Railroads bought steam engines that were specifically designed by the railroad and the builder to suit the railroad's specific need. A railroad might have decided to standardize it's passenger trains by buying USRA-copy Pacifics and Mountains, which would be used system wide, but also might buy 10 huge 2-8-8-2 engines just to be used in one relatively small area just hauling long iron ore or coal trains.
SPer When a railroad buys a large steam locomotive. Do they have to run on one division only for example CNR 4-8-4s and 4-8-2s operationg only in Ontario and Quebec
When a railroad buys a large steam locomotive. Do they have to run on one division only for example CNR 4-8-4s and 4-8-2s operationg only in Ontario and Quebec
It wasn't the divisions. It was the requirement. Where was their horsepower needed, and were the rails under them capable of supporting them without unacceptably higher maintenance costs or outright danger? If that requirement crossed divisional boundaries, and the rails did as well, then the engines could run the route for which they were intended and needed. And, for which they were designed, built, and purchased. This was the case in almost every instance.
Nobody ordered expensive locomotives for the gee-whiz factor. They ordered them because they made economic sense to have them. If the rails were already in place, great. If they needed to rerail an entire route, was the expense of the locomotives worth it, or could we double up on a couple of 2-8-2 steamers?
There are at least two parts to this. Since we are explicitly talking about large modern locomotives, we can easily assume this isn't the 1890s where engines only run one division before having to be cut off and serviced -- but that became the basis for union work rules, including hours, that included the presumption (I believe this is the direct reason for the 100 miles = 1 day provision for passenger engineers).
A complicating factor is that many large steam locomotives pushing the envelope of horsepower production would only cover the equivalent of one division before requiring service -- most specifically, water. Note that this could occur even with 'coast-to-coast' size tenders and even separate A-tanks at higher output; water rate was the specific reason why the PRR V1 turbine was not built. In cases like this, the 'division' system would be preserved, and perhaps crew calling based on it would be, too. A major stated advantage for the early PRR F units was that even with relatively small fuel tanks they could run well over 500 miles without any divisional stop or attention...
I doubt that the assignment of different classes of large power was as granular as 'division' level: there would be specific routes permissible to given types of power, usually for concerns of weight or Cooper E-rating, but perhaps for other reasons such as type of train control installed. That is certainly the case for the examples and locomotive classes so far given.
SPer OK then why the Louisville and Nashville Berkshires ran only in Kentucky instead of the entire system.
OK then why the Louisville and Nashville Berkshires ran only in Kentucky instead of the entire system.
Johnny
Why do you keep changing the question?
First of all, Quebec and Ontario comprise quite a few divisions. One thing that determines where a locomotive can run is weights and clearances. Another, is whether it is oil or coal fired. Third, is where it can be put to best use.
It depends. In the early days, it was quite common for steam locomotives to run on only one divsiion, but much longer runs were common at the end of steam. For example, the Milw would run passenger locomotives from Chicago to Harlowton, Mont without change and the Santa Fe often had one change of power on passenger trains running between Chicago and L.A.
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