วีดีโอ

Ja!

Unfortunately that is correct. Even the SD24 which they were rebuilt from is on the critically endangered list. I think there are 2 preserved units, might be a few others left out there somewhere earning their keep, but not many.

A couple SD24 models (Mainly Ex-SOU) still exist in rebuilt form.​ These were sold to CNW and were derated before being classified as SD18R models. A few of these are still in service as far as I'm aware. The two preserved examples are WC 2402 and CB&Q 504, although 2402 is currently in terrible condition.@@anricedeybat

Also the barge Maumee (originally the Reserve), the Valo (originally the Armco), and the Kaye E. Barker (which has an extra deck forward). Commonly known as the AAA class based upon an internal US Steel rating for how they paid their ship captains based on vessel size. Also sometimes known as the Korea Class, as they were all built due to the onset of the Korean War and the sudden surge in demand for iron ore on the lakes.

Unfortunately I have no idea where I originally found this video. I've been checking out your Acme exploration vids, nice. Saving the documents you found at the coke plant site is pretty damn cool too.

They are actually 16-645D3 sounds, they were upgraded with 645 parts.

True then again those damn barges...the Crapo will surely need a new coat of paint, modern equipment installed, possibly a new whistle and a overhaul to her triple-expansion steam engine and oil-fired boilers. (She was the last coal-fired freighter until the early 90's).

@@bluerazor7049,Yup, she would be a fixer uper, but the results would be satisfying, if not to society, than defiantly to the steamship enthusiasts.

@@awildjared1396 yeah plus her and the Iglehart would deliver the cement much faster than the Samuel De Champlain and the other barges..

@@bluerazor7049, yeah, add the Alpena into the equitation and you have a costly, but reliable cement delivery system.

@@awildjared1396 true. Then again they might do it in the future when the economy for cement skyrockets. Fingers cross man! ✌

Ich halte diese Arbeit für sehr interessant. Ich habe während meines Studiums in einer Eisengießerei gearbeitet und es war eine sehr aufregende Arbeitsumgebung. Ich kann mir nur vorstellen, dass die Arbeit hier ähnlich ist, aber alles in einem viel größeren Maßstab.

I don't quite know what to think about smaller hydroelectric instillation such as this. On one hand you have the fact that hydroelectric power is clean, and if there is existing infrastructure why not use it and by doing so reduce the need for a more polluting power source. On the other hand, how much energy is this really going to create, and would it be better to remove the dams and restore a river, or part of a river, to a more natural state? Difficult question. In this case, I believe it was land redevelopment that resulted in the destruction of this facility.

@@anricedeybat The structure above the turbine burned down, and the city eventually had to take control of the site. Sadly, this, along with the roughly 5MW of capacity in Downtown Lowell, can't be used all the time - the river itself doesn't support their use along with the 16MW power house off the North Canal. Only during spring freshets is there enough flow to divert on a regular basis, but that 5MW is also being abandoned due to age, and hasn't run in years sadly. Combined with the lack of regular use, it's considered to not be worth it to bring them back into operation.

Do you know why they closed down the one in Chicago?