Chris Walker's "Pitkin" photo from DPL

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
10 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Chris Walker's "Pitkin" photo from DPL

Jim Courtney
This post was updated on .
Back on August 3rd, Chris posted this DPL photo on a Pitkin thread:




http://digital.denverlibrary.org/cdm/fullbrowser/collection/p15330coll21/id/11068/rv/singleitem/rec/108

I've been studying the photo under maximum magnification for the past couple of weeks.  I believe that there is more new and useful information per 100 pixels in this one photo than anything thus far posted on this site.  At least for me, with an interest in modeling the C&S in 1909.  So I think this photo deserves further consideration and discussion.

Consider this enlargement from the bottom right corner (depot area) of the photo:



First, I believe the photo can be accurately dated by the presence of the newly painted (dark) stock car, just to the right of number 71 (red arrow). The car has a metal roof, and can only be one of the last batch of 50 stock cars, the SUF cars 7085-7134, out shopped in August of 1910.  Only the SUF stock cars had metal roofs.  In September of 1910, the C&S-D&RG scheme of "mutual economy", the swapping of the Baldwin-Gunnison-Pitkin C&S lines for the Blue River branch of the D&RG, was agreed upon. The last C&S train northbound through Alpine Tunnel occurred on October 20th, 1910. C&S equipment south of Pitkin was moved to Buena Vista via D&RG tracks in the summer of 1911.

Thus, I believe the photo must date from between August 1st and October 20, 1910.

The caboose (yellow arrow) in the photo is an incredible find.  If my assumptions of the date are correct, this is the earliest known photograph of a South Park way car rebuilt to its modern C&S configuration.  It looks very much like Derrell Poole's Sn3 caboose #304 of 1910.  The number is illegible, it is uncertain whether it is a 13' or 14' rebuild.  But notice that the roof walk laterals are next to the cupola, and there is no ladder or lateral roof walk near the end of the roof (thin yellow arrows).  Under magnification on the DPL site, one can even make out suggestions of the little cupola support wires.  The fact that the small, spread out C&S block monogram was in use in 1910 was also a surprise, I thought that lettering scheme dated from 1913 onward, when USSA hardware had been added, as on caboose 1007 in the Grandt pictorial.

Turning to number 71, the only identifiable engine in the photo, it already has the cantilevered headlight bracket (light green) and a modern steel sheathed cab with multiple sliding windows (dark green); until now, I had considered these to be 1912-1913 spotting features. The tender behind number 71 (orange arrow) is a long tender, much like the long tender on #59, in the 1910 photo at Gunnison in the Grandt pictorial--or is it number 59's tender??

The other unidentified locomotive at the right frame (purple arrow) still has its older two window cab.

The depot and outhouse (blue arrow) are freshly painted in the grey and green scheme, a paint job that was applied to Como structures in 1908 per written records.


Moving to the left in the photo to mid-yard, note the following:



The idle helper engine (red arrows) also has a rebuilt "modern cab" with 3 sliding windows and a headlight, likely arc, way out front of the smoke box.  I can't tell if wrap around hand rails are present.  This is a great discovery for me, as these modern features appear to have been applied earlier than I had previously thought--it means less work, modifying Overland "modern" cabs.

To the right of the helper (yellow arrow), is a St Charles boxcar of 1899, still in its St Charles Roman lettering, as delivered.  Proves to me that the C&S Car Shops priority between 1906-1910 was building new freight cars, not repainting and lettering older cars--that could wait a while.

Finally, there are two stock cars to the left of the engine (orange arrows).  The one on the left looks faded, not much of discernable lettering, possibly a St Charles car of 1899.  The car to the right seems newer, appears to have a wooden roof, possibly a 1907 stock car built by the C&S.

