Pure conjecture on my part.....
They probably found that an AA set was superior to a AB set in that they did
not require turning. Also the "hostlers" controls had to be a pain to use
as compared to a normal cab when moving engines around (hostling).
There must have been some correspondence on the subject which may be lost to
history, as the Q never did anything without having built a pretty good case
for their actions....
I don't have the figures handy but it seems like B Units for passenger
locomotives were not as popular in general...
UP and Santa Fe (Es and Fs respectively) are the glaring exceptions...
Charlie
----- Original Message -----
From: <jonathanharris@e...>
To: <BRHSlist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 10:33 AM
Subject: [BRHSlist] Re: How come no E8/9 B's?
> Charlie --
>
> What "operational experience" with the E5 B units do you mean?
> Are you saying the Q had trouble with them?
>
>
> --- In BRHSlist@yahoogroups.com, "Charlie Vlk" <cvlk@a...>
> wrote:
> > An interesting question.
> > Suburban Service is an obvious answer, but does the logic
> really apply?
> > The Pooling of Suburban power didn't start until when?? Well
> after all the
> > E7s were purchased and by then the No B Units pattern had
> been firmly
> > established.
> > I would guess that the operational experience with the E5B
> units triggered
> > the policy before the Suburban pooling with the Zephyr units
> came into
> > being.
> > Also, there is an urban legend that the Q was very serious
> about buying FM
> > Trainmasters for suburban power (ala SP)..... That would be an
> interesting
> > series of articles (throw in the six wheel trailing truck on the
> O5s!)
> > .....experiments, proposals and could have beens based on
> AFEs (if any
> > survived!). Sort of like that fascinating chapter in Hol Wagner's
> Colorado
> > Road!!!
> > Charlie
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
|