CP #210 Locomotive at Acton
I recently came across a very interesting photo on the Santa Clarita Valley History website.
The photograph captures an immaculate ten-wheeler, CP #210, at the point of a small construction train in Soledad Canyon. I would date the picture as July-August 1876. Once the San Fernando Tunnel was opened up, leased CP motive power seems largely to have been pulled off this portion of the Southern Pacific.
I wonder if the following interpretation holds up: A pile trestle across a desert wash has just been completed by the bridge crew (note the absence of Chinese workers). The photograph records the removal of redwood-tie cribbing that had earlier supported the roadbed during the line's initial construction. The donkey-powered derrick crane that may also have served as a pile driver.
Comments would be welcome!
—Larry
posted from CPRR Discussion Group at 12:55 AM
6 Comments:
From: kylewyatt@aol.com
According to Diebert & Strapac, CP #210 was constructed in April 1876, and placed in service in July. However, the lettering and decorations on the tender, and the attire of the posed assemblage seem more consistent with the early-mid 1880s. Also, it is very hard to tell in the low-resolution photos, but that may be a heavy Thielsen freight car truck under the pile driver, again suggesting 80's, but I could easily be wrong on that one.
—Kyle
From: "Jim Wilke" woodburner@earthlink.net
Kyle is correct. No. 210 is clearly in the livery used by the CP in the 1880s, and is fitted with a stack developed in the same decade. The cut of the men's clothing is also 1880s. The engine looks like a Cooke, but I haven't looked it up.
In regards to the livery, the engine is black, with red wheels; the drivers have black hubs, rims and counterweights, a style which was also used on the Kentucky Central. The lettering is vermilion with chrome green shading, edged and highlighted with cream and dark chrome green.
Its a terrific photo, Larry, thanks for bringing it to light.
—Jim
From: kylewyatt@aol.com
Yes, the loco is a Cooke. As I noted, built in April 1876, and placed in service in July. Assuming it to be photographed in the 1880s, this suggests the paint is Central Pacific standard, not builder paint in the CP style.
On pg 47 of Diebert & Strapac there is a photo of sister Cooke 4-6-0 CP #207, painted similarly, and attributed to the 1880s. On pg 48 is Central Pacific Schenectady 4-4-0 #225 wearing what is decidedly NOT standard CP paint, suggesting that in 1876 the builders were sending the locos to CP and SP painted after their own tastes, and not following CP standards. In Dunscomb pg 218 Southern Pacific Cooke 4-8-0 #77 is also in builder paint about 1883, not CP/SP standard. And then on Dunscomb pg 143 is CP Schenectady 4-6-0 #216 – not CP paint either.
All this again supports the idea that CP #210 at Action was photographed some years after it was built, and after going though the CP shops for a repaint.
A note in passing – a cursury check suggests that the intertwined SP monogram may specifically have been a SP Northern Division (San Francisco) think, in the late 70s and early 80s when that portion of the SP pursued an independent course from the style standards of Sacramento. (You will recall that SP Southern Division was leased to CP, but SP Northern Division was operated by its folks – thus CP Huntington getting rebuilt as a 4-2-4T in San Francisco after its big wreck in San Jose rather than being converted to a 4-2-2 tender engine as the other Cooke bicycles were in Sacramento. Of course after 1885 both SP and CP are leased to SPCo, and things bet more standardized after that – especially after the arrival of H J Small in 1888.
—Kyle
From: "Larry Mullaly" lmullaly@jeffnet.org
Thank you for the dating help of the photograph. If the photograph is of No. 210 in the 1880s, perhaps we can conjecture that it was taken of work related to the realignment of the Soledad Canyon line after the devastating flood of 1884 when as John Signor reports (Tehachapi, p. 23), "all 19 crossings of the Santa Clara River were damaged or destroyed." The askew telegraph pole in the background on the right side of the picture would support this.
John’s map of Soledad Canyon trackage on p. 104 of his Tehachapi book is interesting. It shows that the original route had a far better alignment than the current route used by Metrolink. The only problem was that it failed to take into account the havoc that could be caused by the Santa Clara River in flood.
If anyone has Mike McGinley’s e-mail address, would they kindly forward this thread to him. He is a master of the topic.
—Larry
From: "Jim Wilke" woodburner@earthlink.net
The CP seems to have adopted standard liveries slowly, and in this sense its somewhat typical of American railroad companies. There was no company livery at all during the construction period, and only CP shops liveries during the 1870s. As Kyle well points out, shop liveries could vary from shop to shop along the CP and SP systems.
The mid 1870s Schenectady engines mentioned show the builder's livery – that is, the colors and decorations favored by the builder. However the position of the lettering and numbering suggests that the CP requested that position – not identical to the CP shop scheme using initials alone, but roughly concurrent. This is very typical of the slow transition many railroads made towards what would ultimately become uniform liveries.
Even here there is not great uniformity – several photos of engines on the SP system had the roadname in full, without the centered number, such as "SPRR of Arizona" or "Southern Pacific RR of Cal." The Schenectady builder's photo of SP No. 51 (later 74) shows the Northern Division monogram, clearly requested by the SP when placing the order in 1883.
