BRHSLIST
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CBQ] Question about CB&Q 5631

To: CBQ@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [CBQ] Question about CB&Q 5631
From: Stephen Levine <sjl_prodigynet@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 11:06:46 -0700 (PDT)
Delivered-to: unknown
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=1334945208; bh=OAqQR1friKhq5fFdIGwgb0oh4X0K0QqlQkBwVJHAvhk=; h=Received:Received:X-Yahoo-Newman-Id:X-Sender:X-Apparently-To:X-Received:X-Received:X-Received:X-Received:X-Received:X-Received:X-Received:X-YMail-OSG:X-Received:X-Mailer:Message-ID:To:In-Reply-To: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; b=Duy6ItfnhllcwZAO+un9UVEORj2Fl6KW/JthmQTENPfTOCmMTa5z7ukpFxcFluQGCatbpgyq8u5EIV0WvJCxX8yBJ++EMKlFItFtonwJSOLYBkQsZT2kzDM0/KbIuyvz
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=lima; d=yahoogroups.com; b=KWyhKZmzoOTeukIB020EO4+ZeqSzGDYn6haUkbT9JYqtYJF+XY8E4+7C+qITwgk85EWgQJ2vrCIUpMggnikgno39xYz+r5GEdI2l250JH88yRqM2HEs1UN9Wrtia58Zl;
In-reply-to: <1334712488.85288.YahooMailClassic@web83709.mail.sp1.yahoo.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
Very wrong, both with regards to wheel arrangement on locomotive (on NYC it would be a Niagara) and to railroad.

--- On Tue, 4/17/12, Erik Spoonmore <spoony81@att.net> wrote:

From: Erik Spoonmore <spoony81@att.net>
Subject: Re: [CBQ] Question about CB&Q 5631
To: CBQ@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tuesday, April 17, 2012, 8:28 PM

Lindsey,
 Yeah I don't understand why someone hasn't fixed the plaque next to 5631, it's clearly wrong. Here is a picture I found of the plaque from Sheridan, WY


Thanks for pointing this out, I've looked at the pics of the O5 at Sheridan many times but never noticed the 'Mohawk"
 
   Erik


--- On Tue, 4/17/12, Lindsey Fowler <lindsey_m_fowler@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: Lindsey Fowler <lindsey_m_fowler@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [CBQ] Question about CB&Q 5631
To: "CBQ@yahoogroups.com" <CBQ@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Tuesday, April 17, 2012, 7:39 PM

Yes I understand... it's just I thought I was going nuts.. the 5631 has a plaque next to it from CB&Q back in the early 60's that says "4-8-4 Mohawk"...I just thought I missed something over the years.. ;) . Sadly too, I am old enough to remember what steam loco was what..I was just too young to remember them all.. My favs were the CB&Q 4-8-4 O5, 2-10-4 "Colorado" (which ran on the Beardstown Sub dragging coal buckets as I remember)  and the 4-6-4 S-4s. The Hudson at the IRM I hope will be restored one day btw..


From: Dave Lotz <Dave_Lotz@bellsouth.net>
To: CBQ@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2012 7:23 PM
Subject: RE: [CBQ] Question about CB&Q 5631

 
Hi Lindsey,
 
The 4-8-4 WheelArrangement 4-8-4.svg wheel configuration has been called by many names: Northern, Niagara, Confederation, Dixie, Greenbrier, Pocono, Potomac, Golden State, Western, General, Wyoming (Lehigh Valley), Governor, Big Apple, GS Series "Daylight" (Southern Pacific).  On the Burlington, they were always called Northerns.  A Mohawk (aka Mountain) is a 4-8-2 WheelArrangement 4-8-2.svg wheel configuration, and is totally wrong for the 4-8-4 locomotives.
 
Dave Lotz
 
-----Original Message-----
From: CBQ@yahoogroups.com [mailto:CBQ@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of lindsey_m_fowler
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2012 8:03 PM
To: CBQ@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [CBQ] Question about CB&Q 5631
 
 
Hi,

I got a message from one of our prospective O5 owners. In the message, there was some reference several times of O5 5631 being a "Mohawk" which I remember as being a 4-8-2 on the New Your Central I'm thinking.. Am I crazy here? I thought all 05s were 4-8-4 Northerns. Was there ever a time when CB&Q called them Mohawks? That's just seems wrong..

Thank you for your help..


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