Re: [CBQ] CB&Q engines leased to SP

["Tim O'Connor timboconnor@comcast.net [CBQ]" <CBQ@yahoogroups.com>]

Without radios, triple heading was probably the easiest. But a locomotive on
the point, in the middle, and at the rear -- on a steep mountain grade -- Now
that must have been pretty exciting! No doubt there were special whistle calls
involved too.

Reduction of the number of engine crews was a HUGE reason for the elimination
of steam power. Diesels actually cost more to buy and operate but they allowed
railroads to lay off lots of crews and shop workers and run fewer, longer trains
and that more than made up for the higher ownership costs. Thanks to union rules
based on mileage there was no incentive to run trains any faster. Average 
freight
train speed today is only 1 or 2 mph faster than it was 100 years ago.

Tim O'Connor


>Just slightly off topic, but I wonder, how hard was it to MU steam engines?  
>As "easy" as today, or more demanding?
>
>Bill Scott



------------------------------------
Posted by: Tim O'Connor <timboconnor@comcast.net>
------------------------------------


------------------------------------

Yahoo Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CBQ/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CBQ/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    CBQ-digest@yahoogroups.com 
    CBQ-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    CBQ-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo Groups is subject to:
    https://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/