Return-Path: Delivered-To: unknown Received: from mailhost.usrp-ltd.com (10.45.0.93:110) by pegasus.nauer.org with POP3; 27 Jun 2016 01:55:02 -0000 Delivered-To: archives@nauer.org Received: (qmail 6281 invoked by uid 168); 14 Sep 2015 13:43:57 -0500 X-Qmail-Scanner-Diagnostics: from ng7-vm5.bullet.mail.gq1.yahoo.com by mailhost (envelope-from , uid 89) with qmail-scanner-2.10st (clamdscan: 0.98.6/20913. mhr: 1.0. spamassassin: 3.3.2. perlscan: 2.10st. Clear:RC:0(98.136.219.83):SA:0(-2.5/5.0):. Processed in 2.346401 secs); 14 Sep 2015 18:43:57 -0000 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 X-Qmail-Scanner-Mail-From: sentto-17127-50283-1442256387-archives=nauer.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com via mailhost X-Qmail-Scanner: 2.10st (Clear:RC:0(98.136.219.83):SA:0(-2.5/5.0):. Processed in 2.346401 secs Process 6262) Received: from ng7-vm5.bullet.mail.gq1.yahoo.com (98.136.219.83) by mailhost.usrp-ltd.com with RC4-SHA encrypted SMTP; 14 Sep 2015 13:43:54 -0500 Received-SPF: pass (mailhost.usrp-ltd.com: SPF record at _spf.mail.yahoo.com designates 98.136.219.83 as permitted sender) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoogroups.com; s=echoe; t=1442256387; bh=3w3w7uO/gVkHS6jNtM00QpkJ5vCNhADK9Mr/fWloLC8=; h=To:From:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:Date:Subject:Reply-To:From:Subject; b=WkBqtp62P7mZt9+UMego4wrVVl53oJZxCbW/xGm83MjDU+ljWvBCImIeTNsPERCo8tZFkNK17gD2nqqpnAoeVUdm7ctgjvTp4wC7K0boofAfWKDBoMopN7UwVOxsbpwmy2mkilSnsJRLAbEaGbzH6F8mZDh0sQlDVFCU4VmWNVY= Received: from [98.137.0.81] by ng7.bullet.mail.gq1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 14 Sep 2015 18:46:27 -0000 Received: from [10.193.84.220] by tg10.bullet.mail.gq1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 14 Sep 2015 18:46:27 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 17127-m50283 X-Sender: LZadnichek@aol.com X-Apparently-To: cbq@yahoogroups.com X-Received: (qmail 23536 invoked by uid 102); 14 Sep 2015 18:46:22 -0000 X-Received: from unknown (HELO mtaq5.grp.bf1.yahoo.com) (10.193.84.36) by m15.grp.bf1.yahoo.com with SMTP; 14 Sep 2015 18:46:22 -0000 X-Received: (qmail 12504 invoked from network); 14 Sep 2015 18:46:22 -0000 X-Received: from unknown (HELO mta1002.groups.mail.bf1.yahoo.com) (98.139.170.166) by mtaq5.grp.bf1.yahoo.com with SMTP; 14 Sep 2015 18:46:22 -0000 X-Received-SPF: pass (domain of aol.com designates 204.29.186.68 as permitted sender) X-YMailISG: wfd044QWLDsr40h89KZgdCRejAScfBWhdQUxxN3COVmSG2Ck aN05A1BGxfpDCkT5Iek7OPFa3r1B2ZPLuscEky54Csr.J723oTrm6KRlEs6l aBC3NQGDTPUV9Hyt8B691ox2.VTTYlR2C0lPvRxFK0c_ZO7G6mB6qh.62kp_ WIBfMoW9SJN34DM2mq2GA5YRNtYUgMCx11m_xjS_lN4WSGnHNmdwTI89yrQe e4O0fC1JF89Vp16qB0VyKZUXS4LcZIe6BdeiwjtI95pNdaBpyiV99VMWlym1 5WAYJCtw4Va2z_uS0lOyW9iDu7xGZbx50v.3LTMK_2svDAeGYV_qcHg9D5lT RUkVwTo3FcAi0aTucfiQzU66wFajM3csFxn7TnQBq0Fcvtq0j5xXG0xV0CQM WsKs6YhZM2m15UpISktsnCz0KY84CZn2vbE41d8W9wzMUHlrabS0GPA7Zbef b_6SThumGZFX.JfjRhZMMRG2s9CJgLYvvDdTkp.F9j1kREyecIqXQ8jwjIVD StrJaiN18Wo.jkZhYyPp0NfmvlyKlWDMufR1ZrAN6cFkiNpdVBtxGvkkRGmv SbKz3WeF613FCWgrkw5vVq0.WCDTKjDKwLM9AM9M_UhB5_M.HE3yWP66Noyk hgVIbZQ5U80KzeZd0FCHOqpryn3RZwoIGDqQOhFMqMws9aLkwmuv_5JjrLHY gHFBNSX7kK2VcQBknCgYfCwayG1ZhRF5iFOkXHOKfYoFg6UPJDkJC2j0FYXG 91GJr7FLd3eNov_wFiLkhJwFXSsPJVfYltIE4hqT.NTqm7jnnf1Jiy1YABH8 XiL0iEANhOENzKTrnQ7n2QV0pfuP_S4pbaRcR6ReeApfwB5YU33pUpnA9ieW KYC0jXnpzeIBaRyfrn2lULts6q98zByNl4KPqe7rhnAAZSz6nDAC1nUOLIjz m6QZXl9S8zbH.dZMKsG9upzx6a5Q2fFo_aYRL7DN0euecjuv8cKBlueVfTEc k3q03WZ6gFUGqfgdXpRjKGNvzZSdwxLXTozbZej_eUrTIxIfox_Ob4wq88f6 Oo4dx6K1JXsJrgQIjSNE_1pdgC61ME9j265xN6LY8ByQvtXr1k9FLmXM6k0P htPIlJQ4c5yJJkhjPS7heFixOIJ.wyLXKJuyzm3cSieH.l6UDiv641oOG3m9 TcgWzAscrmV6lZU4.ZNg1hONQVi_nm4dl_FZlLXqp0N3eyCzC2MBCBeEFxox RKmTLpx1VHd0Jn5LMBY5D5jmTdtFYKF3z7LhvfJHzsZH4lnPvy2YmNI6nF5O exFc8za3pQVrFH7_sV1drGe1OnQJVKg1sDVgwZDGOL8350T.SQzFXWpUznWf uyG1RGt9_A5RpfY_eIm2hjyJx8VWBJPiZx2K2Pv_pxjsisaWj7c.oAzsf0Kk qxYADoya3V6eupHvZnWFeiPfmv94tPfYbrpiA_4NHj93tvAFn1aQqHLHyxkT rQzPPrH.eHBu_5PR9bCobHbyD_r8Cw-- Authentication-Results: mta1002.groups.mail.bf1.yahoo.com from=aol.com; domainkeys=neutral (no sig); from=mx.aol.com; dkim=pass (ok) X-Received: from 127.0.0.1 (EHLO omr-a017e.mx.aol.com) (204.29.186.68) by mta1002.groups.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with SMTPS; Mon, 14 Sep 2015 18:46:17 +0000 X-Received: from mtaomg-mbd01.mx.aol.com (mtaomg-mbd01.mx.aol.com [172.26.252.15]) by omr-a017e.mx.aol.com (Outbound Mail Relay) with ESMTP id 3A00D3800170 for ; Mon, 14 Sep 2015 14:46:16 -0400 (EDT) X-Received: from core-lpa05c.mail.aol.com (core-lpa05.mail.aol.com [10.76.11.15]) by mtaomg-mbd01.mx.aol.com (OMAG/Core Interface) with ESMTP id 6EE3A38000085 for ; Mon, 14 Sep 2015 14:46:10 -0400 (EDT) Full-name: LZadnichek Message-ID: <1e66c2.2882849c.43286fee@aol.com> To: CBQ@yahoogroups.com X-Mailer: AOL 9.7 sub 3044 x-aol-global-disposition: G X-AOL-VSS-INFO: 5700.7163/105926 X-AOL-VSS-CODE: clean x-aol-sid: 3039ac1afc0f55f715f23c09 X-Originating-IP: 98.139.170.166 X-Original-From: LZadnichek@aol.com From: "LZadnichek@aol.com [CBQ]" X-Yahoo-Profile: lzadnichek Sender: CBQ@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: list CBQ@yahoogroups.com; contact CBQ-owner@yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list CBQ@yahoogroups.com List-Id: Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2015 14:46:07 -0400 Subject: Re: [CBQ] Steam Roster Disposition Dates [2 Attachments] Reply-To: CBQ@yahoogroups.com X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: groups-email-tradh-m Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_1e66c2.2882849c.43286fee_alt_boundary" --part1_1e66c2.2882849c.43286fee_alt_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Language: en September 14, 2015 =20 Hol - Thanks. That answers that. One last question. How does the term=20=20 "Condemned" that appears on Locomotive Assignment Sheets fit into the roste= r=20=20 sequence of "Retired" and "Sold For Scrap?" =20 I'm attaching two Locomotive Assignment Sheets for the period of July=20=20 through December 1960. They date to the time my late father M.L. Zadnichek = was=20 Ottumwa Division Superintendent. Note on both sheets at top far right the = =20 column of steam locomotive numbers under the heading "Condemned." =20 Would "Condemned" mean the same as "Retired?" Note the difference in the = =20 two sheets as steam locomotives were leaving the property to be scrapped an= d=20=20 were dropped from the list. Also, note that Mark Twain Zephyr diesel=20 locomotive 9903 appears at the bottom of the July-September List, but is g= one=20 from the October-December List. =20 Also, perhaps, more interesting are the remaining steam locomotives=20=20 identified on various divisions. Is it correct to assume these locomotives = were=20=20 considered at the time to be stored serviceable with the exception of No. = 35=20 that is clearly marked Exhibition Engine (Exh. Eng.)