Hi Gary,
I'm not sure there is a simple answer to your question.
The CB&Q trackage was relatively much more level that either the GN or NP
trackage, both of which had to pass over the continental divide and also the
Cascades. I think that may be the reason both the GN and NP had so many more
large and modern articulated steam locomotives than the CB&Q. GN, of course,
made the decision to dieselize relatively early, but because of World War II
couldn't buy as many as it would have liked as fast as they would have liked. I
think it also may have depended on which management ended up running the
combined company (e.g. it's my impression that the Frisco executives basically
ran the BN after they merged into it). As an aside, that's I think why I've
heard so many intersting stories from ex-GN and NP folks about hiding snow
removal equipment from the former Frisco executives who didn't think it was
necessary.
Best regards,
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 2015 11:58
AM
Subject: [CBQ] What Steam Designs would
have worked if the 1930 GN/NP/CB&Q merger had been approved?
What steam designs would have worked on a combined merged railroad if the
ICC had approved it in 1930 without the divestiture of CB&Q
condition? You can assume that the Q had control of the designs and
orders.
Gary Laakso
![]() ![]()
__._,_.___
Posted by: "Kenneth Middleton" <krmiddle@charter.net>
![]()
__,_._,___
|