The CRHA bulletins were a lifeline for us in those days and continued to be for a long time yet. Thankfully we had fellas like Omer Lavalee around, guys with the passion for steam.
They were traumatic days for us as well. We saw the smaller roads go all Diesel pretty early like the Ontario Northland and the TH&B. US roads through Southern Ontario, Pere Marquette, Wabash and New York Central lost all steam early too.
Then our streetcar tracks get ripped up, for me in Hamilton, for you in Montreal. Ugly.
Never thought the Royal Hudsons, the 6400 Northerns, the brand new CPR Pacifics, the Selkirks, the 6200 4-8-4's series that won a war, others just newly totally rebuilt out of the big shops, never thought they were in peril, good for 25 more years at least.
Nobody could be that wasteful. Wrong!
A steady march into the blast furnaces in Hamilton. Difficult to understand.
That was just the beginning. Everything (except The Canadian) went to pieces.
Thank You.
You remember correctly Father, I remember that angry letter to the "Classic Trains" editor over the "Interurban" issue myself.
Quite honestly I was amazed at that. I'm not a big interurban fan myself but I found the issue absolutely fascinating, a "steel-wheel on steel-rail" story I knew little about. I still have the issue, it never made it to the recycling bin!
I remember someone objected to the predominantly Interurban issue. It was Spring 2013, I think. It wasn't even 100% Interurban. There were photos of the newest 4-4-0' s in service and MoPac's Mallet as well.
Yes, some people even become violent as they express their dislikes--in an early issue after the first all-diesel issue of Trains (there was a picure of a steam locomotive in the news section of that issue), David P. Morgan had a picture of a copy of that issue which had been returned; the copy was torn into two pieces.
And, about the same time, one subscriber expressed the desire that the magazine limit its coverage to United States railroading.
Johnny
Flintlock76 Interesting thing about smoke deflectors, to me anyway. I see photos of engines with them, and they look like they belong there and always did. Then I photo of other engines with them and they look downright awkward and ridiculous. It all depends, I guess.
Interesting thing about smoke deflectors, to me anyway.
I see photos of engines with them, and they look like they belong there and always did. Then I photo of other engines with them and they look downright awkward and ridiculous.
It all depends, I guess.
Agree. It is just a personal preference thing. Just as some people never like any streamlined or semi-streamlined steam engine, some people like me found some of them incredibly beautiful. Some people from the EU never interested in trains in America, some people love other's countries train more than their own country.
Jones 3D Modeling Club https://www.youtube.com/Jones3DModelingClub
I see photos of engines with them, and they look like they belong there and always did. Then I photos of other engines with them and they look downright awkward and ridiculous.
Miningman I'm glad they removed them for good early 50's. This looks a bit deranged. Here is 2815 again by this time downgraded to freight service (running Extra) out of Montreal. January 1950Canadian Pacific Railway/Steve Morris Collection
I'm glad they removed them for good early 50's. This looks a bit deranged.
Here is 2815 again by this time downgraded to freight service (running Extra) out of Montreal. January 1950Canadian Pacific Railway/Steve Morris Collection
eww!! This is the reason why I do not like the appearance of New York Central's Mohawk and Niagara as well as the late version of PRR S2 #6200. Speaking of anthropomorphism, these "elephant ears"(aka Wagner-type smoke deflectors) make them looks like a lady wearing a dress with oversized shoulder pads! Anyway, smoke deflectors were not designed for beautification but in many cases, a smoke deflector could make a steam engine looks better or equally beautiful, even the engine has a lower profile.
Miningman 2810 with experimental inboard smoke deflectors.Outremont shop track 5/1937Lawrence Stuckey/Bruce Chapman Collection
2810 with experimental inboard smoke deflectors.Outremont shop track 5/1937Lawrence Stuckey/Bruce Chapman Collection
I like this kind of smoke deflector which does not cover the staircase and the catwalk, a similar design could be found on B&M P4 and PRR S2 (the smaller version). I think CPR Hudson look better without smoke deflector though.
