Yes, that's exactly the right distinction. I always admired the fact that this
railroad which was a pioneer in both experimenting with and adopting internal
combustion and diesel power was also the last Class I railroad in America to
use steam in regular service (the C&S Climax-Leadville line, Oct. 1962). As you
say, they weren't cheap, they were thrifty (and I would say prudent). They were
shrewd players - knew when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em.
--- In CBQ@yahoogroups.com, Bob Webber <rgz17@...> wrote:
>
> There is a persistent concept on the Burlington that I think is
> somewhat unfair. That it was (the word everyone seems to try to
> avoid) cheap. While it is true that the railroad was certainly
> conscious of value, that isn't to say that is the same thing (as
> being cheap). There are a lot of cases where the Burlington was at
> the forefront of the industry, and those cases were, almost without
> exception, cases where the initial dollar outlay was relatively high
> but the value was also quite high (compared to industry standards).
>
> The obvious examples are the initial Zephyrs. But they are hardly
> unique. Look at the Zephyr pit, the Gallery cars, the Havelock cars,
> the line relocations, the later re-equipping for the Denver Zephyr,
> the use of diesels in general - I'm sure many of you can add to the
> list. When one looks at say, the Rock Island, or some of the other
> granger roads, the Burlington was extremely innovative and willing to
> spend - if there was value. There were darned few shops that could
> repair Budd cars - or any other cars the way the Burlington
> could. Was it cheapness that drove that? Some would say so, but it
> was value that allowed the company to bring in a high cost service
> in-house and create a good return.
>
> That's not to save it was a spendthrift, it's not to say it paid in
> the AIG range, it's not to say it purchased over 100 4-8-4s when
> existing equipment would work. So, thrifty perhaps, cheap no.
>
> At 08:22 PM 3/30/2009, you wrote:
> >Charlie (and list) -
> >
> >Thanks for the correction/clarification. You're right, of course,
> >both with respect to the shorty combines and shorty baggage-RPOs
> >(i.e., the ones NKP brought out a few years ago) as well as the
> >longer coach/pullman conversions Hol Wagner traces. As Pete said,
> >for those who want photos, Spoor's CB&Q Color Guide to Freight and
> >Passenger Equipment has a section devoted to some of these cars, on
> >pp. 16-17. And of course you can get chapter and verse on the
> >conversions, complete with diagrams & pictures, in the Glick trilogy.
> >
> >What strikes me as significant is not so much that the Thrifty
> >Grangers didn't buy or build any NEW branchline passenger equipment,
> >but rather that they did make explicit conversions to create
> >distinct classes of cars dedicated to that function. (As an aside,
> >it's noteworthy that some of the branchline cars even were painted
> >in a different color scheme (mineral red) from mainline (or
> >commuter) passenger cars.) So the Burlington did at some level(s)
> >think of these cars as belonging to the same category of service.
> >And branchline service wasn't just a catch-all for old equipment or
> >even old passenger equipment. There was an explicit strategy in what
> >to use as a starting point and what to do with it. In that sense,
> >it's analogous to the Q's converting all those old R-4 and R-5
> >prairies into G-10 switchers. Just as in that case, the branchline
> >passenger car conversions produced "new" (rebuilt) equipment with
> >distinctive appearance and operating characteristics, which became
> >part of the railroad's "personality." That's what I was trying to
> >get at in the first sentence of my last posting.
> >
> >Jonathan
> >
> >--- In CBQ@yahoogroups.com, "Charlie Vlk" <cvlk@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Jonathan-
> > > An excellent treatsie...
> > > ....but I would differ with you on one fine point.....
> > > The Q, unlike other roads, really didn't build any cars new for
> > Branchline service.
> > > For example, the "shorty" steel combines, which were rebuilt for
> > branchline service, were RPOs built right before the Post Office
> > put mandatory standards in place for Mail Cars.... rendering the
> > almost brand-new cars unsuited for their intended use. They got
> > rebuilt (a couple of times?) into baggage and RPO/Combine passenger
> > cars and because of their size were used in local and branchline
> > mixed train service.
> > > Same thing with wooden cars. I'd say that the Drovers Waycars
> > were the only purpose-built cars that got used in branchline
> > service (and I am not talking about the Branchline Combine Waycars
> > here... I mean the 30' Waycars that were fitted out with extra
> > bunks for drovers service). The Q rebuilt older coaches and
> > combines with Cupolas and had several styles of Branchline Combine
> > Waycars.... the most known to modelers being the one that Bernie
> > Corbin provided a picture of that ran in Model Railroader in the
> > mid 50's.... (I think it accompanied an article on kitbashing an
> > Ambroid combine into one). These were the CW-7s of 1913. But
> > there were earlier types, some of which survived to be photographed
> > that had the old reverse curve small cupola .... and there were
> > probably even earlier ones that didn't get photographed.
> > > Early on some waycars had side doors and some passenger seats,
> > and very late in the game a few were fitted out with a baggage door
> > and some walkover seats for branchline passengers.
> > > The Q was a very... err.. frugal... railroad and nothing was ever
> > wasted... and has been pointed out, the branchline mixed trains got
> > the hand-me-downs.... in motive power and passenger carrying cars.
> > > Charlie Vlk
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Duncan Cameron
> > > To: CBQ@yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2009 6:34 AM
> > > Subject: Re: [CBQ] Re: Mixed trains on the Q
> > >
> > >
> > > Jonathan,
> > > Very well done. Brief and very helpful to a modeller.
> > > The train I'm modelling on the old Keokuk and Western in
> > 1962-63 will be pulled by an NW2, includes a variety of freight
> > equipment and ultimately will have a kit-bashed model of a Q
> > branchline combine as showed in the Freight and Colour guide. A
> > good picture of a similar train is in Mike Spoor's In Colour volume 3.
> > > Duncan Cameron
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: bigbearoak
> > > To: CBQ@yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 12:51 PM
> > > Subject: [CBQ] Re: Mixed trains on the Q
> > >
> > > Until I read these postings, I hadn't realized to what extent
> > the character of the Burlington was expressed in its mixed trains -
> > much as it was in the distinctive qualities of its steam engines or
> > passenger equipment.
> > >
> > > As the various postings indicate, the Q ran a variety of mixed
> > train types. That in itself is no surprise; as a general rule on US
> > railroads, there's probably no other kind of train where you'd see
> > greater variety, even on trains from the same railroad. But the
> > 'mix' of mixed trains on the Burlington wasn't random or a
> > hodge-podge of components. There was a definite evolution of
> > characteristic consists - which is of interest if, say, you are
> > trying to model a mixed train for a particular era.
> > >
> > > Early on, these branchline trains looked very much like the
> > mixeds on any US shortline or branchline - a smaller, older engine
> > relegated to the lighter track and traffic of a feeder line,
> > pulling a short string of cars trailed by a wooden combine or maybe
> > a drover's caboose. There were also a handful of shorty passenger
> > cars, both wood and steel, built for branchline service, during the
> > early part of the 20th c. Motive power varied, but this service
> > was, on many divisions, the last niche for the railroad's Class "A"
> > 4-4-0s, what justified their rebuilding and continued service
> > through the 1920s. This form of mixed train would have been fairly
> > typical from, say, the 1904 renumbering to the 1928 relettering. In
> > a few areas, such trains persisted much longer, through the
> > Depression and WW II into the 1950s. You could model this type of
> > train in HO using a trusty NPP K-2 4-6-0, a LaBelle or Railway
> > Classics drover's caboose, and period freight cars of your choice.
> > The drover's caboose could be replaced by a NKP shorty combine
> > (CF-7). And in some regions, an extra express reefer or cream car
> > would be a plausible addition.
