HO Review: Bowser GMDD SD40-2, CP #6046

 

The latest addition to my roster, CP SD40-2 #6046, is almost ready for service on the layout. A bit of weathering will complete an exquisite HO model. 

At the Ancaster train show this past weekend, I had the opportunity to pick up one of the new Bowser General Motors Diesel Division (GMD) SD40-2’s, part of their recent release of units matching prototypes purchased by CP, ONT, and BC Rail. I must admit, this was one of my most-anticipated purchases, and I’m glad the wait is finally over! This is not intended to be a 100% complete review, as I may miss a few things, but it should capture most of the locomotive’s highlights.

The Prototype

In 1:1 scale, CP 6046 is a GMD-built SD40-2, rolled out of the London, ON plant in March 1983. Part of CP’s second-to-last order for conventional SD40-2’s (the SD40-2F “Red Barns” followed in 1988), the unit was delivered in the road’s Action Red paint scheme with a small multi-mark adorning the rear of the long hood. Customary of late CP SD40-2’s, CP 6046 is equipped with features including the late-style corrugated radiators, Q-fans (at radiator), external radiator piping, anti-climber on front pilot, and angular traction motor blower duct. Over the years, the unit has undergone minor changes to it’s appearance, most notably a repaint to the solid red Action red paint scheme, as well as the addition of ditch lights on the front pilot. More information can be found HERE.

CP 6049, three numbers away from the my Bowser model, is from the same 1983 build as #6046 and is in the same paint scheme. Remarkably intact after 28 years of service, some updates to its' appearance include frame reflective stripes on the side sill, replacement handbrake wheel and battery box door, new snowplow, removal of the class lights, and weathering which includes some fading, darkening of radiator/dynamic brake/air filter screens and burnt "CP Rail" on the side of the hood. London, ON on 11/06/2011.

 The Model

When Bowser first announced the release of an HO GMD SD40-2 specific for CP, I immediately set aside some of my hobby budget specifically for this unit. I had modelled two CP SD40-2’s in the past (and one of them is almost done by now…) and one thing I realized in researching the required detail parts was the myriad of possible detail configurations on CP’s SD40-2’s. Differences exist in nose length, radiator type, fan type, winterization hatch, snowplow, horn location, radio antennas, front pilot (anti-climber or not), traction motor blower duct, and last but not least, paint scheme. So when I opened the box and took the model out, to say that I was impressed is putting it mildly – from an initial inspection, I was blown away by the level of detail that Bowser put into the locomotive. The first thing I noticed was that the engine was screwed into a plastic base as part of the clam-shell style of restraint in the box; I like this method and think it offers better protection than simply clamping against the top and bottom of the locomotive. A small piece of brake line did separate from the model (I have yet to determine exactly where it belongs), but that’s perhaps not unexpected when the engine has already travelled half way around the world from the factory. I could say that “the model closely matches prototype dimensions”, but since it is already obvious that it does. Instead, I’ll go over some of the more impressive details that Bowser put into the locomotive.

A close-up shot of the cab shows details such as class lights, air hose glad hand detail, builder's plate, and handrail detail.

• The Dofasco name on the truck sideframes – some might consider this an insignificant detail since it’s usually buried under years of road grime, but I thought this was a really neat feature, one of the things that makes it distinctly Canadian.

•  The Canadian-style handrails – Many times it is forgotten that the handrails on GMD SD40-2’s is somewhat different than those built at La Grange. Since CP SD40-2’s feature unique upright stairs (to prevent snow accumulation in winter), the handrails follow suit by following a more vertical profile at each corner than US-built SD40-2’s. Likewise, a unique CP add-on are the chain attachment triangular hoops on either end of the engine. This could have easily been overlooked, but again are a signature detail on this model.

• The Class Lights – not only does the model look nice, but it is detailed inside and out. A great deal of effort went into the electronics on the locomotive (especially sound units equipped with LokSound decoders), one of the most interesting details being the individual white, red, and green LED class lights. I’m glad I didn’t have to solder any of those wires! 

• The other lights – a number of minute LED’s provide impressively bright lighting on the engine. One thing I was impressed by was that the LED’s for the ditch lights are mounted in the shell, right on the pilot, not lit by “light tubes” or “fiber optics” as some other manufacturers have done. This means that the ditch lights are just as bright as the headlights, not much dimmer as on other models equipped with lit ditch lights.

