BRHSLIST
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CBQ] Re: Elephant Style Es

To: "CBQ@yahoogroups.com" <CBQ@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [CBQ] Re: Elephant Style Es
From: "Hol Wagner holpennywagner@msn.com [CBQ]" <CBQ@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2018 14:50:22 +0000
Accept-language: en-US
Authentication-results: mta1005.groups.mail.bf1.yahoo.com from=msn.com; domainkeys=neutral (no sig); from=msn.com; dkim=pass (ok)
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=1516027825; bh=QYGD4lhDLQtQj3DJ2fL/ea7rGyYj+3fWee7FZpsGJBA=; h=To:References:In-Reply-To:From:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:Date:Subject:Reply-To:From:Subject; b=wWxmtmwkoGfNl1ptaQ6thtf79y7gs5MkEH5IWIjVlP4dzQ2b9GaIf8ihNLAHRb25/FdWPXiS0UzfHyc23D0e2v/RuYH0vb8uEkwVdwcinYtMF8rYz+rSd8hK89ugFutD0OKo0y+pQr0edLv8Z/DS1Yx6SBCNa0Yr8AJiBdA+8WM=
In-reply-to: <p3ibcd+m00qlv@YahooGroups.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: <C5881BF9-071C-4EF8-A3C6-68D7606A2D71@kc.rr.com> <p3c5te+1fetpm1@YahooGroups.com>,<p3ibcd+m00qlv@YahooGroups.com>
Reply-to: CBQ@yahoogroups.com
Sender: CBQ@yahoogroups.com
Spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
Thread-index: AQHTjBcWlsDAYUIwK0uZ+40AXiJBkqNxSNIAgAOtmYCAABATNA==
Thread-topic: [CBQ] Re: Elephant Style Es


Please note, however, that while elephant style was most definitely the common mode of E-unit operation on the C&I during the mid- to late '60s, that was certainly not the case on Chicago-Denver trains, where two-unit power consists were always run back-to-back and three-unit consists had two units facing one way and the third facing the opposite direction.  I cannot recall ever seeing an elephant style power consist arrive in or depart from Denver.  Chicago-Denver Es were as much a part of the suburban unit pool as were Chicago-Twin Cities units, so there has to be some reason for this difference in operational procedure.


Hol




From: CBQ@yahoogroups.com <CBQ@yahoogroups.com> on behalf of thommack@yahoo.com [CBQ] <CBQ@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, January 15, 2018 6:46 AM
To: CBQ@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [CBQ] Re: Elephant Style Es
 
 


Ed,

After reading some posts years ago on elephant style E's I started making note of the Q E-unit consists shown in photos. This was not only for historical research purposes but also because I want to make my passenger trains on my post-1965 C&I layout as realistic as possible. There was a noticeable change, at least in the photo record, of the number of consists with elephant-style E's vs. back-to-back E's. The difference was so noticeable that I started making note in my consists lists of the E-unit consists that were NOT elephant style. I really am not a fan of elephant style when it comes to aesthetics, so I wanted to confirm that some trains post-1965 were still running with at least one E-unit facing backwards. While I have found a number of examples, showing that it did still happen up through the BN merger, it became very clear that the norm was elephant style. In the early 60's photos elephant style was not seen much in photos.

So while I can't definitively show any policy document, the photo evidence definitely convinced me that something had to have happened to make elephant style the definite preference (at least on the C&I) starting around 1967. 

Tom Mack
Cincinnati, OH

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

Walter,

I'd like to see that evidence.  Of course, there's a difference between it happening occasionally and happening regularly, perhaps by policy.  

Thanks for the story.  One has to work with what one gets.


Ed

Edward Sutorik



__._,_.___

Posted by: Hol Wagner <holpennywagner@msn.com>



__,_._,___
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>