Steam & Excursion > This Is How We Should Remember This Fine Steam Locomotive!

A couple of days ago, I posted a 1937 photo taken by Stan Snook of Madera Sugar Pine Shay #5 as she was being stripped for parts at the end of her career.  Let's see what this fine wood-burning geared locomotive looked like in her prime.

The Madera Sugar Pine Lumber Co. of Sugar Pine, California was known for some very impressive timber that was hauled by their 3-foot gauge logging railroad.  Here we see Shay #5 and an impressive train filled with just one massive tree.  Notice the camp houses on the hill up above the locomotive and the massive brake handle that the brakeman takes from log car to log car in order to keep the train under control.

This was Shay #5 in her heyday.  This is how we should remember her.

Martin



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 04/19/21 03:46 by LoggerHogger.

---

What's wit' the air hose on the last flat car?

Does brake pipe extend from the locomotive back, in conventional intent?
Or is air hose simply a straight piipe, end to end?
( Maybe for use in an air-equipped consist?)

What would one of those logs weigh?
They must be massive!
What kind of 'mill' handles these monster logs?
Where do they start, when first cutting the logs,
to get manageable boards?

​W.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/19/21 04:49 by wcamp1472.

Madera Sugar Pine used a conventional railroad air brake system so the hose at the end of the car is the end of the brake line. Note the the 3' T style handbrakes that were unique to MSP.
The mill at Sugar Pine was built to handle logs this size. It had steam driven "dogs" that flipped the log on a carriage as it was run through the head rig (the mills big band saw). A "sawyer", whose judgement was said to be able to make or break a sawmill, would determine how the log would be fed through the saw with the least amount of waste.

A good portion of the area being logged in this picture burned about 5 years ago in the Railroad Fire (named after the Yosemite Mountain Sugar Pine Railroad). A 1912 cruise report, cruise being the term use to collect data on timber density, listed about 28 trees per acre, much of which were mature or over mature. It termed this as a dense stand. By the time the Railroad Fire occurred I would guess there were more than 100 trees per acre in some areas with most of the mature timber standing dead.

We look at the old logging as being very destructive and its true, not much thought was give to restocking the forest or conserving the landscape, but what has occurred since logging has been so drastically reduced is proving to be just as destructive.

Posted from iPhone

cbk Wrote:
> The mill at Sugar Pine was built to handle
> logs this size. It had steam driven "dogs" that
> flipped the log on a carriage as it was run
> through the head rig (the mills big band saw). A
> "sawyer", whose judgement was said to be able to
> make or break a sawmill, would determine how the
> log would be fed through the saw with the least
> amount of waste.

Anyone who toured the Pacific Lumber Company mill at Scotia would see those 'dogs' and head rig in action. I remember seeing it when I toured it around 1970-71. The sawyer was right next to it with a couple of levers deciding which way the log would be rolled to maximize the log use. Took place very quickly and efficiently.
2-10-2

 This sure is a great photo of the logging story.  Thanks for posting. That air hose is on the automatic air hose side of the coupler.  If staight air it would be to the left of the coupler.

The Federal Safety Appliance Act was a law which in the first exemption was 4-wheel cars.  Then nexL: 8-wheel logging cars exempt if their coupler height was less that 25 inches, and here is the clear photo of link and pin coupler 24” above the rail.  Note no stirrups steps on the car.  You can say the C&P was a common carrier but the Federal SAA Law had no effect on this car or its use in logging.  It is not revenue and being ng surely is not part of the interconnected highway of the national railway system, as it was explained in the result of SOU v. USA in  Sept 1911.  The outcome of that Federal District Court in Atlanta was the ruling by the Judge (who said he may not have jurisdiction) but all CARS moving on the highway of the interconnected railway system will be compliance cars. That ruling eliminated the mixed complient and non-compliant cars but still did not eliminate the use on MW service the non-compliant cars in isolated trains.  The ruling did not change the Federal SAA law that exempted all these logging cars on the C&P Railroad.  
If your earlier post on the locomotive is trying to let me believe that this railroad was in violation from 1903 or 1911 to 1951 without being caught or arrested, I don’t agree.  The Safety Appliance Law only involved CARS and never covered engine, or engine couplers.  No law has ever named a type of coupler needed on a locomotive except New York State.  Later ruling by the ICC are rules and measurements but are not LAW.  
 

cbk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We look at the old logging as being very
> destructive and its true, not much thought was
> give to restocking the forest or conserving the
> landscape, but what has occurred since logging has
> been so drastically reduced is proving to be just
> as destructive.

