An oasis of steam for those of us that remember. When you need a break from the world you can refer back to this famous picture(s)
Turcot Montreal
Aerial views 1930 Turcot at bottom and CPR Glen above also Glen and Westmount in second view
All lined up for the Company photographer! Turcot
Busy scene in Montreal (6205 on table) back in 1943. Joseph Testagrose Collection
That bottom picture is not dated 1943, it appears to be mid-July NINETEEN HUNDRED FIFTY-TWO. That is late for such a sea of big power...
Could well be. The 3 photos are very similiar. I believe the 1952 date is correct in the first photo.
As for all that steam 52 was not late in the game for Canada, especially in the East. There was a substantial increase of business throughout the 50's in Canada, a real boom, and even though Diesels were coming fast business was so brisk the steam got an extended lease on life Right up to the end of the 50's.
6205 on the turntable was built in 1943 but it is possible that is not 1943.
But... would it not be very cool to just be there and take in the sights and sounds for ten minutes. That's a lot of superheated steam, coal smoke and valve oil.
Thats the point of the trilogy of pictures... take a break at the steam oasis and spa!
Thank You.
Great roundhouse shots, you can almost smell the coal smoke, steam, and hot valve oil!
Thanks NDG for the turntable pic. The photo dated 1943 sure looks like the pre 1951 rebuild as it does not have any of the features as the one dated 1952 so perhaps it is 1943 afterall, showing off their new Northern. War years...pictures are scarce and 1943, still in the dark days, outcome uncertain.
Yeah, CNR and FM (CLC built) did not see eye to eye, as did most others. Lot of conflicting stories on the C Liners, but the fact that they disappeared stateside in short order is telling.
CPR made good use of them though, even in the mountains. If they were a real pain in the butt they worked around it and kept them going, Trainmaster, the Baby ones, C Liners, switchers. Not forever but way longer than the rest of them.
Raised numbers scattered around very symbolic of the trauma and death of steam. An entire way of life for 100 years not just in locomotives, craftmanship and pride, whistles and coal, but everything almost all at once, ....streetcars, express, mail, local and branchline service, soon enough telegraph wires and the hometown station simply vanished. It was a great loss and too fast, too much rush, a price was paid.
No wonder they were booing the Diesels.
http://imagescn.techno-science.ca/railways/index_choice.cfm?id=55&photoid=2000642451
http://imagescn.techno-science.ca/railways/index_choice.cfm?id=55&photoid=-861821670
Overmod That bottom picture is not dated 1943, it appears to be mid-July NINETEEN HUNDRED FIFTY-TWO. That is late for such a sea of big power...
Remember that CN did not start buying road diesels until 1948, and mass retirements of big steam power did not start until the mid 50s. The vast majority of Mikados, Mountains, Santa Fe's and Northerns were still running in 1952, and that is to say nothing of the hordes of Pacifics, Ten-Wheelers and others that still had a few years left.
Many Montreal-area commuter trains on both CN and CP were steam powered into 1960.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
NDG Misc. Turcot. http://imagescn.techno-science.ca/_images/common/photos/original/CN001499.jpg
I know this thread is about steam but my jaw dropped when I saw this shot, photos of the PA's testing on CN are very rare. What could have been...
Great photos, all of them. Thanks again for taking the time to dig them up!
There are several pictures of the PA's, famous one in Winnipeg. They were even painted up for the CN in green and gold. Model manufactures have made them just like that with the Alco/GE logo on the nose. There was no lettering indicating CNR though.
Now having said that Wanswheel may certainly keep 2-10-4 708 at the oasis but get that danged Diesel out of there, PA's or whatever...shoo!
Glad you got the quiz, I was holding out for another hour or so hoping you would jump in...I don't have a question ready and I'm up against it this week.
Don't worry, the PA's et al have been moved over to String Lining in the other forum, it was time to bump that thread anyway.
