BRHSLIST
[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: CB&Q Group <cbq@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: RE: [CBQ] Coal for Denver's Engines: CB&Q vs. C&S, Bituminous vs. Lignite [1 Attachment]
From: "Hol Wagner holpennywagner@msn.com [CBQ]" <CBQ@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2014 16:28:33 -0700
Delivered-to: unknown
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=echoe; t=1420068525; bh=KYR+pjeQkbcQQXzceB6iMuMDlMeYyn7m/4a9QKX5uQw=; h=To:In-Reply-To:References:From:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:Date:Subject:Reply-To:From:Subject; b=AAb3tJ1pYawaUtZA3gO4THrcQZdStaZG/oNlksB74WXOxuZeJTSjGG6wG+WnuBpOz3uAOALPb38poZVJTXHNdGvVsz2+9B6p1JUMZi/Rpx9JviaoIOk4WXSNmPOqAD9bGX0rIMkI3MkxVRNsX4rrGZs0ufdaWAJ8DWFedY59XwI=
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=echoe; d=yahoogroups.com; b=JxMiMHIwVmpIgg3rRo5GI7aAqDEET3RgaPn/ZLKcccuE93lcxysQ65UoJ8kKR5ROMoAzemITaiq5ZE6pNTiaDBvPL9RlHqlEKI1Xy78zib9vs7wSzfyiAe+dHdi2We+y+R/3csNkz5C0OJdcNrtwArt07G/ylIB/T5U0JFUm3AY=;
Importance: Normal
In-reply-to: <m81nge+uirsfj@YahooGroups.com>
List-id: <CBQ.yahoogroups.com>
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:CBQ-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com>
Mailing-list: list CBQ@yahoogroups.com; contact CBQ-owner@yahoogroups.com
References: <m81nge+uirsfj@YahooGroups.com>
Reply-to: CBQ@yahoogroups.com
Sender: CBQ@yahoogroups.com


Forgot to attach the Denver coal chute diagram.
 
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






__._,_.___
View attachments on the web

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



__,_._,___

Attachment: CB&Q Denver, Colo., Coal Chute Diagram.jpg
Description: JPEG image

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