[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
Re: (erielack) F5s or are they....
EMD did indeed classify them as F5. Bruce Meyer worked at EMD and
verified this at a Naperville meet about 10 years ago. I talked to
Preston Cook at a meet in Connecticut in 08 and he also agreed it was
marketed as an F5. The most conclusive evidence is in a great 2 issue
article of PRR F's a few years back in the Keystone. A EMD bill of
lading clearly shows the engine being delivered to the PRR as an F5.
On Dec 21, 2009, at 10:56 AM, Tupaczewski, Paul R (Paul) wrote:
>> I pulled the "F5" identification from the George Elwood
>> sight. I did realize that "F5" is a railfan term for a phase
>> of the F3, but I guess it's just better to call them what
>> they really are - F3s. Thanks for the clarification.
>
> Technically, internal EMD documents referred to these as "F5" units
> but when they were released, they kept the F3 moniker. Further
> evidence of this - note how the next series of F-units released
> were "F7", not "F5"?
>
> So calling them "F5" units isn't really that incorrect... :)
>
> - Paul
>
> The Erie Lackawanna Mailing List
> http://EL-List.railfan.net/
> To Unsubscribe: http://Lists.Railfan.net/erielackunsub.html
Mark Kerlick
marksd45_@_roadrunner.com
MBSCSDD
The Erie Lackawanna Mailing List
http://EL-List.railfan.net/
To Unsubscribe: http://Lists.Railfan.net/erielackunsub.html
------------------------------