Saturday, June 7, 2014

Roper's Snapshot Saturday No.3 | 31 Comments - Click Here :



31 Comments - Click Here :
  1. It's MOGUL Month!! Woo-hooo! Thanks Roper! You are a very perceptive doggie...

    The 3 photos represent something of an evolvement of No. 8 at the TOC. Photo 1 was how it came to the C&S in 1899. It was reno'd early in '99. We think of the Cook Moguls as being the most powerful NG 2-6-0s the RR had but at the time they were not; anyone who is a scholar of the road probably knows which 2-6-0s were.

    Study this photo and that of the Buckwalter photo (3rd) to see how the RR changed the engine when they rebuilt it in June (which is why June is Mogul Month - okay?) of 1901.

    The second photo is typically dated 1902. There is no guarantee of that date, of course, but if it is this is a rare photo indeed! Any idea why?

    The third photo is, to put it simply, Out-Standing! There are two details I find particularly intriguing. The first is how it was painted - and I do believe this was a one of a kind paint job among the rebuilt Cooke Moguls - and perhaps all of them. Estimates of the colors would be welcome. The second detail was that Medusa like arrangement of the sand pipes on the sand box. What other ng engine was known to have this strange setup? These are not the only fun facts about this engine, this photo, and the class as a whole.

    I hope Roper continues posting Mogul Photos for the rest of June. It may depend on the "public" interest so hopefully between the ticket counter and a lively "class" discussion that will be so.


    Derrell

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So, by the lessons that I've learned, the 2nd photo is that of the #8 with L&P + intertwined Herald + solid coal boards that give you the 1902 date.

      Upside Down C

      Delete
  2. Coincidentally, I have decided I need to add 8 to my own roster. It was one of the last to be scrapped, and was moved dead from Dickey just prior to the rails being removed.

    The Medusa-like arrangement allows a pipe to place sand for reverse movements. D&RGW 278 has a similar detail.

    Keith

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Got a photo of 278 with these pipes? The reason for the pipes isn't particularly the intrigue for me. We are use to seeing sand pipes coming from a single fitting - at least until 1910 when the C&S adopted the pneumatic fitting. And usually only one or two pipes per side. Here we have 3 pipes per side and each has its own fitting located at what seems to be randomly all over the sand box.

      If you look closely you can see the sand lever and actuating rod from the cab that the engineer uses to apply sand when needed (visible just above the handrail). Note too that the center pipe is quite a bit bigger than the other two pipes (the one you would normally see on other moguls). You can also see that the rear pipe went down to the rail just behind the second driver.

      Only one other engine is known to have this - that is a telling detail in my book. This was obviously an experiment. Of what? Sure, applying more sand - but how did this work? How did one mechanical lever actuate 6 pipes at once? Or even individually?

      With only two engines using this device between the brief period perhaps between June 1901 and late in 1903 we can tentatively conclude the experiment didn't turn out successful. Or that something better turned up. On a larger scope this was the great era of this sort of experimenting and courting of innovative gadgets. Some of them stuck - like the boiler saddled air tanks. Others, like the sand pipes, sorta just phased in and out and we know very little about them.

      So. Fun questions to test your knowledge (everyone);

      What was the number of the other engine with the pipes?

      What is so significant about Cook Moguls in 1902 as represented by Photo 2 above?

      And then this; no one knows the true paint schemes of these engines as they were rebuilt but I do have my ideas about this. Would anyone else care to share what they think the scheme on this engine was?

      Derrell


      Delete
    2. Derrell:

      I first noticed this on my own model of 278. Consulting photos in Grandt, I do not see the sanding pipes, but do see the valve on the dome in one image. On the other hand, most D&RGW locos assigned to switching service appear to have this detail including 315 and 375. I think I spotted it on one of the K-27s (453?). Seems like standard practice was to provide two sand lines, generally to the front driver. These lines scoot out the back of the dome and are piped to the rear of the rear or third driver. Perhaps the 8-spot was used in service for a period that required backing (Central City)? and the sander was added as an experiment.