A last observation:  If this is late summer or early fall of 1910, the number of cars in the yard at Pitkin (and the coal cars mostly empty) might be due to management's plans to move equipment to Buena Vista, prior to closing Alpine Tunnel forever.
Jim Courtney
Poulsbo, WA
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Chris Walker's "Pitkin" photo from DPL

Doug Heitkamp


Here is a quick and dirty enlargement of the caboose. It may very well be the earliest picture, as the majority of the pics published date to 1912 - 1914. In the series of articles Derrell wrote on the history of the caboose, he noted that the rebuilding began in 1908.

Interesting to note that somebody did some "touch up" work on the negative to obscure the C&S logo's on the cars. I've seen this on other pics on DPL. Don't be too surprised about the block lettering. There are a number of pictures out there that date it back to at least 1910 such as this….



Freshly built, pre-safety appliance update, build date "7 - 10"
Doug Heitkamp
Centennial, CO
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Chris Walker's "Pitkin" photo from DPL

Jim Courtney
Thanks for the cleaned up enlargement!  I was hoping either Chris or someone would work their DPL magic and produce a larger image of better resolution;  I'm still not that good at this.

God I love this photo!  It's like a "Where's Waldo" puzzle.

Can anyone identify one of Derrell's deep yellow 1909 reefers hiding in the photo?
Jim Courtney
Poulsbo, WA
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Chris Walker's "Pitkin" photo from DPL

Derrell Poole
In reply to this post by Jim Courtney
Excellent find, Chris. I had not seen this one before...


!!!!!! !!!!! !!!!! !!!!!.....

The engine on the far left is very likely no. 54! Almost 100% sure. Oh, PLEASE, please, please; ask me how I know this? (y'all have already been told on THIS forum! Doesn't anyone read what's been written?)

The immediate choices for the caboose would be (but not limited to) 306 and 310. It appears to be a short car. The side we see is the side 306 and 310 that matched. If it were the other side we could narrow down to between one or the other and something like 305 or 314.

The mounting of the headlamp to the top of the smoke box was a interim arrangement that occurred between 1905 and 1907.

Cabs were modernized by 1905 (with perhaps very few exceptions like no. 44!).

There were probably half a dozen long tenders by this point. The Gunnison photo of 59 was more likely early 1911.

"The other unidentified locomotive at the right frame (purple arrow) still has its older two window cab."

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Anyway, it looks like the bell is next to the cab which means it is a Cooke 2-8-0 (likely no. 47 as it seems that number is on the cab.

The C&S block lettering is the 1906 Common Standard that began appearing during the 2nd half of that year.

The wrap around hand rails seems to be a post 1912 feature; just like pilot decks and steel pilot beams (USSAA / ICC rules as well as PUC Electric lamps.)

Now. Ya'll may sense a certain indignation in my post (you should).

This is because I have spent a lot of time sorting out these details. Fine. I want to know for myself. But when I tell you over and over and over on forums, in public presentations, in private email, on the phone, face to face, etc etc etc I feel like I've WASTED MY TIME when I read posts like this! Great post - True! But do you bother reading anything I've written? All of it, except the rubbing out of C&S logos by some one, I've discussed. It isn't that my word is gospel - it isn't. Its just that I've already done the DUE Diligence!!!

Don't - PLEASE don't - attribute this to some ego hang up. It is not. I don't have time for my own modeling and yet I have cared enough to share with all of you - for FREE - what I've learned! WHY?!

I don't know...

There are plenty of scholars on this forum who are hell bent on discovering all of this, all over again. What the hell am I doing?! I really no longer care what ANYONE thinks of me; I can never recover any of the time I feel like I've wasted. So if you really wonder why I don't post much here or anywhere anymore this is why!
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Chris Walker's "Pitkin" photo from DPL

Bill Uffelman
I for one appreciate your posts. While I may never model the post 1900 C&S again I enjoy the history.

In the end all of the various milestones for a given piece of equipment need to be put in  a spread sheet with references to commmonly available photos so the unwashed and those with memory issues can look them up and avoid embarrassing aha moments.

Just a thought.

Bill Uffelman
Ocean View DE



On Sunday, August 16, 2015 1:59 PM, Derrell Poole [via C&Sn3 Discussion Forum] <[hidden email]> wrote:


Excellent find, Chris. I had not seen this one before...


!!!!!! !!!!! !!!!! !!!!!.....

The engine on the far left is very likely no. 54! Almost 100% sure. Oh, PLEASE, please, please; ask me how I know this? (y'all have already been told on THIS forum! Doesn't anyone read what's been written?)

The immediate choices for the caboose would be (but not limited to) 306 and 310. It appears to be a short car. The side we see is the side 306 and 310 that matched. If it were the other side we could narrow down to between one or the other and something like 305 or 314.

The mounting of the headlamp to the top of the smoke box was a interim arrangement that occurred between 1905 and 1907.

Cabs were modernized by 1905 (with perhaps very few exceptions like no. 44!).

There were probably half a dozen long tenders by this point. The Gunnison photo of 59 was more likely early 1911.

"The other unidentified locomotive at the right frame (purple arrow) still has its older two window cab."

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Anyway, it looks like the bell is next to the cab which means it is a Cooke 2-8-0 (likely no. 47 as it seems that number is on the cab.

The C&S block lettering is the 1906 Common Standard that began appearing during the 2nd half of that year.

The wrap around hand rails seems to be a post 1912 feature; just like pilot decks and steel pilot beams (USSAA / ICC rules as well as PUC Electric lamps.)

Now. Ya'll may sense a certain indignation in my post (you should).

This is because I have spent a lot of time sorting out these details. Fine. I want to know for myself. But when I tell you over and over and over on forums, in public presentations, in private email, on the phone, face to face, etc etc etc I feel like I've WASTED MY TIME when I read posts like this! Great post - True! But do you bother reading anything I've written? All of it, except the rubbing out of C&S logos by some one, I've discussed. It isn't that my word is gospel - it isn't. Its just that I've already done the DUE Diligence!!!

Don't - PLEASE don't - attribute this to some ego hang up. It is not. I don't have time for my own modeling and yet I have cared enough to share with all of you - for FREE - what I've learned! WHY?!

I don't know...

There are plenty of scholars on this forum who are hell bent on discovering all of this, all over again. What the hell am I doing?! I really no longer care what ANYONE thinks of me; I can never recover any of the time I feel like I've wasted. So if you really wonder why I don't post much here or anywhere anymore this is why!



If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion below:
http://c-sn3-discussion-forum.41377.n7.nabble.com/Chris-Walker-s-Pitkin-photo-from-DPL-tp3196p3210.html
To start a new topic under C&Sn3 Discussion Forum, email [hidden email]
To unsubscribe from C&Sn3 Discussion Forum, click here.
NAML


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Chris Walker's "Pitkin" photo from DPL

Jim Courtney
In reply to this post by Derrell Poole
Whooaaa, Derrell!!

I reposted this photo because I think it is a fascinating image that was under-appreciated the first time it was posted and I hoped to provoke a great discussion. I must admit to feeling like the intern who presented a great case to an attending, only to be embarrassed by overlooking the obvious.

First off, either you have great eyes or a monitor with far greater resolution than I own.

As to your points:

1. I'll bite . . . how can you be sure that the unattended locomotive is number 54??   The domes aren't ringed, but the 54 was one of the few Cookes that later had Baldwin style domes, albeit flattened on top, like the domes on may of the rebuilt Cooke 2-6-0s.  The only photos of 54 that I can refer to are the two in the Pictorial with original Cooke domes and a later image from the Klinger'Gunnison book, which has similar "modern" domes (flattened on the top); but the Klingers'  image has a cab with 2 windows of equal size and a box headlight with bracket far out in front of the smoke box. The engine in the photo seems to me to have an arc headlight and a cab with a fixed window 1/3rd the width of the total cab window opening ( "modern" C&S cab).  So what am I missing??

2. As to the caboose, if it is either 306 or 310, the side windows would have to be square.  Sorry, what I see on my monitor is a more vertical window, that seems to extend to the bottom of the letter board.  I cannot tell if it truly is a short body or long body rebuild--can you discriminate down to a foot with the DPL image?  Again, if anyone can clean up and post a clearer, maximally enlarged image of this area of the photo, maybe I will see what you see.  Chris?  Chris?

