UtahRails.net

UtahRails.net

Utah Central Railroad of 1897, and its antecedents

Salt Lake & Ft. Douglas Rwy., 1884
Salt Lake & Eastern Rwy., 1888
Utah Western Railway, 1889
Utah Central Railway, 1890-1897
Utah Central Railroad (under R. G. W.), December 1897; through end of Narrow Gauge in 1900.

By George E. Pitchard

This page was last updated on March 3, 2005.

(Return to George Pitchard Archive index page)

Part II

Activity in the 1889-1893 Period

John W. Young's expansive plans were clearly going to require more locomotives than just the five old Utah & Northern moguls and the lone Shay. In April of 1889, Young directed Croft to find out how many engines (and flat cars) were yet for sale from the Utah & Northern equipment, and the price for the lot (the answer, if any, seems not to have survived). In August of 1889, Young wrote to H. K. Porter & Co., wanting information on suburban 'dummy'-type engines, capable of running up grades of 250 feet per mile (nearly 6 percent), with, presumably, a couple of coaches in tow.

And, somewhere along the way, Young caught wind of the availability of the narrow-gauge locomotives and rolling stock of the Cleveland & Canton Railroad, formerly the Connotton Valley Railway, which in early 1889 was being offered for sale through the New York Equipment Co. On April 2, 1889, Young, then in New York City, sent a letter to one John Hedden, directing him

Hedden's report apparently has not survived, but evidently Young was sufficiently impressed with the stuff that on June 1, 1889, he made an agreement with one Benjamin Watson, 40 Wall St., New York City, whereby Watson was to act for Young in negotiating a contract with the New York Equipment Co. for something over 1,000 tons of new steel rail, with all necessary fixtures and such, as well as "...a number of cars, locomotives, &c., valued at about fifty-three thousand ($53,000) dollars,..." for which Watson (personally) was to get $16,000 in bonds and $15,000 in stock of the just-created Utah Western Railway Co., and $500.00 in cash.

Thereafter, on June 23, 1889, Young wrote out the following:

This is the first clear statement (and the only 'legal' one so far seen) of what Young actually agreed by contract to purchase of the former Connotton Valley Railway's narrow-gauge equipment; its being a legal document (if only a corrected draft) would seem to give it a certain reliability. However, supporting it is an item in the Salt Lake Tribune of August 13, 1889, in which Young is quoted as saying that he has bought one switch engine and two consolidation engines, of Baldwin build, two passenger engines, of Porter build, 11 passenger cars and 114 coal cars. The agreement on quantities would seem to some degree significant.

Young sent a letter to Watson, dated July 20, 1889, which shows that the rail, locomotives and cars purchased in this deal were all intended for the recently-created Utah Western Railway project; a paragraph in the said letter says: "In painting the cars, you can have put on the freight cars: 'U. W. Ry., No.---' On the passenger cars, 'Utah Western Railway.' On the Locomotive (Tender), 'Utah Western Railway, No.---'."

None of this material, however, arrived in Utah until some months later. Young had, as early as July 11th, 1889, written to Watson to ship as soon as possible "one of the heavy combination (sic) locomotives, also the switch locomotive, No. 16,..." which, from later events, clearly did not happen at this time.

Under date of September 20, 1889, Young writes a letter, to Watson, introducing W. J. Silver, who is being sent by Young to Canton (Ohio, not China) "...to see about the shipping of the two heaviest engines, two or three of the passenger cars, and thirty to fifty of the flat cars." In a letter dated September 26, 1889, Young instructs Silver that he is to select two of the heaviest locomotives, two or three passenger cars and 25 flat cars, and ship all "at once." As a follow-up, on October 7th Young sends a telegram to Silver, at Canton, to "Ship two heaviest Baldwin locomotives. If not equipped with air, take air off the two Porter locomotives and ship with them, also passenger car and 25 flat cars."

That this, too, did not happen just as Young wanted is evident by a telegram from Young to Watson, dated November 6, 1889, thus: "Ship the coach and heaviest locomotives now ready immediately by Rock Island and D & R G from Denver. Wells starts tomorrow. Leave other cars until he arrives." On the 18th of November, Young telegraphs to Wells (evidently, then back East somewhere), mostly in code(!), something relating to "...shipping one consolidated engine and one or two passenger cars, immediately by U.P...". Another such, dated December 4th, 1889, is even less useful, showing only "consolidated locomotives" and "passenger cars" in plain language.

In any case, finally some of the equipment is actually shipped, and arrives in Utah at the very end of December, 1889 -- the Salt Lake Herald of December 31, 1889, notes "The Utah Central, leaving Ogden yesterday morning, carried to Salt Lake two coaches and two locomotives for the Utah Western railroad." A week later, the Salt Lake Tribune of January 7, 1890, says "Two narrow-gauge consolidation engines are waiting in the U. P. yards for delivery to the Ft. Douglas road when a little misunderstanding about freight charges is settled. They are compact, powerful-looking machines. Two Utah Western cars are also there awaiting delivery. 'Utah' on one car is spelled 'Eutah'."

While it may well be that there had been some delay at the Ohio/New York end of this transaction, in getting the equipment repaired and ready to ship, it is evident from the several notes, telegrams, letters and so forth that most of the cause for delay was Young's chronic lack of ready cash, a problem which, as events will show, will only get worse, and result in receivership in 1893.

There are a number of items in the several newspapers relating to the arrival of this equipment, some of which items do not appear to be entirely correct. An item in the Park Record of February 15, 1890, says "The three new 45-ton consolidation engines are model locomotives,..." and this item seems to be picked up by the Salt Lake Tribune, as their issue of March 5, 1890, notes that the Salt Lake & Eastern has "...three new 45-ton locomotives,..." Since only two of the Connotton Valley's 2-8-0 engines are 'available' for Young to purchase (and two is all HE thought he bought!), the origin of the 'three' error remains a mystery yet.

Then, the Salt Lake Tribune of April 27, 1890 notes the arrival, for the Utah Central (just renamed from S.L.& Ft.D., et cetera), of four locomotives - two passenger engines, one consolidation, and 'a tank engine for shunting.' Two days before, per a journal entry, the Utah Central had paid $1,686.92 for "freight on 2 locomotives."

