|
Rich
Already being worked on for a bulletin article "Q and the Military" proposed a few years back Just got to get every thing unpacked and get back to work Steve in the new house in SC main reason you will not see me on the 21st. I will be working on it still Xmas in April From: "John D. Mitchell, Jr." <cbqrr47@yahoo.com> To: "CBQ@yahoogroups.com" <CBQ@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Sat, April 14, 2012 1:19:39 PM Subject: Re: [CBQ] Steam Troop Train Traffic on all lines, both freight and passenger, was so heavy during the war that troop trains could be found on many unlikely routes. Also remember, there were hundreds of posts and stations, all over the country not like today where there are a few large installations. And troop trains, many times, didn't take the most direct route for security reasons. From:
"rgortowski@aol.com" <rgortowski@aol.com> To: CBQ@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2012 10:03 AM Subject: [CBQ] Steam Troop Train In looking through the Kalmbach Burlington Route book we have been discussing, one of the photos is an O-5 leading a troop train from Chicago passing the articulated 2nd TCZ bound for Chicago - in Minneapolis. Since the book was copyrighted in 1947, this photo has to be sometime between 1944 (there are the Pullman-Standard troop sleepers) and early 1947. I've often wondered about the frequency of the Q hauling troop trains in WWII and the Korean War. It seems like there would be better routes than the Q for troop trains, though I suppose that the Q/GN or Q/NP route would be fine for the Washington state camps. Any comments on the Q and troop trains?
Rich G.
__._,_.___
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 __,_._,___ |