First Coal Burning Engine in the West
Larry, not sure off the top of my head what the 1944 Joslyn is, but suspect it is one of the rewrites of the SP Shops articles that Joslyn did, or one of the CP rosters he also did and revised periodically.
As to the WP "Industry"/CP 2nd #25, we do have an early photo of it as CP #25 at Terrace, UT, as a coal burner (coal visible in the tender) in Best, Iron Horses to Promontory, pg 74. The conversion to coal is fully within the capabilities of outlying shops, and needn't have been in Sacramento. For instance, in 1874 the Carlin shops (largest CP shops in Eastern Nevada and Utah at the time) replaced the swivel joint in Eureka & Palisades 0-4-4T #1, a Mason bogie (a pretty extensive job, I think). The part was cast in Sacramento (the drawing survives at CSRM) and shipped to Carlin for installation. Carlin had a good-sized shop by 1869-70, and the conversion quite possibly occurred there, although changing wood grates for coal grates (which comprised most of the work - the Industry still has its funnel stack in the photo) could likely have been handled at the smaller shops associated with the roundhouses further east at Toano and Terrace. And since the eastern part of the CP was the district using coal (from Utah and Wyoming), it makes sense that the conversion occurred there rather than in Sacramento. See Best pgs 73-74. Also keep in mind that the Union Pacific locos such as #119 were coal burners. (It seems to me there is a "smokeless" engine converted in Sacramento for the Oakland and Alameda lines a short time later - Wendell, do you recall?)
As a side note, I've seen a better copy of the photo of the WP Industry/CP #25. The builder's plate and smokebox front clearly identifies the loco as Norris-Lancaster c/n 14, built in 1864 (consistent with what Best lists).
Kyle K. Wyatt
Curator of History & Technology
California State Railroad Museum
Note my work address has changed to: kwyatt@parks.ca.gov
My personal address remains: kylewyatt@aol.com
>>> Larry Mullaly lmullaly@jeffnet.org 02/13/05 1:42 PM >>>
I have been working with Arnold Menke for some time on an article dealing with SP's transition from coal to oil. This past week, Arnold submitted the following additional information:
Western Pacific "I", the Industry, became the first coal-burner in 1870, and later that year it was running between Ogden and Terrace, Utah, as Central Pacific second 25.[i]
[1] Joslyn (1944, p. 19); Diebert and Strapac (1987, p. 35, 78).
It seems very odd that the "Western Pacific" (by 1870, CP in all but name) would convert an engine to coal burning only to have the CP ship it off to the wilds of Utah. A more logical pattern would be that the engine was being shopped in Sacramento, at which time it was converted to coal burning and then sent east.
I am not familiar with the Joselyn 1944 source that Arnold cites. Diebert and Strapac do give no reference for saying the this was the "first locomotive on the West Coast to burn coal fuel."
Anything you can add would be appreciated.
posted from CPRR Discussion Group at 8:13 PM
17 Comments:
From: lmullaly@jeffnet.org
I have been working on topic of wood to coal conversion on the Central Pacific and wonder if anyone could add to the information provided by Kyle Wyatt ...
The question: Diebert and Strapac, Compendium, p. 78, suggest that Western Pacific locomotive "I" (later CP 2nd No. 25) was the first coal burner on the West Coast. Did the conversion and original operation of the engine as a coal burner take place in 1870 prior to the locomotive's assignment to the CP Terrace to Ogden run?
Larry Mullaly
In a message dated 2/13/2005 8:40:37 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, lmullaly@jeffnet.org writes:
This is fascinating. Sounds as if the Western Pacific may get some credit for initial experiments of any scale, but that WP "Industry" was just one of the engines involved.
I have always assumed that there is not much difference between a wood burning and coal burning engine; that the engines were normally built for coal and wood was used as a fuel substitute. I have a reference somewhere of "peat" being using on a test run the Los Angeles & San Pedro in the early 1870s.
Larry
>>> wendellhuffman@hotmail.com 02/13/05 8:26 PM >>>
I've gone through my newspsper copies/notes for the last half of 1869. The earliest reference I have to coal burning locomotives from that period is a copy of a Gerry Best note from the Alta of 6 October 1869 that a coal mine is being opened at "Corral" and that the first successful experiment using the native coal was conducted the previous day with the locomotive "Stockton"–and that is was more satisfactory than that used from Mt. Diablo.
Note, this does not say "Stockton" was the first engine to burn coal, only that it was the first to burn "native" coal. Question: was not Mt. Diablo coal "native"? It sounds like they had already experimented with Diablo coal.
W.
>>> wendellhuffman@hotmail.com 02/13/05 8:14 PM >>>
I just found the following in my notes: "Industry" was first locomotive to burn coal, citing Joslyn letter to Guy Dunscomb of 15 Oct 1957.