3. In my view, headlight brackets were mounted on top of the smoke boxes when first extended, then began to creep forward halfway over the front of the smoke box between about 1907-1910, then were fully cantilevered out in front of the smoke box (the "modern" location) by about 1910-1912.  There are several published photos of Sam Speas' #6 at Como that show this progression.  But there are numerous (perhaps falsely dated) photographs that show headlights back toward the stack as late as 1909-1910.  My point was, I think that this photo confirms that the "way-out-front" headlight happened earlier.

4. Cabs were modernized by 1905 (with perhaps very few exceptions like no. 44!).  My definition of the "modern" cab is a steel sheathed cab with 3 window panes, the rear 2 sliding forward behind the forward fixed pane. Leafing through the Pictorial VI there are numerous photos from the teens, twenties and thirties with steel sheathed cabs with two windows per cab side, separated by a fixed post, the forward pane fixed.  Perhaps we are mixing definitions.

5. There were probably half a dozen long tenders by this point. The Gunnison photo of 59 was more likely early 1911.  Yes, and this photo proves that #71 had one, too, at least in 1910.

6. "The other unidentified locomotive at the right frame (purple arrow) still has its older two window cab."  I'm not sure what you mean by this.   See #4, above.
 
Anyway, it looks like the bell is next to the cab which means it is a Cooke 2-8-0 (likely no. 47 as it seems that number is on the cab.)  Sorry, all I can see is a bit of dark blob in front of the cab, that could be a Cooke bell.  And I cannot discern cab number--but I'll take your word for it.

7. If you reread my post, I was referring to the small block lettering, spread out along the side of the caboose.  The earliest photo of this caboose lettering style that I've seen until now is of 1007, dated to July, 1912, with the car having "modern" USSA ladders and fitting.  I was surprised to see this on a caboose in (likely) 1910.  I think that Doug misinterpreted what I was trying to say.  Yes, the large block C&S monogram probably first appeared on the 1907 boxcars, or their prototypes built in late 1906.


A bit of observation:  I spent half my professional life in Academic Medicine.  It is extremely frustrating to have to teach the same basic facts, much less complex concepts and minutia, over and over again, to yet another new group of students or interns.  Knowing that many never grasp all the facts or concepts.  But that is what an AUTHORITY does!
 
And like it or not, Derrell, you are one of the two foremost living authorities on the C&S narrow gauge.  And until I see Hol Wagner's unpublished master work, it may be just you!

I get it that you don't have time to make a living and build your own models--been there, still doing that.  But if you can, from time to time, please participate in these discussions.  Why do you think everyone here looks forward to your posts?  Because you almost always teach us something new! Or, perhaps, remind us of what we've forgotten.


Jim Courtney
Poulsbo, WA
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Chris Walker's "Pitkin" photo from DPL

Doug Heitkamp
Doug Heitkamp
Centennial, CO
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Chris Walker's "Pitkin" photo from DPL

Derrell Poole
In reply to this post by Jim Courtney
I doubt seriously my monitor is somehow more revealing than yours. And you are an intern.  I am not a doctor - but we are not talking medicine. And I have no bedside manners - which should surprise none of you!

The left engine has a fluted steam dome and a Cooke style sand dome. Only one Cooke engine I know that had this arrangement in 1910. The windows, the headlamp, are immaterial to that fact (Look closely! The dome tops are not the same).

The caboose has a short body. The wheels are too close to the steps and the stack is too close to the window to be any of the long cars. The cupola looks flush with the end of the car body, seems very "vertical",  and appears too close to the edge of the roof to be 308 or 309. The window in the photo is not clear enough to tell if it goes all the way to the fascia nor were the windows on 306 and 310 square. They were rectangular.

"3. In my view, headlight brackets were mounted on top of the smoke boxes when first extended...My point was, I think that this photo confirms that the "way-out-front" headlight happened earlier." Well, this didn't seem to be your point in the initial post.

"4. ...My definition of the "modern" cab ...  Perhaps we are mixing definitions." As you point out there were also numerous cabs with just two lights per side right into the late 1930s. Both were modern in terms of what was original. They started modernizing cabs by 1901. It appears windows were changed even after modernization so how do we distinguish these upgrades? By calling them modern or more modern? Modern is a sheathed cab. Windows were sometimes upgraded after the fact- as were the doors.

I've given a list of the engines with long tenders in the pre 1913 years. Harry Brunk talked about them in the 1930s. Even if you weren't paying attention to what we said the photos should have told you 59 had a long tender prior to and after this photo of 71.

I guess the key to the comments on the far right engine is knowing the big gap between the cab and the dome spells C-O-O-K-E because that was ALWAYS the relationship of the Dome and Cab. And it was where the bells were on Cooke connies at this time. These are facts! That you can't distinguish that it is a bell doesn't matter. Even if there was no bell it wouldn't matter. I've very distinctly made this public but even if you weren't paying attention SURLY you noticed this in all of the photos. As to the cab number - that was a suggestion; but compare the tender to page 102, Vol. VI.

And then there is this abstract. I've tried to teach that with a keen understanding you can identify many things about a photo. You did well on identifying the date but to say the only identifiable engine here was 71 is to stop short! In my estimation the three engines in this photo are 54, 71 and probably 47 (which was at this location at this time). Yes, it has taken years to develop the "skills" but I've tried to help you short circuit that learning curve. Maybe you seek to discover something "new" rather than use what we already know! What we already know is that some features are cardinal and some are mutable. Sheathed cabs are Cardinal. Types of windows - not so much. Headlamps - not so much. Marker lamp locations - mutable! Dome locations - cardinal! Are you beginning to see what my frustrations really are?
 
I don't think Doug misinterpreted anything. He pointed out something I had not considered - nothing to do with your comments.

To your last comments; let me explain this to you by asking - how did you pay for tacos and bullets while you were teaching the same basics over and over? Yeah. You got a pay check for that. Let me make it CLEAR - to everyone - that this "hobby" of yours is a luxury - entertainment! None of you have to do this.

I charge a lot of money for my services - maybe more than you can afford. But I've never charge you for any posts to this Blog! I've seen this with NWSL, I've seen it with Cimarron Works, the Leadville Shops and my own Business; most modelers have ZERO clues as to what these companies really mean to them. In fact, they usually take the position that THEY are a luxury to the venders because they spend a few pennies now and then buying their ssssstufff! You look forward to my posts because you gain something from them? Do you ever think of the value of that to you? And what exactly is the "value"? What do any of us offer to any economy but that one thing we all possess - ourselves in units of TIME! Is my time worth any less than yours?  Do I owe any of you that time outside of a fair exchange? So don't trip me when you could have commissioned me to do your work.

There are those who DO get it. You know who you are...
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Chris Walker's "Pitkin" photo from DPL

Jim Courtney
Derrell,

I sincerely apologize if I have offended you.

Thank you, for taking the time to post this thoughtful response to my post.  You observations will give me much to think about as I pour through my books and photos in the evenings to come.

As to my closing remarks above, I wasn't trying to "trip" you.  The remarks were intended as a compliment, perhaps poorly written.

Jim
Jim Courtney
Poulsbo, WA
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Chris Walker's "Pitkin" photo from DPL

Derrell Poole
“The man who does not value himself, cannot value anything or anyone.” - Columbia

You misunderstand, Jim; this isn't about ego or hurt feelings. The Truth is that you don't owe me - no one here owes me - anything, least of all tokens of emotionalism. I have participated in this forum, and in the community of socialist media before it, of my own volition. Y'all have acted in your own best interests - which is your unalienable right to do so. If I have a contradiction in my life it is because there is a flaw in my own premises. The only one who owes me is me.  I will therefore correct the flaw....