They didn't last long on CN in the real world either, it seems that a pair of them would not fit on turntables, and this soured CN management on them. A pair of FA's, FPA's or EMD F-units would however, funny how steam-era infrastructure influenced diesel purchase decisions.
The CV 2-10-4's had all the classic CN looks, but were also limited to 35 mph on account of short drivers and poor counterbalancing (they could really damage the track at higher speeds, even break rails). As they were freight power this was not such a big deal, power was more important than speed. More photos:
https://sites.google.com/site/centralvermontrwylocomotives/home/background/2-6-0/m-2-8-0/n-2-8-0/2-10-4
A shame CN did not order more 2-10-4's, perhaps with larger drivers. They would have been a real hit out west.
An old head from the Railway Museum cut his teeth firing (among other things) T-4 Santa Fe's out west, and though they had similar problems at high speed guys still let them run, sometimes well over 40 mph. At those speeds the running gear was just a blur, and the exhaust one continuous roar, not a "chuff" to be heard.
Meanwhile the poor fireman was frantically trying to keep up steam, with the chalky prairie coal being sucked out the stack nearly as fast as the stoker could throw it in.
SD70Dude The CV 2-10-4's had all the classic CN looks, but were also limited to 35 mph on account of short drivers and poor counterbalancing (they could really damage the track at higher speeds, even break rails). As they were freight power this was not such a big deal, power was more important than speed. More photos: https://sites.google.com/site/centralvermontrwylocomotives/home/background/2-6-0/m-2-8-0/n-2-8-0/2-10-4
Thanks for the link! I like the 600s page.
https://sites.google.com/site/centralvermontrwylocomotives/home/background/2-6-0/m-2-8-0/n-2-8-0/2-10-4/switchers/4-4-0/4-6-0/4-6-2/4-8-2
In this picture of the new FA1's, in the background to the left., ....is that a pre-streamlined Jubilee, awaiting its streamlining?
Also posted this to String Lining on Trains Forum
I'll say the same thing here as I did over there -- that looks Indian to me. Did Alco have export units to that part of the world in this timeframe?
It surely wouldn't be a streamlined Jubilee! That was about a decade earlier, no?
Overmod I'll say the same thing here as I did over there -- that looks Indian to me. Did Alco have export units to that part of the world in this timeframe? It surely wouldn't be a streamlined Jubilee! That was about a decade earlier, no?
Hugh Hughes gives Class YG metre gauge Mikados, MLW 77606 to 77625 in 1950.
Also CLC 2624 to 2633, same class same year.
They look exactly like the loco illustrated.
Peter
M636C/Peter-- Ok thanks, thats what it is then. Mystery solved.
Thoughts perhaps a Jubilee had been shopped/major overall.
F1a without its shrouding shows how small a diameter of boiler these engines have and what is hidden beneath. Digital restoration Gordon Kennedy
Another view of a busy time at the Glen in Montreal. This time we have renowned K-1 class CPR 4-8-4 Northerns 3100 and 3101.
The scene in Toronto at the John St. roundhouse is reminiscent of the later built New York Central Niagaras. Long and lean with smoke deflectors.
views at (Engines in the background left to right) 2457 2461 2581 2827 2811
Canadian Pacific
Sister engine 3101 likely just in off Number 21 from Montreal. Royal York in the background. September 22, 1952 James A. Brown Collection
You know, Canadian steam has always struck me as a wonderful blend of American and British practices, with all of the virtues and none of the vices.
Wonderful engines. One could weep for what's been lost.
The two 4-8-4s were just Selkirks with one less coupled axle and one more leading axle. At least it isn't hard to imagine what a post war 4-8-4 would have looked like: just a bigger Royal Hudson...
CP wasn't too big on 4-8-4's since the Hudsons were well suited for heavy passenger service and the track structure could support the higher axleloads.
