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.