      Keith

      Leadville in Sn3

      Delete
    3. I don't have much in terms of D&RG reference so what I'm curious about is how many pipes on their sand boxes and where exactly were they located. You'll notice on 8 that the front pipes are in really odd locations. Why more pipes has a pretty obvious answer - traction. And your particular scenaio is a very good one as the "other" engine did operate there.

      The other more detailed questions we might consider will probably never really get answers. In particular how did this work especially with the front pipes so high on the box?

      Well, anyway, it's a wonderful detail if you model 1901 to 1903...

      Delete
    4. Brother d:

      I guess you will have to survey the DPL images, or perhaps set Mr. Walker on it. I thought this was a 30s thing, because my 278 is supposedly a 30s model, but the image in the Grandt book is dated from the late 30s and the pipes are gone. On the other hand, the 375 has them when she served as the Durango switcher.

      Seems like most of the locos have the typical 1-2 pipes descending from the bottom of the dome, with the new pipe protruding from the back of the dome midway up. I don't have the book here to tell exactly how. They are generally the same, as could be expected for installations that occurred over multiple years by the two (Salida and Alamosa) shops.

      Keith
      Leadville in Sn3

      Delete
    5. Fellow C&S 'ers...
      I took a look at the #8 picture in full enlargement. The pipes that come higher up on the sandbox seem to be pneumatic, the lower, original middle pipe is lever operated and may now be redundant but kept possibly as a back-up to the new air operated lines, or at least until proven maybe? The rear driver has no directed sand against it Keith, the middle getting the sand in reverse and the front driver getting sand in forward motion. The middle driver has the original lever operated sand pipe directed to it.
      As for your #278, copy/paste this link when she was the Salida Switcher. This 1928 Otto Perry view shows the extra rear sandbox mounted reverse movement sandlines.

      http://digital.denverlibrary.org/cdm/fullbrowser/collection/p15330coll22/id/46543/rv/singleitem/rec/19

      Note the dual gauge coupler setup and the neat firehose reel. Seems odd to be seeing her in that service, I think C-16 switcher and visualise the #271, not the #278.

      Obviously looking at the C&S#60 there was considerable advancement with the pneumatic delivery valves from the original sandbox outlet. Sand is the Enginedrivers right-hand man. Fortunately most of our Diesel controlstands had a valve lever that you could put your foot on to operate when things got busy, as they did, usually when one least expected it. :)

      Great pictures, thought provoking post as usual, Mister D.


      Chris
      in New Zealand

      Delete
    6. Thanks Chris, great thoughts too.

      This is the game I like to play (and its more fun when more people play).

      I too considered that this was some kind of pneumatic system and it very well could have been - we see 10 years later that such a system became standard equipment. But I have an advantage, Chris; I know the other engine and while the photo of 8 is too dark to tell, on that engine this is a sand line. It sands the front driver in forward. The original line sands the second driver in forward and the third rear line sands the second driver in reverse. There are a couple of photos of the other engine's fireman's side but the angle is such that you cannot see these lines very well so I am assuming the same arrangement on that side. BUT there could be an air line coming into the sandboxes, somewhere, and, in fact, I believe somehow the boxes were pneumatic - I'm glad someone else thinks so too.

      Thanks for the link to 278 at Salida. I agree this is a similar arrangement but it isn't quite the same since it is "post 1910 pneumatic" as it were. Clearly 278's sand lines were air operated. It is not so clear in this case and, as Chris pointed out, the redundant(?) mechanical line is still in place. This brings up the thought that perhaps the two additional lines were used only when the original line was not enough.

      Derrell

      Delete
  3. Photo 3;
    It is not with certainty that I believe this photo was taken just west (nw actually) of the shops at the C&S 7th Street Facilities. In the background stands a standard gauge boxcar and in the distant background the collapsible storage tank of the Denver Gas & Electric Company (if I have the name right). The engine would be facing Southwest and the camera Southeast. The South Platte River is just behind the camera. The roundhouse would be to the far right well out of view. The photo was probably taken in June 1901 so the angle of the Sun suggests this was perhaps early afternoon. This is important because it would have affected how the colors of the engine looked to the camera.