It is, however, uncertain that four locomotives were actually received in late April of 1890, IF two consolidations had, in fact, been received in late December of 1889. Since only two consolidations in total could possibly have been received during this transaction, one item or the other would apparently have to be in error, so far as time of arrival of these engines is concerned. A possible scenario for clearing this up is as follows: On the assumption that the five engines received were two consolidations, one tank switcher, and two 'passenger' engines, the two consolidations were received at the end of December 1889, and the engines received in April of 1890 were three in number, being the passenger engines and the tank switcher. What happened was that as the freight remained unpaid on one of the consolidations that had arrived in December, it was still held by the UP/OSL&UN, and the three recent arrivals in April were parked with the 2-8-0, so that the reporter, seeing the four engines together, reported the April arrival as four engines, apparently not being aware that one of the engines had been there for some months already.

The two engines on which freight was paid in April of 1890 would not be the consolidation and tank switcher, as both these engines (and a couple of cars) end up in a court case brought by the OSL&UN against the Utah Central over - guess what - unpaid freight charges!

Therefore, the freight paid on two locomotives in April of 1890 must be for the two Porter 'passenger' (4-4-0) engines; one of the two consolidations received in late December 1889 did have its freight charge paid, evidently, since it seems to be in service by March of 1890.

In the Third District Court, docket 11819, filed May 4, 1893, O.S.L.& U.N. Ry. vs. John W. Young, we read in the complaint:

The O.S.L.& U.N. Ry. Co. asks "...judgment and decree of the court for the said sum of $8,631.26, together with interest thereon at eight per cent per annum from the fourth day of November 1891, together with its costs and disbursements including two per cent on the total amount due on said indebtedness, as compensation and allowance for its attorneys..." The complaint was signed on April 22, 1893, though not filed until May 4, 1893.

However, before the filing, the matter was largely settled, as on the back of the complaint, under date of May 2, 1893, appears this:

From which, it would appear that the last shred of possible legal ownership of these two locomotives passed from John W. Young (and the Utah Central) not later than May of 1893; physical possession of the engines had passed from the Utah Central not later than November of 1891, though it is all but certain that the two engines had never departed OSL&UN property from date of arrival, the freight being unpaid.

A final note on this Connotton Valley - New York Equipment Co. transaction: the Salt Lake Herald of March 2, 1893, has an item commenting upon the auction sale of certain Utah Central rolling stock on February 27th, 1893, being '4 or 5' engines, three passenger cars and 114 flat cars, the lot being bid in by representatives of the U.C. bondholders for $6,400 - which happened to be the amount of the claim against the U.C. that brought about this sale, a claim secured by this equipment and brought by the New York Equipment Company.

All that remains is to provide the details of these five locomotives, all former Connotton Valley Ry. engines, two of which are most fortunately identified in the foregoing court case; the other consolidated engine and one of the two Porter 'passenger' (4-4-0) engines are identifiable by way of their subsequent histories, while the other Porter 4-4-0 can be reduced to two possible candidates.

The five engines - Connotton Valley number first, followed by Connotton Valley name, wheel arrangement, basic specifications, builder info, and known Utah numbers:

Remarks on the above five engines:

a. Initial numbering of these engines for the Utah Western Ry. would be purely guesswork, except for the two that appear in the above-quoted court case. But one guesses that they would pick up where the previous engines left off, of which the highest known number was 9, so one might guess this lot to start with 10 - but that is just a guess. The 2-8-0 that was later to be U.C. second #2 presumably arrived with a Utah Western number (like U.W. #11 did), but it is not at present known what that number was.

b. Of these five engines, only one (2-8-0, c/n 5930, later U.C. #2) is known to have entered service on the S.L.& Ft.D./SL&E/UC system; it being virtually certain that the two engines turned over to the OSL&UN never ran on the U.C., and it seems quite unlikely that the two Porter 4-4-0 engines, which were purchased with the dead-flat Utah Western line in mind, would have been of even the slightest use on grades exceeding 6 percent, as were present on most of the rest of the system.

c. Former C.V. #9, Mogadore, was built as a 2-4-0 and rebuilt at an unknown date to 4-4-0 by the C.V.

d. Of the 2-8-0 engines, c/n 5258 was Baldwin class 10/24E-91, and c/n 5930 was Baldwin class 10/24E-100.

Dispositions, briefly:

C.V. #6, 2-8-0, c/n 5258, 1889 to U.W. #11, turned over to OSL&UN Ry not later than May 1893, account unpaid freight charges; apparently not taken into OSL&UN roster, disposition unknown.

C.V. #13, 2-8-0, c/n 5930, 1889 to U.W. (number not known), later U.C. #2 in July 1898 to U.C.RR. (RGW) #02; sold in October 1900 to Sumpter Valley Ry, #8, renumbered ca. 1906 to S.V. #11, dropped from equipment by June 30, 1916, scrapped (exact date unknown).

C.V. #16, 0-6-0T, c/n 5989, 1889-90 to U.W. #12, turned over to OSL&UN Ry. not later than May 1893, account unpaid freight charges; apparently not taken into OSL&UN roster, stored out-of-service at Jordan spur on Utah & Nevada line; passed to O.S.L. in March 1897, rebuilt by OSL to 2-6-0 tender locomotive and put in service as OSL #4 ca. July 1, 1897 on Utah & Nevada line; sold April 1903 to Sumpter Valley Ry #10, renumbered ca. 1906 to S.V. #14, traded June 1912 to Eureka-Nevada Ry (formerly Eureka & Palisade RR/Ry), but not sent to Nevada; remained in Oregon and was sold from there by E-N in May 1915, purchaser unknown.

C.V. #9, 2-4-0 rebuilt to 4-4-0, c/n396, 1889-90 to U.W. (number not known); not believed to have entered service on U.C., sold not later than March 1893 to the Great Salt Lake & Hot Springs Ry., who rebuilt the engine to standard gauge and placed it in service by April 1893 (Great Salt Lake & Hot Springs Ry. became Salt Lake & Ogden Ry. in 1896.)

As to the "other 4-4-0", as noted above, this would be either C.V. #11 or C.V #15. Records from the H. K. Porter Co. show that c/n 473 (C.V. #15) was sold in 1911 for $1,500, purchaser unknown. Whichever 4-4-0 was actually in Salt Lake City, carried an unknown U.W. number, and is believed not to have entered service on the U.C., and is also believed to be gone by about March 1896, disposition unknown.

The next locomotive to arrive, after the New York Equipment Company purchases, was a second Shay locomotive, received about March 20, 1891. It was Lima Machine Works c/n 327, shipped February 27, 1891, and had three 12" by 10" cylinders, 29" drive wheels in its two trucks, and a light weight of 54,500 lbs. The Salt Lake Tribune of March 20, 1891 notes that the U.C. has "just received" a 40-ton Shay. The same paper, issue of March 25th, says the Shay made its trial run 'yesterday' (i.e., March 24, 1891), and that it weighs 81,500 lbs. in working order (probably correct, since the 1,740 gallons of water in the tank works out to about 14,495 lbs. all by itself). Per yet another item in the Tribune, on March 31, the Shay is by then in regular service, but it neglects to mention where on the system that regular service was being performed.

There exists an "Invoice Record" for "U. C. Ry. - Construction" accounts, in which one finds, under date of March 27, 1891, "Invoice #249, Lima Machine Works, $6,162.66," which one supposes to be the basic cost of Shay locomotive 327. Another entry, in a "U. C. Ry. - Construction" journal, notes an entry under date of May 31, 1891, for an "Overcharge on Engine 327 refunded to T. J. Macintosh," who was the General Freight Agent (et cetera), in the amount of $3.60 - but from whom the refund came, or why, no comment is made, but one supposes it was on freight charges - which this time seem to have been paid!

Dimensionally, Shay c/n 327 was not much larger than the only slightly older c/n 226, U.C. #7 (as shown by the Lima 'drawing card index' information for both these engines), as shown below:

And, again per the aforementioned 'drawing card index' records for these two locomotives, several of the similar smaller parts on both engines were made from the same drawings and from the same patterns.

That the invoice for this locomotive was entered into the "Invoice Record" does not mean that said invoice was actually paid. Subsequent events show that it was not entirely paid for, and all that is found in any of the surviving records, in a sort of Purchasing Agent's journal, is a payment of $2,000 under date of April 30, 1891.

Non-payment, as usual, leads to difficulties, and on March 22, 1892, Lima Machine Works vs. Utah Central Ry. Co. entered as docket 10395 in the Third District Court, Territory of Utah, with Lima seeking possession of the engine, "known as the Shay Patent No. 327," "or the value thereof," $4,000.00. In the answer, dated May 4, 1892, defendant (i.e., the U. C. Ry.Co.) denies Lima is the owner, denies Lima is entitled to possession of the engine "known as Shay Patent No. 327," denies value is $4,000 or any other sum exceeding $2,000. Defendant accepts "that sometime in the year 1890," contract was made with plaintiff for two locomotive engines, "known as Shay engines," pursuant to which plaintiff delivered to defendant "an engine number 327," "upon which defendant paid the sum of two thousand dollars," agreeing to pay the balance in two installments, allegedly within two years of delivery. Defendant complains of poor quality of materials and workmanship in the engine, and that it is "not capable of doing the work that was guaranteed that it should do," and so forth. "Wherefore defendant prays judgment against said plaintiff for the return of said engine or for the sum of two thousand dollars paid thereon and the sum of two thousand dollars damages ... and for the costs of this proceeding." The Court rendered judgment on October 26, 1893, "that plaintiff is the owner and entitled to possession of the engine described in the complaint as Shay patent No. 327, and it is further ordered, adjudged and decreed that the plaintiff have of and recover from the defendant herein his costs and disbursements expended herein and taxed at $24.55."

Certainly, a most interesting document; it seems to show that c/n 327, as with c/n 226 in December of 1888, had as its road number on arrival the builder's construction number, and further that it retained that number throughout its rather brief life on the Utah Central. If the wording is correct in the sentence "Wherefore defendant prays judgment against said plaintiff for the return of said engine (emphasis added) or for the sum of two thousand dollars paid thereon,...", this proceeding also seems to show that the Utah Central is not actually in possession of the engine at date of its answer on May 4, 1892. If correct, as it likely is, then 'shay No. 327' was on the Utah Central for only about a year or so. And when final judgment is handed down, in October of 1893, the U.C. does not get the engine back, the U.C. does not get its $2,000 actually paid back, and to add insult to injury, has to pay the costs of the proceeding. By that time, October 26, 1893, the road is only a month away from receivership, and it seems nothing more was done by the railroad towards getting this engine back, there being no indication of appeal from this court's judgment.

Lima eventually resold No. 327. Per Koch, "The Shay Locomotive," pg. 393, later owners include Doty Lumber & Shingle Co., Doty, Washington, and the Milwaukee Lumber Co., at St. Maries, Idaho.

As to when the Utah Central (or John W. Young himself) ordered this engine and its putative twin, the best that can be said at present is the rather imprecise 'sometime in the year 1890' that appears in the above-quoted answer to complaint. But, that Young had had the subject in mind for some time before the engines were actually ordered is evident from several things, for as early as an August 13, 1889 item in the Salt Lake Tribune, Young is given as saying he has ordered two Shay locomotives, of 30 tons each. Then, on September 26, 1889, Young writes to L. C. Trent, Lima agent in Salt Lake City, that "I want the locomotives commenced at once, if they are going to build them at all,..." and further stating that he "must have one early in November..."; and then there's an October 28th, 1889, letter from Young directly to Lima, ordering two Shay engines, of 36 tons each, the first to be shipped in December of 1889 and the second in January of 1890, at $6,000 each, of which 1/3 was to be paid on delivery, 1/3 in 90 days, and the final 1/3 in 180 days. Quite possibly Young's chronic lack of cash was the cause of the lengthy delay between 'order' and delivery of the 327.

What U.C. number this engine (Shay 327) might have gotten in the U.C. scheme of things, had it survived long enough to get a repainting and, therefore, a U.C. number, is entirely another bit of guesswork; clearly, no U.C. number was specified at order date, else the thing would have arrived with that number instead of 327. If it were scheduled to be renumbered into a U.C. number compatible with the previously-received engines, Shay 327 might have received number 15 - or perhaps 16, but it would depend on the actual numbering of the former Connotton Valley engines, which is of course not exactly settled yet! But then, by the time the 327 might have needed relettering, had it remained on the road in 1893 or later, it might well have gotten a lower number - like 4, say, or some such, following the example of the engines acquired in 1893 and 1895. Who knows?