? Your thoughts and = =20 comments would be appreciated. Best Regards - Louis=20=20=20=20=20=20=20 =20 =20 =20 =20 In a message dated 9/9/2015 11:16:23 A.M. Central Daylight Time,=20=20 CBQ@yahoogroups.com writes: Louis: Usually a locomotive had been stored either serviceable or unserviceable=20 before it was officially retired, though this was not always the case. Bu= t=20 the date retired is the official date it was dropped from company records= =20 and no longer existed as far as the operating department was concerned. = =20 Once officially retired the locomotive was usually pretty quickly sold for= =20 scrap and moved to the property of the purchaser, or moved to Eola and=20 scrapped by the company. When a locomotive was in really poor condition a= nd it=20 was not considered practical or safe to move it to Eola, it would be scrap= ped=20 where it was, the Denver joint shops and Lincoln both scrapping=20 locomotives into the mid-1950s. After that time, however, virtually all Q= steam=20 locomotives were sold for scrap. On the C&S a good many locomotives were= =20 scrapped by the company at the Seventh Street (Rice Yard) complex in the l= ate=20 1950s-early 1960s. And the FW&D scrapped locomotives at Childress but not= =20 Fort Worth. By 1960 the Q was selling everything to Northwest Steel & Wi= re=20 at Sterling, Ill., while the C&S and FW&D were shipping locomotives to=20 Commercial Metals Co. in Houston. Hol =20 ____________________________________ To: cbq@yahoogroups.com From: CBQ@yahoogroups.com Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2015 13:30:49 -0400 Subject: [CBQ] Steam Roster Disposition Dates =20 =20 September 7, 2015 =20 Hol and Group - I have some questions on the disposition dates shown for = =20 steam power in the back of the Corbin book.=20 =20 Where "retired" is shown preceding the date, is that the date the=20=20 Mechanical Department at the Chicago General Offices wrote the locomotive o= ff the=20 books? If so, then is it correct to assume that a communication then went= =20 out to the division master mechanic to take that locomotive out of service= =20 (if it hadn't already been done) and either store it for scrap at whatever= =20 roundhouse it was located, or move it dead-in-train to a central location= =20 (such as Galesburg on Lines East or Lincoln on Lines West) for eventual sa= le=20 as scrap? Continuing, isn't it possible that a locomotive after being=20 "retired" could stay on the property for an extended amount of time in a s= crap=20 line waiting for scrap prices to increase if they were low at the time of= =20 retirement? =20 Where "sold for scrap" is shown preceding the date, that's much more=20=20 definitive meaning the actual date the locomotive was sold to a scrap compa= ny to=20 be dismantled, correct? I would think