Not to beat a dead horse, but I got to looking over the Algoma Central roster showing the seven E-1s that road acquired and it raised a couple of questions. First, by way of background, the Algoma Central was chartered/incorporated on August 11, 1899, to built north from Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, at the eastern tip of Lake Superior, to Hearst in the natural resource-rich Algoma District. The road name was changed to Algoma Central & Hudson Bay in 1901. So the seven 0-4-0s acquired from the Q (or more likely from one of the big Chicago used equipment dealers, Hicks and Fitzhugh), were obviously purchased for construction duties, along with four Lehigh Valley 4-6-0s that would have been the heavy road power during construction. All the 0-4-0s were disposed of during 1914-15, by which time they were certainly obsolete and too light to be effective at very much. I have no problem with five of the seven former Q locomotives listed on the Algoma Central roster, but the other two trouble me.
Algoma Central No. 7 is listed as having been CB&Q 77, built by Rhode Island in 1886. Rhode Island locomotives from 1886 on the Q roster all trace their heritage to the Chicago, Burlington & Northern, which bought 41 engines from Rhode Island that year -- 35 4-4-0s and six 0-4-0s. All were renumbered into the 900 series in Burlington's big 1898 renumbering, and the next year, when the CB&N was absorbed into the Q, they retained those 900 series numbers but with CB&Q reporting marks. Thus, during 1899 when one of these locomotives (presumably one of the six 0-4-0s) was acquired by the Algoma Central, it did not carry the number 77. It was not until 1904, in the Burlington's system-wide renumbering, that one of the former CB&N locomotives got the number 77 -- and it was one of the 4-4-0s. The AC roster does indeed list AC 7, supposedly the former Q 77, as "Built as 4-4-0 and rebuilt as 0-4-0 by CB&Q." But how likely is that? Particularly since we know the locomotive was not numbered 77 at the time the AC got it. Much more likely is that the locomotive acquired was one of the six 0-4-0s built by Rhode Island for the CB&N and numbered 100-105. Only three of these locomotives made it to the 1904 Q roster; the 100 was apparently gone before receiving its assigned 1898 number, 901, and the 903 and 905 were both gone by 1904. One of these three (probably the 100) is most likely the locomotive that became Algoma Central No. 7 in 1899, but where the number 77 in the AC roster came from is anybody's guess. I'm attaching an image of the 904, one of the CB&N Rhode Island 0-4-0s, which were built to the same plans as CB&Q 0-4-0s built in company shops during the early and mid-1880s. The photo is supposedly at Aspen, Colo., on the Colorado Midland, but I have absolutely no reason to believe that is actually the case.
Algoma Central No. 8 also presents a problem. It is shown on the roster as being built in 1869 by Danforth & Cooke (which in 1869 was actually the Danforth Locomotive & Machine Co., 1867 successor to Danforth & Cooke, and in turn becoming the Cooke Locomotive & Machine Co. in 1882) as Rockford, Rock Island & St. Louis No. 12, which became St. Louis, Rock Island & Chicago 12 in 1876 and CB&Q 362 in 1877. Indeed, RRI&StL 3-12 were all turned out by Danforth, serial numbers 605-609 and 613-617, during 1869 -- as 4-4-0s. And again the AC roster shows the locomotive as "Built as 4-4-0 and rebuilt as 0-4-0 by CB&Q in 1879." For this locomotive the roster even lists a specific date of conversion. But again, how likely is that? On paper the idea of converting a 4-4-0 into and 0-4-0 looks easy; simply remove the pilot truck. But any comparison of photos of 4-4-0s with photos of 0-4-0s will show what a major task it would have been, involving fabrication of an entirely new frame and likely shortening the boiler of the 4-4-0 by one course. Such a conversion is simply not likely to have taken place. And why would it have been done anyway? It would have created a switcher considerably heavier than factory-built 0-4-0s, and 4-4-0s were regularly being used in switching service all through the 1870s, '80s and '90s, so why bother with the conversion? And besides, Burlington records show no such conversion as being made in 1879 or any other year. In my earlier posts on the E-1s I included photos of the very first Rockford, Rock Island & St. Louis locomotive, No. 1, the "Pioneer," which was an 0-4-0 built in 1869 by McKay & Aldus and becoming StLRI&C 1 in 1877, CB&Q 351 in 1877, Q 1351 in 1898 and Q 550, the E-1 class engine, in 1904. Converted into a side-tank shop switcher in the 1890s (or even earlier), it was based at the Galesburg roundhouse until its retirement in 1912. What, then, was RRI&StL No. 2? It was an 0-4-0 built in 1869 by Hinkley & Williams Locomotive Works of Boston and becoming StLRI&C No. 2 in 1876 and CB&Q 352 in 1877. It did not survive on the Burlington roster to receive an 1898 number. The AC roster says the locomotive in question was formerly CB&Q 362; isn't it more likely that it was actually the 352 (handwritten, a 5 can be easily mistaken for a 6), retired before getting an 1898 number, sold by the Q to a used locomotive dealer and then sold the following year by that dealer to the Algoma Central. I have no concrete information to back up these two suppositions, but to me they certainly make a great deal more sense than suggesting the Q had converted a couple of 4-4-0s in 0-4-0s.
