The case that was made for the mechanical work) not being done was weak (ie: the main rod not being connected to the third driver). The changes are documented, as Mr. Schneider says himself, and they can be seen on Page 354 of the DSP&P Pictorial Supplement, also on page 371, 373 and 376. All of these are of the Union Pacific era on the South Park.
What about the C&S? For that , let’s go to George Coleman’s book, Narrow Gauge Pictorial, Volume VI Motive power of the Colorado & Southern. For a Main rod connected to the third axle, we can see clear photographs of this phenomenon of this on pages 84 (No. 37), 89 (no.39), 113 (ex No. 55), and 117 (no. 57), and page 137 (No. 61). These are Cooke and Rhode Island built locomotives. These later became components of American Locomotive Company aka ALCo.
I would also draw your attention to the locomotive folio sheet dated 1915 showing the Cooke-built consolidations with the main rod connected to the third axle. This was published in Hol Wagner’s “The Colorado Road” book on page 52.
I maintain that this evidence is much stronger than that to the contrary for establishing that the work was actually done. One question would be who did the work rather than whether or not it was done at all. The photographic evidence is overwhelming to support the proposition that the main rods were, in fact actually attached to the axle of the third driver after the purchase of the locomotives by the DSP&P/U&N. The photos shown of U&N 265 and 261 on Pg 77 of Colorado Rail Annual no. 15 shows the main rod attached to the second set of drivers (261 became C&S 58 and 265 became C&S 62), indicating that the work was done after purchase and after transfer of these locomotives to the South Park.
It is cited in the article that to connect the main rod to the third driver was quite an undertaking. True, if you were to undertake it today. Remember we are not talking about today and what can and can’t be done at a museum or shade-tree shop. Both the UP and C&S had major shop facilities in Denver, well capable of performing this kind of modification. The C&S was so modern for its time that its yard and shop layout was featured in an Railroad engineering book that I once ran across in the library of a college that I attended. UP and C&S had backshops that could lift a 3'gauge boiler off its frame with ease. Remember, neither the C&S nor the other 3' gauge to the south of town were rinky-dink outfits. These were Class 1 railroads in every sense of the word.
Back to my theory of who did the work. I believe, owing to the age of the photographs of the locomotives that the work was probably done by the UP rather than the C&S. Why? Because the photos showing the main rods connected to the third drivers are dated around 1899, only one year after the creation of the C&S and before the building of the Rice Yard complex. Second, the photos of these locomotives taken as close as one year later as is the case with No 37 (see Coleman pg. 85) show the Main rod being re-connected to the original second axle.
Perhaps the work of restoring the original configuration was for ease of keeping valve timing, as was suggested in one post (although not very likely) or perhaps the savings in fuel (by the more favorable geometry) were not as great as expected or perhaps it was just easier for the shops to maintain just one set of drivers with the main rods, eccentrics, and greater counterbalance required than attempting to do the same on two different sets of drivers. Perhaps the main rods were wearing out too quickly or cracking with the increased stress, maybe the heavier main rods were causing increased wheel or rail wear or the main bearings were consistently running hot, and maybe, like with many experiments, they never “worked quite right”. Nonetheless, with a startup company like the C&S an undertaking such as the original conversion would be an unnecessary expense and unlikely so early in the company’s existence.
My tendancy to believe that they were a UP conversion is predicated upon the fact that the UP was a big customer of Cooke, Rhode Island and later ALCo and were constantly making modifications to their locomotives. Records show that a series of locomotives would be picked and that the Mechanical Department would, for instance, install three stacks or low-water alarms or foaming alarms or Poppet Valves on many of them to test their effectiveness. They were also big on standardization, even in these early days. So, if the CMO (Chief Mechanical Officer) said “third axle” it was third axle.
The modifications involved were both more and less difficult than the author of the original article would have us believe. First, the crossheads had to be heavy enough to handle the increased load of the mainrod, probably the reason that the Laird type were abandoned in favor of the alligator type. Second, the drivers would have to be dropped (or the frame and boiler lifted) for the shuffling to take place. If, and I say IF, as was done later, the main axle was larger than the 1, 2 and 4 axles, the cellars and bearings would have to be moved with the axle (simple, just keep them with it as the axle is moved).. Now comes the tricky part. The wheels would have to be heated and pressed off of the main axle and the eccentrics removed and reinstalled on the second axle. Unless (and this might be a possibility) the second axle (now a regular axle, but with eccentrics) was either an aftermarket order or had new eccentrics machined for it. This would allow the original eccentrics to stay with the main axle and spin, doing nothing but remaining there.
Instead of looking at the D&RG locomotives of the era, it might behoove someone to look at the 60 in Idaho Springs, pre-supposing that its axles are original to the locomotive, and see what was done to it. It would surprise me if the axles were original, owing to the crude lubrication and the hard use that 60 saw during its lifetime. The C&S was known for maintaining its locomotives, however, the 600's were built in 1905 and lasted for 58 more years.
The 71 would be irrelevant to this argument, as it was built with the main rod connected to the third axle and the 191 at the Colorado Railroad Museum would also be irrelevant as there is no evidence that this modification was made to any of the Baldwin built locomotives.
Quartering was not the big job that was not necessarily the awesome job that it was portrayed to be as most drivers were keywayed in the correct position on an axle and would stay there until heated and removed (or broken). New tires were applied using the newly machined tires and a gas ring. The wheels did not have to be removed from the axle to perform this task. They did, however, have to be dropped from the frame and were on a regular basis.
As for the argument that the shops talked to each other, other than in Master Mechanic’s Association meetings, the idea is worth consideration but not based in the reality of the times. Most Mechanical people, like those in Maintenance of Way and other departments, have their own way of doing things, their own secrets, if you will, and were and are unwilling to share them with the enemy camp. Even today, when a BNSF locomotive breaks down or is due for some other work, it is sent to a BNSF shop for repair, not a KCS or UP shop. Today, remember, the locomotives are even more alike then they were back then. Then why, you may ask, did the C&S repair the 346 when they rolled it? They did because they had leased the 346 long term and as part of the lease agreements, maintenance and repair is to be performed by the lessee unless otherwise stipulated.
My question is not then why the work was done, or whether it ever was done. It was. There is too much photographic and written evidence to the contrary. My question is what was the reasoning behind the initial expense of converting them and why, after the modification, were they converted back?
