Home Open Account Help 242 users online

Eastern Railroad Discussion > efforts to save a BQ23-7


Pages:  [ 1 ][ 2 ] [ Next ]
Current Page:1 of 2


Date: 05/02/01 11:06
efforts to save a BQ23-7
Author: S291

Hey everybody.....
I'm in the process of talking via Emails with Progress Rails about the 2 BQ23-7's they recently received (3004 and 3006). They are willing to sell one or both, and depending on cost, we would most likely need a museum to keep the unit at. Keep in mind, depending on costs, right now its just the beginning of an effort, but if I can get some support from museums, railfans, etc, I think we can save a BQ23-7. If someone on here has connections with a museum (Spencer, Heart of Dixie, Atlanta Chapter, etc.....)please get in touch with me off list (S291311@aol.com), hopefully we can find some way to save one of these historical units. Spread the word...Thanks alot....

Casey Thomason
NS Engineer
Columbus, GA



Date: 05/02/01 13:14
RE: efforts to save a BQ23-7
Author: Layshaft

Casey,
The NC Transportation Museum does not have any type of GE locomotive and this would be a unique sample of one. Any idea on cost. I'll check with the powers that be and see if there is something in the budget. With the Backshop project starting this month, money is tight along with the NC state budget.



Date: 05/02/01 13:21
RE: efforts to save a BQ23-7
Author: lakecities

If anyone has connections at General Electric, maybe they can persuade the company to help save this historic diesel.



Date: 05/02/01 14:32
Unique
Author: skunk

Excuse my ignorance. I don't follow the diesel models like I used to 30 years ago.

Isn't this the strange looking GE roadswitcher with the cab in the very front (sort of foreign looking)?

I remember seeing one at Garrett, Indiana some years ago used by the local. (The guys on this job got all kinds of things from time to time, even the last F-7's on the roster.)

I'm not sure how historically signifcant this unit is, but it certainly is unique.



Date: 05/02/01 15:06
RE: Unique
Author: jukeman

.




Date: 05/02/01 15:09
RE: Unique
Author: jukeman

.




Date: 05/02/01 16:26
RE: Unique
Author: scapegoat

What is the asking price for this unit? Is it operetable? gutted?The market being what it is for used G.E.'s they can't be asking to much.



Date: 05/02/01 17:15
RE: Unique
Author: fireman424

That type of unit is so damn ugly it deserves to be saved!!!!



Date: 05/02/01 17:31
RE: efforts to save a BQ23-7
Author: amtrak450

Someone might want to try to contact the Illinois Railway Museum. But the problem is that the IRM is basically dontations from several railroads and groups. Hmm, maybe GE could purchase the locomotive and donate it to a museum. Or maybe CSX could, since they donated the "All-American Diesel Locomotive" to I believe the B&O Museum.



Date: 05/02/01 17:39
RE: efforts to save a BQ23-7
Author: AGS3299

They're not operable now. When they came up here to Albertville, both were without traction motors, batteries, and lots of other things. Lots of parts just laying on top of the engine on the 3004. Pretty much gutted and in pretty bad shape.

Britt Johnson
NS AGS Page
www.geocities.com/starfighter104bj/



Date: 05/02/01 21:39
RE: efforts to save a BQ23-7
Author: S291

Found out more....
Progress wants $40,000 for one unit....I guess 150 tons of scrap metal is worth alot!

New question....someone mentioned CSX still having 2 on property somewhere...Huntington?....maybe they would donate to a museum, then we can save the $40k for restoration.....

Casey



Date: 05/02/01 23:05
Don't count on GE to help
Author: dickpalmer

perhaps the climate at Erie, PA, has changed, but GE had one of the ORIGINAL U25B test bed/demonstrators on the property at their plant for more than 30 years, being used basically to test paint samples, and despite efforts of those within the company and in the preservation community,. the thing was still cut up and hauled away.

Besides, as this was not really one of GE's stellar examples of a success story, I can't imagine they'd want one saved.

But, it is an interesting locomotive, and really the forerunner of today's comfort cab locomotives made to hold a full crew. . .er, of two. The "Q" held, what, four?

Good luck saving her. That is one ugly-ass engine!

dick



Date: 05/03/01 07:32
RE: Unique (Not)
Author: cn6218

Unique means "only one". There were 10 of these things built.

The BL1, M640, and RSD-17 were unique.

I can't disagree with the "ugly" opinion though!



Date: 05/03/01 08:14
not historically significant?
Author: ts1457

> But, it is an interesting locomotive, and really the forerunner
> of today's comfort cab locomotives made to hold a full crew. .
> .er, of two. The "Q" held, what, four?

