Hi Don good arguements lets say we could go back to 1937 Mr Boden and his
engineering are considering new power for Calgary- Revelstoke . The first
simple articulated locos are out on Union Pacific Challengers there might
have been a another simple articulated out even sooner . Do you go for what
you know has worked the 2-10 -4 or do we build an experiment that will
require lots of testing and time and the former experiment of 0-6-6-0 ended
up rebuilt as 2-10-0 . The spiral tunnels are part of the line and dictate
clearances that pardon the pun are carved in stone . The cost of modifying
the upper and lower sprial tunnel would be prohibitive . So stick to what
works just more units to do the job Also the depression was ending senior
Canadian Pacfic were not sold on the diesel concept . I have read the story
of the 8000, well NYC tried the high pressure concept and the european
railways .It did not catch on anywhere . However I really wonder if the 8000
had run out of Montreal to Smith Falls and been able to receive the TLC it
needed from the machine shop wizzards in the Angus Shops could it have
worked ?? Proably yes because you would have the CPR engineering staff . and
Montreal locomotive and the engineering departments of McGill and Queens a
couple of hours away. Not a 3 day train trip away. Without the shop support
of the Angus shops . I feel that the locomotive was not a techinal flop but
a victum of location for testing . The Montreal -Windsor corridor could
supply enough traffic for using the 8000 for dragging 100 car plus freights
. When it comes to the after WW2 designs I did not know any actual published
drawings of the 4-4-4-4 design that has allways made me curious and a semi
streamlined 4-8-4 this I got to see. Now heat in the cabs and gas in the
Spiral tunnels and the Connaught Tunnel was a big problem and diesels came
early to the mountians because of this and a lot of other reasons . To have
built more Selkirks in 1949 speaks very highly of their design and Canadian
Pacfics commitment to steam fregards DAVID HILL
----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Thomas" <thomasd@xxxxxxx>
To: <cpsig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 5:38 AM
Subject: Re: [cpsig] Re: Canadian Railways Observations
Dave, you have covered a number of topics hurriedly in a short space but haven't fleshed any of them out. With the benefit of a certain amount of experience I can affirm that your comments do not come close to reflecting "CPR history the way it was". I would offer some detailed points that I hope will help establish the truth to the extent it can be fully known at this late date.
You mention RA Boden, whom I believe must be Henry Blaine Bowen, CP's Chief of Motive Power & Rolling Stock from 1928 to 1949.
H.B. Bowen's staff tried out plans for a revised 4-8-4 and 4-4-4-4 but there is no evidence that they were intended to "replace" 3100 and 3101. Those engines might or might not have been displaced from their assignment to trains 21 and 22 and sent elsewhere but it is impossible to say now unless somebody has evidence of such intention in the planning stage. Otherwise the operating department would have decided which engines best fit each assignment after testing the new ones in service. Even if the new engines proved better than 3100-01 on 21&22, they might not have been assigned to the service if experience showed they would be more effective on other trains. It is not necessary to imagine the appearance of a 4-4-4-4 (or a new 4-8-4) with Bowen's so-called "semi streamlining". You can see plans for both in Omer Lavallee's "Canadian Pacific Steam Locomotives".
I doubt Bowen would have been reluctant to propose an articulated locomotive out of fear for his job if he produced a second "flop". (I bow to convention in using the term "Mallet" only for a compound articulated. By Bowen's day most new articulateds were single-expansion engines rather than compounds; those of Norfolk & Western being notable exceptions. CP had used compound engines and discarded them fairly early due to their excessive maintenance cost and would be unlikely to re-adopt the technique.) The question of clearances in the Spiral Tunnels and elsewhere would certainly have been checked before committing to a new design. This was done routinely by every railroad with each new type of equipment with the aid of their company's Clearance Bureau. If a design couldn't be made to fit the existing clearances then they would be enlarged or the design would be modified or rejected. So there is no possibility that an articulated could have threatened Bowen's career on account of clearance problems. That leaves the possibilities that an articulated would have been considered a failure if it was (a) inadequate to handle the traffic due to size or mechanical design, (b) bigger than required for the traffic and thus requiring unnecessary expense, (c) too expensive to maintain due to mechanical issues, or (d) incompetently designed or constructed. Note that these are all different from the problem which the 8000 encountered. The 8000 represented a technological concept which turned out to be less successful than conventional technology for an engine of a given size. Articulateds were conventional technology but the size may have been inappropriate for the job at hand.
