Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CBQ\]\s+Coal\s+for\s+Denver\'s\s+Engines\:\s+CB\&Q\s+vs\.\s+C\&S\,\s+Bituminous\s+vs\.\s+Lignite\s*$/: 8 ]

Total 8 documents matching your query.

1. [CBQ] Coal for Denver's Engines: CB&Q vs. C&S, Bituminous vs. Lignite (score: 1)
Author: "jonathanharris@earthlink.net [CBQ]" <CBQ@yahoogroups.com>
Date: 31 Dec 2014 12:49:18 -0800
Here are a few related questions that have puzzled me for a long time. Burlington Bulletin No. 29 (on the Q consolidations still perhaps my all-time favorite Bulletin) has a section discussing the so
/archives/BRHSLIST/2014-12/msg00238.html (18,079 bytes)

2. RE: [CBQ] Coal for Denver's Engines: CB&Q vs. C&S, Bituminous vs. Lignite (score: 1)
Author: "Hol Wagner holpennywagner@msn.com [CBQ]" <CBQ@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2014 16:26:58 -0700
Jonathan: Excellent observations, good questions. I'll try to answer them. First off, the C&S did not, at any time in its existence, burn lignite except in emergencies. Standard gauge locomotives alw
/archives/BRHSLIST/2014-12/msg00241.html (22,734 bytes)

3. RE: [CBQ] Coal for Denver's Engines: CB&Q vs. C&S, Bituminous vs. Lignite (score: 1)
Author: "jonathanharris@earthlink.net [CBQ]" <CBQ@yahoogroups.com>
Date: 31 Dec 2014 15:56:12 -0800
Thank you so much, Hol, for the detailed explanation. It is exactly the information I wanted. Best wishes, Jonathan __._,_.___ Posted by: jonathanharris@earthlink.net Visit Your Group New Members 1 Y
/archives/BRHSLIST/2014-12/msg00244.html (13,110 bytes)

4. RE: [CBQ] Coal for Denver's Engines: CB&Q vs. C&S, Bituminous vs. Lignite (score: 1)
Author: "'Harold Huber' sarge9@bresnan.net [CBQ]" <CBQ@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2015 09:36:25 -0700
Jonathan, I know that the C&S got its coal from the Denver Tramway mines at Leydan CO which is west of Arvada. My research shows 3 coal mines within a few miles of each other. I happen to model tract
/archives/BRHSLIST/2015-01/msg00000.html (19,458 bytes)

5. Re: [CBQ] Coal for Denver's Engines: CB&Q vs. C&S, Bituminous vs. Lignite (score: 1)
Author: "jonathanharris@earthlink.net [CBQ]" <CBQ@yahoogroups.com>
Date: 01 Jan 2015 11:05:04 -0800
Steve Thank you for the photos of the Rushton stacks. Those were used primarily (exclusively?) for wood burners, weren't they? I saw something similar in design 40 years ago on a few sugar plantation
/archives/BRHSLIST/2015-01/msg00001.html (13,968 bytes)

6. RE: [CBQ] Coal for Denver's Engines: CB&Q vs. C&S, Bituminous vs. Lignite (score: 1)
Author: "jonathanharris@earthlink.net [CBQ]" <CBQ@yahoogroups.com>
Date: 01 Jan 2015 11:09:58 -0800
That is interesting, Harold. Thank you. Do you model any narrow gauge traction either the 42" Denver Tramway or the 3' Deadwood Central? It might be fun to do the 42" in S scale using HO gauge track.
/archives/BRHSLIST/2015-01/msg00002.html (13,958 bytes)

7. RE: [CBQ] Coal for Denver's Engines: CB&Q vs. C&S, Bituminous vs. Lignite (score: 1)
Author: "Hol Wagner holpennywagner@msn.com [CBQ]" <CBQ@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2015 08:19:07 -0700
Jonathan: You're precisely right. The C&S never burned Leyden coal -- at least not in its locomotives -- but it was a popular heating coal in the Denver area and the Denver Tramway was hampered by re
/archives/BRHSLIST/2015-01/msg00005.html (17,026 bytes)

8. RE: [CBQ] Coal for Denver's Engines: CB&Q vs. C&S, Bituminous vs. Lignite (score: 1)
Author: "'Harold Huber' sarge9@bresnan.net [CBQ]" <CBQ@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2015 10:20:22 -0700
Jonathan, I too believe that the coal was a little harder at Leyden. Just Injected the thought with a ? behind. I have 3' gauge traction tramway that carries all passengers on the Big Horn Southern,
/archives/BRHSLIST/2015-01/msg00006.html (15,335 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu