Coal and Water (on the South Park)

[Chris Walker]

Todd Hackett wrote

I thought I'd seen capacities for the two pocket sizes at Pine Grove (which had two larger bins), but I don't remember where.

I'd think here is a good place to look..... http://c-sng-discussion-forum.254.s1.nabble.com/The-C-S-Coal-Chutes-Pine-Como-Dickey-Pitkin-and-almost-Breckenridge-tp4269.html



Forum Thread Revivalist

[Mike Trent]

Thanks, Todd. I'm sure you're right, and that would have been George Theide. If the pockets would have had a 6 ton capacity, they probably would have designated certain pockets only for 6 tons. Most of them would probably have been marked for 5 tons, because engines with 6 ton capacity would not have needed or could not have held a full 6 fresh tons.

[Mike Trent]

Actually, since there are 12 pockets at Dickey, the capacity in the pockets is 5 tons. Which makes perfect sense.

This was captured from a Ken Martin post that was part of the thread that Chris provided from an earlier post. Thanks, Chris.

It shows tons in the chutes, and tons on the "platform" which shows, at Dickey, 2,000 tons, which would be four 50 ton loaded cars, which is correct for total weight, but also included the empty weight of four gons, which would be a combined weight of 40 tons of the 2,000.



It is in tons not the number of pockets, but here is some info from a 1905 C&S "List of Officers, Agents and Stations"

                Amount in tons
Location      Chute       Platform     total
Pine Grove     24             500          524
Como             50              900         950
Dickey           96            2000       2096
Leadville                        1500       1500
Schwanders   64              500          564
Pitkin             64                                 64

KenMartin

[Keith Hayes]

Mike, Todd, Dave and Chris, thanks for the input.

You bring up a couple of factors--loads (mostly) going west, more empties coming east. There would be boxcars full of moly, and some ore going to smelters, but otherwise, empties.

I also looked into the profile charts in the files section. The ride west to Pine Grove is a steady 3% uphill along the South Platte; the grade steepens to 4% west of Webster on the east side of Kenosha, but then it is mostly downhill to Como. The next day is 4% up Boreas, 4% down and 4% up Fremont. All this means using a lot of coal on westbound trips.

Eastbound is a steady 2.8% to Climax, down to Dickey, up 4.1% to Boreas, a short 4.2% to the top of Kenosha and then downhill all the way to Denver. The crews would need the most Coal in Dickey, justifying the large capacity at that dock.

Assuming four locomotives, 8, 72, 75 and 537, you have two with 5 ton capacity and two with 8 ton. I figure going west you woudl need 60+ tons and coming home about 70 tonds, over 5 cars round trip.

So every fourth trip would see 4 carloads of coal going to Pine Grove, 6 destined for Como and 7 consigned to Dickey, with just 3 making it all the way to Leadville. Mike, it makes sense the helper would charge ahead on the eastbond trip and do the switching at each site. If 16-20 cars were coming back east, 2-3 locos could handle that train to Climax, and the helper could go straight to Dickey to switch. Similarly, there is the photo of a long eastbound taking water at Webster, with 537 and one other loco on the point; the helpers must have run ahead towards Pine Grove to take care of business.

Dave, I will let you noodle on Alpine operations: it gets worse over there with the steady 2.6% grade up Trout Creek, the long push to Alpine, and then all downhill to Gunny. In a 10-car train, half of that going west would be coal to get the locos to Gunny and back. And that is five more cars to handle to Como. So if you model the period when Alpine was in operation, you need to haul a LOT of coal!

[Mike Trent]

Thanks, Keith, that's a lot of noodling, indeed. Makes one's head spin.

Not that it makes any difference at all to your scenario, but #537's rebuilt tender was rated at 6 tons, from 70's 5 tons, And I believe #75's tender was probably only 7 tons as the side sheets were only 12" instead of 24". #75's bunker was extended 12", but the net result was still well below the 8 ton capacity of 74 and 76. This was done, as you might recall, as a result of #75 rolling over into the river very early in its C&S days, attributed, possibly to the tender being top heavy. Yes, all useless trivia!

[Dave Eggleston]

Keith, some thoughts on your comment.

Coal came from Baldwin and then moved east from Gunnison. Company coal--the mines at Baldwin were UP or Denver properties--was favored as far as I can tell, in the era I look at. Trumbull reopened Alpine Tunnel in 1894 specifically because he was deeply invested in those mines. I would theorize that coal typically was not moved east to Gunnison, that would be a cost the line would frown on, having to come from at the closest the mines at Como, when those operated, at worst from Denver.

What I also understand is that westbound trains to Gunnison from Como were mostly empties, a lot of empty coal cars returning to be filled at Baldwin. We know that eastbound trains were up to 20+ cars and often 1-2 engines. Much lighter and less costly than the westbound trains from Gunnison.

What the UP's report on Alpine Tunnel found was 1-2 cars of coal consumed by the 3-4 engines heading east with a freight/coal drag.

The big consumers east of Gunnison were the Mary Murphy, Leadville ore processing and consumers in Denver. And the railroad itself. What I have never seen is an accounting of how the 12-14 cars coming on each train were allocated across the line. I also don't have an idea of how many extras moved coal, but presume that as cold approached it was more than mid-summer.

[Keith Hayes]

Excellent points,  Dave.