Re: Three More Questions

Michael,

Your explanation for why Quincy would not sell anything sounds logical, and I have no reason to doubt it. I recall thinking at the time that the explanation that they were holding onto the railroad and equipment for use in case they resumed mining seemed far fetched because the narrow gage railroad tranport seemed obsolete and everying was worn out. But that was the explanation given to me by President Todd.

Regarding my question as to why they scrapped #4, I found one explanation in Copper County Rail by George E. Anderson and Richard E. Taylor. It mentions that #4 suffered cracks in the frame, and the welds did not hold. I assume that means that Quincy did the welding to repair inital cracking, and the welds re-cracked. In any case, Brooks refused to take responsibility, claiming that Quincy had over-worked the engine. If Quincy expected Brooks to take responsibility for the problem, I assume this cracking began rather early in the life of #4.

What sort of "overworking" would crack the frame?

Regarding photos of the engine house, I do have some, but I would have to get them scanned. I will see what I can do. Most of the enginehouse interior shots are of dubious exposure levels. Others may have some better ones, as I recall that there were a lot of Kodak film boxes lying around on the floor of the enginehouse during the period when it was in the open state.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/18/2010 11:27PM by Ron Keagle.