David Digerness Photo

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
5 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

David Digerness Photo

Steve Headford


Hoping someone can help identify this engine. Seems to have everyone stumped.
It was photographed by David Digerness.

Any help would be appreciated.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: David Digerness Photo

Chris Walker
This post was updated on .
I'd take a wild stab at this,
you could be looking at UPD&G s.g. 4-4-0 #17, reno #585.
Maybe, maybe not?

David Digerness wasn't around during Link&Pin days to take the picture, or was it taken by his Father Edward John?

Mineral Belt 3 states E.J. Digerness born 1895, and as D.S. Digerness littered his books with "David.S. Digerness collection" probably taken by somebody else.
UpSideDownC
in New Zealand
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: David Digerness Photo

Darel Leedy
Administrator
Agreed, it has U.P. family resemblance. Seems there is a whole lot of corn in the background. I'll guess it's Kansas Pacific #17, reno #656? But Uncle Rick should be able to provide the definitive answer. Rick?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: David Digerness Photo

Steve Headford
In reply to this post by Steve Headford
The photo credits him on the back. Possibly part of his family collection.
After some investigating I was wondering if this was Union Pacific, Denver & Gulf Railway #17.

Colorado Central 4-4-0 -- 1 locomotive
1885 UPRy
Number Previous
Number Builder Builder
Number Date
Built Notes
CC 585 CC 7 Schenectady 1106 Dec 1878 1
Description:
Drive Wheel Diameter: 63 inches (rebuilt in April 1879 to 64 inches)
Cylinders: 17x24 inches
Notes:
1. Built as Colorado Central 7 in 1879; to CC 585 in 1885; Colorado Central became part of UPD&G in 1890, sold to independent UPD&G in 1893; to UPD&G 17 in 1896; to C&S 103 in 1899; sold by C&S in 1900
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: David Digerness Photo

Steve Headford
In reply to this post by Chris Walker
I'm thinking that Chris is correct based on what I found below.