And then, in going through newspaper copies:
Union 21 January 1870. "Economical Running. The locomotive Eclipse [CP 94, McKay], Seymour Johnson engineer, has twice ran from Oakland to Sacramento and return drawing the Western Pacific passenger train, with but one tender load of coal, which, taken on at the former place, served for the round trip, wheras other engines coal twice while performing the same work. The coal spoken of is from a mine at Ogden. The saving of fuel by the Eclipse speaks well of the skill of the engineer, the quality of the coal, and the make of the engine."
The strong implication is than not only Eclipse, but other engines as well were already burning coal in late January 1870--but also implied that it was a new endeavor. Also–that coal was to be had (at least for the expereiment, perhaps)–at Oakland and Sacramento.
Wendell
To bring everyone up to speed, copied [above] is the discussion so far about the first Central Pacific locomotive to burn coal.
My most recent comments:
The "Corral" mentioned as the source for the coal used on the WP/CP "Stockton" (at the end of the past discussion copied below) is Corral Hollow, I believe. Coal mines here were later (1896) served by the Alameda & San Joaquin, with coal bunkers in Stockton for loading ships for shipment. The A&SJ still later became part of the (20th century) Western Pacific.
I also read the 1869 article as comparing the "Corral" coal to Mt Diablo coal, indicating that at least someone is using Mt Diablo coal, and suggesting that the CP has at least tried it. As to Mt Diablo being "native", it isn't anywhere near the CP/WP rail line, while Corral Hollow is close enough to be considered local, and to use the CP/WP for shipment. As to quality, I suspect the coal form the two places are very similar - both being close to each other in the Coast Range.
At this time period (1869-70) changing from wood to coal doesn't involve much more than changing the grates in the firebox, and perhaps the netting in the stack.
Kyle K. Wyatt
Curator of History & Technology
California State Railroad Museum
Note my work address has changed to: kwyatt@parks.ca.gov
My personal address remains: kylewyatt@aol.com
From: "Randall Hees" hees@ix.netcom.com
Here are three newspaper articles discussing Western Pacific's experiments with coal as a fuel, in November of 1869. Industry is specifically mentioned as burning coal (although unsuccessfully) It looks like the experiments started the second week of November.
Randy
From the Sacramento Bee, November 24, 1869. "Delayed The train of the Western Pacific Railroad did not arrive till five o’clock last evening. The detention was caused by experimenting with coal as a fuel."
From the Sacramento Union, November 24, 1869, "Late again – The Western Pacific passenger train did not get in till five o’clock yesterday afternoon, being three hours and a half late. The delay is said to have been occasioned by the inability of the locomotive used – the Industry – to make the requisite amount of steam. The passengers say that until Gault was reached if they felt fatigues from sitting down they could get off the train and run along a quarter of a mile or so, until their limbs were well stretched, then get on and ride for a while. Slow travel has its good features apparently as well as fast time. At Galt the locomotive Pacer went to the assistance of the belated train, which from that point came to the city rapidly."
From the Sacramento Union, November 25, 1869, "The Western Pacific express train was delayed again yesterday afternoon not getting in until three o’clock – an hour and a half behind time. The delay is attributed to the difficulty experienced in making steam, but the cause probably lies somewhere else. Two of our city contemporaries in mentioning the delay of the train on Tuesday gravely stated that is was caused by the burning of coal, experimentally, as a fuel – ignoring the fact that many of the engines on the Western Pacific Railroad have been burning coal altogether for several weeks. They will probably inform their readers in speaking of the trains sequence of the engineer’s trying wood, experimentally as fuel, the Sacramento, that brought the train in being a wood burner"
Based on Randy's Sacramento Union and Bee articles, it's pretty clear that the WP Industry was converted to coal in Sacramento, or possibly Oakland. If in Sacramento, it pre-dates Stevens becoming General Master Mechanic. If in Oakland (or Alameda), then it would be under (local) Master Mechanic Stevens, before his promotion. I also note the comment that other WP locomotives had been converted several weeks earlier. Presumably what made the splash in the newspapers was that Industry was pulling the through passenger train (as opposed to a freight train).
Also, Utah coal is of much better quality than California coal.
Kyle
Note my NEW address of kwyatt@parks.ca.gov
Kyle K. Wyatt
Curator of History & Technology
California State Railroad Museum
From: wendellhuffman@hotmail.com
This, from the pre-discussion discussion (as posted to discussion by Kyle), puts the commencement of the experiment back into early October (if not earlier–since it suggests that Diabolo coal had already been tried). I haven't compared the dates, but this isn't long at all after the completion of the WP connection between the Bay and Sacramento–suggesting (expecially if Diabolo coal had previously been tried) that this was something drempt up by the WP, not the CP.
quote: I've gone through my newspsper copies/notes for the last half of 1869. The earliest reference I have to coal burning locomotives from that period is a copy of a Gerry Best note from the Alta of 6 October 1869 that a coal mine is being opened at "Corral" and that the first successful experiment using the native coal was conducted the previous day with the locomotive "Stockton"–and that is was more satisfactory than that used from Mt. Diablo. end quote.
