- 1. [CBQ] Re: TR2 Question (score: 1)
- Author: "Rory Murchison" <murchi209@yahoo.com>
- Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 10:51:11 -0600
- The TR2'2 were semi permanently hooked by a drawbar, weren't they? -- Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CBQ/ <*> Your email settings: Indivi
- /archives/BRHSLIST/2009-03/msg00195.html (11,244 bytes)
- 2. Re: [CBQ] Re: TR2 Question (score: 1)
- Author: "Russ Strodtz" <normansen@groundcontrol.us>
- Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 12:00:59 -0500
- -- 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 change settings online go to: http:
- /archives/BRHSLIST/2009-03/msg00196.html (11,795 bytes)
- 3. [CBQ] Re: TR2 Question (score: 1)
- Author: William Barber <clipperw@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 15:25:14 -0500
- Bob, While I don't have specific RR information, there is no reason that the paired locomotives couldn't operate calf end forward. The view may be a little more obstructed, but it wouldn't be any wor
- /archives/BRHSLIST/2011-03/msg00158.html (11,235 bytes)
- 4. [CBQ] Re: TR2 Question (score: 1)
- Author: "herrick01" <herrick@krausonline.com>
- Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 16:31:11 -0600
- Bill: Thanks for the response. It's always nice to hear from a fellow Downers Grove native. The thing I wondered about was how uncomfortable it would be for the engineer to face rearward for long dis
- /archives/BRHSLIST/2011-03/msg00159.html (11,980 bytes)
- 5. Re: [CBQ] Re: TR2 Question (score: 1)
- Author: "cvlk" <cvlk@comcast.net>
- Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 17:58:20 -0500
- BobSince switchers ran as much in one direction as another I imagine the controls were situated so that it wasn't uncomfortable to operate in "reverse"..... Charlie Vlk Bill: Thanks for the response.
- /archives/BRHSLIST/2011-03/msg00161.html (12,049 bytes)
This search system is powered by
Namazu