• The Graphics – not only is the model detailed correctly, but clearly a lot of effort went into the paint and pad-printing on the model. The lettering, even some of the smaller details such as the “lift here” at the jack pads is clearly readable – the resolution of some of the graphics, such as the builder’s plate, is probably beyond the capability of my eyes to read! Likewise, separately-coloured handrails, handrail stanchions, grab irons, cab interior, and exhaust stack all contribute to the superb appearance of the model.

• The Motor – I’m told this model uses a new motor for Bowser products, which likely explains the size of the flywheels on the motor shaft. I didn’t measure them, but they appear to be a good bit larger than the old Athearn Blue Box flywheels, which seem to help the model operate quite smoothly. The motor is surrounded by a great deal of weight, which should give the engine plenty of traction.

• The Wheels – one thing I thought was a nice touch was that blackened-metal wheels were installed on the model. No shiny silver wheels that need painting on this engine! To me, this is one of the details that set this model apart from other high-end manufacturers, or even brass engines. Additionally, Bowser included extra bearing caps in the packaging - CP has a habit of exchanging the enclosed Hyatt-style bearing covers for exposed-cap bearings, similar to freight car bearings where one can observe the rotation of the end cap. Bowser included a set of spare bearing caps so that the unit can be detailed per prototype, if it has received replacement bearing caps. 

 

This shot of the engineer's side of the engine showcases details such as the Q-fans, external radiator piping, rear pilot detail and waste retention tank, another nice touch.

Two minor things (really minor) caught my attention as minor areas for potential improvement. The first, a detail difference, is that the CP SD40-2’s feature an angled drip rail above the cab side windows. The model appears to have a straight drip rail, which is at most a minor correction. The second is not so much a detail issues as an operational one – the front pilot interferes with the coupler trip pin on the car coupled to it (assuming trip pins have not been removed from one’s rolling stock). This is not an issue unique to this model, but almost any engine that has a snowplow; I first noticed this phenomenon on an Athearn Genesis GP38-2W. My solution on that engine, likely on this one as well, will be to install a long-shank coupler on the front of the engine to avoid contact between the trip pin and the round style rock plow on the front pilot.

Again, this is not meant to be a complete review or any sort of advertisement for Bowser, but it is hard to overlook the massive amount of detail that went into creating one of the most detailed (and one of my most favourite) HO plastic engines anyone has ever produced.

‘Til next time,

Cheers,

Peter.

Throwback Thursday #25 - Canadian Pacific DT-2 Switcher at Goderich, ON in July 1964

Canadian Pacific DT-2 44-ton centercab switcher #17 work the grain elevators at Goderich, Ontario in July 1964. Except maybe for gloves, it doesn't look like there was much PPE back in 1964! CP's impressive bridge over the Maitland River can be seen in the distance at left. Uncredited Kodachrome from author's collection.

Tonight’s Throwback Thursday takes us back to July 1964 in Goderich, ON, where we find Canadian Pacific DT-2 switcher #17 switching grain boxcars. A seldom-photographed engine, CP owned 14 of these unusual little diesel-hydraulic locomotives, scattered around the system for light switching duties. The engines were built by Canadian Locomotive Company of Kingston, ON from 1957-1960, but were not a Fairbanks-Morse design, as were most diesels that CLC built. Instead, two Caterpillar D-337 engines each contributed 250 hp, routed to the inboard axles of each truck, and from there to the outboard axles by means of crank rods. A rather bold departure from the rest of CP’s diesel roster, the units proved to be somewhat of a pariah, with retirements occurring as early as 1969. Built in 1959, CP #17 replaced 0-6-0 #6275 (noteworthy as the last operating 0-6-0 on CP’s system) , itself surviving on the CP roster until a sale to Cambridge, Ontario boiler and steam energy equipment maker Babcock & Wilcox in 1974. Another sale in 1996 took the unit to Tottenham, ON where it served as a parts source for South Simcoe Railway’s other DT-2, #22. Briefly reunited with one of the few remaining DT-2’s, #17 was stripped of usable parts and eventually scrapped in 2006 once it had outlived its’ usefulness.

