September 7,
2015
Hol and Group - I have some questions on the disposition dates shown
for steam power in the back of the Corbin book.
Where "retired" is shown preceding the date, is that the date the
Mechanical Department at the Chicago General Offices wrote the locomotive
off the books? If so, then is it correct to assume that
a communication then went out to the division master mechanic to take
that locomotive out of service (if it hadn't already been
done) and either store it for scrap at whatever
roundhouse it was located, or move it dead-in-train to a central
location (such as Galesburg on Lines East or Lincoln on Lines West) for
eventual sale as scrap? Continuing, isn't it possible that a locomotive
after being "retired" could stay on the property for an extended amount of
time in a scrap line waiting for scrap prices to increase if they were low
at the time of retirement?
Where "sold for scrap" is shown preceding the date, that's much more
definitive meaning the actual date the locomotive was sold to a scrap
company to be dismantled, correct? I would think that the contract
with the scrap company would stipulate that the locomotive had to be
delivered within a certain time frame for the quoted price to be
honored, say 30 days, as market prices then and now do fluctuate. I've never
seen an existing scrap contract for a Q steam locomotive, but, having spent
many years in the scrap business, I would speculate the locomotives with
their tenders were purchased on a lump sum basis calculated from their
recorded official construction weights including delivery at the Q's expense
to the scrap yard.
I would really enjoy seeing a future BRHS Bulletin article on just how
the Q went about retiring and selling their steam power during dieselization
following World War Two. There had to be some kind of measured
corporate plan on what classes of steam power were to be eliminated
first in conjunction with what divisions were to be first dieselized
and "why." Dieselization as I understand was commenced on Lines West on the
Casper, WY, division in the early 1950s due to poor water conditions and the
high expense of maintaining water treatment plants, correct? Dieselization
concluded on Lines East on the Beardstown, IL, division not
quite 10 years later where coal and water were plentiful and
inexpensive.
As for classes, it seems for the most part dieselization
was first focused upon passenger and switching locomotives, then
expanded into road freight locomotives. The Q as I understand took a more
"conservative" stance on dieselization than some competitors that purchased
diesels as fast as they could be built to quickly replace their steam power.
Other roads rushed to dieselize where as the Q held-on to 2-8-2s, 2-10-4s,
4-6-4s and 4-8-4s that remained in serviceable condition into the late
1950s. Although the Q itself had virtually dieselized its yard, freight
and passenger train operations by 1955, it still rostered a good number of
serviceable steam locomotives that were stored at Galesburg and Lincoln
for seasonal traffic surges.
What brings all this up is that in collecting digital images of Q
steam power I occasionally come across discrepancies in image
dates and retired/sold for scrap dates. Some of the image dates can be
considered questionable, but some I think are accurate. So, when I find an
image of an O-1-A under steam on such-and-such a date, but the Corbin book
says the O-1-A had been retired prior to that date, I
wonder..... Is it possible that a "retired" but still serviceable
locomotive could be fired-up and used for a short amount of time, or
does "retired" mean it never ran again after that specific
date? I think sold for scrap dates are chiseled in stone and the
locomotive had been delivered to a scrap yard and dismantled by 30 or so
days from the date. I would appreciate any thoughts or comments on this
subject. Best Labor Day Wishes - Louis
Louis Zadnichek II
Fairhope, AL