BRHSLIST
[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: CBQ@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [CBQ] CB&Q engines leased to SP
From: "'Norm Metcalf' normmetcalf@yahoo.com [CBQ]" <CBQ@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 08:12:56 -0700
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=1424185979; bh=1QnVZhLUUQdnmpxoqS+1FUtS90ep7NSb5zjbMjg+iyw=; h=To:References:In-Reply-To:From:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:Date:Subject:Reply-To:From:Subject; b=ppljGz1tCVUDXV+64GngBpMOn9huzLSAwgwoEcGXzK3b6qR32guXr1ZNKZrLhTP981/xQSoTLMuEOKfCmlvd/DBYeimbncWkM/EGFjT3lZIowq6xMd0ClEiFQ7nzste2Zjz0HOUBXpJyzWcG5X8iEf4tdamjRVafIK+lFVoQt3M=
In-reply-to: <C32AB78D-50BE-4940-B5E0-ED42DEB79A38@optonline.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: <KGEBKGPLHMDMEJMKKJGOOENBOGAA.dave_lotz@bellsouth.net> <B477AC99-3C53-414A-94F9-FE82B475B1E3@surewest.net> <BAY173-W3354F10A5B372203BBF28FCA2E0@phx.gbl> <C32AB78D-50BE-4940-B5E0-ED42DEB79A38@optonline.net>
Reply-to: CBQ@yahoogroups.com
Sender: CBQ@yahoogroups.com
User-agent: Opera Mail/1.0 (Win32)
Actually diesels are cheaper to operate.  They could run further without  
having to stop for coal or oil, water or crew changes.  Coal and water  
costs (including coal and water facility costs) were eliminated.  Crew  
costs were reduced.  Norm Metcalf, Boulder Colorado

On Mon, 16 Feb 2015 20:57:44 -0700, Tim O'Connor timboconnor@comcast.net  
[CBQ] <CBQ@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

>
> 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
>
>
>


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

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


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

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/

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>