Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CBQ\]\s+Proposed\s+but\s+never\s+built\s+CB\&Q\s+steam\?\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CBQ\]\s+Proposed\s+but\s+never\s+built\s+CB\&Q\s+steam\?\s*$/: 16 ]

Total 16 documents matching your query.

1. RE: [CBQ] Proposed but never built CB&Q steam? (score: 1): Author: "'Rupert & Maureen' gamlenz@ihug.co.nz [CBQ]" <CBQ@yahoogroups.com>; Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2015 15:18:47 +1300; Mike Couple of random thoughts re. your 2-8-4 – does it have to have a Burlington Herald on the side? What about a lease or a demonstrator? Can anyone prove that such events didn’t happen; /archives/BRHSLIST/2015-10/msg00014.html (16,197 bytes)
2. RE: [CBQ] Proposed but never built CB&Q steam? (score: 1): Author: "atsf3460@frontier.com [CBQ]" <CBQ@yahoogroups.com>; Date: 04 Oct 2015 23:34:30 -0700; Hi Rupert and list, Good idea about the herald. One idea I had was to use a cheap Bachmann NKP 2-8-4 as painted and paint out the names on the tender with black paint and use a Burlington Route decal; /archives/BRHSLIST/2015-10/msg00015.html (16,845 bytes)
3. Re: [CBQ] Proposed but never built CB&Q steam? (score: 1): Author: "Kenneth Martin kmartin537@surewest.net [CBQ]" <CBQ@yahoogroups.com>; Date: Sun, 4 Oct 2015 23:58:05 -0700; Not Q but a friend took a Lionel (HO) GS-4 replaced the smokebox front and cut out the oil bunker in the tender and put in coal. Then lettered it for C&O saying the C&O wanted a new engiine and the w; /archives/BRHSLIST/2015-10/msg00016.html (15,108 bytes)
4. Re: [CBQ] Proposed but never built CB&Q steam? (score: 1): Author: "LZadnichek@aol.com [CBQ]" <CBQ@yahoogroups.com>; Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2015 11:58:22 -0400; October 5, 2015 Mike and Rupert - I believe that Charlie Vlk might be able to tell us more, but it's my understanding that a NYC 4-6-4 demonstrated on the Q during the time period the Super Hudson S-; /archives/BRHSLIST/2015-10/msg00020.html (16,259 bytes)
5. Re: [CBQ] Proposed but never built CB&Q steam? (score: 1): Author: "LZadnichek@aol.com [CBQ]" <CBQ@yahoogroups.com>; Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2015 12:01:33 -0400; October 5, 2015 Mike - This comment of your's ought to appear on a Pennsy List: God only knows what Pennsy wanted to buy... probably duplex drive Big Boys with pantagraphs and traction motors in the; /archives/BRHSLIST/2015-10/msg00021.html (17,069 bytes)
6. RE: [CBQ] Proposed but never built CB&Q steam? (score: 1): Author: "'Charlie Vlk' cvlk@comcast.net [CBQ]" <CBQ@yahoogroups.com>; Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2015 12:02:08 -0500; All- At one of the Little Q Aurora Swap Meets or maybe it was an early BRHS Meet there I saw a photo of a NYC Hudson on the Aurora Track Elevation. I would assume that it was a J1 as they were built; /archives/BRHSLIST/2015-10/msg00023.html (14,472 bytes)
7. Re: [CBQ] Proposed but never built CB&Q steam? (score: 1): Author: "LZadnichek@aol.com [CBQ]" <CBQ@yahoogroups.com>; Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2015 13:44:24 -0400; October 5, 2015 Charlie - OK, you're right, that's what I had heard in the past, probably from you. The NYC Hudson was tested by the Q prior to construction of their first S-4's, not the later S-4-A'; /archives/BRHSLIST/2015-10/msg00024.html (15,585 bytes)
8. RE: [CBQ] Proposed but never built CB&Q steam? (score: 1): Author: "'Charlie Vlk' cvlk@comcast.net [CBQ]" <CBQ@yahoogroups.com>; Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2015 13:15:04 -0500; Louis and all- As successful as the NYC Hudsons were, they were really just enlargements of their last class of Pacifics.. The CB&Q S4 was essentially a brand new design. I havent looked at the draw; /archives/BRHSLIST/2015-10/msg00028.html (14,995 bytes)
