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 9161 invoked by uid 168); 14 Sep 2015 14:47:27 -0500 X-Qmail-Scanner-Diagnostics: from ng17-vm9.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(98.136.219.217):SA:0(-2.5/5.0):. Processed in 2.633457 secs); 14 Sep 2015 19:47:27 -0000 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 X-Qmail-Scanner-Mail-From: sentto-17127-50286-1442260197-archives=nauer.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com via mailhost X-Qmail-Scanner: 2.10st (Clear:RC:0(98.136.219.217):SA:0(-2.5/5.0):. Processed in 2.633457 secs Process 9149) Received: from ng17-vm9.bullet.mail.gq1.yahoo.com (98.136.219.217) by mailhost.usrp-ltd.com with RC4-SHA encrypted SMTP; 14 Sep 2015 14:47:24 -0500 Received-SPF: pass (mailhost.usrp-ltd.com: SPF record at _spf.mail.yahoo.com designates 98.136.219.217 as permitted sender) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoogroups.com; s=echoe; t=1442260197; bh=WNlyqk6iEtU19QqLIAAl4gHSCvO4hP8iaAui9fKUasY=; h=To:From:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:Date:Subject:Reply-To:From:Subject; b=xy/4oHUT2yhbzoeFTmzQGGJX9ua+JO9yAvnYjf+Is1UTkESDM8UsMZHs651dQbFoUSZHw2hsGWZhpVymnV/xa4VhlOS2LvGpOG3gYARULriDYlDSObCz2lIAMQOyg8oQ4iCmvuSRRJ2UXlWqW8GywR2DGiTsIIW/x74KrRoFA4k= Received: from [98.137.0.81] by ng17.bullet.mail.gq1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 14 Sep 2015 19:49:57 -0000 Received: from [10.193.84.148] by tg10.bullet.mail.gq1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 14 Sep 2015 19:49:57 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 17127-m50286 X-Sender: LZadnichek@aol.com X-Apparently-To: cbq@yahoogroups.com X-Received: (qmail 1935 invoked by uid 102); 14 Sep 2015 19:49:56 -0000 X-Received: from unknown (HELO mtaq3.grp.bf1.yahoo.com) (10.193.84.142) by m13.grp.bf1.yahoo.com with SMTP; 14 Sep 2015 19:49:56 -0000 X-Received: (qmail 24226 invoked from network); 14 Sep 2015 19:49:56 -0000 X-Received: from unknown (HELO mta1005.groups.mail.bf1.yahoo.com) (98.139.245.164) by mtaq3.grp.bf1.yahoo.com with SMTP; 14 Sep 2015 19:49:56 -0000 X-Received-SPF: pass (domain of aol.com designates 204.29.186.64 as permitted sender) X-YMailISG: GI6VA2IWLDv6Jjd0hJ3UPG6qlLIIkbWi3vVK1SbVcGx5YNOQ TeMooi1BqVmRd5iyZ.1KRJJSal45xvZ6zgkjXImfZ3WJNoxEZQ2Nk6C05k5y yMzwnOUPuuj.N5Qn7krwHm70gNEcv9EFWk.alcnCy4NqlY0xKW62QqfJeV8v xlccOVuxwF5xPN4YOHIchwrvZiDp0FETifSa402xU2dkjEE3pFqvzn18Z9Ua 1DTyrIKo_7BYN7wGsUNZr1glMvGjzmiSJ.3IFdQFUmYfM5oWYSZzMPBoKOu8 VCyevqdeqaFK6AyjBub.JNlkeJym_zHme9kkgG6GC0m5cxGPGPnH_6.sslsJ UQd.BrDXKG5oZqlbegyd4nJ24ny4OiO.FpSR8B7FR.2ELCPsgJvPvSDcgGfL 3oRhlfy3J3mP_6Be3rU8Z8mq7i7XlfH_w_L8KS0tWcHJQLhkGlKHmHe5daHn zpd1h_qXqp3eO1BOPqZEOyN3966oKlhjqL8gfodZnM.aDcOLBLES2ls678L3 24hQCi1sfANbYKba7ryx_OqUBijoMpTJeyXvxiMaMpUAKAF.lFyLkteRDId0 tDCN5nh9FiWEnbz9NyFYtU2CeP2mUlaOFx50YiG.hLEbE.nsfLY9pPN1EM2h W98bhsQ59M7LP9dxbp9Py58y2AMML9OhmRh5FrhcWC26zxjWObe5qdbD_65Q mSZS4dlhGoCzUX7kiG9t.Jr6X8_KaqBGDB9_nIA_k.2gM6IqPI8TTt4Tcmzx pm.a2X4SpRlvPzfzaRbQGw2AK1xwoJtg_mil.oyGKF2hwd3tvYbfV.FDvIoB duqUJEWDd1inaNBQSd3prTpF9z5mEbOv6GCkZeOyWqaG4zVeOqXloY3Blt22 OJOZbWizmncKkikJcrJVI3PXn3zbBQiEJeiBvdu2VUXh8lRPw9pkqSaSXm00 UKcbYIcDpm6gV9lM5OPx_QCd0EytCaPDiFTaWXXFKNw5t32rkYDGO5g18_3e 0L_S.iF.it00gnpJIsvg.YKsmP4Y_G6bsfWJ47PInoqHqWprwQUOw.VoYREF vJoJZv1XB_ujHSUIxiyn1wpOCkBsSZoYtC.tJqz2_Z4nuDcXyTRugGa1EP7W IGrKQcWRKDmsP0dPQKmqpds4DQ3.3Hnl5DNYlUdoUnPClquGgP5CyLSrzerL xKjVfdSMpX2vzzOUY68H5T3hQS0JAxlo0IlMWS6e8YKQoSjiPYH5xlCCQbeC ljCg.HyebOTQyiNhZuAnSyMAMZV5zRTooH2uOwGi7FiXm.3BvHJzQZJgBw47 IRma_Ge68ahD7hT0O1L1vMBgQBx1asseuiXPkj_3_758DBmjzD1A2ElknGkT hIsJXyjqYSbeov3X8s2Qnz2IOoDmbLAnUzcHLZeu1pQD.5o6jm..rG1r0KV2 XGZpm0fcVO.163qeHdCZTLVQOcuOY4KiYzPjcGgMlOWO4JjU4z3YVoXiCuCZ Rx8PvXMIUKw2FNjyOuGXs3RPO8qrrdXwttxHTLNBr3nvKayGxkdN59RrwLtP VasgpqwzDW7BYxDF.44X2gsVDbCf6H206VOgq2tj4wr1UmYolUfbilLvAYTe 5NkpwTsrDXmiL_1rKTGPRJub1hnuqEydMfQLzYmZfBVUW5YLDga1w7gKKzkb rpZ9kUS0jw7tWQJpLYMPGQ-- Authentication-Results: mta1005.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-a018e.mx.aol.com) (204.29.186.64) by mta1005.groups.