How true
As the head of the CDF said on 60 minutes last year "If the weather in California remains the same, it's not a matter of IF the forests in California will burn, but when" It was 90 degrees and more in most of Ca. yesterday. 

The problem in California's watersheds, be they coniferous forests, or sage brush fields, is that the density of growth is far beyond a desirable condition for either forest health or wildlife needs. Temperature and humidity aside, the overgrown landscapes will be cleared and probably by wildfires. For the last 21 years the Congress has refused to pass adequate funding for proper management of the federal land reservations in the west (USFS, BLM, NPS). The outcome has been predictable.

Having worked in this field for over 35 years professionally and earlier on the fire line, it is not lack of data or an understanding of what needs to be done that hamstrings good management, it is bi-partisan near criminal neglect, and terrible leadership in the executive branch from both parties.

As someone who lives in the Sierra's I can tell you we've watersheds that when they burn, will make the Paradise fire disaster seem minor. If you see it listed on PBS, I suggest watching "The Big Burn".

John Mills

This has always fascinated me and is depressing because we are losing so much to fires and climate change but I have a serious question. I don't doubt you for a minute but before we were here what kept the forest in check (or rather stable)? I mean if the density is too much is that caused by the logging that was done and then too much new growth coming in at once? Clearly forests have survived for millions of years without management from humans so what has changed that makes them this way? The increase in fires is logical given the way the climate is changing but if the density is what is making them so big why are they so dense now?

Sorry if that's an obvious question, I've never had a chance to ask someone who worked in this field.

Thanks


sixbit Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The problem in California's watersheds, be they
> coniferous forests, or sage brush fields, is that
> the density of growth is far beyond a desirable
> condition for either forest health or wildlife
> needs. Temperature and humidity aside, the
> overgrown landscapes will be cleared and probably
> by wildfires. For the last 21 years the Congress
> has refused to pass adequate funding for proper
> management of the federal land reservations in the
> west (USFS, BLM, NPS). The outcome has been
> predictable.
>
> Having worked in this field for over 35 years
> professionally and earlier on the fire line, it is
> not lack of data or an understanding of what needs
> to be done that hamstrings good management, it is
> bi-partisan near criminal neglect, and terrible
> leadership in the executive branch from both
> parties.
>
> As someone who lives in the Sierra's I can tell
> you we've watersheds that when they burn, will
> make the Paradise fire disaster seem minor. If you
> see it listed on PBS, I suggest watching "The Big
> Burn".
>
> John Mills

Yours is an important question.

The natural fire return interval for much of the Sierra's pine and oak forests is somewhere between 8 and 20 years. Four to eight million acres of California burned each summer before EuroAmerican influences showed up. Much of burning was done by Native Americans who managed things pretty well for many centuries.

Beginning in the 1850's grazing, logging, and resource use upset this cycle but did not necessarily increase the fire fuel loading. By the 1960's almost all timber sales required loggers to pile downed forest litter to be burned in the winter.

At the lower elevations, grazing and range improvement burning minimized fuel loads. This combination and other resource uses kept fuel accumulations in check.

The changes began in the 1970's when the population in the mountains started increasing. This displaced grazing and burning. The adoption of environmental rules also restricted the ranchers and CDF's ability to do control burning.

In the 1980's the protections afforded the Spotted Owls and other habitats stopped nearly all the logging on the National Forests and with it, the removal of the dead and down material the loggers had been required to burn stopped as well.