You imply that Bowen's superiors considered the 8000 to be a mistake that he was responsible for, and they would not tolerate another. This involve is something that requires evidence to establish, in the face of evidence that he had the confidence of senior management. First, 8000 was an experiment. When management gave Bowen the money for an experiment there was no guarantee that the experimental locomotive would prove to be better than the T1a. That is the nature of an experiment. Experiments may be considered a success when the "fail" because the intention is to see what is possible. Various very high-pressure locomotives had been tried out by other railroads and 8000 was an attempt to test the technology under CP's conditions. 8000 was designed to be similar to the T1a's so it could be compared to a conventional counterpart on the same territory. It operated successfully but the concept was not adopted for further engines due to its mechanical expense. This contrasts with the Pennsylvania's 4-4-4-4 which had two prototypes built for testing followed quickly by fifty production models which proved to have serious problems in service. It was not a mistake to order the two prototypes, and if they had been tested adequately their weaknesses would have been discovered. Then the design could have been changed before volume production, or the concept could have been abandoned. Nobody would have lost their job, just as nobody lost their job over the 8000.
If Bowen had subsequently proposed an articulated for the mountains, the 8000 would not have been held against him. Certainly if he had proposed a long string of expensive experiments and none of them had led to any improvements, management would likely have come to discount the value of his experiments and refused to finance any more, or if they felt the need for more productive experimentation they could have replaced Bowen with someone else. But this was not the case. Bowen had only had one experiment which was apparently not held against him, and there was no pressing problem with motive power to upset management. So if Bowen had proposed an articulated with reasons for trying it, management would have no reason to hold it against him. If they approved the money the would share the responsibility. If they didn't consider the project worthwhile they wouldn't proceed, but wouldn't blame Bowen for asking.
The most likely reason that CP didn't build an articulated in the 1930s (and apparently didn't even consider it seriously) is that it would have been too big for the job. They would represent a waste of resources to build and to operate and maintain, and possibly involve unproductive expense to modify parts of the railway to accommodate them. As you note they would have been non-standard and therefore unfamiliar to the shop forces. I cannot say whether that would have been a temporary training problem or a permanent issue. If permanent, it would have been a factor in deciding whether to build articulateds, but would not have prevented it had the business case been strong enough. So long as the T1's were capable of handling the normal size train there was no reason for Bowen's staff to even consider larger engines for mountain service.
Finally you allude to Bowen's "dream machine" that lasted less than four years after his departure. The steam locomotive as a concept could be considered Bowen's "dream machine" as he remained committed to it to the end. On CP it lasted eleven years after Bowen retired. It is possible that you are referring to the T1c Selkirks. These lasted less than four years in mountain service, but then were used for several years between Calgary and Swift Current. It is not clear that Bowen considered them special, since they were largely duplicates of the T1b's and didn't represent any special advances. They represented his swan song but I've never seen heard of any argument based on evidence or reasoning to suggest they had any romantic or emotional attachment for him.
I would be interested in any further comments you have based on facts or reasoning that would illuminate these issues further.
Regards,
Don Thomas
----- Original Message ----- From: dave hill
To: cpsig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 9:13 PM
Subject: Re: [cpsig] Re: Canadian Railways Observations
I have been following the disscussion regarding the SELKIRK locomotives .
the 8000 and the T1a,s were not named until a employee naming the class
contest came when the T1B,s were introduced . By that time 8000 was back in
Montreal awaiting scrapping . Now why not a big Mallet. One good reason the
spiral tunnels a big problem with a wide swinging mallet. Selkirks were not
that technically diferent that a 2-10-2 so not that different for the shop
crews . Boden had had his try at different engineering with the 8000. If he
had tried a Mallet type and it was a flop too, his career would be short
lived . Now interesting after WW2 he did have drawings for a 4-4-4-4 Like
pensys last steam effort . These engines would have replaced 3100 and 3101
but the diesels came and imagine a 4-4-4-4 with t1c styling cool eh!! 75 or
80 ins drivers would have been a dream machine . The main line between
Calgary and Revelstoke is the most photogenic main line crossing the rockies
but one tough railroad to run on . Lets face it RA BODENS dream machine
lasted but less than four years after his departure . But thats CcPR history
the way it was regards DAVID HILL
----- Original Message ----- From: "b4cprail" <rr_auer@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <cpsig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 7:15 PM
Subject: [cpsig] Re: Canadian Railways Observations
> While I commend the enthusiasm for CRO, and I've saved
> the last couple of years, I'm not fully comfortable with
> the data they provide. My primary resource for locomotive
> data and a whole lot else remains "Branchline" magazine
> and the "Canadian Trackside Guide". In the context of CPR
> information, if one uses the aforementioned and Wilco's
> CPR website and this list, the CPR enthusiast has a wealth
> of information available.
>
> Rainer Auer
> Saskatoon, SK
>
>
> --- In cpsig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Leonard Stern" <printmore1@...> wrote:
>>
>> --- In cpsig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, ed652gray@ wrote:
>> > Thanks for posting this to the group...Will Baird has done an
>> excellent
>> > job with his website.
>> REPLY: To List: I have subscribed to the CRO list for some years now and
>> I would recommend it especially to the Canadian model railroder.
>> Regards. Leonard Stern, Home of the Montreal Belt Line (CN/CP MTL) 1946
>> all steam and sound.
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