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with SMTPS; Mon, 14 Sep 2015 19:49:56 +0000 X-Received: from mtaomg-mba02.mx.aol.com (mtaomg-mba02.mx.aol.com [172.26.133.112]) by omr-a018e.mx.aol.com (Outbound Mail Relay) with ESMTP id B0799380004E for ; Mon, 14 Sep 2015 15:49:55 -0400 (EDT) X-Received: from core-lpa05c.mail.aol.com (core-lpa05.mail.aol.com [10.76.11.15]) by mtaomg-mba02.mx.aol.com (OMAG/Core Interface) with ESMTP id 4040038000083 for ; Mon, 14 Sep 2015 15:49:54 -0400 (EDT) Full-name: LZadnichek Message-ID: <24afce.7613f347.43287ee1@aol.com> To: CBQ@yahoogroups.com X-Mailer: AOL 9.7 sub 3044 x-aol-global-disposition: G x-aol-sid: 3039ac1a857055f724e22747 X-Originating-IP: 98.139.245.164 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 15:49:54 -0400 Subject: Re: [CBQ] Steam Roster Disposition Dates Reply-To: CBQ@yahoogroups.com X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: groups-email-tradh-m Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_24afce.7613f347.43287ee1_boundary" --part1_24afce.7613f347.43287ee1_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Language: en September 14, 2015 =20 Hol - Appreciate your additional interesting comments. Best Regards - Loui= s =20 =20 In a message dated 9/14/2015 2:45:12 P.M. Central Daylight Time,=20=20 CBQ@yahoogroups.com writes: Louis: Condemned was a late addition to the terminology used when dropping a=20 locomotive from service. By the time it came into use, there was no quest= ion=20 that stored steam locomotives would not be returned to service, and that=20 term essentially replaced both of the stored terms -- serviceable and=20 unserviceable. But condemned locomotives were still on the roster until t= hey were=20 officially retired -- and then sold for scrap (since by this time the=20 railroad was no longer scrapping locomotives itself). Hol =20 ____________________________________ To: CBQ@yahoogroups.com From: CBQ@yahoogroups.com Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2015 14:46:07 -0400 Subject: Re: [CBQ] Steam Roster Disposition Dates [2 Attachments] =20 [_Attachment(s)_ (mip://1670f920/default.html#TopText) from=20=20 LZadnichek@aol.com included below]=20=20 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 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=20 locomotive 9903 appears at the bottom of the July-September List, but is go= ne=20=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 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=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 & Wir= e=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 = off 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=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 comp= any 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=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=20 the date. I would appreciate any thoughts or comments on this subject. Bes= t=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_24afce.7613f347.43287ee1_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

September 14, 2015
 
Hol - Appreciate your additional interesting comments. Best Regards - Louis
 
In a message dated 9/14/2015 2:45:12 P.M. Central Daylight Time, CBQ@yahoogroups.com writes:


Louis:
 
Condemned was a late addition to the terminology used when dropping a locomotive from service.  By the time it came into use, there was no question that stored steam locomotives would not be returned to service, and that term essentially replaced both of the stored terms -- serviceable and unserviceable.  But condemned locomotives were still on the roster until they were officially retired -- and then sold for scrap (since by this time the railroad was no longer scrapping locomotives itself).
 
Hol
 

To: CBQ@yahoogroups.com
From: CBQ@yahoogroups.com
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2015 14:46:07 -0400
Subject: Re: [CBQ] Steam Roster Disposition Dates [2 Attachments]

 
[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
 
 
 
   
 
      






__._,_.___

Posted by: LZadnichek@aol.com



__,_._,___
--part1_24afce.7613f347.43287ee1_boundary--