I'm not sure when the black and red 1880s livery began – we know it was in place by 1885, and there is evidence it may have been used as early as 1883 or 84 – but it does indicate the first effort towards a consistent livery on the CP system, although by no means yet absolute.
Larry's idea of dating the image to an 1884 flood seems consistent with what we know of liveries, and as far as I know is sound. Thanks for suggesting the redate, Larry.
—Jim
From: kylewyatt@aol.com
My perception is that, with some little variety, locomotives under Sacramento's authority tended to get repainted in CP standard paint from about 1872-3 on. Note that San Francisco and the SP Northern Division are NOT under the jurisdiction of Sacramento until sometime after the 1885 lease of all lines to SPCo. – but pretty much everything else CP and SP IS under Sacramento's jurisdiction, so all roundhouses, shop crews, AND engine crews are under the direction of A.J. Stevens. In fact one of the reasons for selecting Stevens as General Master Mechanic of the CP was that he was young and vigorous enough to regularly travel around to the different shops and roundhouses to check them out – and the previous man apparently was not.
Initial standardized CP paint first identifiably shows up at the time the CP Sacramento-built 4-4-0s are constructed. Note the photo we have of CP #173 is actually from the 1880s (Dunscomb pg 38); and note that there is some variation between different 4-4-0s – particularly the first (CP #55 – Dunscomb pg 41) and the later ones (as in CP #188, Diebert & Strapac pg 46). The Ruleson painting of V&T 4-4-0 #18 Dayton (original at NSRM in Carson City) well shows the general style of the CP standard paint of the time. Note particularly the stripes on the tender, and the scrollwork on both sides of the number (except on #55).
That standard undergoes a change in the early 1880s. The 2-6-2T suburban tank engines #230-236, built 12-1881 – 2-1882, still have the scrollwork (Diebert & Strapac pg 49), but 4-8-0 #229, actually completed later, in 4-1882, has the later style wedges (as confirmed by a larger print I have of the photo in Best Iron Horses to Promontory pg 85, which verifies the painting in Dunscomb pg 223). CP #237 El Gobernador (actually finished in 1884) is unique to itself, and doesn't count. Similarly 4-4-0 CP #48 (completed 4-1883 – this loco introduces the outside connected Stevens valve gear), Dunscomb pg 23, and 4-6-0s CP #18 (completed 8-1884) and CP #19 (completed 12-1885) also feature the newer style. And then there is the Cooke-built 4-8-0 SP #77 in Cooke paint in dunscomb pg 218, compared to repainted SP #68 in Dunscomb pg 223 in standard CP-SP paint.
Then there is Schenectady-built 4-4-0 SP #117 on Dunscomb pg 55. This appears to have received a unique special paint job to highlight the Stevens feed water purifier (patented by Stevens (Pat #331,917, issued Dec 8, 1885), and the photo might reasonably be assumed to have been taken around that time (less likely the 1890 date Dunscomb gives it).
My own opinion is that the CP – and SP – left painting and lettering up to the builders with only a very little input – as witness 4-8-0 SP #77 from Cooke mentioned above, which does not even vaguely approximate the CP-SP paint standard. But once it was time to repaint, the style followed the railroad standard.
Interestingly, the photo of 4-8-0 CP #369 on Dunscomb pg 219 used CP-SP style initials on this loco built by Schenectady in 1889 (under H.J. Small, after A.J. Stevens' death in Feb 1888). It is unclear whether this is a builders' photo, but if it is it suggests that Small was exercising more control over the lettering applied by the builders. In any case, it is certainly a different standard than under Stevens as far as placement of lettering is concerned.
Turning to the monogram SP used by San Francisco, as represented by 4-4-0 photos in Dunscomb pgs 46 and 48. This again seems to illustrate the independence of San Francisco for the standards of Sacramento. I believe these two monograms match because they were both applied by the Schenectady factory, in 1880 to #49 (pg 48) and in 1884 to #51 (soon renumbered 73) (pg 46). These two monograms do not match monograms in other photos of SP engines that I have that were taken in Monterey in the early 1880s – although most locos there (but not quite all) do have monograms. Of particular interest are SP 4-4-0s #45-47, delivered as CP #229-231 in 1878 and transferred to SP as #45-48 immediately upon arrival. The tender tank from #45 survives today behind the Gov. Stanford at CSRM. We did not have time to research down to the lowest layer of paint, but we did find a monogram SP on the tender side, one that is similar to but does not exactly match any of the monograms seen in SP photos. From all this, I conclude that SP Northern division specified a monogram SP for at least passenger engines form builders, but left the details to the builders. And varied their own details of practice over time on the monogram as well.
By the way, the photo of CP 4-6-0 #210 that started all this shows up in Best pg 169, labeled as being taken on the SP of Arizona. In my opinion, the location could go either way. Has anyone actually recognized the location?
—Kyle
Post a Comment
<< Recent Messages