CSSHEGEWISCH CP wasn't too big on 4-8-4's since the Hudsons were well suited for heavy passenger service and the track structure could support the higher axleloads.
Well would it not be the other way around...the K1's were built first and the Selkirks evolved out of that, same boiler though.
Post war? Who knows ...CPR ordered something like 600 G5 light Pacifics, cancelled after some 100 were made.
They were considering Duplex Drive and Garrets for the mountains but alas that was all thrown out pronto due to the invasion of the steam snatchers.
But...The last Selkirks were built in 1949, which was pretty late in the game really and lasted 10 years.
OOPS--that was supposed to be M636/Peters quote...my eyes are getting bad. This one:
"The two 4-8-4s were just Selkirks with one less coupled axle and one more leading axle. At least it isn't hard to imagine what a post war 4-8-4 would have looked like: just a bigger Royal Hudson...
Peter"
I didn't mean to suggest that the Selkirks came first....
Just that the Selkirks were very well known (for locomotives that were even more limited in their range of operation) while the 4-8-4s were virtually unknown, although they operated in a much more populated part of the country. Also the fact that the Selkirks had three distinct versions as far as appearance goes had some influence on my comments.
A different point about appearance: The Selkirks had very distinctive cabs, angled inward sharply at window level, while the 4-8-4s had conventional flat sided cabs.
I think this was influenced by the "centre" of the rigid wheelbase on the 2-10-4s being further forward compared to the 4-8-4s, meaning that the cab "throws over" further in sharp curves.
I picked up a copy of Omer Lavallee's CPR loco book in Vancouver in 1986 (everybody went to Vancouver for the Expo, right?). It mentioned a 2-8-4 version of the Hudson which had an articulated rear truck to compensate for the greater lateral movement of the cab.
The book also showed a proposed 4-4-4-4 Duplex which might have been built instead of further 4-8-4s.
M636C I picked up a copy of Omer Lavallee's CPR loco book in Vancouver in 1986 (everybody went to Vancouver for the Expo, right?).
I picked up a copy of Omer Lavallee's CPR loco book in Vancouver in 1986 (everybody went to Vancouver for the Expo, right?).
I wasn't born yet but would love to meet you there (still working on that darn time machine, at least there's no hurry).
I imagine a CPR Duplex would look something like two Jubilees put together, in a very appealing, streamlined way of course.
SD70Dude M636C I picked up a copy of Omer Lavallee's CPR loco book in Vancouver in 1986 (everybody went to Vancouver for the Expo, right?). I wasn't born yet but would love to meet you there (still working on that darn time machine, at least there's no hurry). I imagine a CPR Duplex would look something like two Jubilees put together, in a very appealing, streamlined way of course.
We could arrange to meet up at the 150th in 2036, of course....
Although I can't guarantee that I'll still be around and capable of international air travel.
One memory of that trip is that we went to some trouble to get a shot of the Super Continental but it had a CN F unit rather than the blue VIA unit leading. The Canadians were all pleased but the foreigners weren't impressed at all...
The duplex did look a bit like two 2900s...
M636CThe duplex did look a bit like two 2900s...
How much information about the duplex has survived? Are there any drawings, or a description of expected dimensions similar to what NYC produced for the C1a?
Still working on finding the Duplex.
In the meantime try these on for size.
Another important rebuild program would have resulted in some very unique steam engines; these would have been cab forward engines converted from 2-10-4 Selkirks. These proposed 4-10-2 Connaught type engines were reported in Trains magazine (June 1987) by its proponent, F.H.Howard of the C.P.R.'s Motive Power Department. Large numbers of these 4-10-2CF conversions would have been possible with our proposed larger quantities of early Selkirk's.
