (in some respect) considered foreign power. You can think of it as D&RGW being foreign power on the Mopac even though they're both Gould roads, or UP power being considered foreign stock to the PRR in the early 1870s even though PRR owned a majority share in the UP before Gould took it over...
The SP&S wasn't really a subsidiary, though, at least not by traditional standards. You don't have a subsidiary of multiple railroads; it's not fair to call the SP&S a subsidiary any more than it is to call the Colorado Midland a subsidiary of the D&RGW and C&S. It's true that they owned it, but the CM is an entirely different entity than either "parent". Again, back to the PRR/UP situation. Prior to 1873, the PRR had a controlling share in the UP, but nobody's calling the UP a PRR subsidiary. The most "subsidiary" thing SP&S did was get a large proportion of ex-NP locomotives and stock, but again, nobody's calling the MoPac or the WP subsidiaries of the D&RG(W). Even the V&T or YVRR, which as a matter of course had to use CP/SP shops, rolling stock, and locomotives, aren't considered subsidiaries of the SP. Shortlines and bridge lines are a special case.What about railroads that are subsidiaries of other railroads?
The SP&S wasn't really a subsidiary, though, at least not by traditional standards. You don't have a subsidiary of multiple railroads; it's not fair to call the SP&S a subsidiary any more than it is to call the Colorado Midland a subsidiary of the D&RGW and C&S. It's true that they owned it, but the CM is an entirely different entity than either "parent". Again, back to the PRR/UP situation. Prior to 1873, the PRR had a controlling share in the UP, but nobody's calling the UP a PRR subsidiary. The most "subsidiary" thing SP&S did was get a large proportion of ex-NP locomotives and stock, but again, nobody's calling the MoPac or the WP subsidiaries of the D&RG(W). Even the V&T or YVRR, which as a matter of course had to use CP/SP shops, rolling stock, and locomotives, aren't considered subsidiaries of the SP. Shortlines and bridge lines are a special case.
Soon
-Ben