Steam & Excursion > C&TSRR = Double Header = 488 & 463 Part 1

July 7, 2017 A Double Header out of Chama. 1st Cinder Bear Train. 1st revenue train for 488 since fall of 2015.

Roger Hogan
Chama, NM
Train Stuff

---

You must be a registered subscriber to watch videos. Join Today!

I would be a little concerned about the stability of that bridge if it won't support the weight of two locomotives . Just saying

bayview_boy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I would be a little concerned about the stability
> of that bridge if it won't support the weight of
> two locomotives . Just saying


When they rebuilt it a few years back after a fire I was told it now would hold 2 locomotives but the railroad decided to only do one at a time.

Roger Hogan
Chama, NM
Train Stuff

Thank you for the entire series on the return of 488 to service, Roger.

bayview_boy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I would be a little concerned about the stability
> of that bridge if it won't support the weight of
> two locomotives . Just saying



Why? As long as the railroad stays within the designed capacity of the structure it should be perfectly stable.

Peter Varlien
Heimdal,

Any word on 484 since it came up lame?

Mary McPherson
Dongola, IL
Diverging Clear Productions

nycman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thank you for the entire series on the return of
> 488 to service, Roger.

You are welcome, I am glad you enjoyed them.

Roger Hogan
Chama, NM
Train Stuff

MaryMcPherson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Any word on 484 since it came up lame?


Not a word. I haven't been to Antonito to see what is going on.

Roger Hogan
Chama, NM
Train Stuff

pvarlien Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> bayview_boy Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I would be a little concerned about the
> stability
> > of that bridge if it won't support the weight
> of
> > two locomotives . Just saying
>
>
>
> Why? As long as the railroad stays within the
> designed capacity of the structure it should be
> perfectly stable.

The trestle at Lobato dates from 1883. It consists of steel deck girders supported by iron or steel towers. The original structure was designed to support small engines weighing 30-35 tons, not the 93 ton weight of modern D&RGW power. The D&RGW engineering dept. in the 1920's determined that a pair of the big 480 class engines would tax the structure to 90% of its original capacity.

Therefore it was standard practice on the D&RGW to place the helpers on the rear of freight trains. If a train had 2 big engines on the point, they stopped, cut the lead engine off to cross ahead, recoupled the engines on the far side and continued on. Until the late 1950's the prohibition of doubleheading across the trestle was limited to K-36 and K-37 locomotives only. If a big engine was paired with a smaller K-27 or K28 class locomotive, the trains did not have to stop. If the combination of 488 and 463 was sent east in 1955, they would not have needed to stop to separate at the trestle. The restriction stated (and still does in the C&TS ETT) that 100 feet of lightly loaded equipment must separate the locomotives so they do not rest on the same span together.

Some years back a tie fire on the trestle destroyed the bridge girders and they had to be replaced. However the towers (bents) were undamaged and the 1883 originals remain. It is the bents that are the weak link in the trestle's capacity.

BTW, there is an identical trestle located across Cascade Creek, a mile or so west of Osier, that carries the same weight restriction.

Earlk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> pvarlien Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > bayview_boy Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > I would be a little concerned about the
> > stability
> > > of that bridge if it won't support the weight
> > of
> > > two locomotives . Just saying
> >
> >
> >
> > Why? As long as the railroad stays within the
> > designed capacity of the structure it should be
> > perfectly stable.
>
> The trestle at Lobato dates from 1883. It
> consists of steel deck girders supported by iron
> or steel towers. The original structure was
> designed to support small engines weighing 30-35
> tons, not the 93 ton weight of modern D&RGW power.
> The D&RGW engineering dept. in the 1920's
> determined that a pair of the big 480 class
> engines would tax the structure to 90% of its
> original capacity.
>
> Therefore it was standard practice on the D&RGW to
> place the helpers on the rear of freight trains.
> If a train had 2 big engines on the point, they
> stopped, cut the lead engine off to cross ahead,
> recoupled the engines on the far side and
> continued on. Until the late 1950's the
> prohibition of doubleheading across the trestle
> was limited to K-36 and K-37 locomotives only. If
> a big engine was paired with a smaller K-27 or K28
> class locomotive, the trains did not have to stop.
> If the combination of 488 and 463 was sent east
> in 1955, they would not have needed to stop to
> separate at the trestle. The restriction stated
> (and still does in the C&TS ETT) that 100 feet of
> lightly loaded equipment must separate the
> locomotives so they do not rest on the same span
> together.
>
> Some years back a tie fire on the trestle
> destroyed the bridge girders and they had to be
> replaced. However the towers (bents) were
> undamaged and the 1883 originals remain. It is
> the bents that are the weak link in the trestle's
> capacity.
>
> BTW, there is an identical trestle located across
> Cascade Creek, a mile or so west of Osier, that
> carries the same weight restriction.


Thank you Earl.

Roger Hogan
Chama, NM
Train Stuff