SF&SJ 4-4-0 San Jose - #1 or 32
Attached is a large scan of Norris-built 4-4-0 Southern Pacific "San Jose." Note the SP logo on the tender. My question is whether that is a "1" or "2" on the sand box.
This photo has often been presented as being on Peter Donahue's new San Francisco & North Pacific, but I wonder if it is actually taken while still on the San Francisco & San Jose/Southern Pacific.
I'm guessing that the building in the background says:
SANTA ROSA
PLANING MILL
but unless we know that the mill is located in Santa Rosa, I think it possible that such a mill might be in, say, San Jose.
In favor of the photo being in Santa Rosa, I note the following:
Historical And Descriptive Sketch Of Sonoma County, California Sonoma County CA Archives History - Books .....Manufactures 1877
HISTORICAL AND DESCRIPTIVE SKETCH OF SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA,
BY ROBERT A. THOMPSON, EDITOR OF "THE SONOMA DEMOCRAT."
PHILADELPHIA: L. H. EVERTS & CO. 1877.
Santa Rosa planing mill is situated on Wilson street, and was built in 1870
by H. T. Hewitt. It was afterwards sold to Mr. Arnold, and by him to F. Korbel &
Brothers, who still own it. The engine is twenty horse power, and the daily
capacity of the mill is from seven to twelve thousand feet of ordinary planing
work. From eight to ten hands are usually employed about the mill.
What do you think?
—Kyle
posted from CPRR Discussion Group at 12:38 AM
7 Comments:
From: "John Snyder" johnsnyder@onetel.com
I can't tell what the number is. A search of San Jose city directories (California State Library?) should indicate whether there was a "Santa Rosa Planing Mill" at that locale. My personal guess is that the photo location is Santa Rosa.
—John Snyder, White Ensign Models
From: "Wendell Huffman" wwhuffma@clan.lib.nv.us
I will believe the photo was taken in Santo Rose until I see evidence otherwise. However, I believe the locomotive is lettered (and numbered) as it was on the Southern Pacific prior to delivery to the SF&NP (in other words, the image was captured shortly after arrival in Santa Rosa). But I cannot discern the number.
—Wendell
From: "Larry Mullaly" lmullaly@jeffnet.org
I know this will only complicate matters: but the SP logo is problematic.
The San Jose was a San Francisco & San Jose locomotive, sold to the San Francisco & North Pacific as part as the closing exchanges leading to the purchase of the SF & SJ as well as the SP by the associates in October of 1870. The Southern Pacific at this time only had technical claim to 4 locomotives (I can only identify 3 of them) purchased in conjunction with the construction of the road between San Jose and Gilroy (this appears in the November 1870 US Railroad Commissioners’ report). It seems very unlikely that the little San Jose was made part of the Gilroy operation in terms of engine ownership.
It needs to be kept in mind that the SP was largely a legal fiction until acquired by the associates. Operations and even ownership were under the hands of Donahue and his friends until September October 1870 when financing was finally secured allowing SP to take possession of the entire set of lines, San Francisco to Gilroy, hitherto operated by the SF & SJ.
The logo, which seems to resemble the artful rendering of an SP logo found at the back cover of Diebert and Strapac’s compendium, also seems to be of a later date. As far as I can recall, photographs of SP engines during the 70’s show only lettering not numbers.
Is this some kind of a SF & SJ logo? If so it is the only one I have ever seen. Is this a late photo, when somehow a tender bearing a later style SP logo got swapped into the SF & NP engine pool? Nothing but uncertainties.
I write this while on a visit to New Jersey, so may be off in some of the finer points.
—Larry Mullaly
Looks like a "2" – see the enhanced enlargement of the sand box, above.
From: kylewyatt@aol.com
On the specific number on the sand dome, so far I have one vote for "1" and one vote for "2".
On the question of SP tender lettering, keep in mind that you have two separate operations through the 1870s – Northern Division, operated by SP's own people, and Southern Division, leased to and operated by Central Pacific and following CP standards. On the Northern Division SP monograms show up very early on tenders. And of the various monograms I have seen, this one strikes me as of a rather earlier style compared to the one on the back of Diebert & Strapac.
Reading the corporate history in the back of Dunscomb (pg 405), it says that SF&SJ was acquired by the original SPRR in March 1868 (presumably that is control, certainly not a formal merger). Also that the CP Associates acquired control of the SPRR some time between March and September 1868, with incorporation of the second SPRR on October 12, 1870 formally consolidating SP, SF&SJ, and one or two others. Keep in mind that Dunscomb's presentation is based nearly completely on an internal corporate history compiled by SP in the teens (for valuation, I think), and updated a number of times after – I've seen an original copy from the late 1930s.
