To: | CBQ@yahoogroups.com |
---|---|
Subject: | Re: [CBQ] Signal Question |
From: | Jpslhedgpeth@aol.com |
Date: | Tue, 4 Mar 2014 11:48:00 -0500 (EST) |
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=echoe; t=1393951682; bh=/78G9NfkYU4/9OTu4FxVs2Ato+CQI9lFlNcVHdgaFKE=; h=Received:Received:X-Yahoo-Newman-Id:X-Sender:X-Apparently-To:X-Received:X-Received:X-Received:X-Received:X-Received:X-Received:References:To:In-Reply-To:X-MB-Message-Source:X-MB-Message-Type:X-Mailer:X-Received:Message-Id:x-aol-sid: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=lLPXcTRAYIkTuSoVcuj30egS/ZZIVOHzkl/tYM5Sj3ka1vowKqBl9wHBfS4bt20wHDLD1mdtZt7sO8I3OhXFBY86dTTeau8eXXQ560uHLsetd5kdPsGFdgYu7S7QieR6yJLX0Yki2lS5EBunDhWHDlnoUuThRX7LdBVtfKQXzFU= |
Domainkey-signature: | a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=echoe; d=yahoogroups.com; b=U4KEfunl9vasQFSYruw7U52MgjvN9pc+YYfIv6vfneZUEIw9s1MFv92uvjsXwKRukcP2Sb2SWYL84uazTnv4iupCNhr7oZGrcV4XgaX365q29VTjr10K8OYasPThzlHB7uI7LxL/DDIEGIZ1W6Sjd4pG3zfUgJujb20Vzw9joSA=; |
In-reply-to: | <531600E8.4010900@windstream.net> |
List-id: | <CBQ.yahoogroups.com> |
List-unsubscribe: | <mailto:CBQ-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com> |
Mailing-list: | list CBQ@yahoogroups.com; contact CBQ-owner@yahoogroups.com |
References: | <531600E8.4010900@windstream.net> |
Reply-to: | CBQ@yahoogroups.com |
Sender: | CBQ@yahoogroups.com |
Richard...I think Glen Haug has uncovered the answer which is along the lines I suggested in my original post...I've got a 1916 Rule Book, but I don't recall seeing anything related to the double bladed TO signal..I'll pull out my copy and see if I can find something..Thanks for participating.. I too only remember the standard TO signal at Superior and knowing that the MP could not have gotten on the Q and since I didn't think that ATSF OR CNW would have any operation that would involve a TO signal...I followed the Sherlock Holmes method... IE: After you have eliminated the impossible what is left must be the answer. Pete -----Original Message----- From: Richard Kistler <rckistler@windstream.net> To: CBQ <CBQ@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Tue, Mar 4, 2014 10:35 am Subject: [CBQ] Signal Question Pete - If I remember correctly, in the CB&Q Operating Rules c-1910 (can't get to mine right now as I am rearranging everything so I can never find anything again) is an example of the type of signal shown in the photo of the Superior depot, and an explanation of that type of semaphore. The brick depot was constructed in 1914, unknown when this photo was taken, I would guess 1920. The train order signal at the Superior depot during my life time 1935-until it was torn down in 1986, was the standard train order semaphore. What the purpose of the double set of blades would be is a mystery, as nothing changed as far as trackage, yard limits or operating practices that I know of from 1914 on to the present. Superior was never a dual purpose station, it was not possible for another railroad to enter CB&Q tracks. During the United Railway Administration (WW 1) the CB&Q Superior depot was used as a Union Station for the AT&SF and C&NW (whose joint station was adjacent to the Burlington station), but they never entered Q tracks for that purpose. Sorry I couldn't be of more help. - Richard Kistler |
<Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
---|---|---|
|
Previous by Date: | [CBQ] Signal Question, Richard Kistler |
---|---|
Next by Date: | RE: [CBQ] Crawford, Ne. depot, Rupert & Maureen |
Previous by Thread: | [CBQ] Signal Question, Richard Kistler |
Next by Thread: | [CBQ] Is this a Burlington locomotive [1 Attachment], GENE TACEY |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |