BRHSLIST
[Top] [All Lists]

[CBQ] Re: Mixed trains on the Q

To: CBQ@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [CBQ] Re: Mixed trains on the Q
From: "bigbearoak" <jonathanharris@earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 02:24:05 -0000
Delivered-to: archives@nauer.org
Delivered-to: mailing list CBQ@yahoogroups.com
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoogroups.com; s=lima; t=1238466255; bh=9SOIBzno0tPoRXzwqBXXx1k/M3XePz6nX4Mj3/kMQiE=; h=Received:Received:X-Yahoo-Newman-Id:X-Sender:X-Apparently-To:X-Received:X-Received:X-Received:X-Received:X-Received:To:Message-ID:User-Agent:X-Mailer:X-Originating-IP:X-eGroups-Msg-Info:X-Yahoo-Post-IP:From:X-Yahoo-Profile:Sender:MIME-Version:Mailing-List:Delivered-To:List-Id:Precedence:List-Unsubscribe:Date:Subject:Reply-To:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=HUk0tJB+iZ+L3ZWhWm7Mf/urtcoT1p+hmGKuZSre+TUEIElKqq3toPvG0QMRni43vxmbkrEIbcoNzksMb/niWEifSKKsVuCY04w+YRnzM6WxT3NnFDY+XC3V0Xj8/2LJ
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=lima; d=yahoogroups.com; b=MZcnJB6R872LAg+rdlchGfOlIrFuh2sc7SzBoXgMGRQGAIMZwGSuLWxIVFOrxhPguRUcpyqa2PUSUk15EVHEhmUZCHjnsAGhOYFm9parDMDeoSKASSWqdRhg0dKcNEfq;
List-id: <CBQ.yahoogroups.com>
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:CBQ-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com>
Mailing-list: list CBQ@yahoogroups.com; contact CBQ-owner@yahoogroups.com
Reply-to: CBQ@yahoogroups.com
Sender: CBQ@yahoogroups.com
User-agent: eGroups-EW/0.82
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/


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>