While photographs of CP operations in Goderich often feature the small lakefront yard or the adjacent passenger station, the grain elevators seem to have been seldom photographed. The namesake of the 111.8 mile branchline CP used to reach the town, Goderich was important enough to warrant two railroads, CN being the other line to serve the town. Salt, grain, Champion road graders (later Volvo Construction Equipment), and other industries in town contributed to the majority of the railway’s business in the town.  Gradually though, trucks and centralized manufacturing eroded much of the industry served by CN and CP, with the latter abandoning the Goderich subdivision north (west) of Guelph in 1989. In 1992, the competition also pulled out of Goderich, with CN selling the line west of Stratford to new Railtex operator Goderich-Exeter Railway. The Sifto Salt mine located on the waterfront is now the largest industry served in Goderich by GEXR. Changes in grain rates made Ontario grain less favourable in comparison to that grown on the prairies, and many Lake Huron ports including Goderich, Owen Sound, and Collingwood, faced reduced grain volumes (or a complete halt in grain shipments altogether), a problem made worse for the railroads by stiff competition from trucks. Goderich, however, faired better than some other ports, and Goderich Eleveators continues to send grain out by ship primarily to the export market. Both trucks and the GEXR serve the elevators, though modern 4650 CF cylindrical hoppers are a far cry from strings of 40’ boxcars!

Interestingly, both CP #6275 and the former CP steel bridge over the Maitland River survive today. Old #6275 resides indoors at the Huron County Pioneer Museum, never having left the city it served for many years. The bridge is now a part of a hiking trail and offers a unique view of the port and Maitland River.

A Google Streetview image in approximately the same area as our subject photo. This elevator is no longer served by rail (trucks only), though the elevator in the distance still has rail service.

A Google satellite shot of the port of Goderich, as well as the town's unique octagonally-arranged historic downtown core. The old CP line extends in an arc down and to the left from top-center, while the ex-CN (now GEXR) line extends left-right across the image to reach the Sifto Salt mine at left.

‘Til next time,

Cheers,

Peter.

Wreck Repair

AGCX 10050 was involved in a derailment on CN at St. Tite, Quebec back in November 2009, after a broken rail caused several cars - including this one - to fall off a bridge at 38 mph. Given the age and potential cost of repairs, the car was decided to be beyond repair after evaluation at home shop. The car is seen here at London, ON on 10/16/2010, heading for Zubick's scrap yard. See the TSB report HERE.

I've been meaning to write this blog entry for a while, but it always seemed that one thing or another seems to get in the way. Anyway, I finally managed to put pen to paper (or whatever the digital equivalent is), so here we go…

What happens after a train derailment? From the car owner’s perspective, much as with the railroad, a lot of paperwork. Assuming that all the fires have been put out the main line is back in service, the exciting part is over, as far as the news media is concerned. But the process is really just beginning; one of my main tasks while working at a railcar lessor was that of handling the paperwork associated with cars that were involved in derailments or accidents (accountants love paperwork!). It turns out that the process is usually quite drawn out, usually lasting several months or years even.

When a derailment occurs, the railroad will notify the equipment car owners using an electronic communication system known as the Damage and Defective Car Tracking System (DDCTS; I like acronyms…), which is operated by Railinc, the digital information subsidiary of the AAR. This system is also used to coordinate shoppings for cars that are defective (bad ordered) but which the handling road cannot repair on a conventional RIP track (truck hunting is a common defect reported in DDCTS). When a new derailment event is created, it gives the handling line access to basic information about a car, including owner, owner contact information, and depreciated value (DV) – what the car is worth at the time of the accident. An email is sent to the car owner to describe the damages, as well as facilitate further handling of the wreck. The handling line has three basic choices – a) repair the car and return to service (at handling line’s expense), b) send car to home shop (one designated or owned by car owner), or c) consider the car destroyed in the wreck and settle with the car owner for DV. The DV route isn’t favourable, but there are many cases where a car is too badly damaged to make economic sense to repair.

If pursuing the first option, the car will usually be routed to the railroad’s nearest RIP track, usually at the nearest large yard. There, minor repairs such as bent hand grabs or damaged wheelsets can be replaced. The car owner will get a repair bill showing the repairs made, and that they were the handling line’s responsibility ($0 bill).

