To: | <CBQ@yahoogroups.com> |
---|---|
Subject: | Re: [CBQ] Coal for Denver's Engines: CB&Q vs. C&S, Bituminous vs. Lignite |
From: | "jonathanharris@earthlink.net [CBQ]" <CBQ@yahoogroups.com> |
Date: | 01 Jan 2015 11:05:04 -0800 |
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=1420139106; bh=i9sTGuLI9r6YHcbeSFgvmbFL3aMfELe9koAafW8X7XU=; h=To:References:In-Reply-To:From:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:Date:Subject:Reply-To:From:Subject; b=EuD6JUqKsxjDjAOz8lBzx69DDIzkLrGzVHO0ZnuL9sLpdP2mb6rRAGz6vVmlPtSW7rtHGX55H5tGep00eyrzJIUE2vnlq0dm2QgAoXbzQcBfhD8C16CKzZraQg53HikaFcQFixVN9KIYigWXTNsD5ylXDfwJzQRg2L3ko1gQgek= |
Domainkey-signature: | a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=echoe; d=yahoogroups.com; b=e9Z7wGrlsz2BslXJe3MlWsvDen0Rl32atgvs/cyUVjWL7sPu3ySLsW8OiKCLzmP6ClVZjrMCR184VUBjC2nOtlWIPw2aLyY1TNOPP9CYkArjsQHVA9VrgsFvN5whDWpkzk223BwLMmvYF5+MHvmmKqF1lKW7dZfbDOpJopSYi1c=; |
In-reply-to: | <1420086694.5466.YahooMailNeo@web180901.mail.ne1.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 |
References: | <m81nge+uirsfj@YahooGroups.com> <BAY173-W505B28EA245E797150BA74CA5F0@phx.gbl> <m822es+eq7626@YahooGroups.com> <1420086694.5466.YahooMailNeo@web180901.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> |
Reply-to: | CBQ@yahoogroups.com |
Sender: | CBQ@yahoogroups.com |
Steve — Thank you for the photos of the Rushton stacks. Those were used primarily (exclusively?) for wood burners, weren't they? I saw something similar in design 40 years ago on a few sugar plantation engines in Pernambuco, Brazil. I believe they were burning bagasse (cane stalks after pressing and extraction of the juice). I'm not sure which ash is more acidic, coal or wood (I'd suspect coal), but in any case your photos suggest a couple reasons why railroads would have been happy to replace diamond with straight stacks: better draft and fewer corroded parts to replace. Jonathan __._,_.___ Posted by: jonathanharris@earthlink.net __,_._,___ |
<Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
---|---|---|
|
Previous by Date: | RE: [CBQ] Coal for Denver's Engines: CB&Q vs. C&S, Bituminous vs. Lignite, 'Harold Huber' sarge9@bresnan.net [CBQ] |
---|---|
Next by Date: | RE: [CBQ] Coal for Denver's Engines: CB&Q vs. C&S, Bituminous vs. Lignite, jonathanharris@earthlink.net [CBQ] |
Previous by Thread: | RE: [CBQ] Coal for Denver's Engines: CB&Q vs. C&S, Bituminous vs. Lignite, 'Harold Huber' sarge9@bresnan.net [CBQ] |
Next by Thread: | RE: [CBQ] Camelback locos, 'Rupert & Maureen' gamlenz@ihug.co.nz [CBQ] |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |