A What If Loco

[Paul R.]

I think I read somewhere at one time new loco's were" talked about" what perameters were used, similar to the Uintay Railroad? Reason-I will be getting aMantua 2-6-6-2 loco which has been modified for Sn3 but unfinished what features should I have to give it a C&S look? Paul R.

[Fatbiker52]

Paul: At one time from what I understand and have read the RGS hadplans for narrow gauge mallets. I think that a 'what if loco' would be a neat thing to explore. I bought off EBay a Bachmann connie. It's my 'if loco'. I am planning to use it when my layout is finally built. I have to ad a ridgway stack. The smokebox came shortened. I will post a picture when it's finished.
Fred cotterell

[Keith Hayes]

Ready for service on the Clear Creek lines.

[Paul R.]

Keith ,
That's a nice loco, should run well. Not sure if I should make it a tender loco or keep it a tank, would have to enlarge the coal capacity? Paul R.

[Fatbiker52]

Keith : That loco is cool. (My gosh I use that word alot) I noticed that it is set up for oil. That might be ok, but, what time period wouldit be for? I think, and correct if I'm wrong, wouldn't it be more common I the later years of the C&S? It looks like it would handle some tonnage beyond the capabilities of
 The consolidations the road owned. Anyway post a couple pics of it hauling a freight. Shouldbe intersting to see.
Fred Cotterell

[skip]

I wonder what the locomotive class would be? I've daydreamed about making a fantasy 2-6-6-2 for the C&S and numbers 77-79 would make sense. But what little letters should be put under the number on the cab for the class?

The C&S adopted the Interstate Commerce Commission class designation system in the early 1900s according to Hol Wagner's "Colorado Road". In that system, the first letter describes the leading/trailing truck configuration and the next number is the number of driver axles.
So the "B" in B-3C and B-4F referred to one-axle lead truck and no trailing truck with three driver sets and four driver sets respectively.

On the standard gauge, Mikados were E-4s and the famous 2-10-2s were E-5s with the "E" indicating one axle lead truck and one axle of trailing truck. So when Baldwin bid both 2-6-6-2s and 2-10-2s for the narrow gauge, the 2-10-2s would probably have been class E-5x.
By then the 900s were already E-5A, E-5B, and E-5C, so would the Narrow gauge 2-10-2s have been E-5D? Or would they have re-classed everything with the smaller narrow gauge engines E-5A and bumped each of the standard gauge classes up a letter?

The C&S didn't have any articulated locomotives to use as a model for the proposed narrow gauge engine classes. Would the 2-6-6-2s have been E-3-3A? E-6A? Does anyone with knowledge of other railroads that used the ICC classification system know what pattern was used for articulated locomotive class names?

Skip Egdorf

[Robert McFarland]

It would seem that in order to accomodate these locos the would have had to made upgrades to track and bridges that the C&S couldn't afford.

[Paul R.]

Which is probably part of why it never happened. But we can dream. Paul R.

[Robert McFarland]

What if Victor Miller had bought the line and run Galloping Geese?

[skip]

Robert McFarland wrote

It would seem that in order to accommodate these locos the would have had to made upgrades to track and bridges that the C&S couldn't afford.

Yeah, that was the reality. I know that. In real life, the C&S was more of a tragic comedy than a happy-ending rags to riches story.

But that's the point of a fantasy daydream locomotive. If only the UP high muckity-mucks had a little more appreciation for branch lines feeding their dream of transcontinental standard gauge. If only the Morrison branch had just a little more traffic. If only there were a bit of movement in the mining industry. If only...

Put two or three what-ifs together and then there just might have been enough money to upgrade some track and bridges and enough money to do one more round of maintenance on some of the lighter locomotives so they lived just a little longer and enough money to purchase some of those Baldwin-bid 2-10-2s and 2-6-6-2s.

This lets me enjoy my modified Key #22 that I have as the B-3A #13. This lets me tear apart a Westside C-16 and make a B-4A #30 with a Bear-Trap cinder catcher and an intermediate tender in 1925. This lets me dream of free-lancing the #77 2-10-2 and the two #78 and #79 2-6-6-2s.

I'll never win the master super-detailing rivet-counter's detail award, (and I do envy those of you with the skills to do such things) but I just may have a lot of fun playing with my toy trains.

Skip Egdorf

[Alex Hois]

There is actually a connection of the Uintah Mallets and the C&S:
Henry E. Bender's "Uintah Railway. The Gilsonite Route" actually talks about the Uintah Mallets and the C&S:
"In September, 1930, Vice-President and General Manager Robert Rice of the Colorado & Southern had suggested to his motive power man that they investigate the purchase of one or both of the Uintah  Mallets for use on their narrow gauge Clear Creek District. The Uintah offered both for sale at $28,750 each, F.O.B. Mack. The C&S found, though, that they would have to spend $12,150 to reinforce bridges and another $60,000 to recondition the track on its Clear Creek line before the heavy Mallets could be used; and service on that line was down to twice-a-week, and someone estimated that one of the Mallets would cost nearly as much to operate as two of the existing consolidations, so the matter was dropped."

Cornelius W. Hauck's "The Colorado Rail Annual No. 10: Narrow Gauge to Central and Silver Plume: Route of the famed Georgetown Loop" also has a whole chapter named "Moguls to Mallets". It talks about different Uintah engines, including the Mallets, and different Baldwin offers for 2-8-2s and 2-10-2s, and 2-6-6-2s.

Uintah's Mallets sure would have looked interesting with bear trap stacks and butterfly plows, straining the Devil's Gate viaduct ;o)

Alex

[nickgully]

Mallets on the Burlington were T-1 through T-3 class, so perhaps this would be a T-4?

Best Regards,
 Nick

[Fatbiker52]

Hi everyone.
Since we have started to discuss missing What if classifications for the C&S, heres a question I would like someone to answer.  
I have one of those Bachmann On30 consolidations. It's only slightly larger than my mmi, D&RGW C-19. What classification would it likely be.
Thanks
Fred

[South Park]

 Philosophosophy 101, or The Study of Epistemology:

Am I the only one that thinks about how people think ?  

My favorite period of American history is the 1875-1900 years, when many of the
emerging industries (like railroads) were really hitting their stride, but had yet to
evolve into more streamlined operations.  Architecture, RR related industries ...
foundries, communications, bridge building, all retained a soon-to-be archaic design
sense.  As it relates to the South Park, to my sensibilities, the RR never looked better
and was more interesting than when Congdon-stacked Masons, 2-8-0's, and moguls
pulled little trains all over the system.  As David Digerness stated in one of his books,
it was the lack of funding to modernize that kept the South Park in 19th century locomotives
to the very end, and to the shop's credit, they did an excellent job in keeping ancient
equipment working, and perhaps by accident, kept it looking old and interesting, as
opposed to modern stuff that looked like black tubes on wheels like what the D&RG
did with K-36's and 37's.

It seems that humans are instinctively bent on refining and "improving" any given
situation to speed service, cut costs, or streamline operations.  As it relates to this thread
subject, the use of larger locomotives was just the next step in a long line of "upgrades"
to do the same job for less money.  In this case, the 1880's rail infrastructure held them
back from a cost-savings advantage of one crew instead of two by using a single, larger
locomotive.

My point here is, "progress" is not always an "improvement" in the bigger picture.  It
may make sense from a budgetary perspective, but the loss of character as a result of
streamlining often means things get dull and boring.  A South Park mallet may have
been interesting because it never happened, but it would have come at the expense of
the retirement and scrapping of the smaller locomotives.  And ten years on, diesels
would have replaced the mallets, making my point that "newer and better" is a subjective
matter.  If I had my druthers and a magic wand, the South Park would still be running
to Gunnison with their 1880's motive power and rolling stock.  I like what came later,
but they reached their aesthetic and community-intrinsic climax around 1885.  Today,
the situation has been so "improved" that the RR is gone and any community support
that the RR provided is dumped on the state to provide highways at a much greater cost
to all the citizens of the State.

[Fatbiker52]

I loved the post by South Park. It really puts things into perspective from a historical point of view.
We as modelers come at our common hobby from varied points of view. My own is that I feel that some historical authenticity and fantasyx is a thing that drives me into pursuing the South Park System and it's successor lines.
'What if locos' are not just a part of fantasy, to some of us it keeps our chosen railroads alive.
I personally think that the era South Park loves is one that could show the South Park in its 'glory'. I would love to include a survivor consolidation with it's early domes and maybe a Congdon stack still attached. There is an excellent model depicted on the cover of the 2016 On30 annual.
For me the only thing I'd add would be an early electric light and be generator. That way the memory of the South Park/ DLG/C&S carry on.
Fred

[Paul R.]

That is probably my favourite era Mason bogies etc, but I also like other times as well. I have a big bogie waiting to be assembled, but the easier jobs come first. On standard gauge SP cab forwards I like, which is the interest in articulated locos. Here in Victoria,Au  having spent 2yrs as a cleaner/fireman at the end of steam, easy choices, all the loco types I worked on ranging from 2-8-0, 2-8-2 and 4-6-4 as well as some early diesels. Keeps my interest up with so many choices Paul R.

[Robert McFarland]

In order to show the South Park in its glory you would have to focus on 1878-1882/3.That means Mason Bogies,Baldwin Consolidations,Dawson&Bailey Moguls with Nesmith stacks.During this period they were making tons of money and had to lease D&RG and AT&SF ng  engines to keep up with all the business they were recieving.