And finally, the last locomotive acquired in the 1889-1893 period - a barely-used Baldwin 2-8-0, c/n 11022, July 5, 1890, built for (and delivered to) the Alberta Railway & Coal Company as their No. 3, having 16x20" cylinders, 37" drivers and an engine weight of about 70,000 lbs. as built, and which was purchased by the U.C. in early 1893, apparently via a dealer 'in the East.' It was received in Salt Lake City on Thursday, March 9, 1893. The engine was once or twice referred to as "the new Hogg locomotive," that being a not-uncommon nickname for a 2-8-0 engine at that time. It was Baldwin class 10/26E-156, and cost the A. Ry. & C. Co., new, $6,750.00, and appears to have cost the U.C. about the same, as in 1895 the receivers find it necessary to send 'back East' for copies of documents supporting an expenditure of $6,753 for a locomotive bought prior to the receivership, which by elimination would seen could only be this slightly-used 2-8-0. It had been A. Ry. & C. Co. No. 3, and retained that number from the outset on the Utah Central - which means that old No. 3, a former Utah & Northern Baldwin mogul, had either been renumbered or de-numbered (and set aside) by the time 2-8-0 No. 3 enters service in March of 1893.

The further history of this locomotive will be more fully developed in Part III of this story, hereafter.

As previously suggested herein, no decent roster of this road's locomotives is known to exist, prior to the 1898 lease of the U.C. to the R.G.W. - by which time everything interesting is gone - so resort must be had to the odd bits and notes here and there that hint at what may be on the line at any given time, such as an item in the Salt Lake Tribune of January 1st, 1892, reviewing 1891, which notes that the U. C. Ry. has six locomotives, two of which are Shay engines.

But then we note that the published Report of the Territorial Board of Equalization "for the year 1892" says that the U. C. Ry. has nine locomotives, at a total taxable valuation of $8,200.00 (which is repeated 'for the year 1893`- nine locos, $8,200). So one wonders which is correct for 1892 - six or nine? Well, possibly, both of them, if one thinks that perhaps there are nine locomotives on the property, of which six are in service (or at least serviceable), and three are old and out of service. But identifying exactly what these nine locomotives were, is quite another matter - which we shall put off for a bit.

From 1892 on, data are available from the Territorial (later State) Board of Equalization, on an annual basis, which was created in the initial instance for the purpose of assessing taxable valuation of everything in sight! At one time, three 'sets' of records existed for each year -the returns of the railroad companies, the record of assessment by the Board based on the company returns, and finally the published reports, based on (but much less complete than) the Board's record of assessment. The most useful set of records is the returns of the companies, which usually contain notes and more detailed explanations of things than appear in the Board's record of assessment. There is frequently disagreement about values, also, which sometimes ended up in court.

Annually, the Board sent out packets of forms to the several companies, which were to be filled up and returned, usually about mid-year, and describing the property 'as of a particular date earlier in the given year. This date changed over time; early on, it was something around the first Monday in March, then became the first Monday in February, and finally (logically) settled on the first of January.

Regrettably, for 1892 and 1893, we have only the published Report of the Board - the least useful of the several types of records that once existed - and might still, but if they do, they're irretrievably lost in the labyrinth of State Archives, apparently. However, for 1894 and beyond, we have either the returns of the companies or the record of assessment by the Board, and sometimes both for the same year, in addition to the published reports.

Having provided a brief explanation of the nature of the primary source of information for the next several years, we will now resume the story where we left off a few paragraphs ago - that is, with the nine locomotives shown in the published Board Report for the years 1892 and 1893, which in both years are shown as having a taxable valuation of $8,200; since 1892 and 1893 are shown as being just the same, clearly the 1893 report does not include the former Alberta Ry. & Coal Co. engine, which was received apparently after the 'as of date for the 1893 report. So, what does the nine include?

Up to the arrival of the A. Ry. & C. Co. engine, in March of 1893, there is a maximum possible number of engines of 12, being five former Utah & Northern moguls, two Shay locomotives, and five former Connotton Valley engines, of which three are gone by March of 1892, judging by the published Board of Equalization report; which three seems all but impossible to nail down absolutely, but would seen to have to include the two engines turned over to the OSL&UN for unpaid freight charges -one of the 2-8-0 engines, and the 0-6-0T engine, both former Connotton Valley Baldwin engines.

The toss-up third engine would seen to be either one of the Porter 4-4-0 engines, also ex-Connotton Valley, or the Shay, c/n 327. If one takes it that the U.C. did not irretrievably lose Shay 327 until October of 1893, and were therefore carrying it on the roster, then the third engine gone by March of 1892 will have to be Porter 4-4-0 having c/n 396, sold to the Great Salt Lake & Hot Springs Ry., who proceeded to take something over a year to rebuild the thing to standard gauge (not impossible, perhaps, given that the GSL&HS did the work in their own rather Spartan shop facility).

If, on the other hand, it is the Shay 327 which departs the property, physically, sometime in the first couple of months of 1892, then the Porter 4-4-0, c/n 396, has to be included in the nine engines listed at the beginning of March 1893 - which seems impossible, since the thing has to be rebuilt by the GSL&HS in its rather inadequate shop and enter service as a standard gauge engine by April of 1893.

Well, there you have it - pay your money, and take your choice. It may be, also, that the identical nature of the published 1892 and 1893 Board of Equalization reports has little or nothing to do with 1893's reality, and was published that way for the convenience of the Board.

In any case, "for the year 1894" we have the return filed by the Utah Central Ry. Co., which shows the company to have, at about the first Monday in March, 1894, nine (9) locomotives, at a total taxable valuation of $7,500, broken down as follows: one 'good' locomotive, at $3,000; one 'fair' locomotive, at $1,000; and seven '2nd-hand, damaged' locomotives, at $500 each. The one 'good' locomotive was of course the former Alberta Ry. & Coal Co. 2-8-0 No. 3, now U. C. Ry. No. 3; the 'fair' locomotive was undoubtedly the former Connotton Valley Ry. 2-8-0 #13, Baldwin c/n 5930, by now apparently numbered U. C. Ry. No. 2.

