BRHSLIST
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CBQ] Commuter operations

To: <CBQ@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [CBQ] Commuter operations
From: "cvlk" <cvlk@comcast.net>
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 19:34:22 -0500
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=1309307673; bh=OFgNZBeS8YIzA6DEiHhJGVSibSei6KvkckrP/PGFx+0=; h=Received:Received:Received:X-Yahoo-Newman-Id:X-Sender:X-Apparently-To:X-Received:X-Received:X-Received:X-Received:X-Received:Message-ID:To:References:X-Priority:X-MSMail-Priority:X-Mailer:X-MimeOLE: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=LJA8GgGfkrsSqbJlvJOqJMUNtFxAvGlK0ub9c2HrQe6jXDHxXJmjbwGIExGt+gmu/E+x6xRANr0mjdIEa9b0DC2X1lF3DhIyeymcKrmbF5cFvoFChzBCIakm6BY5j13x
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=lima; d=yahoogroups.com; b=aSCJLT/5Hro7S7oGMDMsIZHvcfXyacfBIacq1cis/59RVgtUvz5PbdrErCNgsoawRgyD+OlJAS90RmF1ZD54UTRlo9aOZZ4sFOyLJPRHtkoG6Bk8eKL6Rd8hYjq5Ks1L;
List-id: <CBQ.yahoogroups.com>
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:CBQ-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com>
Mailing-list: list CBQ@yahoogroups.com; contact CBQ-owner@yahoogroups.com
References: <2a84e.72cffec6.3b2abec1@aol.com>
Reply-to: CBQ@yahoogroups.com
Sender: CBQ@yahoogroups.com
Leo-
You are correct, but....
.....technically, the Q did have HEP.... at least for the car lighting.... the 
unit was in a Power Car and not the locomotive (except one or two car trains 
using field taps on the generator (on certain units??).
.....and the CB&Q was WAY ahead of the C&NW or anybody else, at least in 
testing Push-Pull operation with internal combustion / electric units.   They 
ran MU cables from two Gas-Electrics on either end of a string of commuter 
coaches and sucessfully controlled both units from either end.  The units 
already controlled multiple prime movers from one set of controls and it was a 
simple matter to extend that system to M/U another entire unit.   Somebody had 
photos of the tests conducted in Chicago during the 1920s.
Charlie Vlk


    
  Scott,

  Here's my speculation as to the later adoption of HEP and push pull by the 
  Q.

  By the time of development of these technologies the Q had concentrated all 
  commuter operations at Aurora where facilities were readily available for 
  turning equipment. The reverse move at CUS to 14th St was relatively short 
  compared to going to Western Ave on other roads so less time savings. With 
  only one terminal and one line this most likely made the cost/benefit 
  analysis for the upgrade to these technologies less beneficial than on other 
  roads with multiple lines and terminals where costs savings would be greater.

  Leo Phillipp.


  [


[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>