Re: [CBQ] Elephant Style Es

["thommack@yahoo.com [CBQ]" <CBQ@yahoogroups.com>]

Bill,

Yes I recall the discussion and I have also heard both observations for elephant style running, both operational reasons (in case a unit breaks down) and political (add cost to kill the passenger train). The only question that comes up regarding the added cost is whether the entire train was turned on a wye, in which case it could be done with the power that brought the train in, which would not seem to add cost or time to operation. So someone familiar with turning the TCZ in Mpls/St-P might be able to explain more about this process and why elephant-style running would add extra cost.

Since I have tracked most of the published photos of the TCZ/EB/NCL on the C&I in the late 60's I did find that the majority of trains were running elephant style. However, I have also found sufficient examples up to the BN merger of someone who "didn't get the memo", which I appreciate for modeling variety!

Tom Mack

Cincinnati, OH

---In CBQ@yahoogroups.com, <wscott@...> wrote :

A while ago there was a discussion on one of these groups about the CBQ running their passenger engines elephant-style.  The gist of the discussion was that the last president of the CBQ wanted to increase the cost of running the passenger trains so that the railroad could justify ending that passenger service on the grounds that the company was losing money.  The cost of turning the engines when they reached their destination would increase the railroad’s cost of running the train, and thus, justify ending that service.  I think the route in question was the California Zephyr, but it was a while ago, and my memory might be faulty.

The explanation that they were run elephant-style so that one engine could be removed if there was a unit failure make more sense, to me at least.

Does anyone remember the discussion I referred to above?

Bill Scott

On Dec 12, 2016, at 9:52 AM, tubaman21@... [CBQ] <CBQ@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Group,

The following question was posed on the IlliniRail list and has generated some discussion there.

"The Burlington isn't unique in this, but it seems like throughout much of the '60s it increasingly ran the E8s elephant-style in the streamliner consists. Was there an operational reason for running them more elephant style rather than back to back?"

I know this was done increasingly for potential unit failures enroute, but the question of suburban service keeps coming back up. How much did the suburban rotation play into this? I seem to recall seeing a diagram of how units were cycled through suburban service in a Bulletin, but of course I can't locate it now. I also found a post by the late Ed DeRouin that I used to add to the discussion on IlliniRail, and once passage added more confusion as well.

"A very reliable source once told me of a letter issued in the fifties 

about how E units were to be prepared for service, and elephant 
style was not discussed. In short: two units - back to back, three 
units - front and rear back to back, middle either way, four units - 
front two facing forward and rear two facing rearwards. If you look 
at photos, say pre-1964 of Zephyrs except the overnight KC and 
Omaha trains and the CZ, you will find that most all fit the above 
letter. The CZ became an exception about 1964. Its units were 
assigned to Denver for maintenance. I suspect that Chicago 
would not pay to turn the Denver units and so they ran that way. "

Were the Denver Es not used in the suburban rotation and just went right back out with the next CZ? Were they turned with the rest of the CZ at Canal St? It seems that the increasing use of elephant style running started at about the same time the first batch of cab control cars arrived. Was this also a contributing factor?

Thanks!

Bryan J. Howell

.

 

__._,_.___

---

Posted by: thommack@yahoo.com

---

Visit Your Group

• Privacy • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use

__,_._,___