As to the seven '2nd-hand, damaged' locomotives, some analysis is necessary, somewhat as follows: with the accession of the large 2-8-0 in March of 1893, and disregarding the archaic No. 1, the U.C. and its antecedents had by the end of 1893 acquired a total of 13 locomotives (five 2-6-0, former Utah & Northern; one 0-6-0T, two 2-8-0 and two 4-4-0, all five former Connotton Valley Ry.; two 2-truck Shay engines, bought new; and the large 2-8-0, former Alberta Ry. & Coal Co.).

From this roster of 13 locomotives, four are absolutely certain to have been removed from this list not later than October of 1893, these four being: one Porter 4-4-0, c/n 396, sold not later than March 1893 to the Great Salt Lake & Hot Springs Ry.; one Baldwin 2-8-0, c/n 5258, and one Baldwin 0-6-0T, c/n 5989, to have been Utah Western #11 and #12, respectively, turned over to the Oregon Short Line & Utah Northern Ry. for unpaid freight charges not later than May of 1893; and Shay-327, repossessed by Lima (by way of court order) not later than October 26, 1893.

These four cannot be any part of the nine engines included in the 1894 return by the U. C. Ry. to the Board of Equalization; so, therefore, the seven '2nd-hand, damaged' engines cannot be other than the five former Utah & Northern 2-6-0 engines; Shay #7, c/n 226, bought new in 1888; and the 'other' Porter 4-4-0, though likely not in service. All but the Shay were second-hand, and while the Shay had been bought new in 1888, it had certainly been damaged in January of 1889.

This arrangement of things is workable from whenever in 1893 the last of the four 'known-gone' engines leaves the accountings, up at least through the first Monday in March, 1894; which covers the end of 1893, the beginning of the receivership in November, 1893, and the first couple of months of 1894.

But, this arrangement does include a problem, which is that since the 2-8-0 engines by this time are numbered 2 and 3, what actually happened to the former Utah & Northern mogul engines that had been numbered 2 and 3? Had they been renumbered - and if so, to what? - or had they been effectively de-numbered and set aside, out of service? Subsequent events would seem to indicate that the latter scenario is the more likely, as will appear in Part III, hereafter.

But, to simplify things somewhat - the nine engines 'on the roster' at about the end of 1893 appear to be: 2-8-0 engines #s 2 and 3; five former Utah & Northern 2-6-0 engines, two of unknown numbers, the three others apparently numbers 6, 8 and 9; two-truck Shay, No. 7 (1888, c/n 226); and one Porter 4-4-0, of unknown U.C. number and probably not even in service.

However, before getting on with Part III and the receivership period, et cetera, presented here is a sketch roster of the more essential details (where known) of the 14 engines encompassed within the eight-year history of the Salt Lake & Ft. Douglas Ry. - Utah Central Ry., from the beginnings of the motive power story in February of 1885, up to the commencement of the receivership in November of 1893. It has taken years to arrive at this point, however inadequate it may be; obviously, considerable work remains to be done - hopefully, someone will do it.

The Roster....

* = date received is approximate.

Brief remarks on the above:

U. C. Ry. 1: Apparently retired from active service shortly after arrival of the first of the former Utah & Northern moguls, say about November of 1887.

U. C. Ry. 2 and 3: At this time, late 1893, either renumbered (to??) or de-numbered and out of service, account this number being given to a 2-8-0.

U. C. Ry. 7: The Shay; no comment here.

U. C. Ry. 8 and 9: Believed to be former Utah & Northern 24 and 25, unable to differentiate which goes with which on present info, so the order given here is merely conventional and simply for convenience.

U. C. Ry. 10?: Number used here simply for convenience, with the '?' to denote guesswork. By this time, this engine is U. C. Ry. second No. 2, and the only one of the former Connotton Valley engines known to have entered service on the Utah Central.

U. C. Ry. 11 and 12: Turned over to OSL&UN no later than May 1893, account unpaid freight charges. (O.S.L. narrow gauge roster, 1897-1903)

U. C. Ry. 13?: Number used here simply for convenience; this engine sold no later than March 1893 to Great Salt Lake & Hot Springs and rebuilt to standard gauge; in service by April 1893, later known to be Salt Lake & Ogden #15, sold in 1911 to unknown purchaser.

U. C. Ry. 14?: Number used here simply for convenience; uncertain as to which former Connotton Valley engine this was, either C.V. #11, Porter c/n 465, 12/7/1881, or C.V. #15, Porter c/n 473, 1/25/1882.

U. C. Ry. 327: The other Shay; gone no later than October 26, 1893, but may be gone by May 1892.

Part III

Receivership, Reorganization and R.G.W. Lease - 1893 through End of Narrow-Gauge in 1900

The "Silver Panic" of 1893 resulted in bankruptcy and receivership of many railroad companies across the country, including the Utah Central Railway Company, which had notable financial problems of its own well before the Panic. This combination of causes resulted in the U. C. passing its mortgage bond interest, which in turn resulted in the mortgage holders, the Central Trust Company of New York, bringing suit for foreclosure against the Utah Central Railway Co. in the 3rd District Court, Territory of Utah, entered as docket number 12650, filed November 27, 1893.

Receivers were appointed as of that date, being James McGregor, then General Manager of the U. C. Ry., as well as having been for some years the manager of the Crescent Mining Co., of Park City, and Clarence Cary, a New York lawyer, who does not appear to have looked upon his new job in Utah very favorably - and, indeed, he seldom came to Utah during his tenure as co-Receiver.

It was standard procedure, at the beginning of a receivership such as this one, for the Receiver to make a full and complete inventory of all property of the company, as it existed at the date of the commencement of the receivership. It was so ordered in this case, and the Inventory of the Receivers was filed in the Court on January 22, 1894. Most unfortunately, this Inventory is not presently known to exist (neither any other part of the case file), as the entire file was turned over to the R.G.W. in June of 1901, for 'storage'. No part of said case file, apparently, is to be found at this time in any existing D&RGW collection.

The nearest thing to the aforesaid Inventory that is currently available is the U. C. Ry.'s "Return" to the Territorial Board of Equalization "for the year 1894," which shows the taxable valuation of the entire property, land, track, buildings, rolling stock and so forth, as it stood around the first Monday in March, 1894. The rolling stock inventory was by no means as detailed as that in the Receiver's Inventory likely was - but it is all that there is, at the present time.

