If somebody has some “proposed but never built” drawings in their collection scans of same will trigger the old computer to start churning text, artwork and photographs!!!
I have a couple of airbrushed photos (one of which I’ll have to find for Rupert’s current “slogans” effort….that I’ve kept hidden for fear that some manufacturer would get ahold of them and tool plastic models that fall into the “proposed but never built” category…..
-----Original Message-----
From: CBQ@groups.io [mailto:CBQ@groups.io]On Behalf Of Charlie Vlk
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2018 1:22 PM
To: CBQ@groups.io
Subject: Re: [CBQ] From M-4 To M-4-A
While on the subject of M locomotives....
….while none of the CB&Q M4 types have been preserved there is a DM&IR/B&LE copy that is still intact under cover awaiting preservation.
On several occasions Joe Douda and I had conversations where he mentioned that he had seen proposal drawings of conversions of M1 or M2 2-10-2s to 2-10-4 locomotives (M5???). He also says there were diagrams or proposals for the next batch of O5s.....and that they were to have the M4 style high capacity tenders.
Like the section in Hol's The Colorado Road where he describes locomotives that the C&S proposed, I think a Zephyr or Bulletin article on "proposed but never built" might be of interest to Burlington fans.
I have a few drawings of proposed locomotives but the ones I mention here have so far eluded me. Does anyone have these or others?
Charlie Vlk
PS- The CB&Q seemed to use the class designations as all uppercase and with no dash as in O5A. Sometimes the main class designation was a larger size letter than the class number or subclass letter. Should the BRHS promote this as part of our "style guide" and try to educate Q fans to the proper format??
I believe this has been a topic of discussion in other societies such as the PRRHT&HS.