And speaking of conversions, there are some 0-6-0s on the Q roster that were not originally built as 0-6-0s. That's certainly not news, right? The G-4s and G-4-As were converted from 2-8-0s, while the G-6, G-7, G-8, G-9, G-9-A and G-10 classes were all converted from 2-6-2s, as anyone interested in Q steam power almost certainly knows. But I'm not talking about them but instead about five of the first six G-1 switchers, engines 1301-1305 (1904 numbers). Take a look at the attached image of the 1304 working as the Milan, Missouri, switcher on the Q-owned Quincy, Omaha & Kansas City in the early years of the 20th Century. It certainly doesn't look like higher numbered G-1s, with their straight boilers and "modern" rounded domes. And the reason is simple: The 1301-1305 were built as heavy freight power -- 2-6-0s -- for the Hannibal & St. Joe by Danforth in 1879. The H&StJ is unusual among roads affiliated with or controlled by the Burlington in that the Burlington lost control of it for a time. Chartered in 1846, the H&StJ did not begin construction across Missouri until the early 1850s, and in 1854 the Forbes Group, led by John Murray Forbes of Boston, which held control of the railroads that were about to become the CB&Q, agreed to back the H&StJ and put enough money into it that it gave the Burlington control of the Missouri road. But in 1871 as the CB&Q board sought to firm up its control of the H&StJ, Jay Gould swooped in and bought the line out from under the Burlington and began operating it as part of the Wabash. It was not until 1883 that the Burlington was able to regain control of the H&StJ, and it was during the period of Gould ownership that six 2-6-0s, H&StJ 80-85, were built by Danforth, serial numbers 1059-1064. H&StJ locomotives were renumbered frequently, and there seems to be no definitive roster of the road's motive power through those frequent changes. And in the 1890s the Burlington often transferred locomotives from one of its controlled roads to another -- most frequently among the various lines in Missouri. Thus, by 1890 only five of the six 1879 2-6-0s seem to have still been on the roster, and they carried a hodgepodge of numbers: H&StJ 9, 32, 36, 48 and 56 (none of which were their original numbers, 80-85). In 1898 they joined the 600-series that had been assigned to the H&StJ in the big Burlington renumbering, the five becoming 604, 609, 610, 611 and 614. And in the next year or so they were transferred to the St. Louis, Keokuk & Northwestern (604) and the Kansas City, St. Joseph & Council Bluffs (the other four), retaining their same 600 series numbers. Some time in the 1890s they all lost their pilot trucks; it was pretty simple to convert a 2-6-0 into an 0-6-0 -- quite unlike converting a 4-4-0 into an 0-4-0. And thus in 1904 they were assigned five of the six lowest numbers in the G-1 class, even though they were completely dissimilar to the vast majority of the G-1s. As I've noted, they became Q 1301-1305, and the 1304 is seen in the attached image. None of them lasted long in the 20th Century, the 1304 and 1305 retired in April and March 1906, respectively; the 1302-03 in June 1907, and the 1301 in August 1912. But the Sept. 1907 and Dec. 1908 assignment sheets I have show the 1301 and 1305 (supposedly retired in March 1906 but more likely 1909) assigned to the St. Joseph Division, and the May 1912 sheet shows only the 1301, but now assigned to the Hannibal Division.
The first G-1, CB&Q 1300, was a one-of-a-kind locomotive, also not at all similar to the standard Q G-1s. But we know little about it except that it was built by Manchester, almost certainly in the 1870s, but for whom and whether as 0-6-0 or 2-6-0 we simply don't know. In 1898 it became KCStJ&CB 501, then Q 1300 in 1904. It was retired in February 1906.
Hol
__._,_.___
View attachments on the web
Posted by: Hol Wagner <holpennywagner@msn.com>
![]()
__,_._,___
|
