Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[SPAM\]Re\:\s+\[CBQ\]\s+Re\:\s+1958\s+Wreck\s*$/: 8 ]

Total 8 documents matching your query.

1. Re: [SPAM]Re: [CBQ] Re: 1958 Wreck (score: 1)
Author: "Archie" <kliner@mywdo.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 22:50:54 -0600
Jonathan and Pete are both correct to blame the engineer according to the evidence gathered by the ICC investigation. I have seen men who were never wrong and when questioned concerning it, were so a
/archives/BRHSLIST/2009-02/msg00020.html (16,550 bytes)

2. Re: [SPAM]Re: [CBQ] Re: 1958 Wreck (score: 1)
Author: "Russ Strodtz" <borneo@19main.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 23:08:32 -0600
Archie, I was at the ICC investigation at Maiden Rock WI. Head on collision at 59 mph with no brakes at all and only flat railroad. There was no "adamant voicing", there was just no idea what happene
/archives/BRHSLIST/2009-02/msg00022.html (17,240 bytes)

3. [SPAM]Re: [CBQ] Re: 1958 Wreck (score: 1)
Author: "bigbearoak" <jonathanharris@earthlink.net>
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2009 02:08:22 -0600
Russ - Thank you very much for the link. I will bookmark it for future reference. Having now read the ICC report, I'm still confused as to where you find fault in the action or inaction of the other
/archives/BRHSLIST/2009-02/msg00023.html (21,026 bytes)

4. Re: [SPAM]Re: [CBQ] Re: 1958 Wreck (score: 1)
Author: Rick Buck <firecad67@yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 13:16:20 -0800 (PST)
I have my own idea what may have happened.  It was stated that Mr. Tingle was unintelageable at least twice.  This makes me suspect he may have had a small stroke and became confused.  Rick   [Non-te
/archives/BRHSLIST/2009-02/msg00028.html (10,871 bytes)

5. Re:[SPAM]Re: [CBQ] Re: 1958 Wreck (score: 1)
Author: richard haave <therrboomer@yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 15:36:57 -0800 (PST)
Two more comments on this head on:   I witnessed time and time again where the whole crew seems to simultaneously go brain dead over some event.   In this case the other crew members said they warned
/archives/BRHSLIST/2009-02/msg00029.html (11,088 bytes)

6. Re: [SPAM]Re: [CBQ] Re: 1958 Wreck (score: 1)
Author: "Russ Strodtz" <borneo@19main.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 18:16:03 -0600
Rick, Same question. Have four other members of the crew. Are you saying all five train crews are confused? Rule S-87 means just what it says. Also check out the Conductor on Rule 1009. Radio Systems
/archives/BRHSLIST/2009-02/msg00031.html (12,332 bytes)

7. Re: [SPAM]Re: [CBQ] Re: 1958 Wreck (score: 1)
Author: STEVEN HOLDING <sholding@sbcglobal.net>
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 20:52:24 -0800 (PST)
We listened to the Radio tape at Journeryman's Training in KC the first year the BRHS met in KC and it would raise the hair on your neck is was so scary SJH Rick, Same question. Have four other membe
/archives/BRHSLIST/2009-02/msg00037.html (12,567 bytes)

8. Re: [SPAM]Re: [CBQ] Re: 1958 Wreck (score: 1)
Author: Rick Buck <firecad67@yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 11:16:35 -0800 (PST)
No. I just believe the others just put too much faith in a seasoned engineer. Rick Rick, Same question. Have four other members of the crew. Are you saying all five train crews are confused? [Non-tex
/archives/BRHSLIST/2009-02/msg00049.html (11,281 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 8
Page: [1]
This search system is powered by Namazu