|
David, I have heard that (about minimizing time loss). It was said earlier in the topic. But rather than assertions, I would like facts. If you know of some in the Bulletins, it would be nice if you could reveal them. If this was policy for the reasons you say, there would be a paper trail. It sounds like a lead unit failing was common enough that they had to develop a policy. And it would seem that with such common failures, both in lead and trailing units, that the policy of assigning units to trains would have been very difficult to carry out. I note that other railroads didn't seem to have this problem. For example, the GN almost invariably ran an ABBA set on the Builder, with only the lead A facing forward. GN COULD have run the trailing A with cab forward. They chose not to. Was GN doing such a superior job of maintenance that they didn't feel the need to follow the Q's example? There were other railroads that kept their E's and F's in a comparative classic arrangement, rather than having the trailing A's facing forward, in case of lead unit failure. Why do you think the Q was doing such a bad job of maintenance that they were one of the very very few railroads that felt compelled to run their A's cab forward in case of lead unit failure? Ed Edward Sutorik
__._,_.___ Posted by: Edwardsutorik@aol.com __,_._,___ |