Ed,
Thanks for the info on Frank Krummel, for the life of me I couldn't
remember how to spell his name. I knew him as a child and many years later
worked with him when he was General Car Foreman in Chicago. Instead of
photographing engines at 14th Street, I caught many of the people we all
knew so I have many shots of Frank as well as others.
As to the bi-level trucks, the guys in Chicago always said they were a
dangerous truck to work on account of they way they had to be jacked apart
to change out worn parts. I can't really elaborate more on this cause I
just don't know for sure. I guess there is always a price to pay for having
the best. WAF
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ed DeRouin" <PIXELS@A...>
To: <BRHSlist@egroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2001 4:49 PM
Subject: Re: [BRHSlist] CBQ Bi-Levels
> Bill and Others:
>
> If you are referring to Frank Krummel, the Second Trick Zephyr Pit Foreman
> in the seventies, I have bad news. I lost contact with Frank about 1979
and
> learned that he quite unexpectedly and prematurely passed away in the
early
> eighties.
>
> You are correct about the trucks, Bill. As I compare the Q truck to the
> others in a RTA diagram book, I see that many carriers used Commonwealth
> trucks with I beam equalizers and Inside swing hangers, but in addition to
> the bolster roll stabilizers note that the Q trucks had more springs than
> other. In the case of the Milw Road, Q cars had twice the number of
bolster
> and equalizer springs. All springs are not equal either, the springs on
the
> 700 were of a Q design.
>
> Would the more rapid truck wear on control cars be due to the additional
> work the truck does? As the first truck of the eastbound train, those
trucks
> lead into each curve, turnout, and even guide the following trucks on
> tangents. Located closest to the automatic brake valve during eastbound
> movements, that truck would also be the first to set up and therefore,
> intially carry handle braking energy. Makes sense to me.
>
> Ed DeRouin
>
>
>
>
|