Trains.com

Short lived Challengers on Rio Grande

1838 views
8 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Short lived Challengers on Rio Grande
Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, April 17, 2005 1:12 AM
Good Morning,
I was just reading in MR that of the handful of Challengers that Rio Grande bought in the 40's, the whole group was sold to Clinchfield in about 4 yrs from initial delivery. Anyone know why?

I wonder what sort of work assignments Rio Grande had in mind when they bought them and if the Challengers didn't work out for that, or if traffic conditions / volume changed and no longer warrented the equipment?

Seems like both DRGW and the Clinch had VERY different operating characteristics vs. the wide-open-spaces of the UP RR (i.e. the Nebraska main). Was that a contributor?

Any feedback would help my curiosity.
Muchas Gracias,[8D]
Stack - -
  • Member since
    March 2004
  • From: Central Valley California
  • 2,841 posts
Posted by passengerfan on Sunday, April 17, 2005 3:29 AM
Diesels especially the FT and F3 replaced much of the mainline steam rather early and since the Challengers were newer power they were able to get a good price for them on the used locomotive market (Clinchfield).
  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Crozet, VA
  • 1,049 posts
Posted by bobwilcox on Sunday, April 17, 2005 6:39 AM
The DRGW took the Challengers during WWII because that was the only power available.
Bob
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, April 17, 2005 7:17 AM
The plan for WWII was Europe first, then the invasion of Japan. A massive redeployment of troops and materials from the east to the west coast would have been needed had the A-bomb not ended the war. Challangers were good dual-purpose engines and it's possible one reason for their choice was troop trains. Besides D&RGW, WP and UP got wartime Challengers. UP & SP and I'm sure some others also got wartime Northerns.
  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Austin TX
  • 4,941 posts
Posted by spbed on Sunday, April 17, 2005 7:36 AM
Well one thing is for sure they never pulled a double stack train on the Cfield. [:o)][:)]

Originally posted by dblstack

Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR  Austin TX Sub

  • Member since
    December 2003
  • 400 posts
Posted by martin.knoepfel on Sunday, April 17, 2005 12:16 PM
Were the Challengers of the D&RGW and the WP the same desighn as UPs' challengers? This would give model railroaders great opportunities
  • Member since
    March 2001
  • From: New York City
  • 805 posts
Posted by eastside on Sunday, April 17, 2005 1:27 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by martin.knoepfel

Were the Challengers of the D&RGW and the WP the same desighn as UPs' challengers? This would give model railroaders great opportunities
During WWII RRs had to use existing designs. Even in many cases these were of other RRs. Looking at the pics, the D&RGW must have used UP's because they look exactly the same down to the tenders, window frames, Kylchap exhaust, same weight, etc. Only the paint jobs differ. The WP's version was slightly different.
  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 20,096 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Sunday, April 17, 2005 3:19 PM
Clinchfield kept steam longer than the D&RGW, which dieselized pretty quickly after WW2. If I remember correctly, the D&RGW already had a fleet of 2-8-8-2's and 2-8-8-4's which continued on Tennessee Pass after the Mofat was dieselized and after the 4-6-6-4's had gone t o the Clinchfield.
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, April 19, 2005 9:10 PM
Thanks to all for the replies. Good data all around.

Sure would be joyous to see a steam excursion on the Moffat Route these days.

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy