[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
Re: (erielack) Athearn EL SD45-2
Umm but what about Factoryville and Nay Aug they were Doubletrack in
that era
Paul Brezicki wrote:
> Good question, Donald. However once Roseville tunnel was
> single-tracked, the Lackawanna side cleared high trailers and loaded
> trilevels (height 17' and 18' respectively), vs 15' 5" for a stock
> SD45 (horn and fans).
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: donald kern <mailto:doubletrack_@_comcast.net>
> To: Paul R. Tupaczewski <mailto:paultup_@_optonline.net>
> Cc: 'Paul Brezicki' <mailto:doctorpb_@_bellsouth.net> ; 'EL Mailing
> List' <mailto:erielack_@_lists.railfan.net>
> Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2005 12:51 AM
> Subject: Re: (erielack) Athearn EL SD45-2
>
> How about running the Lackawanna side?
>
> Paul R. Tupaczewski wrote:
>
>>>Nice loco, can't wait fro mine to arrive. It reminds me of
>>>the irony of EL, the quintessential H&W route thanks to Erie
>>>clearances, ordering locomotives with trimmed-down fans and
>>>low-mounted horns. LDY said it was for tight NE clearances
>>>on Maybrook runthroughs, but PC didn't take this precaution
>>>and wasn't breaking off horns.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>I don't think we ever got (or for that matter, ever will) an "official"
>>reason for this. We've heard as reasons:
>>
>>* Maybrook runthroughs
>>* Cleveland "tunnels" (those big low bridges)
>>
>>All seem logical enough, but it doesn't explain why run-through power with
>>"standard" rooftop appliances also ran on trains in these circumstances. I
>>personally would love to see the clearance profile that justified the
>>low-profile appliances. Was it just pure paranoia on someone's part?
>>
>> - Paul
>>
>>
>>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
>Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.12.2/137 - Release Date: 10/16/2005
>
>
The Erie Lackawanna Mailing List
Sponsored by the ELH&TS
http://www.elhts.org
------------------------------