The U.C.'s 1894 Return to the Board of Equalization has been pretty well gone over, at the end of Part II, above. It does not need to be repeated here, since the reader hereof can undoubtedly turn back a page or two without much difficulty. That fact notwithstanding, the Board of Equalization reports, returns and records of assessment provide a very useful basic outline for the changes in the U.C.'s motive power, year by year, for 1894 through 1900, inclusive.

Therefore, it seems a good idea to provide the outline, and then flesh it out, as best it can be done. The following is a compilation, combining the information from the returns of companies and the Board's records of assessment, as available, and some from the published Reports of the Board:

Clearly, the decipherment of the 1894 return is the key piece of this puzzle, it being the bedrock upon which the others stand (or fall); so, the 1894 lot of nine engines is summarized here:

1 good loco, at $3,000
U.C. #3, 2-8-0, Baldwin 1890, x-ARy&CCo #3

1 fair loco, at $1,000
U.C. #2, 2-8-0, Baldwin 1881, x-C.V. #13

7 2nd-hand, damaged locos, at $500 each
U.C. #(?), 2-6-0, Baldwin 1879, x-U&N #17
U.C. #(?), 2-6-0, Baldwin 1879, x-U&N #16
U.C. #6, 2-6-0, Baldwin, 1879, x-U&N #13
U.C. #8, 2-6-0, Baldwin, 1880, x-U&N 24 or 25
U.C. #9, 2-6-0, Baldwin, 1880, x-U&N 25 or 24
U.C. #7, 2-trk Shay, Lima 1888, bought new
U.C. #(?), 4-4-0, Porter 1881-82, x-C.V. 11 or 15

A detailed look at how this list was arrived at will be found at the end of Part II, earlier in this paper.

Now, going year by year, from report to report, an analysis of the annual changes in U. C. Ry. motive power will be attempted.

The report 'for the year 1895' shows eight locomotives, as of about the beginning of March, 1895, so that there has been one of 1894's nine engines dropped in the year between these reports. The two 'good' engines in 1895 were Nos. 2 and 3, the two 2-8-0 engines, the No. 2 having been upgraded as a result of a major overhaul in 1894 (see Salt Lake Tribune, August 18, 1894). However, the seven engines '2nd-hand, damaged' in 1894 have became just six engines in 1895 - four '2nd-hand, old & out of date' and two 'dismantled and in scrap heap.' From that, one suspects that perhaps the missing engine was sold, not scrapped, or there would be three engines listed as in scrap heap, not just two. Assuming that to be so, then one is of course immediately curious as to which engine is sold - and it would seem that it must be the Shay, U.C. #7, Lima c/n 226, as it cannot be reasonably fit into any of the reports subsequent to 1895, and has got to be on hand in the 1894 report.

The purchaser of the Shay is elsewhere said to be the Oregon Lumber Company, which was also building the Sumpter Valley Ry. at this time, and may well have had a good use for a narrow-gauge Shay, rather than the standard gauge one that they did have, up until it was sold to the Salt Lake & Mercur Railroad in October of 1894, a point in time right in the middle of the year between the 1894 and 1895 reports, and it is very tempting to think that the Oregon Lumber Company sold its somewhat useless standard gauge Shay, and promptly bought a narrow-gauge Shay, more useful on a narrow-gauge track (Oregon Lumber Co. does not appear to have had a standard-gauge operation until some years after 1894).

Of the other engines, which two are in 1895 shown as 'dismantled and in scrap heap,' there seems no way of knowing for certain, but clearly one of these two will have to be a former Utah & Northern mogul, if not both, although one is tempted to believe that the Porter 4-4-0 is among the earliest scrappings, it being an oddity of no small proportions on a railroad with grades in excess of six per cent, and it would have been of very limited usefulness as a source of spare parts for the flock of Baldwin engines otherwise making up the roster of the U.C. at this time. Again, it is sort of a case of 'pay your money, take your choice.'

The 1896 report shows eight locomotives, as did 1895's, but at an increased valuation, since in November of 1895, the U.C. had received its brand-new Baldwin 2-8-0, No. 1, largely a duplicate of U.C. No. 3. The arrival of the new No. 1 in the listings means that another old engine has been dropped, and apparently the engine dropped by the time of the 1896 report was one of the two shown in 1895 as dismantled and in scrap heap, and again, is either a former U&N Baldwin mogul, or the Porter 4-4-0 - there is no way of telling for certain, merely a guess as to when the odd-ball engine would be gotten rid of; and so it is concluded that the odd-ball would be the next engine actually gone, and therefore 'it is believed' that the Porter engine is gone by March 1896. Therefore, the eight engines on the 1896 report are three 2-8-0 engines, as two 'good' locos, Nos. 1 and 3, and one 'fair' loco, No. 2; and five former U&N moguls, four as '2nd-hand, old and out of date,' and one as 'dismantled, worthless.'

The engine bought in 1895 was a Baldwin 2-8-0, class 10/26E-236, c/n 14487, 10/16/1895, having 16x20" cylinders, 37" drivers and an engine weight of 'about' 70,000 lbs., as built, per the specification sheet (Baldwin's) for this engine.

This new locomotive was, of course, U.C. No. 1, ordered on August 29, 1895. It was shipped on November 1, 1895, and arrived in Salt Lake City on November 13, 1895. Cost, new, was $6,850 (plus freight, set-up, et cetera), and it was to have pilots fore and aft, two 28" sand boxes, LeChatelier water brake on the engine, in addition to Westinghouse air brakes on tender and train, with 8" air pump on engine, tender to hold 1,800 gallons of water; engine and tender to be painted black, with 'large plain gold' lettering, "UTAH CENTRAL RAILWAY" on tender tank collar, "U. C. Ry." on cab panel, "1" large on sides of tender tank, and on rear, and on the front number plate and the front sand box. The engine was guaranteed to haul 40 to 50 gross tons of cars and lading up a straight 6 percent grade.

Baldwin's price for this engine was $6,850, everything included, which was to be paid one-quarter in cash ($1,712.50), the balance in 18 monthly payments; the Receiver's quarterly report for the three months ended September 30, 1895 (in Salt Lake Herald, October 20, 1895) shows $1,712.50 as "Part Payment of New Locomotive."