The option to send a car to home shop means that repairs are beyond the skill of the handling line (for example, almost anything to do with tank cars or specialty components on other cars such as pneumatic hopper car gates). Sometimes the car is in sufficient mechanical condition to move on its’ own wheels to shop (common if car was only sideswiped), but usually if one or both trucks separated from the car in a wreck, this means a ride on a ‘hospital’ car to shop (flatcar). These days many railroads consider it safer to load the damaged car onto a flatcar (at not insignificant expense) than to attempt to repair the brake gear or trucks if damaged. This usually extends the process considerably, from sourcing a spare flatcar, arranging a crane for load-up, and checking clearances along the route. Usually a mechanical carman will determine whether a car is salvageable or whether it is too badly damaged to repair. If the car is considered destroyed, the railroad can keep the salvage (scrap) value of the car, whereas sending it to shop involves finding a flatcar, paying for a crane, a crew to secure the car, freight to shop, and once actually there, the repairs to the car. Thus, if a wrecked car tends to be old, or major items on the car are damaged, the damaging line will often choose to write off the car instead of attempting repairs. Relatively-new cars tend to be less expensive to repair than to scrap, as they have higher DV’s. One measure of a car’s repairability is the trucks – if the trucks were significantly damaged or lost, replacing or repairing them might not make financial sense. Including new bolsters, sideframes, wheelsets, springs, friction wedges, and miscellaneous components, a new set of trucks for a car can easily run $18-$20,000+.

UTLX 49270 was involved in a minor derailment which sheared off one or more pneumatic hopper outlets and allowed the commodity of plastic pellets to partially escape. After temporary repairs to cap the leak, the car will likely be allowed to move for offloading before going to home shop for repairs. London, ON 11/3/2015.

Other than providing shop disposition to the damaging line, the car owner can’t do much until the car shows up at the repair shop. Once there, a repair inspector will look over the car and make a detailed list of defective or missing items, known as a joint inspection certificate (JIC); often writing the JIC is harder when parts are missing from the car, since there isn’t a reminder that a part should be on the car! Some items, like ladders or couplers are pretty obvious when they’re missing though… The car owner will send the JIC to the damaging road for endorsement; if/when endorsed (agreed upon by owner and damaging line), that is authority for the car owner to bill the damaging line for repairs made using the AAR Car Repair Billing Price Master, which contains job codes and billing rates for most possible repairs to be made to the car. The price master provides a fair method for car owners and railroads to bill each other, and factors in material condition (new or reconditioned), inspection, material, and labour costs associated with the repair. Items not specified in the price master, such as tank car valves or pneumatic hopper car gates, are billed at cost plus the labour to repair the components.

I picked up CSXT 7818, an Atlas C40-8W, at a local recent train show for about $40. Despite several defects, and looking like it was in a 1:87 wreck, I think with a few detail parts and a little bit of elbow grease, the unit can be brought back to life. 

The unit in the above photo I bought at a local train show, knowing it was already damaged. I think I paid $40 for it (it has sound, and runs decent), and on inspection found a number of repairable defects including bent/broken handrails, broken snowplow, missing cab sunshade and couplers, broken horn and bad weathering. I don’t know what caused the engine to be in this condition, but to me it looks like it could have been in a minor HO wreck; given the low purchase price, availability and cost of replacement parts, I think this engine can be repaired fairly easily, and will make a nice addition to the run-through power roster. I have a spare plow in stock, possibly the handrails as well (or can be ordered from Atlas), along with horn, sun shades, and couplers, and hopefully the weathering won’t be too difficult to remove – I think that may be the most difficult part of the project, removing the weathering material without damaging the underlying paint. Stay tuned for a future blog article showing progress that the repair crew has made on the unit…

Hope you found this interesting,

Til Next Time,

Cheers,

Peter.

Time-Link Thursday: Early GO Transit Action

A bit of a variation on the Throwback Thursday theme here; tonight's article is another one written by my dad Keith. Hopefully soon my brother Mark will have some material to contribute to the blog as well (he's currently working on a couple very interesting HO projects; more on this in upcoming weeks). Anyway, onto the feature story. Cheers, Peter.

Time-Link Thursday

GO 104 was built as C754 by HST in 1967. Renumbered 9854 in 1970, 104 in 1975, the pioneering cab car would be sold to AMT in Montreal in 1990 and removed from service in 2010.

Some time ago Peter acquired a sizeable collection of B&W negatives at a local train show. Unfortunately, the seller did not have any background on the photographer and no companion information as to date and location, etc. Fortunately though, a number of views have stations in the frame and some of the locations are familiar. However, many remain unknown to us. If any reader recognizes locations of photos in this or upcoming posts, please drop me a line and let me know the location.

