All,
Yes, very interesting. Two comments.
In the purchase the relationship between the Company and the Supplier
has to be considered. How did Elesco, Worthington, & Coffin market
their products? Were there uniform purchasing policies that applied
to both Lines East and Lines West? Was there a "Former Employee"
connection anywhere here that would not be apparent to the outsider?
That is the way things are done now. I see no reason why the same
situations did not occur in the past. Reading the two volumes on the
UP 4-12-2's they make no secret that ingrained biases were part of the
whole purchase process.
On the other hand how did this "No Grades" theory on the FW&D get
developed. I do not think much of the basic geometry of the Railroad
has changed that much over the years. From a Dispatching standpoint,
and from reading Incident Reports every day for years there are three
predictable trouble spots that appear every time rail conditions are not
the best, Albia IA, between Trinchere and Bransom CO, and
between Alvord and Decatur TX. The rest of the FW&D is no prize
either. Got Westbound between Tascosa and Channing. One night had
a rock train take almost 45" to make the 12 miles between Memphis
and Hedley.
Still an excellent analysis.
Russ
----- Original Message -----
From: "Charlie Vlk" <charlie@k...>
To: <BRHSlist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, 14 March, 2002 15:47
Subject: RE: [BRHSlist] Use of Feedwater Heaters on the Burlington
> Jonathan-
> Thank you for your thoughtful treatise...I really enjoyed reading it and
it
> makes sense to me. The Burlington was (putting it politely) a Frugal
line,
> and spending money even to save money is difficult for the truly tight
> fisted.....
> As an example, in reading the Aurora Beacon notes from Joe Douda there was
a
> column that reported that the deadline for equipping cars with Air Brakes
> was fast approaching and that the Burlington had determined it was more
> economical to build new cars than retrofit old ones. Certainly factors
like
> fitness for further service under changing load demands weighed heavily in
> their decision, not just the economic cost of conversion vs. new.
> Thanks,
> Charlie
>
|