The Baldwin spec sheet for this engine, class 10/26E-236, notes at the top that "This Co. now has 10/26E-156," which consultation with the Baldwin registers shows was built as Alberta Ry. & Coal Co. No. 3.

"For the year 1897" shows the U.C. with seven locomotives, so yet another old locomotive has gone away. Engines 1 and 3 are shown as 'good,' at $3,000 each, while Engine No. 2 appears as 'fair' at $1,000. The old engines, as two very old, not much use, one old, no good, unserviceable, and one as worthless, a total of four, are by this time all but certain to be all old Baldwin moguls, formerly Utah & Northern, of course, and the one old engine gone in the year between the 1896 and 1897 also most likely was one of the U&N engines - but which we cannot determine.

For 1898, the Nos. 1 and 3 are now 'fair' but still at $3,000 each; the No. 2 is 'poor' but still $1,000; and two of the four old engines are gone. 1897's two 'very old, not much use' have became 1898's two 'good for scrap only,' and drop in value from $500 each to $150 each; while 1897's one 'old, no good, unserviceable' and one 'worthless' are both gone by the time of the 1898 report.

1898, it should be noted, shows that the Rio Grande Western is making the report for the Utah Central Railroad. The several companies making up the U. C. Ry. had been sold in 1897, in the wind-up of the receivership, and the new company, created in late December of 1897, was largely an R.G.W. 'front' in any case. Early in 1898, the R.G.W. leased the U.C.RR. for a period of 49 years, from January 1, 1898, though they did not take operational control until February 1, 1898. We will also note that the returns for 1898 were to show the property as of the first Monday in February, which in 1898 was the 7th of February.

The next official R.G.W. roster after February 1st was #32, dated July 1, 1898, and includes the 'Utah Central branch' and its equipment - at least, part of it, the engines listed being only the 2-8-0 engines, Nos. 1, 2 and 3, as follows:

The Salt Lake Tribune of July 10, 1898, notes that "All the old Utah Central equipment will soon be relettered 'R.G.W.' and renumbered," and the same paper, issue of July 16th, has an item headed "Branch Line Improvement," which says "Regarding the equipment of the narrow gauge line, Mr. Welby states that it is now being overhauled and all the old or unserviceable equipment will go to the scrap heap, while the serviceable engines and cars will be gradually put through the shops for repairs, new paint and lettering." The engines were renumbered by adding a zero, making them 01, 02 and 03, as is shown in the next RGW official roster, #33, dated February 1, 1899, which repeats exactly, the information in roster #32, except for the change in numbers; #33 also notes that engines 01, 02 and 03 have six-inch air pump.

"For the year 1899" shows two changes since 1898 - the engines are no longer labeled as good, fair or poor, although the values on the 2-8-0 engines remain the same; and one of the two engines valued at $150 goes away sometime in the year preceding the 1899 report, the other remaining at $150 in the 1899 report.

The one 'good for scrap only' engine disposed of in the approximate year intervening between the first Mondays of February, 1898 and 1899, at this point in time unavoidably U. C. Ry. #2, a former Utah & Northern Baldwin mogul, was not scrapped, the label notwithstanding, but was sold, probably in October or November of 1898, to the Glasgow & Western Exploration Company, for use on their Golconda & Adelaide Railroad in Nevada. Such is the firm belief of this writer, who will now provide the reasons for so thinking.

Apparently, the Golconda & Adelaide RR, wholly owned by the Glasgow & Western Exploration Co., had only the one locomotive; and apparently, despite plans otherwise, the Glasgow & Western Exploration Co. built only the one railroad, the Golconda & Adelaide. The identity of the one locomotive owned by the G&W Expl. Co./G&A RR is commonly held to be Baldwin c/n 4562, March, 1879, built as Utah & Northern Ry. No. 13, renumbered in 1885 to U&N No. 17, a mogul (2-6-0) having 12x18" cylinders, 42" drivers, and an engine weight of 39,000 lbs. (per 1885 U.P. roster).

This identity is confirmed by the Baldwin Register of Engines Made, which on c/n 4562 very clearly has written in, many years ago, Glasgow & Western Expl. Co. as a later owner of the engine which started as Utah & Northern #13, and in the same hand as the change of owner notation, is the name "Pearl" written in.

So far, so good; onward. The Salt Lake Tribune, February 27, 1899, reports that "...the Glasgow & Western company has purchased from the Rio Grande Western railroad rails, locomotives and other plant formerly used on the narrow gauge, for the railroad from Wells to Cherry Creek." While not wholly accurate, this item at least does show that the G&W E Co did have a connection with the Rio Grande Western so far as buying old narrow gauge equipment was concerned - not especially surprising, since the G&W's main office was not only in Salt Lake City (as was of course the RGW's), but actually in the very same building as the RGW's offices.

So, since the G&W bought only the one locomotive, and since the G&W bought their one locomotive from the RGW, and since the RGW had only the former Utah Central narrow gauge stuff available at this date, and since we know the one loco the G&W acquired was Baldwin c/n 4562, how can one avoid the conclusion that the G&W got Baldwin c/n 4562 from the RGW, who had to have gotten it from the Utah Central?

This engine still exists; after its several years on the Golconda & Adelaide, it spent a few years as Nevada Short Line No. 1 before going on to Nevada Central Railroad #6 in 1920-21. The Nevada Central was abandoned in 1938, and their #6 passed into the hands of the Pacific Coast Chapter, R&LHS, who held it in various places over the next 40 years or so, until it was restored, ca. 1977-78, to its Nevada Short Line No. 1 appearance and held pending the opening of the California State Railroad Museum, which occurred in 1981, and where this engine is now on display.

