There if anybody knew about things on the CPR it was N.R. Crump and Mr
Lavallee okI take there word as the final discussion I have the book on the
8000 and i was going by its summary fuel costs were not a big problem in
1936. that engine needed a special trained crew because it was different and
very special . Also one of the T1A,s was envolved in a fatal accident in
Rogers Pass at that time . The Tender got separated from the loco and came
barrling down grade hitting a snowslide and killing several track workers
trying to clear the slide. the tenders was destroyed so take 8000,s tender
and canabilize the loco for parts an engine in those days cost under
$10,000 nor 7figures like todays diesels but You need a tender put it on a
running locomotive and put it back to work. . Now Don mentioned how the
Spiral Tunnels ahe been enlarged I think that has ben a height enlargemant
. That requires digging the tunnel floor deeper not nearly as costly as
trying to widen a tunnel with a freaking spiral curve. if you were going to
go that far why not build the 15 mile tunnel orginally proposed only thing
is that 900 ft deep lake in a National Park. Easier stick 2 T1B,s maybe a
2-10-2 or a 2-10-0 sorry for the crews guts on those beasts on the head end
and tackle the big hill.
Look Go Transit had a real fun job with enlarging the Hamilton Tunnel on
the former TH&B they ran into quick sand . Thats why there was that great
piece of concrete in the tunnel floor a coule of hundred feet from the west
portal. It closed the line for 3 days while the new concrete floor was
poured. That was in a cut and fill tunnel . Heaven knows whats inside the
spiral tunnels. Why do we see the box cars with icicle beakers heading west
from Calgary . The Selkirk was the right loco for the job it just should
have been cab forward for the tunnels on the line but they would have been
stange looking beasts . regards DAVID HILL
----- Original Message -----
From: "b4cprail" <rr_auer@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <cpsig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2009 4:07 AM
Subject: [cpsig] Re: CP #8000 (not Canadian Railways Observations)
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 Lavall�e 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
