Steam & Excursion > The Pacific Lumber Co. #37 A Big Tank Engine!

While logging lines were known for small flexible geared engines capable of negotiating rough, steep and winding track on most logging lines, some logging lokies broke this mold.

Case in point is The Pacific Lumber Co. ALCO 2-8-2T #37. First built for the well built but ill-conceived Sugar Pine Lumber Co. of Pinedale, CA as their #4 this big lokie was sold to TPL in 1936 after the Sugar Pine operation shut down.

By the 1930's TPL had extended their logging line many miles from their redwood mill at Scotia, CA and even had operating rights on the NWP for a number of miles. #37 was ideal as the "swing engine" picking up empties from the mainline engine (usually Baldwin 2-8-2 #35) and taking them to Yeager Creek Camp where loads were grabbed for the return run. Other photos also show #37 with her high tractive effort (due to the saddle tank configuration) taking empties all the way to the landings above Yeager Creek Camp.

Richard Biermann shot this great scene of #37 parked at the Yeager Creek Camp water spout on September 10, 1948.

#37 is today located at Strasburg, PA awaiting restoration there and then return to the Timber Heritage collection at Samoa, CA in the Northern California Redwoods.

Martin



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/19/11 07:19 by LoggerHogger.

---

Regarding comment about tractive effort related to saddle tank:

My understanding is that tractive effort is a mathematical calculation based on cylinder diameter and stroke, boiler pressure and driver diameter. The big saddle tank would have more to do with adhesion at the rail, which makes that calculated tractive effort actually put to work rather than causing the drivers to slip.

If I'm misunderstanding tractive effort, correction is welcome!

But as far as the picture goes - thanks again, Martin. I really enjoy your collection of shortline and logging locomotives! Here are three pictures taken at Scotia in the summer of 1963 when I was a young teen, had a leaky Boy Scout box camera, and didn't know what I was looking at.

Stan Praisewater



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/19/11 10:07 by sagehen.

---

---

---

Stan,

While you are largely correct on the main factors of Tractive effert, weight on drivers is also part of the calculation. That is why you can have 2 engines with the same dimensions you mention but with different weight on the drivers and you will have different tractive effert.

I enjoyed your photos. I took similar photos as a kid when I stumbled across the Scotia engine faclities. What a dream come true for a young railfan.

Martin

These are fantastic photos. Thank you for a look into the past. B

Martin, weight on drivers does NOT change the tractive effort calculation, which is a theoretical value anyway. It changes the factor of adhesion which effects the USABLE tractive effort. The actual tractive effort formula is a function of cylinder diameter, stroke, driver diameter and boiler pressure.

Scott

Scott,

I have an old Baldwin parts catalog that has the ordering info in the back. The catalog dates to 1905. In that catalog it gives the standard TE calculation that you mention but then goes on to say, that "when ordering we will adjust the TE rating for your locomotive depending on the gross weight on drivers so as to give you the final true tractive effert". It appears that Baldwin felt the weight on drivers made a difference in thier TE rating.

Martin

As I said some months ago, railroads rarely ran on theoretical
calculations. Plus a big tank engine is a 2-10-2T, that's a medium
sized tank engine.

There are 2 sizes of the ALCO 2-8-2T lokies. This is the larger of the 2 sizes. She is a heavy brute.

Martin

37 was dead in the shed when I was at Scotia in 1960, BUT # 29 was in steam and working the yard I spent the afternoon riding in the cab. The Engineer was an x navy man and I was a young 16 year old deck hand on a New Zealand ship engaged in the lumber trade between the West Coast of Canada, USA and New Zealand. The Pacific Lumber Company was quite a place in 1960. I became an Engineer my self and started my time on Steam and finished up on the bloody diesels. Steam was the best.

Malcolm
New Zealand.

Martin:

Didn't someone try to go one better with a 2-10-2T logging tank engine?

Yes, there was one 2-10-2T built. TPL #37 began life as Sugar Pine Lumber Co. #4. She was one of 4 big 2-8-2T's ordered for that logging line.

Sugar Pine Lumber #5 was the only 2-10-2T built and was dubbed a "Minaret" after the Minaret & Western line used by the Sugar Pine Lumber Co. as thier mainline. Since then, all ALCO 2-8-2T's have often been dubbed "Minarets" even though that name was reserved for only the single 2-10-2T built.

Martin

Thanks for the facts Martin...I have had a great interest in the Suger Pine operation for many years...Where I'm sitting at this moment 90 years ago I would have been sitting under stacks of lumber....the Mercedes-Benz dealer I work at is in the middle of what once was the Suger Pine Lumber Co....The only thing left of the Mill is the old Water tower...There was one Building standing up until 3 years ago...That was used by Vendo Corp..they made vending machines

Mike Spolini



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/23/11 12:53 by spicolli1864.

Mike,

Do you have the book on the Sugar Pine Lumber Co? It covers the operation pretty well.

Martin

Yes...Rails to the Minarets.... I do have it....I remember as a kid looking at the book..at the time I had little interest in it....More into Sierra,Pickering and Westside..My grandparents
lived in the Fresno area Dad told me the history behind the book and the Mill...Still didn't get it until I moved here 10 years ago and I remembered what dad had said...When I moved here there was still parts of the S.P. Friant Branch going through Clovis...If I stood on my roof I could see the Rails across the fields..Now most of it is a bike trail..

Mike

#37 was a great engine to ride behind (and in) and could pull anything the Wilmington & Western tagged onto it. Such a shame that rear tube sheet work led to a dispute between the owner and the Railroad that ended her very short career (1987-1990)for them.

W&W did not utilize the saddle tank while in operation for them, due to bridge weight limitations. This is why many photo's of 37 in service for the W&W show it pulling the ex-C&O tender, #215.

The Engine has a varied history for all the operations it has seen but one thing is for certain, it is the the only Logging Engine to ever travel on Amtrak's Northeast Corridor!

I do hope the current owners acquire the funding needed to get 37 back into operation, sooner than later.