Fwd: [CBQ] Re: C&I double trk-was Q physical plant

[qutlx1@aol.com]

Mitch,

 

I have never heard any mention of double tracking the C&I. But that doesnt mean it wasnt studied. Theres been some discussion here about line changes and grade reduction and I have at least one article in the archives on those points. But you got me to thinking, so I dug out a group of ETTs and did some research.

 

Found some interesting tidbits that even years of running on the C&I and listening to stories had not revealed.

 

We all know about the double trk between Flag and Steward. The 1933 ETT #75 doesnt mention it but #89 of 1937 does so it was installed between those dates. I think it was 1934 from memory of an article I once saw.

 

ETT#33 was interesting with these revelations that I had previously been unaware of:

 

Hinckley passing trk-89 cars( much longer than recent times)

Waterman 67- shrunk later

Lee 80-disappeared later

Chana 54(got much bigger later)

Polo 84(disappeared later)

And heres the real gem,I had heard about Daggetts(between Chadwick and Burke{Big Cut} ) but didnt know it had a 70 car passing trk !

 

But the real gold mine was ETT #43 of 1925:

 

Sugar Grove an eastward (77 cars) and a westward siding (68 cars)

 

Shabbona;Two sidings,the RFf(it stands for Rock Falls) had a 95 car capacity and N(North) had 51. Stay tuned for two future BRHS Zephyrs that talk about Shabbona quite a bit. It was once upon a time much more active place than we can imagine today.

 

Mored and Carter are not in ETT #7 of 1941 but are in #19 of 1946 so they were added between those years.

 

Just goes to show the RR is really never static or fixed. Things are constantly changing.

 

Leo Phillipp

 

 

__._,_.___

Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

--- Begin Message ---

To:	CBQ@yahoogroups.com
Subject:	[CBQ] Re: Q Physical Plant
From:	"Mitch" <soocarman79@yahoo.com>
Date:	Thu, 12 Jan 2012 02:12:48 -0000
Delivered-to:	mailing list CBQ@yahoogroups.com
Dkim-signature:	v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoogroups.com; s=lima; t=1326334372; bh=VciryjSu3M1OL3pi1K24pq4ivoI95AOS73/BDbO2IOw=; h=Received:Received:Received:X-Yahoo-Newman-Id:X-Sender:X-Apparently-To:X-Received:X-Received:X-Received:X-Received:X-Received:X-Received:To:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:User-Agent:X-Mailer:X-Originating-IP:X-Yahoo-Post-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; b=D/z3s3+p0/5F7sDuCcWTWgdCPrKhMQMtA6uep2AGSwSlUqC6qtBoYzwhAa65JVT+lAyiv9S7zkaZ7kNeGHV2OVR0pRGLKdP+ERDZV/o+V4IENWLjdVWn9ucBtrsS+RKR
Domainkey-signature:	a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=lima; d=yahoogroups.com; b=TZwEWoXGf1qkBWJoEeuvrndlPJwLDEi/lqJy/ZksFIHhyEmS85+xFu0sO120HGAV2VRbvEbq+C6yJi1Bhn/TIcdCLkTFwqMLu19DVR3HA+awQskP6lLT4fqNz0kaF4n2;
In-reply-to:	<270af.23cddbdf.3c3b860e@aol.com>
List-id:	<CBQ.yahoogroups.com>
List-unsubscribe:	<mailto:CBQ-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com>
Mailing-list:	list CBQ@yahoogroups.com; contact CBQ-owner@yahoogroups.com
Reply-to:	CBQ@yahoogroups.com
Sender:	CBQ@yahoogroups.com
User-agent:	eGroups-EW/0.82

 

Leo, Thanks for the information you presented. The first thing that struck me was how the Q and other roads run HIGH speed passenger trains on that light a rail and slag ballast. Years ago a friend showed me a slow order for the Morning and Afternoon Zephyrs "do not exceed 95 mph"
Second it appears to me that the Q might have been ahead of its time with the short fast trains. Isn't thats what manufacturing wanted "just in time delivers" to cut down on inventories? Isn't that the concept of some of the regionals offer frequent fast trains to provide better service. With the freight rates the way they were that was the only thing railroads had to offer was speed.
Did the Q at anytime think or plan to double track the C&I?

Mitch

--- In CBQ@yahoogroups.com, qutlx1@... wrote:
>
> I started on the Aurora Div of the BN on 1/20/73. The C&I and mainline
> crews received a fist full of slow orders when they reported for work. Mud was
> pumping from joints all along the lines. Branch lines were,of course,even
> worse.Bob Harding and other high seniority operating employees could not
> express their disbelieve strongly enough. I have an opinion as to why this
> situation existed but will keep them to myself.
> This situation hadn't occured overnight.
>
> Bottom line the Q physical plant had been maintained to run Zephyrs at
> 90-100 MPH plus(the Z90 signs were still in place for curves) and 50 and 70
> ton frt cars in short trains at 50-60 MPH with a wink and a nod beyond that.
> I dont recall the exact year of the first PBR unit coal train on the C&I
> but I'll say '75 for the sake of discussion. These trains and the ore
> trains,even limited to 40MPH, beat the living hell out of what was left of 90-110
> LB rail on steel mill slag ballast. The slow orders got even more numerous
> and then it was clear mgmt changed course.
>
> Over a number of years rail was upgraded,granite ballast laid,new ties by
> the hundreds of thousands inserted. We had a railroad we could run on and
> be proud of as long as we didnt want to go over 60MPH.
>
> Put in the simplest sentance I can,in my opinion, the Q had been
> maintained for a high speed,short train operation and times had changed to running
> long slow freight trains with maximum tonnages.
>
> The first day in 1979 I reported to the "White House" on Jackson Blvd in
> Chicago my boss told me straight out. The trains we run are rolling
> warehouses. It's not when you get it there. It's just get it there. The old days
> are gone.
>
> Not looking to start a debate,just hoping to shed a little light .
>
> Leo Phillipp
>

--- End Message ---