Re: [CBQ] RE: Suburban service west

[dhartman@mchsi.com]

I never understood taking the third out given it was a natural to have it to the C and I / Mailine split and with Eola traffic so close. Was it a maintainance cost issue? Less weight on old concrete of elevation? It couldn't have been a tax issue (too short). Doug

Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

---

From: STEVEN HOLDING <sholding@sbcglobal.net>

Sender: CBQ@yahoogroups.com

Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2013 20:14:33 -0700 (PDT)

To: CBQ@yahoogroups.com<CBQ@yahoogroups.com>

ReplyTo: CBQ@yahoogroups.com

Subject: Re: [CBQ] RE: Suburban service west

 

Just put the "Incline" back in and you fix the problem.
The RO to OA problem is the lack of third main which bottlenecks the area to begin with.  A legacy of a former Railroad Man of the Year.
Former RO operator and retired DS
Steve in SC

---

From: "BM4110@verizon.net" <BM4110@verizon.net>
To: CBQ@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 2:59 PM
Subject: [CBQ] RE: Suburban service west

 

The only way to go past Aurora would be to bypass the Hill Yard. If the third main was back, they could put another station on the upper level, with an escalator down to the present station. Servicing the trains would be a problem if a second lay over yard was built. Double staff would be needed, as well as facilities. If only the Hill Yard was used, the deadheading would congest Aurora to Eola W. The reverse move to back down to the yard would be fastest if the conductor used a tail hose, or since the locomotive is on the west end, rode in the cab. He could pull the air if need be. It would still be a pain, and hold things up while waiting for the switch and signal.

__._,_.___

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

__,_._,___