Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[BRHSlist\]\s+Re\:\s+How\s+come\s+no\s+E8\/9\s+B\'s\?\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[BRHSlist\]\s+Re\:\s+How\s+come\s+no\s+E8\/9\s+B\'s\?\s*$/: 9 ]

Total 9 documents matching your query.

1. Re: [BRHSlist] Re: How come no E8/9 B's? (score: 1): Author: "Rick Keil" <rkeil6721@h...>; Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 19:06:33 -0600; Thanks! Rick Keil Omaha, NE From Caboose, go south on Broadway (a few blocks) til you see the signs directing you to get on I-25 northbound. I-25 north about 7 or 8 miles to I-36 west (as if going to; /archives/BRHSLIST/2003-02/msg00234.html (10,610 bytes)
2. Re: [BRHSlist] Re: How come no E8/9 B's? (score: 1): Author: Aeolus3@a...; Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 04:28:54 EST; Sure is.... it's really hard to operate a "B" unit on the head end of a passenger train using the hustler controls! All kidding aside, I think the main reason why the Burlington never bought E7-9 boo; /archives/BRHSLIST/2003-02/msg00237.html (8,033 bytes)
3. Re: [BRHSlist] Re: How come no E8/9 B's? (score: 1): Author: "Charlie Vlk" <cvlk@a...>; Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 08:39:55 -0600; An interesting question. Suburban Service is an obvious answer, but does the logic really apply? The Pooling of Suburban power didn't start until when?? Well after all the E7s were purchased and by t; /archives/BRHSLIST/2003-02/msg00239.html (9,917 bytes)
4. Re: [BRHSlist] Re: How come no E8/9 B's? (score: 1): Author: "Charlie Vlk" <cvlk@a...>; Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 13:03:54 -0600; Pure conjecture on my part..... They probably found that an AA set was superior to a AB set in that they did not require turning. Also the "hostlers" controls had to be a pain to use as compared to a; /archives/BRHSLIST/2003-02/msg00243.html (10,138 bytes)
5. Re: [BRHSlist] Re: How come no E8/9 B's? (score: 1): Author: Val Nelson <super-chief-val@c...>; Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 13:25:55 -0600; In regards to B-units, according the the Burlington Bulletin #10, page 5, author Jim Sandrin states of the E5-B's: "Very quickly, the Q learned just how inflexible an E B-unit could be in passenger s; /archives/BRHSLIST/2003-02/msg00244.html (11,221 bytes)
6. Re: [BRHSlist] Re: How come no E8/9 B's? (score: 1): Author: Bill Hirt <whirt@a...>; Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 15:54:59 -0600; Charlie -- What "operational experience" with the E5 B units do you mean? Are you saying the Q had trouble with them? In the Bulletin about the E units, this whole issue is discussed. Most of the pas; /archives/BRHSLIST/2003-02/msg00250.html (8,664 bytes)
7. Re: [BRHSlist] Re: How come no E8/9 B's? (score: 1): Author: Aeolus3@a...; Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 10:54:47 EST; Remember the Burlingotn didn't buy new F9's. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]; /archives/BRHSLIST/2003-02/msg00301.html (7,494 bytes)
8. Re: [BRHSlist] Re: How come no E8/9 B's? (score: 1): Author: "Charlie Vlk" <cvlk@a...>; Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 10:52:56 -0600; The Q didn't have any F9s, new or otherwise, but the C&S and FW&D each had one wrecked F7 rebuilt to the outward appearance of an F9 (side louvers, porthole location, larger cab windows, 48" dynamic; /archives/BRHSLIST/2003-02/msg00305.html (8,731 bytes)
9. Re: [BRHSlist] Re: How come no E8/9 B's? (score: 1): Author: "Russell Strodtz" <vlbg@e...>; Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 14:40:34 -0600; Charlie, As long as you are on the subject take a look at page 94 of "CB&Q In Color, Volume 3". Did the right side of the 169A also have a mix of carbody filter types? Why was this done to this parti; /archives/BRHSLIST/2003-02/msg00307.html (8,544 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 9
Page: [1]