I have always been fascinated by photos showing equipment from different eras. To me they form a connection between generations, often spanning decades. As example, an early CNR Northern coupled to a boxcar built in 1960. Hence, the title ‘TIME LINK’. Time-wise, the span could be seventy three years: a U-2-a built in 1927 coupled to a boxcar that could have lasted until 2000 (freight cars built prior to 7/1/1974 were eligible to continue in service for forty years). If the boxcar was subject to AAR ‘Rebuilt’ status (+ ten years) and coupled to one of CNR’s long lasting E-10-a 2-6-0’s, the span would be a century!

This month’s examples connect early generation GO Transit cab cars to still contemporary bi-level commuter coaches. As to date and location, the following is what we know about each:

GOT 104

-    The F40PH on the opposite end was delivered in 1978 and would serve GO Transit for a decade prior to being sold to Amtrak in 1990.

-        There are a number of high rise towers in the background.

-        The train is passing under a very distinctive design bridge (road or rail?).

GOT 901

-        Bi-level coaches were introduced in 1978.

-        901 would be removed from service in 1995.

-        A distinctive (public?) building can be seen in the background.

Built by GMD in 1951 as ONR FP7 1505, the veteran ‘covered wagon’ would be converted into an APCU (Auxiliary Power Control Unit) for GO in 1974 and numbered 9859. Renumbered in 1975, 901 would soldier on until 1995 when she was removed from service and scrapped.

(Almost) Wordless Wednesday #29

Good Evening All,

Just wanted to wish Happy New Year to all readers and hope that 2016 brings much modelling happiness. The last few weeks have been pretty quiet on the blog as lots of time was spent with family over the holiday season, and (almost as importantly) working hard in the train room on new projects which I will post further articles on in the next week or two. Regular features such as Throwback Thursday should also return to their regular frequency. Until then, enjoy a photo of CN #509 heading out of the yard behind a pair of Athearn Genesis SD75I's. 

Cheers,
Peter.

Freight Car Friday - PROX 75439 (HO)

One of the latest additions to the rolling stock fleet, PROX 75439, is ready for action on the layout. The car has been gloss-coated after decalling, but will be weathered to enhance its' appearance - it's too clean and shiny!

Today’s Freight Car Friday takes on a slightly different theme: instead of discussion of a 1:1 scale freight car, I thought I’d talk about one of my 1/87 scale pieces of rolling stock, PROX 75439. This is the latest project I have been able to complete (only took me five months, working on-and-off on the car!), and was a relatively easy project to complete.

Prototype Info

Procor Limited operates several hundred 23,500-gal insulated tank cars in mono-ethylene glycol service (MEG), with the cars easily identified by their distinctive green colour. Trinity industries operates a small number of cars in MEG service as well. Numbered in the PROX 75100-75400 series, as well as PROX 71000-71100, the cars haul MEG, a plastics-making feedstock, from Scotford, Alberta to various destinations across North America. Initially, much of the MEG was shipped to ports in British Columbia for export to China, but after Chinese firms constructed their own plants to produce MEG, new markets were found in Canada and the US. This results in cars often operating in small groups (3-4 cars, for example), which would make an ideal sized cut of cars to serve an HO industry on one’s layout. Why the green colour? Given that their initial routing through Alberta and British Columbia traversed a large amount of forested territory, a consultant hired by the lessee recommended that the green colour be applied to minimize any visual disturbance to the forest environment (does that mean that bears are scared of black tank cars?). Early in their service lives, the MEG fleet was prone to a number of large wrecks, which destroyed a relatively high percentage of the fleet (including a number of high-profile wrecks, such as one in which cars fell into the Fraser River Canyon), thus contributing to the ordering of new cars in the PROX 71000-series to replace the wrecked cars (as well as to meet increased cycle times when cars started operating across North America).

The Model

Walthers makes a Union Tank Car-style 23,500 gal tank car, and has done so for a number of years; thus there are a lot of them around, and they’re easy to find at local train shows. Walthers has done at least three runs of PROX 75000-series MEG cars, which were reasonably accurate (for the time). The latest Walthers Proto line release, about two years ago, included upgrades such as 36” metal wheels and brake gear detail. In general, Walthers has got the colour close to prototype, though prototype colours vary widely from a dark green when new to a very pale green when cars fade in the sun (particularly the early cars with waterbased paint).

PROX 75439 sits in the yard waiting to be blocked on an outbound freight.

