Steve,
Yes, if the rail conditions are not perfect it does
require helpers. Don't know about the crew situation.
Do not think Ottumwa is even a crew change point.
I do know there are many more dog catches called on
the St Joseph line than the rest of the Division
put together.
But on the other hand it is only two crews Alliance
to Lincoln and even losing a unit is not usually a
problem. Actually one of the more common crew complaints
is being on a coal load or empty and getting stuck behind
a "H", "V", or "P" train.
Russ
----- Original Message -----
From: Steven Holding
To: CBQ@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, 25 January, 2004 22:25
Subject: Re: [CBQ] Re: Misc historic CB&Q facts
Yeah Right
It now takes manned helpers for the trains to go up South Albia Hill
And how many crews Creston to Ottumwa
sjh
----- Original Message -----
From: "Russell Strodtz" <vlbg@earthlink.net>
To: <CBQ@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2004 4:47 PM
Subject: Re: [CBQ] Re: Misc historic CB&Q facts
> Bill,
>
> Would be quite obvious that GTM's would be way up from
> 1925 but actual train miles would probably be lower today.
>
> In that era there were many lines where all trains operated
> would be very small by today's standards. The social and
> economic climates were different.
>
> Right now takes two locomotives to move a 19,000 ton coal
> train from Alliance to Galesburg. In 1925 terms that tonnage
> would have required many more trains and locomotive changes
> at various points.
>
> Yes, the technology has really expanded.
>
> Russ
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: William Barber
> To: CBQ@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sunday, 25 January, 2004 09:53
> Subject: [CBQ] Re: Misc historic CB&Q facts
>
>
> Gerald,
>
> One really interesting number (at least to me) in your information from
> the 1925 OER is the total number of locomotives in service nation wide.
> At that time, your information shows 76, 671 locomotives, undoubtedly
> most were steam. After complete dieselization, the total diesel fleet
> was about 25,000 units. Today, that number is less than 20,000 and yet,
> I believe gross ton miles today, exceed the GTM at that time.
> Interesting efficiency improvement and probably one reason why RRs are
> still viable. Thanks for the information. Sure shows how prominent the
> Q was in the U.S. rail picture. No wonder, GN and NP hung onto the
> stock.
>
> Bill Barber
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CBQ/
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> CBQ-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CBQ/
b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
CBQ-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Yahoo! Groups Links
To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CBQ/
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
CBQ-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|