|
A lot of the Beardstown Division old timers told me that the M-3's were more slippery than the M-2's and M-2A's. They said they just couldn't move the tonnage that the M-2's could and the roundhouse people didn't like the Southern valve gear. From: "jonathanharris@earthlink.net [CBQ]" <CBQ@yahoogroups.com> To: CBQ@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 6:18 PM Subject: [CBQ] The Great Smoke-Off: M-2 versus M-3 And here's my other question from the BRHS Freight Car Data Sheet on the Burlington's Composite Gondola Fleet. This is the real head scratcher. In the section about the GA-15 class (the USRA-design gons delivered in 1919) one statement stuck out: "It is widely held that the Burlington did not like much of the equipment it was allocated while under the control of the United States Railway Administration. While the USRA switchers were well received, the USRA heavy mikado and Santa Fe type steam locomotives were quickly relegated to the far ends of the system and eventually to subsidiary roads." Meaning, I guess, that the CB&Q preferred its homegrown 2-10-2's (classes M-1, M-2 and M-2a) to the USRA-design M-3's, which spent much of their operating life on the C&S. The C&S also had its own clones of the Burlington M-2's (class E-5A and E-5C, 10 engines total) as well as 5 USRA engines (E-5B) identical to the Q's M-3's. The statement about the Burlington preferring its M-2's seemed at odds with something I recalled having read elsewhere about the C&S's preferences. Checking The Colorado Road, I found the following (p. 156): "In 1948 the C&S motive power department stated that the USRA engines were preferred to the Burlington-designed 2-10-2's for a number of reasons: They were more adaptable, due to their 63" drivers—they could be used for faster freight or heavy passenger service. They had less road overtime (again due to their larger drivers). They could be turned faster at terminals. They used less coal. They did not run hot as quickly. Their drivers did not tread wear as quickly. Their front ends were less expensive to maintain. They did not cinder cut flues as quickly. They had cast steel rather than wooden tender frames. They had cast steal rather than archbar tender trucks. They had better tender draft gear. They carried water in their tenders better." At least some of these sound like pretty compelling arguments, which raises the question of why the two related companies had such different views of the two engines' relative merits, and in particular why the parent company should have disliked the USRA engines enough to pawn them off on its subsidiary. Could there have been enough differences in concrete operating conditions or traffic to make the slower, drag engines better suited to the Burlington? Perhaps the Q was moving more tonnage in longer trains and the M-2's had better adhesion? Maybe the ruling grades on the C&S made the Burlington-designed engines relatively slower on their lines than their counterparts on the rather pancake-like topography of the Midwest? Or in areas of double tracking Or maybe the Burlington had better options for faster freight and heavy passenger service (their M-4s and O-5s), which the C&S didn't have, and so they did not need the slight speed advantage that the larger-drivered USRA engines could provide. Or was it perhaps a question of each road preferring what was most familiar? The Burlington had 75 M-1, M-2, and M-2a's. So both its road and shop crews may have been more comfortable working with what they knew best. The C&S had 10 of the Burlington-design clones but 15 USRA 2-10-2's, counting its original 5 plus the 10 Burlington M-3's. So the USRA engines actually may have been more familiar to them than their E-5A and E-5C's. There must be an interesting story here. Thanks again, Jonathan __._,_.___ Posted by: "John D. Mitchell, Jr." <cbqrr47@yahoo.com> __,_._,___ |