Thanks for the clarification John
2812 in original appearance. Location and date unknown except prior to May 12, 1936 when running board panel applied with engine number relocated there and shield logo applied to the cab in its place. Bud Laws Collection
2813 outshopped with smoke deflectors. Montreal 1936 CPR/Steve Morris Collection
So I would have to say that 1936 is when they were applied along with other changes
The future is here. General Motors 754 A-B-A F3 diesels on CNR sit beside 2810 in Ottawa Union Station. These Electro Motive demonstrator diesels were handed over to the CNR at Central Station MontrealMay 27,1948 and used on various runs. Addy Schwalm/Bruce Chapman Collection
The Diesels came and the Hudsons found themselves schlepping coal
H1a 2807 (MLW #68605 12/1929) with empty hoppers for coal loading at Prescott. Ottawa West c.1950 Addy Schwalm/Bruce Chapman Collection
H1b 2812 with experimental smoke deflectors. MLW 68531 11/1930
The smoke deflectors were applied by CPR to only a handful of engines in several classes in the late 1930s, and were removed again in the late 1940s and very early 1950s. None came from the builder so equipped.
John
2808 brand new ex MLW. December 1929. CPR/Steve Morris Collection
First of ten H1b 2810 (MLW #68529 11/1930) in official photograph. Canadian Pacific Railway/Bud Laws Collection
These are Builders photos of first batch 2800-2809 and second batch 2810-2819 with no smoke deflectors so I'm thinking the picture of 2800 with the smoke deflectors is from a later shopping and not the original builders photo.
Miningman H1a 2800 (first of ten) fresh out of Angus shops poses for its official photograph. MLW 68058 11/1929 (Canadian Pacific Railway/Walter Pfefferle Collection)
MLW 68058 11/1929 (Canadian Pacific Railway/Walter Pfefferle Collection)
This is of more interest, I think, than it's getting.
First, this date is a year or more before the NRC research into smoke-lifting streamlining. Second, those ears are very similar to (much later) developments on, for example, UP and NYC in shape and size, and I can't imagine the Canadian Pacific examples performing much differently in practice. There has to be more to this story.
I think the fact that the ears were removed within a few years (I presume usually at the next visit to main shops) speaks to how beneficial they proved to be.
I wonder how those elephant ears worked out in the long run? Maybe not so well?
From what I've read how effective "ears" were depended on a lot of variables such as locomotive configuration and usual operating speeds.
Geez I wonder who ended up with that after all the years.
Here is 2816 before it achieved fame , in regular service in those dying days of steam '59-'60.
FYI 2819 was the last of the non-streamlined Hudsons 2800-2819. Scroll to bottom pic.
H1b 2816 (MLW #68535 12/1930) when it was just another 2800. Who would have ever guessed its future?On the table at the Glen off the suburban train below. 6/22/1959 Bob Krone
2816 with suburban (commuter) train from Rigaud at Montreal West. 6/22/1959 Bob Krone
2816 Gallery
H1b 2819 last standard 2800. MLW 68538 12/1930 Montreal April 1952 Bruce Chapman Collection
Here is the first one 2800, just out of the Angus shops with some big honkin' elephant ears.
H1a 2800 (first of ten) fresh out of Angus shops poses for its official photograph. MLW 68058 11/1929 Note the background whiteout of shop. Canadian Pacific Railway/Walter Pfefferle Collection
Fr.Al I'd like to see both that engine and the Jubilee up and running. Does anyone know about the status of the B&M Pacific being restored? Is that the engine that used to be displayed outside the Boston Museum of Science? When I went to school in New Hampshire, I used to hitchhike down there to see it. There was a retired B&M engineer on duty there. He told me,"Son, you don't want to go into railroading. It's all finished." This was in 1970, when the B&M was just about finished.
I'd like to see both that engine and the Jubilee up and running. Does anyone know about the status of the B&M Pacific being restored? Is that the engine that used to be displayed outside the Boston Museum of Science? When I went to school in New Hampshire, I used to hitchhike down there to see it. There was a retired B&M engineer on duty there. He told me,"Son, you don't want to go into railroading. It's all finished." This was in 1970, when the B&M was just about finished.
The preserved B&M P-4 is #3713, you could find the detail of her preservation progress in the below website:
http://www.project3713.com/the-locomotive/
http://www.project3713.com/faq/
A 3D animation of it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GxbpODotVE
The 'skyline' streamlining on the boiler was removed.
My 2nd favorite Pacific in America.
Fr.Al Beautiful! There were also the CN 4-6- 4T commuter engines. One was Steamtown's original locomotive before the ICC inspector forced them to shut it down.
Beautiful! There were also the CN 4-6- 4T commuter engines. One was Steamtown's original locomotive before the ICC inspector forced them to shut it down.
