To: | "CBQ@yahoogroups.com" <CBQ@yahoogroups.com> |
---|---|
Subject: | Re: [CBQ] GP40 Numbering |
From: | "jeff worones jworones@yahoo.com [CBQ]" <CBQ@yahoogroups.com> |
Date: | Mon, 11 Jan 2016 00:29:36 +0000 (UTC) |
Authentication-results: | mta1006.groups.mail.bf1.yahoo.com from=yahoo.com; domainkeys=neutral (no sig); from=yahoo.com; dkim=pass (ok) |
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=1452472178; bh=2GgSMQ7mRUPxxX5XZ+OfINvWy83QehPDyQc/CrPSjVY=; h=To:In-Reply-To:References:From:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:Date:Subject:Reply-To:From:Subject; b=FTiql6/bqKpKESPXxQzNTUU+lq0sgCqlkTd2giD950uV8YKCRxi0voNrxYa49Vb18R4C43qk+eA5GQ8ZMQkoimmcMREluvjnn9zAJDeP8c4Urvq1dfgV8zk0343xAnC5xqHvF2mCfEPz3rSuLSej5EPQky1o25Pg10GijpLt4Gw= |
In-reply-to: | <BY1PR14MB0024E67BC9D776C99871A864CAC80@BY1PR14MB0024.namprd14.prod.outlook.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: | <264f8e.21c35030.43c3d7d5@aol.com> <BY1PR14MB0024E67BC9D776C99871A864CAC80@BY1PR14MB0024.namprd14.prod.outlook.com> |
Reply-to: | CBQ@yahoogroups.com |
Sender: | CBQ@yahoogroups.com |
Re the C&S 150 series switchers and CBQ U30Bs. Could it be that those switchers were C&S/ATSF switchers? Thanks! Jeff Jeff Worones Seattle WA From: "Hol Wagner holpennywagner@msn.com [CBQ]" <CBQ@yahoogroups.com> To: "CBQ@yahoogroups.com" <CBQ@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Sunday, January 10, 2016 9:14 AM Subject: Re: [CBQ] GP40 Numbering The jump to the 620 series was, as Brian notes, simply because there were not enough available numbers in the high 100s -- only 190-199. And since FW&D switchers occupied the numbers from 601 through 610, the GP40s were started at 620. Don't ask me why
the Q numbered U30Bs in the 150 series, which conflicted with C&S switchers, but then didn't want a conflict with FW&D switchers. Obviously, there was little likelihood of either C&S or FW&D switchers being confused with Q road units, but since the Q units
were operating though over the C&S-FW&D in the latter half of the 1960s, it was considered wise -- at least by the time the second group of GP40s arrived -- not to create number conflicts. And the railroad saw no reason to renumber the earlier GP40s into
the 620 series, as their numbers from 170-189 didn't cause any conflicts. The 160s were not used for second generation units because they were still occupied by F-units in the 1960s, and the 200s, 300s, 400s and 500s were all occupied, so the 620 series offered
the first available sizable group of open numbers.
Hol
From: CBQ@yahoogroups.com <CBQ@yahoogroups.com> on behalf of RWA325@aol.com [CBQ] <CBQ@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 10, 2016 8:50 AM To: CBQ@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [CBQ] GP40 Numbering Hopefully we have a numbering guru who can make it all clear.
Bob Arthur
In a message dated 1/10/2016 10:12:40 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, CBQ@yahoogroups.com writes:
__._,_.___ Posted by: jeff worones <jworones@yahoo.com> __,_._,___ |
<Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
---|---|---|
|
Previous by Date: | Re: [CBQ] GP40 Numbering, bdurham260@yahoo.com [CBQ] |
---|---|
Next by Date: | Re: [CBQ] GP40 Numbering, Hol Wagner holpennywagner@msn.com [CBQ] |
Previous by Thread: | Re: [CBQ] GP40 Numbering, Hol Wagner holpennywagner@msn.com [CBQ] |
Next by Thread: | Re: [CBQ] GP40 Numbering, Hol Wagner holpennywagner@msn.com [CBQ] |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |