Jan --
Thank you for bringing this up again. It's an interesting topic, one which
has bothered me, too, for some time. And I appreciate your speculations --
though I do find myself in disagreement with much of what you say.
I think it's only fair to start by questioning the very premise of
discussion -- IS the Q really that under-represented in available models? I
honestly don't know the answer. Yes, there are vastly more PRR models (to
take an example) produced than CB&Q, but the Pennsy was HUGE. They had more
of a single class of engine (consolidations, e.g.) than the CB&Q and both
its subsidiaries put together had in their entire motive power arsenal --
steam and diesel. You have to keep in mind that everyone who's passionately
interested in some special topic (such as a particular railroad) feels at
one time or another that the world isn't giving it the attention it
deserves. That's just human nature.
I would love to see someone really competent in statistics (it ain't me) do
a rigorous analysis of this question. You could look at some subset sample
of the models issued over the past quarter century for let's say 30 Class I
railroads, and correlate that with the miles of trackage those railroads
had in operation or the size of their motive power pools or the amount of
traffic they hauled (passengers, ton-miles, carloads or whatever) and/or
other measures of prototype prominence. It would be a lot of grunt work
gathering the data, but the sources are out there for anybody who wants to
do it. You could get some rough measure of model availability, for
instance, by looking through old Walthers catalogues or The Brown Book for
brass locomotives. As in any statistical analysis, the validity and value
of the study would depend in large part on how you asked the question, and
also on how well you cross-checked your results by asking related questions
in different ways using different subsets of your data.
You may be onto something regarding the appearance and inherent
attractiveness of the Burlington's equipment as prototypes for models,
though perhaps not quite in the way you suggest....
--------------
Sorry, but I can't resist digressing here for a moment on your point about
ugly equipment -- or rather the lack thereof on the Q. True, the
appearance of CB&Q equipment was not violently emetic; but c'mon now, there
were certainly a few faces running down those rails that only a mother
could love. Check out some of those big lignite burners with the smokebox
front sticking out like a swollen nose (e.g., Otto Perry's photo of 6159 at
DPL):
http://photoswest.org/cgi-bin/imager?00003990+OP-3990
or how about the Denver D-Bills?
http://photoswest.org/cgi-bin/imager?00003803+OP-3803
http://photoswest.org/cgi-bin/imager?00003810+OP-3810
Can you say UGG-LEE? (I know you can.)
And then, of course there was the Aeolus....
(Uh oh, I think I just stepped over the line there. Even as you read this,
our list administrators in Missouri are probably drafting their warning
letter for transmission to me this evening: "Mr. Harris: We at the CBQ list
try to maintain a friendly and supportive atmosphere for discussions. Your
recent remarks regarding the Aeolus, however, have gone beyond the bounds
of anything that could be considered remotely constructive or even decent.
Unless you apologize forthwith for your transgression, ...")
... OK, OK, I apologize!
----------------
Seriously though, I agree that the Q's equipment was, for the most part,
either attractive (some of it VERY attractive) or inoffensive. But that
cuts two ways. (1) My impression is that in those areas where the Q really
did make a splash, either in terms of aesthetics or historical importance,
it has been decently represented in models. There have been plenty of
models of streamlined passenger equipment and associated engines over the
years. Shovelnoses and early Zephyr models have been offered periodically
in brass since at least the 1970s, and there have been tons of later E
units to choose from. In steam, there have been runs of brass mikados,
northerns and hudsons (the latter two classes arguably the most "beautiful"
of our engines) by various importers. (2) Sure, I'm frustrated and
disappointed there hasn't been more small power -- some of the big
prairies, for instance, or an Atlantic, or even another Pacific. But here,
part of the problem may be that if Burlington equipment isn't particularly
"ugly," neither is it especially distinctive or spectacular (other than the
aforementioned streamlined passenger trains). And this applies to the
bigger engines, too. There's no Q equivalent of a Big Boy or Allegheny or
GG-1 or UP Turbine, nor shark-noses or centipedes. As partisans, of course
we see clearly what's beautiful and distinctive about our equipment. But to
the rest of the world, I suspect, they're just nice, kinda generic looking
engines. This is going to be an stumbling block especially with younger
fans. How many under 30 even model steam?
As to your central hypothesis, I'm skeptical that access to a coastal port
has been all that important in determining a railroad's visual, cultural or
even economic prominence. Historically, of course, the argument has be made
that railroads in America initially developed as connecting networks of
"frictionless" transportation extending outward from the frictionless
transportation on the high seas and inland rivers or canals (James Vance,
"The North American Railroad," 1995). But during the "best years" to which
you refer, how important was that for US rail shipments or rail passenger
travel? Consider, the greatest volume of rail traffic was through Chicago,
and after that St. Louis (I think?). I also wonder about the importance you
give to the immigrant/emigrant experience. Most people riding trains in the
US were not coming from or going abroad; they were commuting or traveling
from city to city or town within this country, and that's where they would
have seen and formed their impressions of our railroad system and of the
individual carriers.
Consider, too, that the (historical, not present-day) Union Pacific --
which is hardly under-represented in models -- had no coastal port. OK, I
guess technically it was in Portland, OR via the OSL, but that's not the
level of prominence I think you mean. Moreover, I think what people model
on the UP is what was going through its core territory in Wyoming and
Nebraska.
I don't know what to make of the CB&Q's absence from "Railroads at War" (S.
Kip Farrington, Jr., 1944). It's worth noting, though, that of this book's
25 chapters, over half are dedicated to only 4 railroads (AT&SF, C&O, SP,
and UP). So there were a lot more prominent roads than the CB&Q which got
slighted. I have the impression that when the author was researching this
book, he went to a few sample railroads for more extensive interviews and
study, and those are the ones which got the lion's share of his attention
(that's a pretty common research strategy anyway). Or, who knows, he may
just have enjoyed working in warmer weather. His next railroad book,
"Railroading from the Rear End" (1946) also devotes disproportionate(?)
attention to the southerly Santa Fe and SP. In that book, however, the CB&Q
does have some coverage. In fact, the number of page references to the Q in
its index -- though nothing like the SP or AT&SF -- are about the same as
those for the Pennsy or UP. My copies of both these books, incidentally,
were given to me by Mr. Capron after his retirement as the Q's VP for
traffic. The later book has an autograph dedication ("For my friend, L.R.
Capron, a fine railroader and traffic expert who heads a fine department
for a great railroad"), so it would at least appear that Farrington was
aware of and respected the Burlington.
I dunno, Jan. If, for the sake of argument, I accept your premise (that the
Q is indeed under-represented in models), I don't think I can offer an
explanation I like any better than the one you propose -- other than the
little bit I said above regarding the demographics of the rail-modeling
community. I will leave you with two ideas, though, which are really more
just food for thought than anything else.
First, I think it's fair to say that the Burlington did not, on the whole,
traverse very spectacular or beautiful country. There were some notable
exceptions (where nature smiles 300 miles), but much of the nicest scenery
was near the western periphery of the railroad and not terribly well
traveled. Further, many of the railroad's premier passenger trains ran at
night. Thus, a lot of what the general public saw wasn't very memorable,
and much of what might have been memorable went unseen. By contrast, look
at a railroad like the D&RGW. Not all that many miles of track, but boy,
are its locomotives well represented in models.
The second point is more subtle and has to do with what I'd call the
railroad's "culture." The Burlington has often been cited as a "frugal"
company. With the important exception of their pioneering efforts with
streamlined diesel passenger trains (and I think we might add Mr. Murphy's
admirable steam program for kids, railfans, and the public), I don't see a
lot of evidence that the Q made much effort to insert itself into the
public consciousness. I guess maybe railroads in general didn't, at least
not when I was growing up in the 1950s-60s (though I do recall the Santa Fe
sponsoring a TV newscast in Chicago). But I always felt there was a kind of
quiet, sober quality to the Burlington. They did their work well and didn't
make a big deal about it.
Maybe this ties into something more deeply rooted in the rural Midwestern
ethos. Reminds me a little of that scene in the movie "Terms of Endearment"
where Deborah Winger and John Lithgow (sorry I can't remember their
characters' names) are driving out to a small rural property, ostensibly to
assess it but really to consummate their love affair. Winger plays a
transplanted Texan, the very unhappy wife of a junior professor at some
small college in Nebraska. Lithgow, in a wonderful, understated
performance, plays a banker in that small Nebraska town. While they're
driving out to the farmhouse, she notices him lost in thought and asks
what's on his mind. He says he was wondering whether she liked Texas or
Nebraska better. Winger's character is completely astonished by his
response (as only a Texan could be!) and asks what on earth he means. He
replies something to the effect that, "Well, we're all farmers around here.
And farmers never want to show you everything they have."
That's granger culture.
Yahoo! Groups Links
To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CBQ/
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/
|