BRHSLIST
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CBQ] Re: Naperville Crash

To: CBQ@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [CBQ] Re: Naperville Crash
From: Bob Webber <cz17@comcast.net>
Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2010 10:18:39 -0500
Delivered-to: archives@nauer.org
Delivered-to: mailing list CBQ@yahoogroups.com
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoogroups.com; s=lima; t=1270826351; bh=bUkgtUjP2NMoltuw7NwM7TSX+s/l0Bcg5Cb+U3Cqp0Y=; h=Received:Received:X-Yahoo-Newman-Id:X-Sender:X-Apparently-To:X-Received:X-Received:X-Received:X-Received:X-Received:Message-Id:X-Mailer:To:In-Reply-To:References:X-Originating-IP:X-eGroups-Msg-Info:From:X-Yahoo-Profile:Sender:MIME-Version:Mailing-List:Delivered-To:List-Id:Precedence:List-Unsubscribe:Date:Subject:Reply-To:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=fcyYWSNiTMpPKi8XDbhN3a7zuECEc3DR6LzhoRII/S+hIOwpdkV5zoAurvvGIP0C4LFdGuXoZOi4uieUOqE0J9LbBkeqY7j9t3m1dTlecRTFGLaqi2RT7j8/6XCFF8V5
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=lima; d=yahoogroups.com; b=ICYWL/NSs3C4afo/vYB5OEzTCfVddztBsN/mBZ/2JsU9vcY6mbpioGxmv0UUzWywHIPB/KG6978DIccdbbGVPwPtzmTu5J6A0YWUTnJs3OCtz4Ypv5pxLm3Ir+SJ52lg;
In-reply-to: <hpnevh+gsdu@eGroups.com>
List-id: <CBQ.yahoogroups.com>
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:CBQ-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com>
Mailing-list: list CBQ@yahoogroups.com; contact CBQ-owner@yahoogroups.com
References: <206E1B2F652F443AA3F0E7256E2BC20B@STUDY> <hpnevh+gsdu@eGroups.com>
Reply-to: CBQ@yahoogroups.com
Sender: CBQ@yahoogroups.com
The term "Baggage Car" is somewhat of a misnomer, the more correct 
term is "Baggage Express" (AAR code BE)  - which is more descriptive 
of its purpose.  They were more likely to be carrying storage mail 
(i.e. mail that didn't have to be "worked" en route or mail that was 
to be worked, but not immediately - those cars would be against the 
working RPO car for access).

Most passengers did not need checked baggage.  There were locations 
in all cars for bags.   It is highly likely that the cars on the 
Advanced Exposition Flyer were not through cars.  They would be 
dropped off along the Q portion of the route (the AEF was used for 
local work) - Council Bluffs, Lincoln, Hastings, McCook and Denver.

Those passengers with large trunks and bags, often were in larger 
accommodations - and/or had had their luggage sent ahead of time (in 
which case, other trains would have handled it, and the REA (or the 
Express Company of the moment) would have handled it (not unlike some 
people who send their bags ahead now when they fly, due to the 
restrictions and/or costs).  Attempting to put the methods of travel 
of 60+ years ago, into the context of today (and all of the 
misconceptions of period travel) can get you into trouble when 
analyzing incidents.

The Expo was a "through" train in name only, really.  If you start 
tearing down the consist, and look at it in various locations along 
the route, you see cars being added and subtracted all along the 
route.  Then there was the multiple route segments that could be 
taken (Royal Gorge or Moffat).  The addition of MP cars, the dropping 
of "short" cars, the addition of the KC cars, etc.  Look at the KC 
cars, they joined in Nebraska, and were dropped in Denver.   By the 
time the consist is torn apart, you find 50% or less of the train 
(depending on where along the route that 100% is determined) left on 
the train.  The Advanced Expo was even less likely to be a through 
train - the D&RGW typically tore apart the two consists, making one a 
coach & tourist train, the other all-Pullman (depending on year & 
season).  And for the last few years, there wasn't an Advanced Expo 
on the D&RGW - it was renamed to the Prospector (version 2).

The route really didn't change from the Expo to the CZ (in terms fo 
traffic).  If you look at the amplified consists, most were to 
Denver, Grand Junction and Salt Lake City - the WP was the least 
travelled segment on both trains.  (And WB was more likely to be 
amplified than EB, cars returning DH)  And the segment with the fewer 
trains & cars (somewhat obviously, I guess) - such that by the time 
the WB trains got to SLC, there were often far less cars involved.


At 09:52 AM 4/9/2010, you wrote:
>There would be no need for baggage cars on the second section as all 
>of the passengers checked baggage on both trains would go into the 
>cars in the first section. The baggage-men would know at what 
>station stop what baggage would need to come off and the 
>corresponding passenger would see the station agent to collect their baggage.
>
>In my rail travels (when I was a young lad with my parents) we 
>didn't have any checked baggage, it wasn't necessary to check the 
>two to three suitcases we would have for our trip. I think it was 
>passengers who had more luggage or larger trunks/cases that would 
>have theirs checked.
>
>I hope this helps and I am sure that someone else can jump in here 
>with more information as needed.
>
>Greg

Bob Webber 

[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/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CBQ/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    CBQ-digest@yahoogroups.com 
    CBQ-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

<*> 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/


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