October 6, 2015
Ken/Gary - I'd venture that the Q/GN/NP would've formed a joint
mechanical committee on standardizing as much as possible locomotive, freight
car and passenger car equipment to be constructed or purchased after the 1930
merger. I think any equipment built or purchased afterwards would've had more of
a "family" appearance and uniformity than the highly individualistic equipment
particular to each road prior. Ken, you're right about the three roads
having different operating characteristics, but still I think standardization
would've ruled wherever prudent and financially responsible. The GN and NP
would've kept their mountain articulated locomotives and in the GN's case,
their electrics, but the NP's dual service 4-6-6-4's might have
migrated onto former Q mainlines. I've never taken the time to sit down and
seriously compare the GN, NP and Q 4-8-4's, but I imagine had the 1930 merger
occurred, the best of all three designs might've been incorporated
into a Super Northern that would been equally at home on all three routes.
And maybe the Q might've gone with GN design 4-8-2's rather than the S-4's. It's
always fun to speculate.... I'll further agree that which ever road's senior
management took the top slots in the merged company would've had a major role in
decision making. Exactly like when Lou Menk off the Frisco brought his
trusted lieutenants aboard when the BN was created. I've heard many stories from
retired BN VP Earl Currie on how the Frisco thought the BN ought to be run
like with scrapping all those "unused" snow plows seen rusting away on side
tracks in the heat of summer. No simple answers to the question, but it's
worth discussing. Best Regards - Louis
Louis Zadnichek II
Fairhope, AL
In a message dated 10/6/2015 1:12:17 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
CBQ@yahoogroups.com writes:
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: LZadnichek@aol.com
![]()
__,_._,___
|