C&S Operating Practices

Posted by Keith Hayes on Jan 18, 2015; 9:15pm
URL: http://c-sng-discussion-forum.254.s1.nabble.com/C-S-Operating-Practices-tp287.html

As I develop the operating schemes for Leadville, I am most interested in duplicating C&S practice. This includes understanding the locomotive tonnage ratings (and operating rules). Klinger has published C&S locomotive tonnage ratings, and I have used these to develop a table of C&S and D&RGW ratings. There the matter of an adjustment factor, which seems to discount the weight of a car going upgrade, which does not make sense.

In any case, tonnage ratings help explain a lot about the C&S locomotive roster. The large number of B-4-B class locomotives disappeared early on as they were worth about half the cars on a steep grade of a B-4-E (71-73). This helps explain the trade of so many B-4-Bs to Morse Brothers in exchange for the B-4-Fs. By the mid-20s, all the less powerful locos were gone, save perhaps #30, which held down the Como-Alma run to the end.

For comparison purposes, the C&S rated their locos on the 4% for more tons than the D&RG rated the C-21s (#'s 360-361). The three C-19s appear to compare with the B-3-Cs (#'s 4-10) for tonnage (about 3 cars on 4%), confirming that these were powerful locomotives as rebuilt.

Why is this important? A B-4-F is rated for 15 cars between Denver and Waterton, but may only be able to haul 5 of those cars beyond through Platte Canon, and only 4 cars to the top of Kenosha. In modeling terms, it is entirely appropriate to have a train with 4-5 cars in the mountains, or better yet, a double-header with 10 cars. My question is, who on the railroad determined the combination of the number of cars to be handled and the locomotive assignment?