- 1. [CBQ] Re: Aurora Commuter Operations (score: 1)
- Author: "Rory Murchison" <murchi209@yahoo.com>
- Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2007 09:52:25 -0600
- Maybe a dumb Q, but here goes. Why didn't the E motors take the commuter cars to Hill yard? They were going there anyway? Some kinda union rules??? Rory and then lite to the incline and down two Roun
- /archives/BRHSLIST/2007-04/msg00029.html (13,508 bytes)
- 2. [CBQ] Re: Aurora Commuter Operations (score: 1)
- Author: "Bob Campbell" <amtrak347@aol.com>
- Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2007 14:19:55 -0600
- Work rules provided a distinction between Road and Yard work. Besides, a lot of the dinky assignments were pushing close the FHSL (hours of service; 16 hrs 'til 1971; 14 hrs 'til 1973; then 12 hrs th
- /archives/BRHSLIST/2007-04/msg00035.html (11,464 bytes)
- 3. [CBQ] Re: Aurora Commuter Operations (score: 1)
- Author: "Rory Murchison" <murchi209@yahoo.com>
- Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2007 20:04:44 -0600
- ok, how bout in the morning, was it kinda the same operation? i.e. Depot switcher pulls a string of gallery cars to the depot and power comes up light from the RH? and then lite to the incline and do
- /archives/BRHSLIST/2007-04/msg00046.html (13,509 bytes)
- 4. Re: [CBQ] Re: Aurora Commuter Operations (score: 1)
- Author: <sholding@sbcglobal.net>
- Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 00:16:34 -0500
- Rodger During the rebuilding of the cars from steam to HEP one train the last out of Aurora and the first in was all single deck GN, CNW, any other road that got rid of single deck coaches. Do not re
- /archives/BRHSLIST/2007-04/msg00047.html (14,083 bytes)
- 5. Re: [CBQ] Re: Aurora Commuter Operations (score: 1)
- Author: "Charlie Vlk" <cvlk@comcast.net>
- Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2007 18:55:16 -0500
- True but not entirely accurate.... the fill-in equipment did include ex-C&NW cars but they were (by that time) BN cars from GN, NP and CB&Q. All three roads got ex-400 coaches from the C&NW and the c
- /archives/BRHSLIST/2007-04/msg00067.html (11,699 bytes)
This search system is powered by
Namazu