Welcome Visitor. First time here? Like what you see? Bookmark us for when you are bored, and check out 'top shots' and 'fantastic (editors choice)' in the menu above, you won't be dissapointed. Join our community! click here to sign up for an account today. Sick of this message? Get rid of it by logging-in here.



Image removed by user request. Sorry, please find another image to view.

Copyright Notice: This image ©Paul Santos all rights reserved.



Caption: Only 61 years young when this photo was taken, ex TH&B #72 was chop nosed, re-numbered 1682 and received an upgraded engine block like CP's GP9u's making 1750hp versus the 1500 it previously had. It is shown in the track 5 east spot of the just completed rebuilt Diesel Shop. Notice how sparkling clean the concrete still is.

Photographer:
Paul Santos [813] (more) (contact)
Date: November 17, 2011 (search)
Railway: Canadian Pacific (search)
Reporting Marks: CP 1682 (search)
Train Symbol: GP7u (search)
Subdivision/SNS: Agincourt Yard (search)
City/Town: Toronto (search)
Province: Ontario (search)
Share Link: http://www.railpictures.ca/?attachment_id=28601
Click here to Log-in or Register and add your vote.

7 Favourites
Photographers like Gold.Log-in or Register to show appreciation
View count: 934 Views

Share this image on Facebook, Twitter or email using the icons below
Photo ID: 27438

Sorry, there is no map for this photo. Photographer did not add GPS co-ordinates. Please add next time or ask for a correction to this photo.



All comments must be positive in nature and abide by site rules. Anything else may be removed without warning.

7 Comments
  1. Just like the NAR units that ran through Redwater AB, it is a little odd when you see a chopped CP GP with no dynamic brakes. Your shop shots are pretty terrific Paul.

  2. Thanks for your kind comments “Extra 1014″ :)

  3. Was this rebuilt into one of those GP20C-ECO’s or did it escape and is waiting for the TRHS to come claim it?

  4. Sad to say it was sent to SRY in BC for parts salvage and scrapping.

  5. Wasn’t this going to be preserved? That’s the consensus, but with good ole E who was in charge I guess he didn’t know. Lots of things good ole E apparently didn’t know.

  6. Could it be that it was the 1684 that was earmarked for preservation?

  7. One or the other. Let’s hope it’s the other.

Railpictures.ca © 2006-2024 all rights reserved. Photographs are copyright of the photographer and used with permission
Terms and conditions | About us