The net result is that we have eliminated all of the "predators" that prevented the build up of fuel in the forest. The acres we now "treat" in the name of fuel reduction each year is minuscule compared to what needs to be treated - it isn't even close to what was done when it was tied to timber sales. Add to that a warming climate and we now have mega fires that wipe out entire communities.

I am not advocating for one side or the other of the environmental coin, we just need to realize what is happening.

California has spent up to $20 billion a year in fire losses and suppression costs. If we took just 1/4 of that and spent it on fuel reduction we could treat 1.25 million acres a year and not lose houses or lives in the process.

The forest fires we have created are totally unnatural and will do far more damage and have longer lasting consequences than steam logging ever did.

Off topic for sure, but important.

Posted from iPhone

The short answer is that prior to the westward expansion of gold seekers and settlers, many of the Indian tribes routinely would set fires to clear out the understory. This allowed them to use the native grasses and other plants and animals for food, tools, medicines and cultural practices. Also, when fires started from lightning strikes they would sometimes burn for months. However the fuel loads were smaller and there was no continuous horizontal and vertical fuel ladders so the fires rarely caused substantial damage.

Over the decades that forest and chapparal species mix, biomass and continuous fuel ladders have made fire suppression very difficult. Additionally, where there are homes, and communties within the forests and chapparal lands, fire fighting tactics change dramatically. Committing engines, hand crews and air drops to protect structures "eats up" assets, allows the fire to spread in other areas and puts air and ground personnel at much greater risk.

Today's forests and chapparal landscapes are far too dense and contain far too much fuel loading to just let fires burn, nor do the demands to protect "urban wildlland interface" areas allow flexibility in fighting fires. The fact is we should be significantly expanding the pace and scale of mechnical and where feasbible fire fuel thinning projects.

About 20-years ago at a summit meeting near Lake Tahoe, then Secretary of Interior Bruce Babbit said that to begin reducing the Sierra forest fire hazard conditions federal agenies in the US Dept. Interior and Agriculture needed to thin at least 100,000 acres per year. In the decades that followed those agencies were lucky to do 10,000 per year. In other words, irrespective of climate change, our management hit 10% or less of its target and fires became larger, burned hotter and spread faster. More people diied, more wildlife died, more watersheds were severely damaged and the cycle spiraled out of control.

In the February 2015 report by researchers from the University of New Mexico, Albuquerqe their report on Extreme Water Quality Degredation Following a Catastrophic Wildfire the summary read:1. Global change is impacting the forests of the western United States through rising temperatures,earlier snowmelt, more rain and less snow, greater vapour pressure deficits in spring and autumn,forest dieback and increasing forest fire frequency and severity.2. A catastrophic forest fire (Las Conchas fire) occurred in central NM, USA, in 2011 burning c.634 km=6.5px2 with c. 46% of the fire being of severe or moderate intensity.3. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) next-generation radar data (NEXRAD)were used to link precipitation events occurring in the burn scar to extreme water quality excursionsobserved in the Rio Grande. At four sites, in situ sensors captured the response of water temperature,specific conductance, pH, turbidity and dissolved oxygen to flood events following the fire.4. Runoff from burn scars caused turbidity peaks (to 2500 NTU), dissolved oxygen sags (to 0.0 mg L=6.5px-1),pH sags (up to 0.75 units) and conductivity changes (both increases and decreases). These waterquality excursions extended at least 50 km downstream, with significant implications for the ecosystemhealth of this crucial river that supplies water to cities and agriculture.5. Sudden, dramatic changes to forested catchments from severe forest fires and forest dieback arevery likely to be among the strongest impacts of global change on stream and river ecosystemsthroughout the western United States.
The river downstream was a grey/black more resembling an asphalt highway than a water course, and the water was toxic to aquatic species (no oxygen in the water).

John Mills

Thanks for the detailed answers! Sorry this went off topic but I think it's an important topic and it was very informative and professional. Sadly I it seems these days while many people "know what to do" the path of least resistance is taken instead and we do nothing.