Retirement of old engines would, in addition to the above mentioned engines include: most of the Class A & B 4-4-0's, (except 29,30,105,136,144,158); all Classes of 4-6-0's (including most of those tiny D-4's, perhaps retaining a few for light branches); most of the J Class 2-6-0's (except 3011, 3051, 3063); all of the L, M1, & M2 Class 3100 and 3200 2-8-0's, along with most of the M3 Class (except 3360, 3362, 3369, 3379, 3383, 3387, 3388, 3390). All of these exceptions were required for use on light branch lines, mostly in New Brunswick, and through Brockville tunnel, the latter using 2-6-0's.
January 1950 actually saw a mere 34 road diesels on the C.P.R. along with the earlier 99 yard switchers, 1000 HP Alco & Baldwin 7010-7108. E&N assigned Baldwin light 1000 HP road switchers 8000-8013 (14), and International of Maine assigned Alco A & B units 1500 HP 4000-4007 (8) and 4400-4403 (4), Alco 1500 HP RS 8400-8404 (5) and EMD passenger A units 1800-1802 (3).
What newer semi-streamlined 4-8-4's might have looked like had 3100 & 3101 been more successful.
What if the experimental 8000 had been a 2-12-4 instead of just another 2-10-4? Its tractive effort might have gone from 83,300 (T1's 76,900 & 77,200) to 100,000 plus 12,500 for booster. Even with some blind drivers, would it have gotten around curves in the mountains?
This unique type of locomotive, widely used in South Africa, was considered by the C.P.R. for use on the rugged line east from Montreal to St.John, New Brunswick. Double-headed P2 class heavy 2-8-2's were the heaviest engines used on account of bridge restrictions.
The Q1 class 2-8-4 was to feature the same boiler used on the 4-6-4's, carrying 275 lbs. boiler pressure, combined with the same 63" drivers used on the 2-8-2's, and a 6 wheel-trucked tender holding 21 tons of coal and 12,000 gallons of water. Rated at 60,000 t.e. compared to 56-57% for the P2's, their biggest advantage would have been the larger firebox and associated higher steaming capacity, resulting in increased stamina at speed.
Garratts are more flexible than you might think. The frame supporting the boiler rests on each of the driver frames on hinge points, which allows the driver frames to rotate around the hinge point as needed. They would be big power for light rails.
Apparently the reason for the consideration of Garratts involved the friendship of the then-head of CPR with Sam Fay of Beyer-Peacock (the company holding the Garratt patent rights). As this was during Temple's tenure (1921-1928) I would have to rather gloomily wonder if the wonderful promise and then dismal record of the three-cylinder New Zealand Garratts might have had something to do with CPR not trying one.
An interesting point to ponder is that CPR would represent by far the best potential place both to build and try out the double-Garratt configuration (which at this scale, before anyone starts commenting about six-coupled wheelbases, might be thought of as two sets of Allegheny running gear with a common boiler) but Beyer-Peacock makes no mention of the idea at other than narrow-gauge scale (moreover not the Cape-gauge 'scale' that made possible locomotives with upward of 115K nominal STE by the late '50s!).
Those 4-10-2s are interesting looking, and I would have loved to see that 2-8-4 built. Thanks for sharing.
Would MLW or B-P have built CP Garratts? ALCO had the license for any US production (and maybe for the rest of North America?).
NorthWestWould MLW or B-P have built CP Garratts? ALCO had the license for any US production (and maybe for the rest of North America?).
Did Alco have the license in the 1920s? I can't see Beyer-Peacock giving them an exclusive license for Canada under any practical circumstances, as the duty on top of the license fees would make a sale even more unlikely.
The question of MLW (or CLC) building actual Garratt locomotives, as opposed to B-P building them in Blighty and exporting them, is a far more interesting one. ISTR that there were problems with the detail design of some of the larger Garratts, particularly with pivots fracturing cast steel engine beds, that indicated the British firm didn't really have as good a grasp of big-locomotive construction as they thought. I'd also think native Canadian pride would make a license-built local design and construction highly more likely. (And likely successful in operation...)
Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more!
Get the Classic Trains twice-monthly newsletter