The mainline crews would crawl down into the nose and turn on the cab signals
on up units on arriving at the west end of Aurora. That was until the mid '80s
when BN decided they could not use them. All Amtrak units have the equiptment
but again are unable to use it. The nice thing about the E units was the
two prime movers. If one failed you still had one to get in. One nite I had a
dinky with an engine fire around Stone Ave so I called the Lagrange Fire Dept
and delivered the fire to them. After it was out the second prime mover got the
train to Chicago
SJH
Karl L Rethwisch wrote:
> A requirement allowing 90 and 100 MPH speeds was two, separeate signal
> systems; wayside and cab signals. Class 5 track allowed 90 while class 6 was
> required for 100 MPH. None of the Q's freight engines had cab signals. UP
> engines, by the way, have a cab signal system that is compatible with that of
> the Q.
>
> In ATC or ATS territories the controlling locomotive must be equipped with
> these appliances.
>
> Karl
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Wes Leatherock
> To: BRHSlist@egroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2000 10:34 AM
> Subject: Re: [BRHSlist] Locals
>
> Is it legal to run locomotives without cab signals
> as the controlling engine in cab signal territory? Isn't
> the 90 mph speed limits based on the idea that ALL trains
> will be equipped with cab signals, ATC or ATS?
>
> Wes Leatherock
> wleath@s...
>
> On Wed, 6 Dec 2000, JOHN J. OLSON & DEBBIE NIESS wrote:
> > Not to mention the fact that it was also 90 MPH territory. I'll bet the
> > GP-7's were hard pressed to make time with passenger trains on that segment
> > of track and those traction motors must have really been screaming at
> > Redlined Max. RPM's!
> >
> > John Olson
> > Jim's Junction
> > Billings, Mt.
>
> > >Ed Pavlovic <epav1@w...> wrote:
> >
> > > Considering the fact that a GP7 without cab signals might possibly be
> > assigned,
> > > what was the Q's policy towards operating passenger trains without cab
> > > signal
> > > equipped units. Just asking because the C&I from the east side of Savanna
> > > to
> > > Aurora was cab signal territory.
> > >
> > > Ed Pavlovic
> > >
> > >
> > > Ed DeRouin wrote:
> > >
> > >> While pondering the appearance of these
> > >> trains, don't overlook the possible assignment of a GP7. Although 243 and
> > >> 244 were equipped with Cab Signals, any geep with a functional boiler, in
> > >> cooler weather, could be assigned. The E unit fleet could be spread only
> > >> so
> > >> far.
> > >>
> > >> Photos of geeps on Galesburg locals 2 and 15 have also also been
> > >> published.
>
> eGroups Sponsor
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
--
-----------------------------------------------------
Click here for Free Video!!
http://www.gohip.com/freevideo/
|