Don, the comments made as to where the 8000 should have
been tested comes from comments on page 49 of the BRMNA
book I mentioned earlier. Bain had discussed the matter
at a luncheon with Crump and Lavallée in 1979 and they
concluded that the locomotive was:
"
- far too complex and therefore unreliable
- incapable of generating sufficient savings to justify
its keep
- tested in operation much too far from Montreal
- given insufficient technical support by Montreal
- expected to work in engine crew pool service
- unlucky in its timing as money was scarce in the
early 1930's "
There is more elaboration in the book relating to the
25% fuel savings when bunker C cost a penny a gallon
and the lack of properly trained personnel in Revelstoke
but the six points quoted do sum it up nicely.
Rainer Auer
Saskatoon, SK
--- In cpsig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Don Thomas" <thomasd@...> wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: dave hill
You have some interesting comments on the location of testing of the 8000.
You are correct that it was not a technical flop, but it was never considered
to be. It was an outstanding technical accomplishment. It just wasn't as
economic as conventional engines when all its maintenance costs were factored
in. This was true of many ingenious technical improvements to steam engines.
You suggest that it would have worked if it had been kept near Montreal where
experts from Angus, Montreal Locomotive Works, McGill and Queens engineering
departments could have given it more care. Since it worked well enough in
service it is hard to see what use these experts would have been. And if
these folks had been necessary they would simply have increased the
maintenance costs and made it that much less economic than conventional
2-10-4's. In fact 8000 was kept in eastern Canada for the first several
months for precisely the kind of technical testing and adjustments needed to
ensure such a sophisticated machine was running properly. Once it no longer
needed TLC it was sent west where it performed satisfactorily, and no amount
of expert would have improved anything. It was held out of service at Ogden
Shops in Calgary for several months for some permanent modifications that
improved its performance. No need to be at Angus for that. When it was due
for overhaul in 1936 it was sent back to Angus, but the work was not
considered worthwhile and it was eventually scrapped instead. Clearly the
engine performed successfully without the need to have experts in attendance.
It just wasn't as economic as conventional engines and if it had needed
constant attention it would have been even less so.
The whole point of this engine was to compare it in mountain service with
conventional engines of the same size and wheel arrangement, not to perform
endless technical tests for their own sake. Running it in the east would not
have achieved this. CP never used 2-10-4s in the east except for shakedown
runs of newly delivered engines between Montreal and Smiths Falls. I noted
above CP's policy of using standardized motive power. A 2-10-4 was bigger
than CP considered necessary outside the mountains so the 8000 would be
unnecessarily large for normal traffic and there would be no other 2-10-4's
to compare it to, which was the point of building it. Running it outside the
mountains would allow it to be tested to see how many cars it could pull on
flat runs, but that wasn't the reason it was built.
Don Thomas