    I’m not going to tell what I think the colors were until there is a fair discussion on the matter. But to help the reader perhaps draw his own conclusions I’ll submit this;

    Nearly every photo of the Entwined Herald depicts a rather subdued presentation. In fact, many times it was almost undetectable. But NOT here. The reason for the low photographic response in most cases is because the Herald was in Gold Dulux or Gold Leaf. But, again, NOT here. This was likely Silver Leaf. This is a huge hint to my previous challenge at decoding the colors (in as much as is possible from a b&w photo) AND it is one of the points that make this paint scheme unique – but not the only one.

    Derrell

    ReplyDelete
  4. I love old photos for a lot of reasons. One of those reasons is that I like to play detective with them – PSI as it were. The things they can tell you! Every photo can potentially offer some insight into our past if we apply ourselves.

    Every time you successfully(?) decode a photo you build your understanding and insight for the next investigation. I hope to show you what I mean in the future – but I’ll tell you – I work pretty hard at this and I won’t do more of it if it isn’t demonstrated to be in favor with more of the readers. I very much enjoy sharing this information with everyone. And I realize most readers simply won’t know enough to contribute to the discussion. But there are plenty who do. And I’ll admit that sometimes I can seem a bit passionate about these things. I'm not being mean or disrespectful. I revere history and the integrity of history is based on being factual. Above all I wish for everyone to know the truth.

    I humbly add that I CAN BE WRONG so I need to learn too.

    One of the rules of my little game is that if no one responds to a particular point I won't discuss that point any further.

    Derrell

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Derrell, have you noticed that when you share what you have found , someone else finds in that same photo something really neat that you missed?

      Chris
      in New Zealand

      Delete
    2. Of Course - that's part of the reward of interactive sharing! Not only that but it is part of the game and the game is both fun and enlightening.

      I'm not an expert (I don't like experts very much and I'm sorry if I sound like one). All I am is a guy who has been particularly focused for a while. So others benefit from that. That's the point.

      Delete
  5. Well do tell us about the paint. ...and what is the 'other' locomotive?

    Keith
    Leadville in Sn3

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The "other" has to be the #13...

      Delete
    2. Yup! 13. I've looked at a lot of photos Chris, but that doesn't mean there wasn't a third engine. So if you find one - let me know!.

      BTW. 13 was one of three engines that had diamond stacks in 1910 (when "everybody" else was straight). Can anyone idenify the other 2? And can anyone tell me why?

      Derrell

      Delete
  6. Actually I think I should add this to the sanding saga.

    Looking at the dates(supposed) was this "Medusa" arrangement a testbed? The Master Mechanic as you guys like to call them, may have been sceptical about the new fangled air operated sander valve and adopted a wait and see approach. There are times when it is clear to an Enginedriver just what needs to be done long before the Bosses work it out.

    Convert two locos, #8 #13 for the test only perhaps the AFE would read, if there was one? I haven't seen any 2-8-0's with this arrangement (yet,still looking) and there are quite a few around this supposed time period(cinder cone). Maybe the Grande was watching with interest?

    Now you may not be aware that if the loco is running on trackage where the rail does not stand proud of the ties such as in sidings or yards, over dirt/gravel road crossings or mud wash-ins where the flangeway is full of water, or even if the rain is a squall or downpour and I guess possibly melting snow(It doesn't where I railroaded) the amount of water splashed up can quickly block the sandpipe protrusion where the sand is directed to the wheel.

    If the Loco is moving slow enough, strong crosswinds can blow the sand from the railhead before the wheels can get to crush the sand. If the front sanders aren't working, you can always backup with the reverse sanders running to lay a bed to get started on assuming the Master Mechanic has provided them. The rented D&RGW C-19's on the C&S all had only forward movement sanders to second driver although I suspect there was certain amount crushed by the front drivewheels in reverse. And the C&S didn't change this arrangement after rebuilding the #346 either. Unblocking sanders is a ***** and climbing a hill (or switching) without them working is frustrating.

    Chris
    in New Zealand

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Only a "train driver" would know this stuff! Thanks Chris. A lot of times we modeler historian wannabes try to resolve tricky questions with just one leg in our britches. This is a good example; who among us has ever asked the simple question WHY would the RR ever try to use air for the sand lines? When you understand what is going on (the "not so obvious" things like mud in the pipes) common sense becomes a rather uncommon (these days) source of understanding. ("Geez - that's almost TOOOO obvious!"). Which brings me to Rule One if you want to understand what was happening with the C&Sng. Ask yourself WHAT was going on with the C&S SG? Generally knowing THAT helps understanding the NG exponentially.

      Which brings us to the thought I've been sliding up to; you've implied that the RR was experimenting around this time period (and just to clarify, the cinder cones - you mean the Como Spark arrestors, I assume - first showed up in 1912 - not quite TOC). This was the Boom Era of C&S innovations 1900 to 1910 and more intensely 1900 to about 1907. Lotsa funny gadgets and curious bells and whistles - figuratively speaking.

      Why? Were they just being fashionable? Was it all just part of the great Industrial orgy that peaked with the Titanic? Or did they have a more pragmatic reason?

      Derrell

      Delete
  7. Alrighty then!
    Gave a bit of thought to this today while I replaced railjoiners on the park railway and just couldn't wait to get home and recheck the pics.

    Now the #8 in "Medusa" form was Buckwalter 1903 (DPL dated) Mal Ferrell in his South Park book dated as 1901. This is DPL CHS-B233.
    I just had the feeling there was another shot around of #8 back then, straight stack no cinder cone.

    Here it is, DPL MCC-3187 a L.C.McClure shot dated 1901(DPL) and oh, no! it has a even more intriging sand pipe set-up, this one for forward and reverse operation but with mechanical actuation not pneumatic. Which begs the question how was the flow of sand directed to the external (below the lever) bifucated pipes for direction? Lever way forward and right back perhaps with centre off?
    And this takes me right back to the "Medusa" arrangement as being "the great experiment", just 2 years after this double pipe arrangement, not seen on any other Loco (Yet!). Was this a failure resulting in moving onto the "Medusa" before settling on the standard arrangement as shown in DPL OP-6041 ? Further more, I noticed that there were shots of #2 (and others), in gravity feed days that had the pipe directed to the front driving wheels.

    One advantage of pneumatic delivery, is the flow of sand can actually be directed under the wheel as opposed to the manual lever operated gravity feed onto the railhead in the "good old days". This blasted sand reaches the wheel way quicker and that is a big improvement in time it takes to get wheelslip under control. The controls of a steam loco are all over the place and reaching for the sand, throttle and straight air brake takes reaction time, especially if the Driver is doing other things like waving to pretty girls :) Ergonomics in cab design, another "phooey" from the Master Mechanic. :)

    Derrell, as for the cinder cones, the design may have been nothing more than the simplest way to fabricate a catcher screen without much more workshop time. Less is more, especially as the Office types tend to resist spending on things that may or may not improve operation or working conditions. Obviously this was a forward thinking company at work here. I think I read it in C&SNG that the Cinder Cones were driven by the Forest Service now but forces outside of the Master Mechanics office may be at play.

    As a bystander from another country I also have to figure into the equation what "you guys' might have done differently from how we would have done it here. And it hasn't always been what I thought either!

    Down Under C.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Chris,

    very interesting. I have this photo and was going to share it in the next Roper issue.
    Big problem with your theory. The McClure photo was taken after June 1906.

    Tell me how I know this.

    The Buckwalter Photo was taken in the 7th Street yards. No. 8 was the second Mogul rebuilt in the new shops. Which one was the first? This photo was in effect a "Rebuilder's Photo".

    Do NOT take DPL dates for granted; they are just as bad as Mal Ferrell - maybe worse! The best way to date photos when they do not have a dd - mm - yyyy (meaning they were recorded when the photo was taken) is to know how to decode the photo! And you can't decode a photo if you don't know the details you are looking at. This is why my Klinger and Ferrell books are chock full of little post-it stickers that say, in a word, NO! NO! NO! Even Mac Poors books! EVEN Robb (Grandt) Pictorial Vol. VIII - with MY name on it!

    Derrell

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I knew I should have stared longer at those pictures of #8 last night. It was the Headlight position that threw me off. The "Medusa" sandpipe arrangement is pre-dating the double gravity pipe and I should have known to check all the features. I.E. the locomotivebrake arrangement, which on the "Medusa" is still the old fashioned verticle cylinder in between the drivingwheels. There is also a rearrangment of the air reserviours under the cab. Air Brakes do not devolve!

      Which begs the Question, why the fancy Headlight support bracket shown on the "Medusa" has been done away with in the L.C.McClure photo yet is back in the Otto Perry picture of 1917? Was there a mishap with the square end of another car perhaps? Maybe caught a broken treetrunk sticking up out of a snowslide hard enough to remove the riveted on bracket? Are there any other #8 shots I should be comparing these to?

      I really wish we could have together looked over this stuff around the kitchen table a few times.....

      Down Under C.

      Delete
    2. LOL. Chris - happens to the best of us. But you didn't quite answer the question; how do I know it was post June 1906? Pretty specific demarkation, right? Not sure when the brakes were upgraded. But I do know when the new Herald was implimented.

      The position of the lamp and lack of bracket was pretty common between about 1905 and 1907 or 8. No known reason why. Also note where the marker lamps were in the 1907 photo compared to 1901. Marker lamps are perhaps the most migratory of any of the details. As to the Buckwalter photo of 8 you have to kinda figure it can't be later than perhaps early 1903 because of the nice link sticking out of the short pilot - outlawed by 1903!

      All the answers are in the details! Well, not all of them, but this is HOW you decode "pit-chers"!

      Delete
    3. Ugg, you got me there, fair and square. In my defence, I point to the McClure photo being cropped, no Knuckle visible and therefore I missed the cut lever as I was checking out that interesting dual sandpipe arrangement. I have long since forgotton when you guys converted from L&P and I'm not certain I ever took notice the date of the new herald just like the fact that Block lettering wasn't used on Ph1 Coal Cars.
      I know, I hang my head in shame! Don't forget also that I speak 567, 645 and 7-FDL fluently and can drive on the wrong side of the road. :) Do you want to hazard a guess as to the brake schedule on there?

      UpSide Down C.

      Delete
    4. Chris, if there is a reference to the brake change over in the records I haven't seen it (or at least don't remember). Brakes on the engines are tough to see and the biggest clue is the brake shoes - but you can't always see those either. My best guess? Between 1903 and 1906? Best I can do right now...

      Sorry if it seems I'm beating you up - not my intent.

      And just consider this to be the kitchen table - out in the middle of the town square - sort of...

      Derrell

      Delete
  9. You raise some interesting points, Chris, now that I have time to address them. As usual your actual Train Driving experience offers insight that us minions would have no clue of otherwise. Yet it only makes sense that the air would blow the sand into the tread and thereby hasten the grip to the rail. Great stuff.

    I don’t know where Mal gets his notion on how the Forest Service got involved with the fire starter Shotgun Stacks on the C&Sng. There is no reference I am aware of to this in the C&S files though that isn’t to say there wasn’t something. Part of the issue is that the Forest Service in the first decade probably didn't have much clout to begin with (it wasn't even known as the Forest Service until 1905. It seems the real clout started with the Weeks Act of 1911. I'm not particularly up on what capacity the USFS had at that point but it didn't seem to have nearly the effect on the C&S fire problem as some other factors. Of course, I can be wrong about this - I just haven't seen the evidence!

    You see what I mean about knowing what was going on with the bigger picture to understand what was happening on the NG? And typically M.F. does NOT know anything someone else has not TOLD him that he knows, yet!!

