Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CBQ\]\s+Re\:\s+CB\&Q\s+Switchers\s*$/: 9 ]

Total 9 documents matching your query.

1. [CBQ] Re: CB&Q Switchers (score: 1)
Author: William Barber <clipperw@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 10:05:09 -0500
CB&Q Switchers Posted by: "bdurham260" bdurham260@yahoo.com bdurham260 Wed Jun 13, 2012 5:40 pm (PDT) Brian, I believe only the 9400 series units that were delivered as cow and calf sets, were MU equ
/archives/BRHSLIST/2012-06/msg00064.html (14,460 bytes)

2. RE: [CBQ] Re: CB&Q Switchers (score: 1)
Author: HOL WAGNER <holpennywagner@msn.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 13:30:24 -0600
CB&Q Switchers Posted by: "bdurham260" bdurham260@yahoo.com bdurham260 Wed Jun 13, 2012 5:40 pm (PDT) Correct -- as discussed on this list about a month ago. Hol To: CBQ@yahoogroups.com From: clipper
/archives/BRHSLIST/2012-06/msg00066.html (14,357 bytes)

3. [CBQ] Re: CB&Q Switchers (score: 1)
Author: ANDREW KOETZ <andrewkoetz@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 17:35:05 -0500
Re: CB&Q Switchers Posted by: "Cy Svobodny" ctsvobodny@yahoo.com   ctsvobodny Wed Jun 13, 2012 6:37 pm (PDT) __._,_.___ Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required) Change settings via email: Sw
/archives/BRHSLIST/2012-06/msg00068.html (12,789 bytes)

4. [CBQ] Re: CB&Q Switchers (score: 1)
Author: "bdurham260" <bdurham260@yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 17:55:01 -0600
So for normal switching practice they were not MU'd unless they were cow/calf sets up until the mid 60's. That is what I was trying to get at in my original question. I saw the topic on MU'ing them w
/archives/BRHSLIST/2012-06/msg00069.html (12,502 bytes)

5. RE: [CBQ] Re: CB&Q Switchers (score: 1)
Author: "John Hagen" <sprinthag@yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 18:14:52 -0500
Just my opinion but in back in the day SW2 &#8211; SW12 the switchers could pretty well handle the ,loads of the time. Cow//calf&#8217;s were mainly used for hump or very large yard service. There re
/archives/BRHSLIST/2012-06/msg00070.html (14,102 bytes)

6. RE: [CBQ] Re: CB&Q Switchers (score: 1)
Author: HOL WAGNER <holpennywagner@msn.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 20:43:05 -0600
Out here in the Denver area it was common for both the Q and the C&S to double-head diesel switchers on transfer drags, so yes, you could see paired switchers at work, though they were not MUed. Afte
/archives/BRHSLIST/2012-06/msg00078.html (14,558 bytes)

7. Re: [CBQ] Re: CB&Q Switchers (score: 1)
Author: dhartman@mchsi.com
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 03:06:43 +0000
Out here in the Denver area it was common for both the Q and the C&S to double-head diesel switchers on transfer drags, so yes, you could see paired switchers at work, though they were not MUed. Aft
/archives/BRHSLIST/2012-06/msg00079.html (15,575 bytes)

8. [CBQ] Re: CB&Q Switchers (score: 1)
Author: "bdurham260" <bdurham260@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 14:55:02 -0600
Very helpful, thank you! Brian -- Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CBQ/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To chan
/archives/BRHSLIST/2012-06/msg00087.html (13,956 bytes)

9. [CBQ] Re: CB&Q Switchers (score: 1)
Author: "Brian" <BM4110@verizon.net>
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2012 15:55:01 -0600
I don't know, nor did I research the numbers, as to if these were ex. Q. I have seen some SW units that looked like MU was added at later dates. It looked home made. Maybe someone will know the herit
/archives/BRHSLIST/2012-06/msg00101.html (12,976 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 9
Page: [1]
This search system is powered by Namazu