Yes, that was Steamtown's CN # 47. The locomotives papers were lost in a roundhouse fire in Canada, and the ICC inspector said "No papers, no running."
Steamtown could have gone the whole route of boiler and other inspections if they wanted to, but with plenty of other engines in the stable they chose not to. Understandable.
I'll tell you, if I had the money (don't we all wish that?) I'd make an offer to Steamtown to fund the restoration of 47. There'd be a condition, though. I'd like it cosmetically altered to resemble a Jersey Central 4-6-4T. It'd go great with all that CNJ passenger rolling stock they've got!
Besides, the CN is where the CNJ got the idea for a 4-6-4T to begin with.
NO disrespect intended to our Canadian friends and brethren!
2-6-2T seemed to have had some popularity on lumber and mining lines. They were probably more like bi-directional moguls.
Thanks for that Overmod. Nice depiction of the 20th Century and LS&MS.
After WWII the CPR ordered 600 G5/G6 class Pacifics to replace worn out war weary older Pacifics and ten wheelers. Then Dieselization caused the cancelling of the order after 100 were actually built.
At the same time and for the same reasons the CNR requested a massive order of 2-6-2 Prairies. That seems surprising to me. I assume these were actually for use in the actual Prairies, branchlines and such. Again the nasty Diesel put an end to that fun.
It is puzzling though. Of course when the CPR yinged the CNR yanged.
MiningmanPerhaps Overmod can shed some bright light on why they seemed to be such a weak sister and their sudden rock star status that never happened.
Certainly not a weak sister in Russia!
I suspect you will find plenty of them in use on ATSF, too. Note the special circumstances that made those popular.
Part of the issue is that they had the same basic problem a Mogul did: three driver pairs with a two-wheel leading truck was the wrong compromise for most general service, and the 'better' design was a 2-8-0 on the freight side and the choice between a 4-6-0 and a 4-6-2 for passenger work. By the time a 'good enough' equalization and guiding setup was engineered for a non-Krauss-Helmholtz type leading truck arrangement, the sorts of traffic a 2-6-2 would be suited for were no longer cost-effective for working with steam -- especially brand-new steam with all its associated costs.
The same logic that generates a small Jubilee out of not-quite-the-need-for-a-Hudson quite handily establishes a counterpart for not-quite-the-need-for-a-Mikado. (We can invoke Lewty-booster economics for starting TE and low-speed power if we need to.) Problem is justifying new-build cost for what is usually a niche filled by hand-me-down older locomotives ... a niche often much more adequately filled 'new' by internal-combustion locomotives when those have reached a sufficient stage of sophistication.
Then again, with respect to that 'rock-star status', there were these (which should be beloved of Becky if they aren't already)
Killed off in a hissy-fit of jealousy after NYC asserted fuller control over motive power from 'home' in the East ... although admittedly they might have been burned over the Wilgus use of two-wheel Bissels on the new electrics, one of which got in a massive wreck almost the first time it was run in servlce.
M636C--.Thanks for 2-6-2 Prairie type input. Logically you would think the 2-6-2 was a real winner and as popular as a Mike would be but that never happened. Just about everybody had a few, a very few, and they never caught on.
I think they were an example of 'un-optimized' , if that's even a word, circumstance. What seems good actually is the worst of the features of those types bracketing it.
Something must have occurred in technology advances, as Peter has stated specifically, that fixed deficiencies and suddenly put them, post war, in a great light again.
Perhaps Overmod can shed some bright light on why they seemed to be such a weak sister and their sudden rock star status that never happened.
Yes, that's the engine I WAS thinking of.
1026 (re# 3230) Only 2-8-0 Camelback. Built by Richmond Locomotive Works #2804 3/1899 Built as a compound with Wooten firebox to burn anthracite coal. This engine and five D11 camelback 4-6-0's all worked west out of Medicine Hat.
Only Camelbacks in Canada were these. Perhaps you were thinking of a Tank Locomotive of the St. Clair Tunnel Company, Grand Trunk RR which actually started life as a Camelback. They were 0-10-0's
600 0-10-0T specs. and photo credit Later rebuilt with tender. See below.
St.Clair Tunnel Co. 1304 (ex 601) 0-10-0 Decapod with side tanks removed (1898) and tender added. Cyl. 22" x 28" Drv. 50" Press. 160 lbs. t.e. 58,500 One of four built as 0-10-0T Camelback by Baldwin 1891
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