RE: [CBQ] Coal for Denver's Engines: CB&Q vs. C&S, Bituminous vs. Lignite

["Hol Wagner holpennywagner@msn.com [CBQ]" <CBQ@yahoogroups.com>]

Jonathan:
 
Excellent observations, good questions.  I'll try to answer them.
 
First off, the C&S did not, at any time in its existence, burn lignite except in emergencies.  Standard gauge locomotives always burned coal from the Southern Colorado coalfields around Walsenburg and Trinidad, while the narrow gauge power initially burned coal from Alpine, northwest of Gunnison, and later the same Southern Colorado coal as the broad gauge power.  A tremendous volume of sub-bituminous and lignite from the Northern Colorado fields around Louisville and Lafayette was carried by the railroad, but it was used almost entirely for industrial and home heating purposes.  The mines and mills of the Clear Creek District were major users of this Northern Colorado coal, as were all the cities and towns of Northern Colorado.
 
The Q, on the other hand, had many locomotives on Lines West equipped for burning lignite, and in Denver that lignite came from the Northern Colorado fields.  But much of the passenger and freight power, including after 1930 the S-4 and O-5 classes, and soon thereafter the M-4-A "Colorado" types, burned bituminous.  As a result, coal chutes on Lines West in most cases were divided and carried both lignite and bituminous.  Denver's 300-ton capacity Ogle steel coal chute, erected in 1922, had two pockets of 150 tons each, one for lignite and the other for bituminous -- see the attached diagram.  In addition to the extended smokeboxes, the Q employed large cylindrical spark arrestors on the stacks of many smaller road engines -- Moguls, Ten-Wheelers and Prairies -- and used the diamond stacks until 1923 on switchers that worked in industrial districts and on the pair of D-7 2-8-0s and a number of D-2s that worked the Lyons Branch which served the coal mines that furnished the lignite.  Eventually it was determined that the L&B (for Lignite and Bituminous) front end, with all its baffles and netting, did an adequate job of breaking up and eliminating sparks that the diamond stacks and spark arrestors were abandoned.
 
On the C&S, the U.S. Forest Service mandated the use of spark arrestors on the narrow gauge power in 1912 (at the same time it mandated the use of oil fuel whenever possible in national forests, then known as forest reserves -- causing the Q to convert its Black Hills narrow gauge engines to burn oil, as well as standard gauge engines operating on the Deadwood line, including K-2, K-5, D-4, T-l and T-2 classes), and approved the simple design of the conical screen spark arrestors the C&S employed from late 1912 until 1918, when superintendent of motive power H.W. Ridgway designed and patented the spark arrestor that bears his name and is often called the bear trap spark arrestor by fans.  That spark arrestor was applied to a few engines used on the standard gauge line from Denver to Falcon, east of Colorado Springs, because it passed through the Black Forest (which, incidentally, suffered a major forest fire two years ago, destroying many homes that had been built there over the years as the area became a bedroom suburb of Colorado Springs).
 
The C&S began converting its narrow gauge passenger power to burn oil in 1902, but soon abandoned the program when the Spindletop field in Texas went dry due to over-production and the railroad could not obtain sufficient oil at a reasonable cost elsewhere.  Colorado then had several producing oil fields, including one near Boulder, but the oil was of a much higher grade, suitable for lubricating purposes and not a practical fuel.  In the mid-Teens the railroad converted all of its Wyoming Division power to burn oil from the fields around Casper, including Teapot Dome, but after WWI they were converted back to coal.  It was the 1940s before the railroad again began converting locomotives to burn oil, and eventually the Wyoming Division again became an oil-burning district, as was the adjacent Casper Division of the Q.
 
I've rambled on enough, and I hope this answers your questions.
 
Hol
 

---

To: CBQ@yahoogroups.com
From: CBQ@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2014 12:49:18 -0800
Subject: [CBQ] Coal for Denver's Engines: CB&Q vs. C&S, Bituminous vs. Lignite

 

Here are a few related questions that have puzzled me for a long time. 

Burlington Bulletin No. 29 (on the Q consolidations — still perhaps my all-time favorite Bulletin) has a section discussing the so-called L&B front end (the extended smokeboxes characteristic of CB&Q lignite burners). Lignite is a notorious spark thrower, and this smokebox was one adaptation aimed at keeping it to a minimum. Many photos in this Bulletin show engines with the L&B extension operating in Denver. Dry air and high winds must have created very hazardous conditions there. Perusing photos of other CB&Q engines in Denver show not only many equipped with these extended smokeboxes but also, e.g., 6-wheel switchers with diamond stacks (also to control sparking, I'd guess) in operation well into the 1920s, as well as some odd spark arrestors on different engines. 

By contrast, the C&S did not seem to have any engines with L&B front ends. They did use a variety of spark arrestors, most famously the Ridgeway spark arrestor, which was standard equipment on all its narrow gauge engines and also appears, perhaps as an experiment, on a couple standard gauge engines in 1920s photos. The Ridgeways continued to be used on all the C&S's narrow gauge engines (except oil-burner No. 70) until the end of operations in 1943 — presumably because of their running through National Forests. However, by the 1930s, photos suggest that C&S standard gauge engines no longer used any special spark-arresting equipment. 

There must have been a goodly amount of lignite available and used around Denver. A table from the 1936 abandonment proceedings for the C&S's narrow gauge lines shows its freight traffic for the 88-month period from January, 1929 through April, 1936. I was struck by this comparison of coal carloads on the Clear Creek branches during that period: 

14 coke

142 bituminous coal

3,832 lignite

142 "coal cars" of bituminous versus 3,832 cars of lignite is quite a difference. My guess would be that the 3,832 carloads of lignite were delivered for local industry and home heating, while the bituminous was company coal for engine fuel. 142 coal cars x 20-25 tons per narrow gauge car (guess) = 800-1,000 tons in 88 months or about 10 tons per month. If this was company coal used for the return trip downgrade to Denver, which might burn about a ton per trip (very rough guess, based on what the K-class mikados now burn going downgrade from Silverton back to Durango), this would be about 2 engine-trips per week. Assuming oil-burner No. 70 was the main engine on this run most of the time, that would seem about right for engine fuel needs.  

So here are my questions: (1) Were the CB&Q and C&S operating in and around Denver getting their locomotive fuel from different coal fields? (2) Were any C&S engines — standard or narrow gauge — burning lignite? And (3) where in Denver were the Q's lignite-burners getting coaled up? The many photos of Denver's 300-ton wooden coaling tower show a great variety of engines queued up there to take on fuel, including Burlington 2-10-2's, C&S narrow gauge moguls and consolidations, even some big AT&SF engines — but no lignite burners; so those engines must have gotten fuel at another site. 

Thanks very much for any clarification, and all good wishes for the new year! 

Jonathan

__._,_.___

---

Posted by: Hol Wagner <holpennywagner@msn.com>

---

Visit Your Group

• New Members 1

• Privacy • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use

__,_._,___