Re: Rail (was Re: SG to NG locomotive conversion mention, 1900)

hank Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Chris nailed it on the engines, but which two this
> represents is an interesting question. Of the the
> 5 Class 70n's converted to Class 74s switchers
> (#'s 401, 402, 405, 410 & 411) two were
> reconverted to 70n in 1898 (2nd #401 nee 402[later
> 341] & 2nd #402 nee 411[later RGS 40]). The other
> 3 were all converted back to 70n in 1900 (2nd #
> 405 nee 401 [later 345] 6/1900, 2nd #410 nee
> 405[later 349, NML] 9/1900, & 2nd #411 nee 410
> [later 342] 12/1900)
>
> The article is dated 9/1900 so the question is
> when was it written and what period did it cover?
> Given the lag time on publishing, probably written
> in July or August at the latest. If it just covers
> 1900, then the engines would be 2nd #405 and
> either 2nd #410 or 2nd #411 both of which might
> have been in the shops for conversion at that
> time. If it is summing up, thus far, the D&RG's
> rebuilding program that began with relaying the
> Denver-Pueblo line with 85# rail, starting in 1896
> and went on through about 1904-05 (when the drain
> of funds for the construction of WP began to bite)
> it might be referring to the 2nd #401 & 2nd #402.
>
> One clue might be in the section on the rail
> replacement. In the 1887-1890 switch of the main
> line to std ga, it is my understanding that D&RG
> used 65# as it's standard rail weight[1]. The
> above mentioned Pueblo-Denver project was the
> first use of the new standard, 85#, rail. The
> mention of 52# rail replaced might have come from
> either (WAG) parts of the Aspen extension (built
> 1887) or the old main line to Pueblo - Cuchara Jct
> (3-rail 1887, std ga 1890). At any rate, "more
> than 200 miles" of replacement of rail only 10-13
> years old strikes me as a lot in one year for a
> railroad that only had about 1300 miles of std
> gauge & 3-rail track in 1900.
>
> I also note the claim that this 200+ miles of
> removed rail was to be used in standard gauging
> "part of the narrow-gauge system." The only
> conversion project that D&RG had in progress ca.
> 1900 was the La Veta - Alamosa line along with the
> Alamosa - Antonito 3-railing and the (gradual)
> conversion of the Creede Branch, all of which
> (conversion & new construction) comes to about 150
> miles.[2] What makes that of interest to me is
> that the Salida - Gunnison line was receiving 52#
> & 65# rail in the 1898-1904 period (Sargent -
> Hierro[west of Gunnison] 65# 1897-98, Salida-
> Sargent 52# 1895-1897, Salida to mp 236.77[between
> Gray's & Pocono] 65# 1904 along with parts of the
> Crested Butte branch (Gunnison to at least Jack's
> Cabin, 65# 1904).
>
> Now I have always assumed[3] that much of this
> rail, along with 52# & 65# used on other parts of
> the narrow gauge system (Silverton branch, RGS,
> Black Canyon line, Ouray branch, etc) between 1900
> & the 1920's came from parts of the standard gauge
> lines being upgraded to the new 85# (or more later
> on) standard. I've also made much the same
> assumption on much of the 70# & 85# rail laid on
> the narrow gauge in the 1920's & 1930's. One
> problem I have with that idea is that later
> profiles make note of some rail being re-lay but
> not all, or even most of it. Anybody got some
> light to shed on this? It's one of the things
> that, if I could spend a few weeks digging through
> various archives in Colorado, I would love to try
> to nail down as it would shed light on just how
> highly the narrow gauge was valued by the folks in
> the Denver office at various times. Probably never
> gong to be able to do that, barring a visit by
> Publisher's Clearing House sometime.
>
> It just seems odd to me that the management would
> be buying new rail for the narrow gauge at times
> when they had literally tons of rail being
> released from improvements on the Standard gauge
> sections.
>
> So, thoughts?
>
> Hank
>
>
> [1] ISTR, altho I'm not certain of this, that
> D&RGW/RGW went with 70# - but that doesn't matter
> as RGW only came under control of D&RG at the end
> of June in 1900 so I doubt the article would be
> using stats related to RGW.
>
> [2] Montrose - Grand Jct, 72 miles, wasn't until
> 1906 and involved simply moving the rails farther
> apart over a span of less than a week. This track
> did wind up being 65# by a later time but I have
> no clue as to when it was upgraded. 85#(re-lay?)
> just West of Montrose in 1926.
>
> [3] Yes, I know how to break down the word
> "assume."

But what if that SG rail is just plain worn out?