> > >
> > > In the late 1920s and early '30s, economic and technological
> > changes altered the appearance and consist of this traditional
> > mixed train on most of the Burlington's branchlines. The rise of
> > internal combustion technology prompted the railroad to retire its
> > aging fleet of Class "A" Americans. The steamers were 35-40 years
> > old by then and having to haul freight cars considerably heavier
> > than they were designed to. Declining traffic and the frugality of
> > the railroad had allowed them to keep working branchline mixeds
> > well into the 1920s, but when gas-electrics appeared, the railroad
> > quickly replaced them with the internal combustion units. The
> > gas-electrics could haul a few freight cars, but normally they
> > operated with just a single trailer car - sometimes a baggage-RPO,
> > sometimes a combine, sometimes a coach, but almost always an older,
> > wooden car (saved fuel, and in truth, the gas-electrics weren't
> > that powerful). When traffic warranted, a steam engine would
> > replace the gas-electric. Ten wheelers were common, but Atlantics,
> > Pacifics, moguls and prairies might be used, depending on
> > topography, tonnage, and era.
> > >
> > > Another set of changes occurred after World War II, the result
> > of further retirement of old equipment and changing traffic
> > patterns. By this time, the oldest, wooden passenger cars were
> > wearing out, as were some of the old gas-electrics. Declining
> > traffic led to the abandonment of some routes and trains, resulting
> > in a surplus of both gas electrics and steel passenger cars. These
> > now became the main source of passenger equipment on branchline
> > trains. Some coaches were used as-is, some were converted into
> > combines. Some gas-electrics, with motors removed also were
> > converted to combines. You can see various examples on the
> > Washington, IA branch and the Sterling-Cheyenne line, where an SW-1
> > or NW-2 came in as the worthy successor to an Atlantic or
> > Ten-Wheeler, or in the case of the Sterling line a gas-electric.
> > Center cabs were also used as motive power on some branches. As for
> > modeling, you could use a Branchline passenger coach as a stand-in
> > for a 6100-series coach, or use the real thing from NKP or Aurora.
> > And there are many kit-bashing possibilities for unique branchline
> > cars the Q cannibalized out of its own equipment. Throwing in an
> > express car or three - either the older wooden express reefers or
> > the newer BE-1 troop sleeper rebuilds - would be plausible for some lines.
> > >
> > > A different solution was developed where passenger traffic was
> > light and/or grades heavy, as on the Deadwood, SD branch. There, a
> > standard way car was modified with extra seats and side door, with
> > the train hauled by a pair of SD-9s. Again, models are available
> > for both the front and rear end. I'm sure there were lots of other
> > lines where the occasional passenger was accommodated in an unmodified
> > waycar.
> > >
> > > Hope this pocket history is somewhat clarifying. Various
> > Burlington Bulletins have good pictures of CB&Q mixed trains,
> > especially BB 30 on Washington, IA. Also see Jones and Coleman's
> > book on the Sterling branch and various South Platte Press
> > publications on different Mid-western branhes; more pictures are
> > scattered through the color books of Mike Spoor and Al Holck, and
> > check the Otto Perry archive at the Denver Public Library - and of
> > course Bill Glick's comprehensive passenger car trilogy for
> > pictures, diagrams, and histories of the Q's distinctive equipment.
> > >
> > > Jonathan
> > >
> > > --- In CBQ@yahoogroups.com, "Dustin" <dholschuh@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Does anyone out there if mixed trains on Q were all the
> > same.I know trains 92 & 93 on the Sterling Denrock branch were
> > mixed.I'm assuming the passengers were accomadated on the
> > caboose.But were there other mixed trains that ran with a baggage
> > car or maybe a combine then a caboose.
> > > >
> > > > Dustin Holschuh
> > > > Rock Falls,Il
> > > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> > > Version: 8.5.283 / Virus Database: 270.11.32/2030 - Release
> > Date: 03/30/09 08:40:00
> > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >------------------------------------
> >
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> Bob Webber
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CBQ/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CBQ/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:CBQ-digest@yahoogroups.com
mailto:CBQ-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
CBQ-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|