For whatever it's worth, 1002 and 1006 still use CEFX as their reporting marks, not CITX.
|
You'll have to e-mail this to those conductors Tim. I am just going with what I hear on the radio....
|
I can 100% assure you that these units are still CEFX. The crews are misinformed. It would be similar to the crews on the former BC Rail using "BCR" on their clearances as a lead locomotive instead of BCOL, or more recently on the GEXR the train crews referred to their 3806 locomotive as "STLA" even though it was really SLR. There are many, many examples of this throughout North America where train crews are using wrong reporting marks for their locomotive and for some reason it is acceptable. Why? I have no idea. Here's a recent trace of the locomotive below.
INIT NUMBER CITY ST DATE TIME ROAD
CEFX 1002 BROWNVILL ME 12/14 0255 CMQ
|
That's what I thought as well Tim, but I should have mentioned that 1002 has CIT reporting marks. Anyways, great discussion and thanks for your inputs.
|
It has a CIT logo, much like the GP unit in this photo which also uses CEFX reporting marks. None of the units pictured in this photo use CITX reporting marks. You should change them in all your photos so we are able to search units with correct reporting marks. Right now we have this unit showing as CITX, CEFX and CMQ 1002 which is a farce.
|
Easy to search. CMQ has only two leased AC4400CW's. 1002 & 1006.
|
|