Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CBQ\]\s+Re\:\s+Locomotives\s+as\s+Units\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CBQ\]\s+Re\:\s+Locomotives\s+as\s+Units\s*$/: 4 ]

Total 4 documents matching your query.

1. [CBQ] Re: Locomotives as Units (score: 1): Author: William Barber <clipperw@gmail.com>; Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 14:33:55 -0600; Re: Digest Number 5767 douglas_p_hartman Mon Jan 13, 2014 8:45 am (PST) . Posted by: Doug, I am pretty certain that the units term came from the manufacturers, but not necessarily in terms of a locom; /archives/BRHSLIST/2014-01/msg00111.html (15,398 bytes)
2. Re: [CBQ] Re: Locomotives as Units (score: 1): Author: dhartman@mchsi.com; Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 20:52:17 +0000; Re: Digest Number 5767 douglas_p_hartman Mon Jan 13, 2014 8:45 am (PST) . Posted by: Doug, I am pretty certain that the units term came from the manufacturers, but not necessarily in terms of a locom; /archives/BRHSLIST/2014-01/msg00113.html (15,667 bytes)
3. RE: [CBQ] Re: Locomotives as Units (score: 1): Author: "Charlie Vlk" <cvlk@comcast.net>; Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 15:02:30 -0600; Bill- Before “unit” EMC used the term “section” as they were trying to avoid multiple parts of the FT to be considered individual locomotives because of the unions. Charlie Vl; /archives/BRHSLIST/2014-01/msg00115.html (11,935 bytes)
4. Re: [CBQ] Re: Locomotives as Units (score: 1): Author: Leo <qutlx1@aol.com>; Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 15:13:04 -0600; Re: Digest Number 5767 douglas_p_hartman Mon Jan 13, 2014 8:45 am (PST) . Posted by: Doug, I am pretty certain that the units term came from the manufacturers, but not necessarily in terms of a loco; /archives/BRHSLIST/2014-01/msg00117.html (16,931 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 4
Page: [1]