What Walthers hasn’t done in scale yet is one of the cars from the PROX 75400-75449 series, which were slightly different without the large “PROCOR” wordmark on the sides of the car. So after picking up a few Chevron-painted Walthers models at a local train show, I decided to model one of these somewhat unusual cars. After stripping off the lettering on the Chevron car (pretty minimal), the car was primered grey with Krylon paint. I used Tamiya Park Green for the car, which is a bit brighter than prototype, but I didn’t want to get into mixing a custom colour for future cars that I want to paint as well. The good news is that the cars weather fairly quickly, so when I get around to weathering the car (artificially making the colour darker), it should be pretty close to prototype. A Microscale 87-1466 decal set was used to add graphics to the car; this is a fairly new release by Microscale (first sold about a year ago I believe), and contains generally-accurate graphics and information for a number of Procor car types. One thing that is inaccurate however, is the reporting mark font: newer Procor cars constructed at Union Tank Car facilities use a narrower, heavier font than the Microscale set comes with. Highball Graphics makes an alphabet set that is close, but slightly too thick. I elected to stick with the Microscale set for convenience. Decalling was a relatively straightforward affair, and took less than an hour. I modeled the car in its’ as-built appearance, without any graffiti or patch paint repairs. I chose PROX 75439 as this sequence of digits was already arranged in the Microscale set. In addition to standard tank car information such as qualification decal, reporting marks on top of car, and tank specification (111A100W1), these cars include the yellow Optimiser decal as well as a Chemtrec (emergency reporting information) decal on each side of the car. Also, white reflective circular dot decals were applied per prototype, which were applied when the car was new (before regulatory requirements for the yellow stripes came along). Other upgrades to the car include Walthers 100T trucks and MccHenry double-shelf couplers. In all, including purchasing the Chevron car ($12), parts, paint, and the decal set, this car cost less than $30. One thing that is still inaccurate is that the Walthers model does not include the fittings flange correctly per prototype. The car comes with a manway and small fittings cover, however with the prototype having top-unloading capability, the valve package requires a large cover on the fittings plate.  At some point in the future I will remove the existing small fittings cover and apply a proper-sized fittings cover to the car, to be made from spare styrene stock. Until then, I’ll let the car operate in revenue service for a while; lots of other projects to work on!

Until next time,

Cheers,

Peter.

Throwback Thursday #24 - CP RS18 #8773 at Hamilton, ON in October 1978

CP RS18 #8773, still with it's 5" stripes on the cab face, pauses at Hamilton, ON in October 1978 with a rather unusual consist. Uncredited Kodachrome, author's collection.

Tonight’s Throwback Thursday takes us back to October 1978, at Hamilton, ON. We’re at the classic art-deco TH&B station, located near the downtown core on Hunter Street. Today it is a hub of GO Transit activity, but back on this day in 1978 it played host to a rather unusual train consisting of CP RS18 #8773, a CP steel caboose #434257, an Amtrak sleeper/combination car, and a TH&B heavyweight passenger car. What was this strange train doing at the station? Good question. There was no information on the slide mount, however the sequence of shots from this day shows the train at Toronto Union Station, here at Hamilton, and finally at the TH&B yard in Welland. At Welland, the engine and van were wyed and coupled to the back of an Amtrak train. While the reason for this odd operation may be lost to history, it may have been a director’s special of some sort. The Toronto-Hamilton-Welland routing is interesting, as it the mix of equipment – perhaps a joint effort by the TH&B’s parent companies, CP and Penn Central? Hopefully at least one other railfan was out that day and made notes on this train – this was of course, long before the days of email or facebook, where sharing of railfan information involved actually talking to someone else, in person or over the phone.

Interestingly, except perhaps for the station building, not much from this scene remains today. CP 8773, constructed in 1958 at MLW, was later rebuilt to RS-18u #1827 in 1985 at the company’s Angus shops in Montreal. The unit operated until 1992 when it was destroyed in a wreck at Mile 35.3 of CP’s Sherbrooke subdivision. Retirement followed in 1993, and finally scrapping at Winnipeg, MB in June 1994. Likewise, it’s probable that the CP van, Amtrak sleeper, and the TH&B heavyweight coach have all likely met the same fate. But at least we have this recollection of another one of those oddities that always seem to happen on cloudy days.

‘Til next time,

Cheers,

Peter.