9. RE: [CBQ] Proposed but never built CB&Q steam? (score: 1): Author: "'Rupert & Maureen' gamlenz@ihug.co.nz [CBQ]" <CBQ@yahoogroups.com>; Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2015 07:26:57 +1300; Mike Leaving aside the obvious comment or “It’s your empire – you can do what you want”, how many non-Q modellers know what the Burlington had and didn’t have when it co; /archives/BRHSLIST/2015-10/msg00030.html (14,538 bytes)
10. Re: [CBQ] Proposed but never built CB&Q steam? (score: 1): Author: "LZadnichek@aol.com [CBQ]" <CBQ@yahoogroups.com>; Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2015 14:55:20 -0400; October 5, 2015 Charlie - As you mention, the S-4 and improved S-4-A classes were not constricted by tight clearances as found on the NYC and other Eastern roads, thus the Q designers could create a; /archives/BRHSLIST/2015-10/msg00031.html (15,798 bytes)
11. Re: [CBQ] Proposed but never built CB&Q steam? (score: 1): Author: "Rob Manley robev1630@sbcglobal.net [CBQ]" <CBQ@yahoogroups.com>; Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2015 15:49:55 -0500; Mike Leaving aside the obvious comment or Its your empire you can do what you want, how many non-Q modellers know what the Burlington had and didnt have when it comes to steam power. Or, for that ma; /archives/BRHSLIST/2015-10/msg00036.html (15,362 bytes)
12. Re: [CBQ] Proposed but never built CB&Q steam? (score: 1): Author: "'John Trulson' norskeviking@msn.com [CBQ]" <CBQ@yahoogroups.com>; Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2015 13:58:11 -0700; It would be nice if the Illinois Railway Museum could get the 3007 up and running, not sure what shape she's in now though. From: mailto:robev1630@sbcglobal.net%20[CBQ] Rob Manley robev1630@sbcglobal; /archives/BRHSLIST/2015-10/msg00037.html (16,868 bytes)
13. Re: [CBQ] Proposed but never built CB&Q steam? (score: 1): Author: "atsf3460@frontier.com [CBQ]" <CBQ@yahoogroups.com>; Date: 26 Oct 2015 08:39:21 -0700; Responding to an older post when we were talking about hypothetical Q steam Louis wrote, October 5, 2015 Mike and Rupert - I believe that Charlie Vlk might be able to tell us more, but it's my unders; /archives/BRHSLIST/2015-10/msg00222.html (16,012 bytes)
14. Re: [CBQ] Proposed but never built CB&Q steam? (score: 1): Author: "atsf3460@frontier.com [CBQ]" <CBQ@yahoogroups.com>; Date: 26 Oct 2015 08:43:53 -0700; Ooops, I read that totally wrong. I interpreted the NYC super Hudson to be the J3as from the later '30s. If the NYC Hudson would have been on the Q during the time period the S4as were being contempl; /archives/BRHSLIST/2015-10/msg00223.html (13,414 bytes)
15. Re: [CBQ] Proposed but never built CB&Q steam? (score: 1): Author: "atsf3460@frontier.com [CBQ]" <CBQ@yahoogroups.com>; Date: 26 Oct 2015 09:03:32 -0700; Yeah, I know the Q already had heavy Pacifics in the form of S3s but a reworked model of a Southern Railway 4-6-2 would be so much more handsome than an S3. I've wondered for a long time why the styl; /archives/BRHSLIST/2015-10/msg00225.html (14,058 bytes)
16. RE: [CBQ] Proposed but never built CB&Q steam? (score: 1): Author: "'Charlie Vlk' cvlk@comcast.net [CBQ]" <CBQ@yahoogroups.com>; Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 13:40:34 -0500; I am not sure how much the architecture of CB&Q locomotives should be credited (or blamed) on the Q itself. Certainly the earlier power was pretty much stock..4-4-0s and 2-8-0s were originally very m; /archives/BRHSLIST/2015-10/msg00238.html (16,247 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 16
Page: [1]