that the contract with the scrap=20 company would stipulate that the locomotive had to be delivered within a=20 certain time frame for the quoted price to be honored, say 30 days, as mar= ket=20 prices then and now do fluctuate. I've never seen an existing scrap contra= ct=20 for a Q steam locomotive, but, having spent many years in the scrap=20 business, I would speculate the locomotives with their tenders were purcha= sed on a=20 lump sum basis calculated from their recorded official construction=20 weights including delivery at the Q's expense to the scrap yard. =20 I would really enjoy seeing a future BRHS Bulletin article on just how the= =20 Q went about retiring and selling their steam power during dieselization = =20 following World War Two. There had to be some kind of measured corporate = =20 plan on what classes of steam power were to be eliminated first in conjunc= tion=20 with what divisions were to be first dieselized and "why." Dieselization=20 as I understand was commenced on Lines West on the Casper, WY, division in= =20 the early 1950s due to poor water conditions and the high expense of=20 maintaining water treatment plants, correct? Dieselization concluded on Li= nes East=20 on the Beardstown, IL, division not quite 10 years later where coal and=20 water were plentiful and inexpensive.=20 =20 As for classes, it seems for the most part dieselization was first focused= =20 upon passenger and switching locomotives, then expanded into road freight= =20 locomotives. The Q as I understand took a more "conservative" stance on=20 dieselization than some competitors that purchased diesels as fast as they= =20 could be built to quickly replace their steam power. Other roads rushed to= =20 dieselize where as the Q held-on to 2-8-2s, 2-10-4s, 4-6-4s and 4-8-4s tha= t=20 remained in serviceable condition into the late 1950s. Although the Q itse= lf=20 had virtually dieselized its yard, freight and passenger train operations= =20 by 1955, it still rostered a good number of serviceable steam locomotives= =20 that were stored at Galesburg and Lincoln for seasonal traffic surges. =20 What brings all this up is that in collecting digital images of Q steam=20 power I occasionally come across discrepancies in image dates and=20 retired/sold for scrap dates. Some of the image dates can be considered qu= estionable,=20 but some I think are accurate. So, when I find an image of an O-1-A under= =20 steam on such-and-such a date, but the Corbin book says the O-1-A had been= =20 retired prior to that date, I wonder..... Is it possible that a "retired"= =20 but still serviceable locomotive could be fired-up and used for a short=20 amount of time, or does "retired" mean it never ran again after that speci= fic=20 date? I think sold for scrap dates are chiseled in stone and the locomoti= ve=20 had been delivered to a scrap yard and dismantled by 30 or so days from th= e=20 date. I would appreciate any thoughts or comments on this subject. Best=20 Labor Day Wishes - Louis =20 Louis Zadnichek II Fairhope, AL =20 =20 =20 =20=20=20 =20 =20=20=20=20=20=20 --part1_1e66c2.2882849c.43286fee_alt_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit [Attachment(s) from LZadnichek@aol.com included below]

September 14, 2015
 
Hol - Thanks. That answers that. One last question. How does the term "Condemned" that appears on Locomotive Assignment Sheets fit into the roster sequence of "Retired" and "Sold For Scrap?"
 
I'm attaching two Locomotive Assignment Sheets for the period of July through December 1960. They date to the time my late father M.L. Zadnichek was Ottumwa Division Superintendent. Note on both sheets at top far right the column of steam locomotive numbers under the heading "Condemned."
 
Would "Condemned" mean the same as "Retired?" Note the difference in the two sheets as steam locomotives were leaving the property to be scrapped and were dropped from the list. Also, note that Mark Twain Zephyr diesel locomotive 9903 appears at the bottom of the July-September List, but is gone from the October-December List.
 
Also, perhaps, more interesting are the remaining steam locomotives identified on various divisions. Is it correct to assume these locomotives were considered at the time to be stored serviceable with the exception of No. 35 that is clearly marked Exhibition Engine (Exh. Eng.)? Your thoughts and comments would be appreciated. Best Regards - Louis       
 
 
 
In a message dated 9/9/2015 11:16:23 A.M. Central Daylight Time, CBQ@yahoogroups.com writes:


Louis:
 
Usually a locomotive had been stored either serviceable or unserviceable before it was officially retired, though this was not always the case.  But the date retired is the official date it was dropped from company records and no longer existed as far as the operating department was concerned.  Once officially retired the locomotive was usually pretty quickly sold for scrap and moved to the property of the purchaser, or moved to Eola and scrapped by the company.  When a locomotive was in really poor condition and it was not considered practical or safe to move it to Eola, it would be scrapped where it was, the Denver joint shops and Lincoln both scrapping locomotives into the mid-1950s.  After that time, however, virtually all Q steam locomotives were sold for scrap.  On the C&S a good many locomotives were scrapped by the company at the Seventh Street (Rice Yard) complex in the late 1950s-early 1960s.  And the FW&D scrapped locomotives at Childress but not Fort Worth.  By 1960 the Q was selling everything to Northwest Steel & Wire at Sterling, Ill., while the C&S and FW&D were shipping locomotives to Commercial Metals Co. in Houston.
 
Hol
 

To: cbq@yahoogroups.com
From: CBQ@yahoogroups.com
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2015 13:30:49 -0400
Subject: [CBQ] Steam Roster Disposition Dates

 
September 7, 2015
 
Hol and Group - I have some questions on the disposition dates shown for steam power in the back of the Corbin book.
 
Where "retired" is shown preceding the date, is that the date the Mechanical Department at the Chicago General Offices wrote the locomotive off the books?  If so, then is it correct to assume that a communication then went out to the division master mechanic to take that locomotive out of service (if it hadn't already been done) and either store it for scrap at whatever roundhouse it was located, or move it dead-in-train to a central location (such as Galesburg on Lines East or Lincoln on Lines West) for eventual sale as scrap? Continuing, isn't it possible that a locomotive after being "retired" could stay on the property for an extended amount of time in a scrap line waiting for scrap prices to increase if they were low at the time of retirement?
 
Where "sold for scrap" is shown preceding the date, that's much more definitive meaning the actual date the locomotive was sold to a scrap company to be dismantled, correct? I would think that the contract with the scrap company would stipulate that the locomotive had to be delivered within a certain time frame for the quoted price to be honored, say 30 days, as market prices then and now do fluctuate. I've never seen an existing scrap contract for a Q steam locomotive, but, having spent many years in the scrap business, I would speculate the locomotives with their tenders were purchased on a lump sum basis calculated from their recorded official construction weights including delivery at the Q's expense to the scrap yard.
 
I would really enjoy seeing a future BRHS Bulletin article on just how the Q went about retiring and selling their steam power during dieselization following World War Two. There had to be some kind of measured corporate plan on what classes of steam power were to be eliminated first in conjunction with what divisions were to be first dieselized and "why." Dieselization as I understand was commenced on Lines West on the Casper, WY, division in the early 1950s due to poor water conditions and the high expense of maintaining water treatment plants, correct? Dieselization concluded on Lines East on the Beardstown, IL, division not quite 10 years later where coal and water were plentiful and inexpensive.
 
As for classes, it seems for the most part dieselization was first focused upon passenger and switching locomotives, then expanded into road freight locomotives. The Q as I understand took a more "conservative" stance on dieselization than some competitors that purchased diesels as fast as they could be built to quickly replace their steam power. Other roads rushed to dieselize where as the Q held-on to 2-8-2s, 2-10-4s, 4-6-4s and 4-8-4s that remained in serviceable condition into the late 1950s. Although the Q itself had virtually dieselized its yard, freight and passenger train operations by 1955, it still rostered a good number of serviceable steam locomotives that were stored at Galesburg and Lincoln for seasonal traffic surges.
 
What brings all this up is that in collecting digital images of Q steam power I occasionally come across discrepancies in image dates and retired/sold for scrap dates. Some of the image dates can be considered questionable, but some I think are accurate. So, when I find an image of an O-1-A under steam on such-and-such a date, but the Corbin book says the O-1-A had been retired prior to that date, I wonder..... Is it possible that a "retired" but still serviceable locomotive could be fired-up and used for a short amount of time, or does "retired" mean it never ran again after that specific date?  I think sold for scrap dates are chiseled in stone and the locomotive had been delivered to a scrap yard and dismantled by 30 or so days from the date. I would appreciate any thoughts or comments on this subject. Best Labor Day Wishes - Louis
 
Louis Zadnichek II
Fairhope, AL
 
 
 
   
 
      




__._,_.___

Attachment(s) from LZadnichek@aol.com | View attachments on the web

2 of 2 Photo(s)


__,_._,___
--part1_1e66c2.2882849c.43286fee_alt_boundary--