Hi Dave, you have some interesting points here. Before I address them, note
that CP's head of motive power was Bowen, not Boden.
Omer Lavallee's "Canadian Pacific Steam Locomotives" does not describe the R1
0-6-6-0's as being "flops". They were early experiments of their type built
1909-11 and lasted in this configuration until 1917. They were used as pushers
in the mountains, and not as road engines. They were not unsuccessful as such.
Rather, Lavallee states that they had high costs for running repairs (I assume
due to their mechanical complexity), but didn't provide any compensating
advantage over conventional engines due to their comparatively small size. They
were converted to conventional 2-10-0's (as class R2) in 1917 when they came
due for general repairs, although apparently the conversion had already been
planned. In their new configuration them could be used in regular road service,
where extra power was then urgently needed. CP immediately began building 35
more 2-10-0's (class R3). The most common reason for building articulateds
(despite their complex machinery) has been to provide an engine larger than a
single rigid frame can support. The extra power available in a single engine
compensates for the extra cost inherent in an articulated. However, since the
R1 was the same size as a 2-10-0, the R1 clearly didn't have a size advantage
over conventional engines. The lesson to be learned from this is not that
articulateds were not good engines. Rather the lesson was that articulation is
not worth the expense for an engine the size of the R1.
When CP was planning new mountain power around 1937 they would presumably have
investigated new types of engine that had recently been introduced, which would
have included the Challenger. I doubt they would have discarded the articulated
concept just because their predecessors had tried them out a generation before
since that experience had shown articulation to be unnecessary for smaller
engines, not that there was anything inherently wrong with the R1's or any
other articulated. It is true that some of the early articulateds weren't well
designed for their intended purpose, but others had been good. I believe that
CP decided to proceed with near duplicates of their original 2-10-4's because
they didn't need anything larger, and thus didn't need an articulated.
Once again the question of size is relevant. CP had gone from the 2-10-0 to the
2-10-2 in 1919, and subsequently the 2-10-4 in 1929. They apparently didn't
feel the need to provide yet more powerful engines in the 1930s. Since the
existing 2-10-4's were adequate for the traffic they were essentially
duplicated. This is consistent with CP's longstanding steam locomotive policy
of standardizing on small and medium size engines for most services, since
traffic levels were not consistently high compared to some other railroads. CP
had grain traffic rushes in the late summer and fall, winter service to Saint
John N.B. when Montreal harbour was frozen, heavy western passenger traffic in
the summer and smaller traffic peaks at other times and places. It was economic
to build engines that could handle the normal traffic levels and move
additional engines around to pull extra trains or doublehead longer trains.
Running extra trains or extra engines required additional engine crew costs
which could have been avoided by using more powerful engines, but comparatively
low wage rates made this acceptable at least if only done occasionally. The
alternative of having more powerful engines entailed higher costs to build and
operate them, for trains that rarely required their capacity. So CP did not
often build large locomotives. The Hudsons were one case where they did, since
during the 1920s the Pacifics proved consistently inadequate for a number of
passenger trains. The K1 4-8-4's were not duplicated because they were too
large to be consistently necessary for most passenger trains. The 2-10-4s were
much larger than ordinary engines but in this case their size was justified not
by heavier traffic but rather by heavier grades. Essentially they were just
standard engines enlarged for a non-standard operating environment. In fact
they were really moderate sized engines by the standards of 2-10-4's on other
railroads. So if CP had needed a larger engine for mountain service in 1937,
they could easily have built a larger 2-10-4. Since they didn't do that, it is
clear they wouldn't have needed an articulated that was even larger again.
Therefore I can only conclude that they never even had to pose the question of
whether an articulated could have fit through the Spiral Tunnels, and therefore
never had to consider altering the tunnels designing an articulated to fit
inside them. This, and not fear of a second possible "flop" was the reason
Bowen didn't build an experimental articulated.
It is still an interesting question whether an articulated could fit throught
the tunnels, and one which had never occurred to me. Using plans of the
locomotives it ought to be possible to determine what amount of overhang would
occur on various classes of articulateds on the degree of curvature found in
the spiral tunnels. That could be compared with the clearances that existed in
the tunnels in the 1930s, if these can be determined now. The amount of
overhang on an articulated on the outside of a curve depended on the length
(and width) of the extended platform over the front engine truck, and these
dimensions varied considerably. The overhang on the inside depended on the
width of the boiler and the locations where the ends were suspended on the two
main frames. An engine with a two-wheel leading truck should be able to fit
where a four-wheel leading truck like that on a Challenger would not. If CP
wanted to build an articulated it would certainly have considered the
clearances in tunnels and would have designed around them, or enlarged the
tunnel. While enlargement would not have been a cheap job (unless there were
only a few problem areas), that doesn't necessarily mean it wouldn't have been
economic. The advantages of a larger engine would have to be compared with the
cost of enlargement. The tunnels have certainly been enlarged more recently,
and many other railways have enlarged theirs over many years to meet traffic
demands. The cost is obviously not prohibitive, so long as the returns justify
the outlay. The tunnels are indeed "carved in stone" but they can always be
re-carved if economic to do so.
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
----- Original Message -----
From: dave hill
To: cpsig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 1:55 PM
Subject: Re: [cpsig] Re: Canadian Railways Observations
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
>
>
>
