BRHSLIST
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: [CBQ] Steam Roster Disposition Dates

To: CB&Q Group <cbq@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [CBQ] Steam Roster Disposition Dates
From: "Hol Wagner holpennywagner@xxxxxxx [CBQ]" <CBQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2015 13:43:02 -0600


Louis:
 
Condemned was a late addition to the terminology used when dropping a locomotive from service.  By the time it came into use, there was no question that stored steam locomotives would not be returned to service, and that term essentially replaced both of the stored terms -- serviceable and unserviceable.  But condemned locomotives were still on the roster until they were officially retired -- and then sold for scrap (since by this time the railroad was no longer scrapping locomotives itself).
 
Hol
 

To: CBQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: CBQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2015 14:46:07 -0400
Subject: Re: [CBQ] Steam Roster Disposition Dates [2 Attachments]

 
[Attachment(s) from LZadnichek@xxxxxxx included below]
September 14, 2015
 
Hol - Thanks. That answers that. One last question. How does the term "Condemned" that appears on Locomotive Assignment Sheets fit into the roster sequence of "Retired" and "Sold For Scrap?"
 
I'm attaching two Locomotive Assignment Sheets for the period of July through December 1960. They date to the time my late father M.L. Zadnichek was Ottumwa Division Superintendent. Note on both sheets at top far right the column of steam locomotive numbers under the heading "Condemned."
 
Would "Condemned" mean the same as "Retired?" Note the difference in the two sheets as steam locomotives were leaving the property to be scrapped and were dropped from the list. Also, note that Mark Twain Zephyr diesel locomotive 9903 appears at the bottom of the July-September List, but is gone from the October-December List.
 
Also, perhaps, more interesting are the remaining steam locomotives identified on various divisions. Is it correct to assume these locomotives were considered at the time to be stored serviceable with the exception of No. 35 that is clearly marked Exhibition Engine (Exh. Eng.)? Your thoughts and comments would be appreciated. Best Regards - Louis       
 
 
 
In a message dated 9/9/2015 11:16:23 A.M. Central Daylight Time, CBQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:


Louis:
 
Usually a locomotive had been stored either serviceable or unserviceable before it was officially retired, though this was not always the case.  But the date retired is the official date it was dropped from company records and no longer existed as far as the operating department was concerned.  Once officially retired the locomotive was usually pretty quickly sold for scrap and moved to the property of the purchaser, or moved to Eola and scrapped by the company.  When a locomotive was in really poor condition and it was not considered practical or safe to move it to Eola, it would be scrapped where it was, the Denver joint shops and Lincoln both scrapping locomotives into the mid-1950s.  After that time, however, virtually all Q steam locomotives were sold for scrap.  On the C&S a good many locomotives were scrapped by the company at the Seventh Street (Rice Yard) complex in the late 1950s-early 1960s.  And the FW&D scrapped locomotives at Childress but not Fort Worth.  By 1960 the Q was selling everything to Northwest Steel & Wire at Sterling, Ill., while the C&S and FW&D were shipping locomotives to Commercial Metals Co. in Houston.
 
Hol
 

To: cbq@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: CBQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2015 13:30:49 -0400
Subject: [CBQ] Steam Roster Disposition Dates

 
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
 
 
 
   
 
      






__._,_.___

Posted by: Hol Wagner <holpennywagner@xxxxxxx>



__,_._,___
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>