Dave, everybody is entitled to their own opinion, but they are entitled to
their own facts.
I worked for Omer Lavallee for several years and knew him for many more, and
with the greatest respect for his deep knowledge and insight into railroading,
Canadian Pacific and many other subjects, he was no more infallible than
anybody else. As a notorious example, he claimed to the end of his life that
CP's Hudsons could not be accommodated in service on CP's St Lawrence River
bridge at Montreal due to their weight or axle loading. This was
notwithstanding that there was no restriction placed on them in the time table
or by the Mechanical or Engineering departments, and in fact I consulted a
colleague in Engineering to confirm its capacity. Hudsons were never assigned
to that line but were known to have crossed the bridge a number of times,
including most prominently while hauling the 1939 Royal Train, figuratively in
view of the whole world. Omer's closest colleagues could not dissuade him from
his position with facts. My point is that you should not trust the unsupported
testimony of even the most respected experts, as nobody is perfect. In his book
on CP 8000 Don Bain notes the points you mentioned, but includes the caveat
which you omitted: "Completely forgetting that it was an experiment, we
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 "
In this case it would seem that in casual conversation even the experts can
reach conclusions based on inappropriate assumptions.
The fact is that neither you nor I know whether an articulated of any given
size could fit through the Spiral Tunnels. As I pointed out earlier, the facts
can be determined from dimensions of the tunnels and of various documented
articulated locomotives. I don't propose to do this work, and nobody can claim
to know the facts until it has been done. As a matter of opinion, I believe
that at least some articulateds would be able to fit through, since engines of
this type varied widely in dimensions.
As for the expense of widening the tunnels, the issue would not have arisen if
CP had decided to construct articulateds that would fit through them. If they
needed engines that were too large, the amount and cost of widening would
depend on the engines' size. The cost calculations of tunnel widening and
operating efficiencies would help determine how large an engine would be
economic to construct. I'm not sure why you think that widening the tunnels
would be more difficult than increasing the height. The fact that the tracks
are curved requires greater later clearance but doesn't necessary affect the
cost. The tracks are for the most part on uniform curves, not spiral curves.
Spiral curves have a constantly changing radius and on railways are found at
the beginning and end of all but the slightest curves, to prevent sudden
jolting changes of angular momentum. When you move your steering wheel from
straight to the full extent of a turn, and again when you straighten it our,
you are going through a spiral curve. (If you throw the wheel quickly into a
turn, the jolt you get is what the spiral is intended to avoid.) The name
Spiral Tunnels is not mathematically accurate but it was only intended to be
evocative to the general public.
Some tunnel enlargements involve undercutting the floor and others excavate the
roof. The decision is made by a geotechnical engineer. Sometimes gradients
prevent changes to the track level. I don't know what widening those tunnels
would cost or whether it would be economic, and unless you have experience or
expert knowledge in excavating and tunnel building jobs plus some knowledge of
the nature of the rock under Cathedral Mountain and Mount Ogden, then you
cannot pretend to come up with a reliable estimate. So in this case the facts
are theoretically knowable but with vastly more difficulty than in the case of
whether an articulated would fit through without widening. Geotechnical reports
don't come cheap, although in the case of the Spiral Tunnels the nature of the
rock has been know for 100 years. What happened in Hamilton doesn't have any
bearing on whether excavating to the side would differ from above or below.
The icicle breakers don't have any relevance to widening of the tunnels. The
deal with ice above. The Rocky Mountains contain a great deal of permeable rock
which also contains fissures, both of which contain water and can thus form
ice. There are some unstable sections in thes mountains. That has no relevance
to whether a tunnel can be widened.
The suggestion that it would be cheaper to build a 15 mile tunnel than to widen
tunnels amounting to a small fraction of that length doesn't warrant even
thinking about how to develop the facts.
I agree that the Selkirk was the right locomotive for the job considering CP's
locomotive and train marshalling policies at that time. CP doubleheaded trains
when traffic was heavy, rather than building engines adequate for longer trains
that would be oversize for the traffic most of the time. It was cheaper to
incur the extra crew costs occasionally. The Selkirks were not the
technological limit to what they could built without articulateds, since other
roads operated 2-10-4's that were bigger. CP chose to buy successive additional
groups of similar engines in the 1930s and 1940s, so clearly consideration of
articulateds was superfluous under the prevailing conditions.
A cab-forward Selkirk was proposed in Trains magazine many years ago. The
imagined prototype was a T1a rebuilt backwards with appropriate changes to
springing and valve gear, and it certainly looked ungainly. But decisions on
motive power shouldn't be based on appearance, and if Bowen had chosen to build
the T1c's cab forward I'm sure he would have improved the look. SP did the same
with its later cab forwards, which had tapered cab fronts that were a great
improvement over the earlier flat fronts. (That's just my opinion, and I'm
sticking to it.) A cab forward Selkirk wouldn't have the great ungainly open
platform between smokebox and tender that made SP's engines so jarring (again a
personal esthetic opinion!).
Wishing all a Happy Easter
Don Thomas
----- Original Message -----
From: dave hill
To: cpsig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2009 12:02 PM
Subject: Re: [cpsig] Re: CP #8000 (not Canadian Railways Observations)
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)
Recent Activity
a.. 1New Members
Visit Your Group
Give Back
Yahoo! for Good
Get inspired
by a good cause.
Y! Toolbar
Get it Free!
easy 1-click access
to your groups.
Yahoo! Groups
Start a group
in 3 easy steps.
Connect with others.
.
