To: | CBQ@yahoogroups.com |
---|---|
Subject: | [CBQ] Re: Peoria Interchange Question |
From: | William Barber <clipperw@gmail.com> |
Date: | Wed, 2 Mar 2011 08:19:52 -0600 |
Delivered-to: | archives@venus.nauer.org |
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=1299075606; bh=79zCmhZONsSRmu3Gnji8RcqeI4dONI15XnMmTNddnHI=; h=Received:Received:X-Yahoo-Newman-Id:X-Sender:X-Apparently-To:X-Received:X-Received:X-Received:X-Received:X-Received:X-Received:In-Reply-To:References:Message-Id:To:X-Mailer:X-Originating-IP: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=PgkYx4fe8oOXD7nAeK+PkQIOfTdQqTZuWFDsuUfKFcxdw/n6ULii541//AmLXR+HVzFsRXCF3NGuNITfH7sfJlToNuYgk+hnZMFXAM2W7Emb1pdTFYnJDbBP7Ka8BUHJ |
Domainkey-signature: | a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=lima; d=yahoogroups.com; b=WycFI6WzY5lPxWjyv7LZFrbC6Tna0wQco5ySZ5Fzl/n5MPC810xV4HPyPM8UtQihL2eGS63EEzJlotsLrLiFubwXzGNniRYHBENsd+JpHCYmCLZ2sqbHXvlyusveLtHX; |
In-reply-to: | <1299055580.469.91528.m7@yahoogroups.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: | <1299055580.469.91528.m7@yahoogroups.com> |
Reply-to: | CBQ@yahoogroups.com |
Sender: | CBQ@yahoogroups.com |
Gerald and Bud, Possibly the derail was located at that point because that may have been where TP&W's property line was On Mar 2, 2011, at 2:46 AM, CBQ@yahoogroups.com wrote: > Re: Peoria Interchange Question > Posted by: "Gerald Edgar" vje68@hotmail.com gaedgar66 > Tue Mar 1, 2011 7:29 am (PST) > > > > > Excellent point as to location of the derail Bud. I have CB&Q > standards for derails as to the minimum distance from the fouling > point but no mention of a maximum distance. I assume there were > special situations (whether cars would roll to or from the turnout, > adjacent structures & tracks, etc) that would case a derail to be > installed 5 car lengths from a fouling post as the TP&W did. Any > thoughts on this? Of the derail on former Q tracks I can visualize, > all were relatively close to turnouts. I imagine too the standard > changed over the decades as cars got longer with more overhang. > > Gerald [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> |
---|---|---|
|
Previous by Date: | RE: [CBQ] remote derails, Gerald Edgar |
---|---|
Next by Date: | [CBQ] Re: Peoria Interchange Question, William Barber |
Previous by Thread: | Re: [CBQ] Re: Peoria Interchange Question, ralph linroth |
Next by Thread: | [CBQ] Re: Peoria Interchange Question, William Barber |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |