I can give some info reguarding central Illinois. I
don't recall anything but CB&Q engines going through
Beardstown "B&O dead-ended on it's own tracks". As
for boxcars, we saw alot of GN, NP, NS, IC & RI.
Today the yard is very colorful with engines from all
kinds of railroads, rental units I think.
Rick
--- Bob Webber <no17@comcast.net> wrote:
> The CB&Q had a very good relationship with the D&RGW
> at Denver. In
> fact, they ran 2nd (or other) sections of the Denver
> Zephyr into
> Denver that then ran on the Yampa Valley (Train 10)
> to Winter Park as
> part of a ski package from Chicago in the early and
> mid-sixties some
> head end and coaches only). In addition, they CB&Q
> regularly lent HW
> coaches to the D&RGW for ski train and special train
> uses.
>
> Through subsidiary C&S, they shared the Joint Line
> trackage from
> Denver to Pueblo and shared some switching duties
> (and had some
> locomotives, in steam and diesel lettered for both).
> The line south
> from Pueblo was shared, but differently. At
> Trinidad, there was
> another connection with the AT&SF.
>
> In Denver, the AT&SF & CB&Q shared the yard (later
> Rice yard).
>
> At the same time, they were rivals in the Chicago -
> KC trade (among others).
>
> The Q did forward to the UP in Omaha and had run
> through arrangements
> with the UP. There were mixes of locomotives, check
> the archives and
> you'll see references to the different arrangements.
> Also with the
> C&S there were connections with the UP from Denver
> north through
> Wyoming. Although, how friendly, you can judge -
> the CB&Q started
> the Powder River area. There's a great pair of
> photos in a recent
> Trains with a mid-60's and a recent Powder River
> area shot. A bit of
> a change!
>
> The SP at that time didn't reach the Q and they were
> never aligned
> with the historically friendly railroads.
>
> Others with a lot more background can provide
> details of the UP
> connections. There are photos of the CB&Q
> locomotives on the D&RGW
> and vice versa - but the arrangement was not the
> best. The D&RGW
> power was built and modified for the mountains, and
> the Q power was
> not. The water cooling that the D&RGW put in helped
> a great deal in
> the tunnels and other road's locomotives suffered
> for the lack of it
> (these are the 2nd gen EMD units). The D&RGW and Q
> also coordinated
> the California Service, but that was late 60's early
> 70's.
> t 08:57 AM 11/28/2005, you wrote:
> > From: "mc_brennan" <mc_brennan@yahoo.com>
> >
> >
> >Could someone please share a brief insight
> regarding the affiliations
> >the CB&Q maintained from the years 1950 to 1960.
> >
> >Specifically, what other RR's did they share duties
> with via
> >interchanges, carrying one another's cars, or
> mixing engines within
> >larger consists?
> >
> >I am hoping the SP, the UP and/or the ATSF had a
> friendly relationship
> >with the CB&Q during that decade.
> >
> >Thanks!
>
> Bob Webber
>
>
>
__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/8ZCslB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
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/
|