We also know that CP locos were assigned to the WP in the late 1860s, but that lettering apparently remained with the parent corporation – CP. In the case of the SP and the SF&SJ it sounds like the SP became the parent corporation with SF&SJ becoming the subsidiary.
Turning the discussion another way, the Norris engines might actually be more likely engines to be reassigned to SP for construction purposes, saving the bigger, newer, better engines for revenue operations.
Finally, as I mentioned, all Northern Division SP operations were handled by their own people, specifically not by CP people. SP Northern Division doesn't appear to have come under the control of Sacramento until after the lease of both CPRR and SPRR to the SPCo. in 1885, and actual control may well have come even later. And SP Northern Division folks did things their own way. In fact, I'd argue that the presence of the SP logo on the tender of the San Jose argues for what common practices on the SP were at the time. Note the photo of SP #1 CP Huntington, taken for Houseworth probably in late 1870 or early 1871 – with SP monogram on the tender. Note the Huntington still has its original "basket" bell stand – so before the wreck and rebuild.
Also, I believe the CP Associates were already in control of SP/SF&SJ by the end of 1868, well before October 1870, although that doesn't mean that Donahue and Co. were necessarily completely out in 1868. My sense is that Donahue had good relations with the Associates – as evidenced by their willingness to sell the SF&NP back to Donahue after the CalP forced Donahue to sell, followed by the Associates' acquisition of control of the Cal P. The Associates would not sell the SF&NP to anyone they had reason not to trust, in my opinion.
—Kyle
From: "Jim Wilke" woodburner@earthlink.net
Several clues might date this image to the late 1870s.
The clothing worn by the men is typical of the late 1870s-early 1880s. The four button sack coat haas small lapels and are buttoned at the top, which is consistent with this era, and the derby hat is stylistically from the same period, and not earlier.
The reference photo of SP No. 1, CP Huntington, dates to 1875, after its wreck and subsequent rebuild in the SF shops, and is the earliest datable example of the SP monogram I'm aware of. Several structural elements on the engine, notably the Stevens style steam dome casing, and the cab, were added to the engine during its rebuild, and the mottoes described on the engine as rebuilt are visible on the two lower cab panels.
The bell stand on the 1875 CP Huntington photo is a replacement for the original stand, and a different style than the one used by Danforth, Cooke & Company. It was either taken from another engine or purchased from the railway supplier who manufactured or distributed them. It was frequently used by the Rogers Locomotive & Machine Works, but also on the Norris built CP No. 1 Governor Stanford. (San Jose had a better grade of Norris bell stand, with iron columns.)
The San Jose has a cowcatcher on the back of the engine, similar to the one installed on CP Huntington in 1875. Was San Jose used in commuter or back and forth service? The stack too, is one similar to, or built to the same plans as, Stevens stacks used on the CP system in the 1870s.
There were probably several styles of monogram on SP engines in the 1870s, as photos indicate, and I'm not sure when the style started. At least we have 1875 as a known early date, which is helpful. The San Jose also has a neat panel design with ornamental corners which appear to be original to the SP shops, and not copied from a known locomotive builder. And the panel itself is a contrasting color to the tank, a decorative style which flourished in the mid 1870s, and apparently in the SP shops as well. Its very different from the deep brown color used in 1875 on CP Huntington. The photo shows San Jose as a nicely turned out engine at one time.
The remarkable thing about this image is that San Jose may look tired, but she is remarkably original. All the wonderful 1860 Norris details are there - the curved run board and wheel covers, pedestal sand box, D-shaped smokebox, turned crosshead guides, and scalloped counterweights. In fact she looks nearly identical to the California Central Norris engines, and the photo of CC Lincoln crossing the CC's American River bridge in Best on page 25 is pretty much what San Jose looked like when she was new. Governor Stanford, in contrast, is a little more "modern" with straight run boards, and the 1860s wheel covers. Since locomotive builders would change designs within a rapid period of time, it suggests that wheel covers replaced the older curved run boards in 1862-63.
Given that the mid 70s paint scheme is worn down, fading and the headlight paint is blistering off, it would appear the photo was taken about three or four years after its repainting, which would also be consistent with the styles of clothing. I'd guess it was photographed after 1875.
—Jim
From: "Kevin Bunker" mikadobear45@yahoo.com
Forgive me, but with my experience in sign painting and the forms of 19th century handpainted lettering, this isn't a "2. The central portion of the numeral is too vertical and compact. A 2 numeral would be broader by about a third. Just because a character is hand-painted doesn't mean that basic sign-painters' rules get thrown out.
Too, the darkest portions of the drop-shadowing are on the same left side; for a "2" one portion of the darker drop shadow would of necessity be under the upper right sweep or diagonal portion of a 2.
—Kevin
Post a Comment
<< Recent Messages