Re: Re: n.c.n.g. Photos
If you look there is a photo of #9 Mal has a caption stating as being
in Grass Valley when it is in fact Colfax as well, the white fence on
the top of the hill in the background and larger water pipe give it
away. I have seen many a photo of Colfax captioned completely wrong
there is at least one photograph in the Searls Library in Nevada City,
CA which was labeled as Grass Valley when it was Colfax and during the
final rebuilding of the yard none the less. There was another photo
showing Hobart Estates #7 hauling a long train over an impressive
trestle which is captioned "NCNG 7". Worst of all, these were recently
captioned by volunteers in the past few years. Silly captions aside,
Mal did a great job although I am a bit distraught that he put out a
number of shots in his articles that I have been using for my
clandestine NCNG pictorial.
On Dec 26, 2007 10:02 AM, Dennis Burke <birdnest60@...> wrote:
> --- In NCNGRR@yahoogroups.com, "Kevin Miller" <nvngrr@...> wrote:
> > Are the photos the same as in Gerald Best's book or are there
> > new ones? I didn't buy the last annual because there were no new
> > photos or info.
> > Kevin Miller
> Kevin, I did a quik review of Browns and Best's books as well as
> other files i have and there are many photos in the new annual that i
> could not locate in these books. Some are of flatcars with loads,
> also tankcars, as well as passenger equipment. I must concur with
> Andrew that the shot of locomotive #8 that Mal stated says the
> handwriting on the back says Mina is not Mina. To the rear of the
> loco is the a portion of the S.P. engine facility in Colax, which is
> very close in appearance to the facility at Mina.Maybe this caused
> the mis-label. The dead give-a-way is the cliff over the pilot of the
> loco. There are no such cliffs in the Mina yard. Just other
> structures and sage with a few trees.
> Also, correct me if I am wrong, if there would have been a S.P to
> N.C.N.G. 2-8-0 at Mina, as the discussed photo, would this not have
> been N.C.N.G.#9 (the 2nd #1 on the S.P.N.G.), the other 2-8-0, which
> arrived on the N.C.N.G. from the S.P. in 1933. I dont think the #8
> was on the S.P.N.G. The only other 2-8-0 on S.P. was # 13 which was
> scrapped in 1927. I am new on the N.C.N.G. so any additional input
> would be great.
> Anyway, I am personally greatful to Mal for sharing his collection
> with us mislabeled or not. Look what its got us doing, research, just
> another part of being a rail-buff. I love it!!