I thought CN's safety cab was the forerunner of the comfort cab. These units are a curiosity, but I don't think they are historically significant in sense that the design did not lead to anything else.



Date: 05/03/01 09:28
Not histrocally significant? Yes it was!
Author: jollymon

The BQ23-7 was the beginning of the end for the "crummy". As I recall, this was the first experiment in removing the crew from the caboose at the rear of the train and putting them at the head end with the Engineer and the "Fireman". If the BQ23-7 had been a success, we would probably still see firemen and brakemen on more trains toady....

My 2.42236 Japanese Yen worth....
Jollymon



Date: 05/03/01 09:46
RE: efforts to save a BQ23-7
Author: lakeshore2500

Hello all!

Saving a BQ23-7 would certainly be an interesting task. If we're on a 'save-a-GE' kick, there are a variety of U-boat models that are nearing extinction without one preserved copy. (Yes, we can claim that they looked the same past the U28 era, but....)

AGS, you mentioned some number of B23-7s also at Progress. Do you have a list of numbers on these? Any other GE's still at the facility (older U23Bs, U30Cs, C30-7s)?? This facility has scrapped a lot of power, and I want to verify none of it is on the property before I update my rosters to show the veteran GE's 'gone for good.'

Thanks!

Steve Gerbracht
Erie, PA



Date: 05/03/01 10:03
RE: Not histrocally significant? Yes it was!
Author: ts1457

jollymon wrote:
>
> The BQ23-7 was the beginning of the end for the "crummy". As I
> recall, this was the first experiment in removing the crew from
> the caboose at the rear of the train and putting them at the
> head end with the Engineer and the "Fireman". If the BQ23-7 had
> been a success, we would probably still see firemen and
> brakemen on more trains toady....

If someone can save one, it's fine with me and good for them, but let's not get our history screwed up. The BQ was already obsolete by the time it was delivered. The N&W Clerk's Strike that occurred just before the BQ's were delivered was the death knell for the caboose and full crews. The cabooses were parked all over the N&W including Virginia that had a caboose law, and most trains were run with two-man crews. By the end of the almost three month strike, N&W was handling a large portion of their normal business (IIRC over 60%). The FEC had lead the way years earlier, but everyone said they were a special case. The N&W showed the industry what was possible.

The significant thing about the BQ was its insignificance.



Date: 05/03/01 13:01
Please...
Author: crazy_nip

:>If the BQ23-7 had been a success, we would probably still
:>see firemen and brakemen on more trains toady....

No way, wrong. Not even close. If there were still full crews and cabese all the class one's would be in and out of bankrupcy or there would be no railroads. It was a necessary cost cutting measure...



Date: 05/03/01 17:02
RE: Please...
Author: mobileunit

the railroads could have survived, but you are right the cab was becoming obsolete. only poblem is they don't share the money with the crews that they cut off now. as far as the those ulgy ducklings as we called them. i hired in in 1994 on the louisville divison and we had a few of those floating around, always in trail position and almost always on the rear to the consist. when we would cut off our train in the a yard and take the engines back to the pit i would always ride up in the cab if possible and protect the shove. we had one of those one night and i got up in it. you hit your head everywhere you turned, they must have been built for a troll to ride in. even though they got only one brief cussing from me, i think one should still be saved.



Date: 05/03/01 18:01
RE: not historically significant?
Author: cn6218

ts1457 wrote:
>
> I thought CN's safety cab was the forerunner of the comfort
> cab. These units are a curiosity, but I don't think they are
> historically significant in sense that the design did not lead
> to anything else.

The CN cabs had certain features which qualified them as "safety cabs". They were constructed of 1/2" plate steel, and the crew rides higher than normal in them. The front window area is angled to help reduce the buildup of snow and slush in winter (remember, they're "Canadian" cabs!). The front door also opens outward. Basically, they're built like a battering ram. The F45s and DDA40Xs looked similar, but as we recently saw, the front door on 6936 turned out to be a flaw in the design.

On the BQ23-7, the cab was all the way forward, probably not that safe in a collision, and there was a "trough" through the middle of the cab that could be a hazard to the crew. Maybe it wasn't all that safe a cab after all.

And since I'm ranting... Getting the entire crew on the head end was just what management needed to justify getting rid of the brakemen. Maybe all it took was 10 diesels to prove their point. (I'm not trying to take a pro-union or management stance here. As a union guy myself, I've seen what happens when it becomes apparent that your job is redundent.)



Pages:  [ 1 ][ 2 ] [ Next ]
Current Page:1 of 2


[ Share Thread on Facebook ] [ Search ] [ Start a New Thread ] [ Back to Thread List ] [ <Newer ] [ Older> ] 
Page created in 0.0706 seconds