It seems to me the sequence would have been: 1) "damn this firewood is getting expensive; let's get some coal and burn it in a loco and see how it goes" 2) they get some coal from the blacksmith shop and burn it (they may first have used imported coal from British COlumbia, then repeated the same test with Diabolo coal). 3) "Okay, that was cool. Where can we get some coal on the line of the railroad?" 4) Let's talk somebody into digging out some of that coal up at "Corral Hollow". 5) Put some "Corral" coal into the "Stockton" and try it (5 October 1869). In other words,the true first burning of coal may have been even before October. It would be interesting to see who the principals were in the coal mine.
I think someone needs to look at the Alta and see if Best's article tells us any more. Oakland papers might help, too.
W.
Like Wendell, I suspect the key is the Corral Hollow ("Corral") coal – which gave the CP (via new WP line) an on-line supply of coal, unlike Mt Diablo coal which needed to be shipped to the railroad. If the CP hadn't tried Mt Diablo coal, they likely were at least aware of how it performed in the locomotives of the two coal railroads.
Kyle
Note my NEW address of kwyatt@parks.ca.gov
Kyle K. Wyatt
Curator of History & Technology
California State Railroad Museum
From: mikadobear45@yahoo.com
Perhaps the relatively cogent question about CPRR's broader use of coal as fuel is to ask ourselves what source of coal was fueling CP's San Francisco Bay ferries before the conversion to bunker oil usage? Yes there would have been marine colliery suppliers in the SF-Oakland area, but maybe CP was getting theirs somewhere else during the same period? Ditto the question for Sacramento-San Joaquin river steamers.
–Kevin Bunker
From: "chris graves" caliron@cwnet.com
There were coal mines in the area of Ione, Calif. that were used by the Associates. I have memory of seeing deeds to Crocker from the 1870's. gjg
From: "Wendell Huffman" wendellhuffman@hotmail.com
Yes, and such far-flung places as Lincoln, California. However, I am all but certain that those all post dated Diabolo, and then Corral Hollow. Somewhere around here I have a newspaper report of a frog that was released from a seam of coal in the Diabolo coal mine that was revived. (If it was in print, it must have been true.) WH.
See additional comments.
California coal production was the subject of a paper I did back in the late 1970's. With only one or two small exceptions, California's coal was lignite or sub-lignite. It was not very satisfactory as a fuel, and the quantity being mined was rather insignificant. I suspect that it may have been attempted to use local coal in a quite restricted area, but nothing of a more widespread nature. The fact that California coal was forced out of the local market by coal shipped from Australia must say something about the superiority of coal from Down Under in relation to coal from Mt. Diablo. One coal mine remained in 1977. Near Ione, the coal was being processed to extract the wax from it, the remaining solids being tossed in the trash, so to speak. The mine manager described it as utterly useless as fuel.
—Tom Irion
[from the R&LHS Newsgroup.]
From: "Wendell Huffman" wendellhuffman@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: California coal production
There were a small number of coal mines in California.
The original Western Pacific had a mine at "Corral Hollow" near their Livermore summit which they attempted to develop as a source for locomotive fuel. Success was (of course) claimed in the press, but it was also blamed for a number of late arrivals. Same coal was tried subsequently on Central Pacific engines.
Tom has mentioned the Ione mine. I believe there was one near Lincoln as well. As down Coalinga way.
There are some photos of the Mt Diabalo operation in an old California Division ... of Mines publication on geology of the San Francisco Bay area. ... I believe there were two mine complexes, both on the north face of the mountain. One at Nortonville and the other just over a ridge at Somersville. If you find a good map of the area you can still fine Nortonville-Somersville road to the Black Diamond Regional Park. I'm thinking that Booth (Union Iron) in San Francisco built the locomotives for the railroad.
—Wendell.
[from the R&LHS Newsgroup.]
From: kylewyatt@aol.com
Subject: Mt. Diablo Coal
CP and SP tried local coal sources such as Mt Diablo and Tesla in the 1870s and 80s, but the quality was poor. Mostly they used imported coal form Washington and Vancouver Island, and perhaps from Utah and Wyoming. They may also have used some Australian and even British coal (the latter delivered as ballast in ships that returned with California wheat).
Kyle K. Wyatt
Curator of History & Technology
California State Railroad Museum
111 "I" Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
[from the R&LHS Newsgroup.]
Also see, more about Kyle K. Wyatt.
Post a Comment
<< Recent Messages