Jeff:
That's the only reason I have been able to think of, even though the switchers were 100% owned by the C&S and simply bore Join Line lettering. But the presence of AT&SF reporting marks along with those of the C&S may have been enough -- plus the fact that
the C&S switchers had no Burlington Route heralds and no Burlington lettering of any sort. Thus, they would have been hard to confuse with a Q unit with CB&Q reporting marks
Hol
From: CBQ@yahoogroups.com <CBQ@yahoogroups.com> on behalf of jeff worones jworones@yahoo.com [CBQ] <CBQ@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 10, 2016 5:29 PM
To: CBQ@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [CBQ] GP40 Numbering
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:
Great info Bob! My quick review shows that the lower number sequence only had 10 slots above or open and another 20 GP40s wouldn't fit. I have not confirmed the retirement date of the GP7s vs the arrival dates of the 40's.
Looks like there was plenty of room to renumber the original group with the new arrivals in the 600 series. I don't think the phase difference would have been enough to necessitate separate road number series.
Brian Durham
---In CBQ@yahoogroups.com, <RWA325@...> wrote :
Brian,
Re this link, the difference was Phase Ia3 and Phase IIa3:
|
www.trainweb.org
EMD's GP40 - Original Owners. 1187 US, 16 Canada, 18 Mexico 13 US GP40P 8 Canada GP40TC
|
|
www.trainweb.org
EMD's GP40 - Original Owners. 1187 US, 16 Canada, 18 Mexico 13 US GP40P 8 Canada GP40TC
|
&n bsp;
Bob Arthur
Princeton, NC
In a message dated 1/9/2016 6:10:18 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, CBQ@yahoogroups.com writes:
Is there any difference between the two different number series of GP40's? Was the any difference in paint schemes? Am I correct only one of these units got the pre merger scheme?
Thank you,
Brian Durham
__._,_.___
Posted by: Hol Wagner <holpennywagner@msn.com>
![]()
__,_._,___
|
|