BRHSLIST
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [BRHSlist] Further on Flyer's Flags

To: <BRHSlist@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [BRHSlist] Further on Flyer's Flags
From: "Russell Strodtz" <vlbg@earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 18:32:30 -0500
Delivered-to: archives@nauer.org
Delivered-to: mailing list BRHSlist@yahoogroups.com
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:BRHSlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com>
Mailing-list: list BRHSlist@yahoogroups.com; contact BRHSlist-owner@yahoogroups.com
References: <136.25257971.2caf26e6@aol.com>
Reply-to: BRHSlist@yahoogroups.com
Pete,

Yes, I'd agree the flags or whatever are meaningless.  CTC was installed
from Akron to Denver in 1937.  On the other hand it was still ABS
from McCook to Akron where the train would normally run on Timetable
authority.

Russ
----- Original Message ----- 
From: <PSHedgpeth@aol.com>
To: <BRHSlist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, 03 October, 2003 14:24
Subject: [BRHSlist] Further on Flyer's Flags


> John Mitchell and any other listers who have followed up on my theory that 
> the flags, subject of some speculation by the captioner, carried by The first 
> eastbound No. 40 on June 12, 1939 and the second eastbound No. 40 the next 
> day 
> as shown on Page 40 BB No. 45.
> 
> Well, as I was "snarfing shredded wheat" for lunch today the answer came to 
> me.....Firming up my thought, that "even when I think I might be wrong I 
> could 
> be right"...
> 
> Just before partaking of said lunch I consulted my 1929 Rule Book and agree 
> that daytime classification signals at that time required only flags by day 
> and 
> both flags and white lights by night...
> 
> I dug through my old timetables, which is not an extensive file and found TT 
> No. 65 of the McCook Division effective April 28,1940...yes John it was a 
> Sunday.....I looked at pages 8 and 9 which cover the Akron to Denver 
> Sub-division 
> eastward and westward.....
> 
> Suddenly it came to me that the matter of flags...or any other classification 
> signals was a moot point....The train could have been flying THE JOLLY ROGER 
> or OLD GLORY and it wouldn't have made any difference..The issue of the 
> schedule of No. 40 and/or 39 being in the TT is also moot.  Isn't that a 
> lawyer term 
> John??
> 
> Before I reveal the answer, I'm going to allow any of you who are interested, 
> that's assuming that there are any who are..... to figure it out. The answer 
> is in the picture itself....examine it closely and you will see it.....not a 
> direct revelation, but it's there...I admit that I didn't see it myself until 
> after it dawned on me why the flag issue is moot, but this gave the 
> confirmation.
> 
> Here's some hints....Think:   1937.......DAWN TO DUSK.......US&S.
> 
> If you know your Q history you'll get it.
> 
> Pete
> 
> PS:  I still think that the flags are of a commorative nature with images of 
> each of the three roads displayed on the flags.  Probably carried on the 
> first 
> few trips as part of the "ballyhoo" promoting the new service.
> 



------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark
Printer at MyInks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada.
http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511
http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/8ZCslB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>