    So what is the real Story. I’m probably running out of words here so lets put this in the next post.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Part 2

    Lets start with WHY the shotgun stack was adopted by the C&Sng in the first place – and we’ll accept that in general all RRs were on this technological tact anyway. The best combination for draft, as I understand it, was a long smokebox and a straight stack. This provided the most efficient use of the fuel and consequently a more effective engine – in other words, better pulling and better profit per train. The C&Sng was rich in second and third-rate obsolete motive power and since new engines were not on the horizon at the TOC they were compelled to wring every ounce of efficiency out of what they had. They rebuilt the Cooke Moguls on this premise and they did everything they could to extract whatever efficiency they could from the rest of the livery as well. All those gizmos and trappings we love about these engines were the result of this simple principle – making the best of what you had.

    So the shotgun was one of those gizmos. But that fabulous device had a very nasty dark side – it was a fire starter extraordinaire. At first the benefits of the stack and long box outweighed their symbiotic-psychopathic tendencies. But as the RR passed from owner to owner this became more and more of a problem. In fact it was almost a given that the engines were going to burn down any and every structure they got close to – sooner or later. The B&B dept. made it almost a standard that new buildings would kept 100 plus feet from other buildings so that (and I quote) WHEN that building caught fire others around it wouldn’t burn down as well. Not if – when!

    Enter the CB&Q in 1908. Here was a RR as much as any RR at the time that aspired to be the next Pennsy. And narrow gauge was not a part of that picture. Anything the ng did to detract from that goal had to be addresses. It wasn’t the forest service upset about fires. It was the farmers and ranchers who files damage claims every time their hay stacks went up in flames and you can just see both the C&S management AND the Q’s bean counters in Chicago saying, "Enough!"

    But the ng was stuck. The shotgun was their best option to make some kind of headway against the growing deficit in operations but it was burning its own barley fields, as it were. You can see this as 3 engines were fitted with old Diamond stacks in 1909. I’ve asked if anyone knows which engines those were in addition to 13 – and I’m leaving that on the table. But this is WHY in 1910 we still see diamond AFTER diamond were obsolete and gone by 1906. Diamond stacks on long smoke boxes were NOT a good combinations so early in 1912 the shops came up with what we call the Como Spark Arrestor. It was a stop-gap measure until somebody could figure out something elset. Of course that was the Ridgeway Spark Arrestor that burst on the scene in the spring of 1918 on – of all things – Rebuilt Cooke Moguls.

    Derrell

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As in this type of stack?
      http://digital.denverlibrary.org/cdm/fullbrowser/collection/p15330coll21/id/4338/rv/singleitem/rec/327
      or DPL CHS-B965

      Down Under C.

      Delete
    2. Uhhh, not exactly. They were more of a deep dished McConnell. Look, I'm using these terms, diamond, straight or shotgun more or less generically. Technically there were several styles of each. For instance No.44 used a riveted true shotgun (meaning straight with no real taper) from 1900 til 1906 or 7 when it was reshopped (I happen to believe it was the first 2-8-0 to be modifeid with C&S upgrades at the same time they rebuilt the first Cooke mogul). Most of the straight stacks had some type of taper to them and the most common was what might be called a boot top stack.

      Derrell

      Delete
  11. Robert McFarlandJune 11, 2014 at 7:00 PM

    59(Gunnison)and 30(Alma-Fairplay).I've never seen a picture of 13 with BOTH a diamond stack and a long smokebox.Why were the 286T Bogies built with a long smokebox paired with a Nesmith stack?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Very good, Bob. So far as I know the photo of 13 (in Como) around 1910 hasn't been published - Or maybe it has and I've forgotten. Long box and diamond stack. If you think 59 and 30 were ugly you should see poor 13. Yuk!

    Don't know why the big bogies were set up that way. They didn't last very long either.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Robert McFarlandJune 20, 2014 at 7:17 AM

    For a good photo of a pre-rebuild Cooke mogul on the Loop bridge check out DPL photo X-22243.

    ReplyDelete