Skip to main content

Scott Mann just sent out another 3rd Rail email, and I noticed that the SP AC-9 was originally delivered with

coal tenders.  But, when converted to oil, these locos used modified C&O tenders, also coal tenders.  Somehow

this doesn't compute, in that coal tenders were replaced with other coal tenders (converted to oil)?  Wonder

why, or at least, why they did not modify the delivered tenders or other SP tenders, or use other existing oil

tenders? 

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

It is a bit of a convoluted story, but Bob as it right, i.e. it was all about costs. The Union Pacific was forced to take some, if not all of the C&O 2-8-8-2 locomotives, by the War Production Board, in order to help handle the increased WWII traffic volumes over the western mountain grades. The UP didn't like the C&O H-7 2-8-8-2s, as they were too slow for their needs, and as soon as WWII was over, and freight traffic levels subsided, the UP immediately took all the former C&O 2-8-8-2 out of service, and naturally the C&O didn't want them back. 

 

The Souther Pacific made a deal with the UP to purchase those big C&O tenders, for scrap price since the UP was going to scrap all those 2-8-8-2s anyway. The SP then ran all those former C&O tenders through the Sacramento Shops and converted them all to oil, many of which were then placed behind some of the AC-9s as they were being converted to oil, while some more of those former C&O tenders went behind SP F Class 2-10-2 locomotives in order to increase THEIR water & fuel oil capacity.

 

The end result was, some of the SP AC-9 locomotives retained their original coal tenders converted to oil, while other AC-9 locomotives received the former C&O tenders. The easiest way to tell, are the tender trucks; original SP tenders have Buckeye 6-wheel trucks, while those former C&O tenders have Commonwealth 6-wheel trucks. 

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×
×