----- Original Message -----
From: <CILTRAINS@a...>
To: <BRHSlist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2001 9:22 AM
Subject: Re: [BRHSlist] Twins, was Re: Challenger Zephyrs & 05's
Well. I *do* seem to have opened a can of worms.
> The following posting(s) have been appearing on this site. While
> usually endeavoring to avoid participation in controversy, we felt the
> necessity of response to the following. Our response follows the
citation.
>
> In a message dated 4/18/01 8:11:56 PM Central Daylight Time,
zephyr@k...
> writes:
>
> << That wasn't what I meant . . . I am concerned if Challenger is
marketing
> their 4-car 9901/9902 as Twin Zephyr assignments. It just didn't happen.
>
> (I did offer to advise them & got a "yeah yeah sure sure")
>
> Oh, well - Caveat Emptor! >>
>
> Challenger's responses are quite simple:
>
> To protect the mail contract between Chicago and Denver during the second
> half of 1936, the Pioneer Zephyr served as the advance Denver Zephyr. In
> order to maintain this demanding schedule, car #525 was removed from the
> train and added to Zephyr #9902, serving as the Twin Cities Zephyr between
> Chicago and St. Paul. Our train will include car #525 so that this period
> may be represented.
>
Yes - 525 was removed from 9900 for the Advance Denver Zephyr service . . .
and Car 506 was removed from the 9903 (Becky Thatcher from the Mark Twain
Zephyr)... This was to enable the two 600hp trains to maintain the required
schedule. MY information (unfortunately word-of-mouth rather than
documented) was that 525 and 506 were placed together at the Aurora shops
(with the truckless end blocked) for the duration of the ADZ service. At
the time, the 9901/9902 service was preserved in place because of the high
traffic/profitability . . . the 9900 and 9903 services being far more easily
'sacrificed' for the ADZ mail contract securement. I do not have a photo of
525/506 in storage at Aurora during this time, but neither have I seen a
photo of 9901 in Twin Cities service with 525 in the consist. In absence of
proof to the contrary, I have a hard time believing that 9902 was
maintaining its 95mph average against 9901 with an extra 21% weight
penalty -
>
> If you know Challenger, a response to any other comment is not necessary
in
> the circumstance.
>
Hmmmmmm - "a response to any other comment is not necessary . . . " - as in,
"Our reputation protects us from having to explain why a car which was not
manufactured until 2 1/2 years after 9901 left Twin Cities Zephyr service is
included in our 'Twin Cities Zephyr'"?
Interesting.
Marshall Thayer
|