So much for the 1899 report. The 1900 report shows five locomotives as Utah Central narrow gauge, each at $3,000, all 2-8-0 type engines. The RGW found business on the line greater than initially expected, with preparations for widening the line taking longer than expected, so in September of 1899 the RGW bought from the RGS an engine the RGW had sold to the RGS in 1892! A 2-8-0, Baldwin c/n 5164, 6/25/1880, class 10/24E-78, built as D&RG #74, transferred in July 1886 to the D & R G Western Ry, in Utah, as #74, in 1889 to R.G.W. #74, sold 1892 to Rio Grande Southern #30. After a run through the shops, it emerged in early November of 1899 as No. 04 for the Utah Central branch. And, in October of 1899, the RGW took one of their former narrow gauge engines, No. 8, re-narrowed it, and put it on the U.C. branch as No. 08. This engine, Baldwin c/n 6145, 4/13/1882, class 10/242E-64, started life as D&RG 294, transferred in July 1886 to D&RG Western Ry, Utah, renumbered to 109, to RGW 109 in 1889, widened in September 1890, to RGW #8 in 1892.

RGW roster #34, January 1, 1900, effectively concurrent with the 1900 Equalization report, lists the five engines on the U.C. branch as follows:

Gone from the Board of Equalization's 1900 report was the one last old locomotive, certainly the last of the former Utah & Northern Baldwin moguls, and which had been shown in the 1899 report at a value of $150; its U.C. number is unknown, and presumably it was scrapped, as nothing to even hint at a sale has came to light.

Rio Grande Western's roster #35, dated June 1, 1990 (and which is immediately prior to the widening of the Utah Central branch), lists the same five locomotives, and in the same way, as does roster #34; the notes show that engines 01, 02 and 03 have 6" air pumps, whereas engines 04 and 08 have 8" air pumps; and engines 02, 04 and 08 have the Sams Automatic coupler on pilot only, whereas engine 03 has the Sams coupler on pilot and tender.

The task of widening the Utah Central branch was largely completed by the end of July, 1900, which obviously meant that narrow-gauge locomotives were no longer needed.The R.G.W. chose to widen the two biggest (and best) engines, the 01 being widened by the end of August and emerging from the shops as R.G.W. No. 1 - its first use on the Park City passenger job was on September 1, 1900 - and the 03's widening was completed by mid-October, and came out as R.G.W. No. 13, and had replaced the No. 1 on the Park City run by October 16th.

Engine No. 08 was yet again rebuilt to standard gauge, although the date of this operation seems to be unknown. It returned to its spot as R.G.W. No. 8, and was sold to a dealer, Fitzhugh, Luther & Co., on November 9, 1903.

Engines 02 and 04 were sold in October 1900 to the Sumpter Valley Ry., with No. 04 becoming Sumpter Valley No. 7. RGW No. 02 became Sumpter Valley No. 8. R.G.W. apparently did the repainting and relettering prior to shipping the engines to the Sumpter Valley, which in the case of the erstwhile No. 04, now S.V. 7, was on October 24, 1900. About 1906, S.V. 7 and 8 were renumbered 10 and 11. S. V. No. 10 was not retired until April 24, 1924, with larger parts of it remaining visible through the 1930s - it does not appear to have been completely scrapped until about 1939. The No. 11, however, was gone by the June 30, 1916 valuation date, and may have been scrapped about 1914 or so.

R.G.W. No. 1, the onetime 01, became D&RG #554 on April 1, 1909; rebuilt to narrow gauge in October 1918; renumbered to 306 on January 1, 1924; dismantled in January 1935.

R.G.W. No. 13, formerly the 03, became D&RG #555 on January 31, 1909; rebuilt to narrow-gauge in October 1918; renumbered to 305 on January 3, 1924; dismantled in December 1927.

For the record
(all engines here are, of course, Baldwin 2-8-0 locos)

And thus endeth all that we are going to attempt in the way of the story of the motive power of John W. Young's 'second Empire' of narrow-gauge railroads in Utah.

Summary roster of S.L.& Ft.D./S.L.& E./U.W./Utah Central Ry./Utah Central RR.
... , based on returns to Board of Equalization, for the years 1894-1901

Introductory

Up through March of 1893, this 'system' had acquired a total of 14 locomotives, viz:

• An ancient 0-4-0 of uncertain origin in 1885
• Five former Utah & Northern Baldwin moguls, Nos. 13, 16, 17, 24 and 25, in 1887-88
• A two-truck Shay, c/n 226, in December 1888
• Five former Connotton Valley Ry. engines in 1889-90, including two Baldwin 2-8-0, c/n 5258 and 5930; one Baldwin 0-6-0T, c/n 5989; and two Porter 4-4-0, c/n 396 and either c/n 465 or 473, formerly C.V. numbers 6, 13, 16, 9, and either 11 or 15, respectively
• Another two-truck Shay, c/n 327, in 1891
• Former Alberta Ry. & Coal Co. 2-8-0 #3 in 1893

The ancient 0-4-0 of uncertain origin appears to have been retired in about November 1887, and is known to have been relegated to pumphouse duty by June 1, 1889.

Engines known for certain to be gone by receivership date, November 27, 1893, five in number:

• The ancient No. 1 0-4-0
• Porter 4-4-0, c/n 396, former C.V. #9, sold no later than March 1893 to the Great Salt Lake & Hot Springs Ry., later Salt Lake & Ogden, #15
• Baldwin 2-8-0, c/n 5258, former C.V. #6, lettered for U.W. #11, turned over to OSL&UN Ry. no later than May 1893 to settle unpaid freight charges
• Baldwin 0-6-0T, c/n 5989, former C.V. #16, lettered for U.W. #12, turned over to OSL&UN Ry. no later than May 1893 to settle unpaid freight charges
• Lima Shay, c/n 327, bought new, repossessed by Lima, probably in 1892, made indisputably official by court order on October 26, 1893

So, 14 locomotives acquired, less five locomotives departed, leaves a total of nine (9) locomotives at the end of 1893. The U. C.'s return to the Board of Equalization "for the year 1894" shows the road to have nine (9) locomotives at about the first Monday in March, 1894 (which was the 5th of March), which nine locomotives would be:

• #2, 2-8-0, Baldwin 5930, 11/1881, x-C.V. #13 - "fair" at $1,000 value
• #3, 2-8-0, Baldwin 11022, 7/1890, x-ARy&CCb #3 - "Good" at $3,000 value
• #?, 2-6-0, Baldwin 4562, 3/1879, x-U&N #17 - "2nd-hand, damaged" at $500
• #?, 2-6-0, Baldwin 4561, 3/1879, x-U&N #16 - "2nd-hand, damaged" at $500
• #6, 2-6-0, Baldwin 4555, 3/1879, x-U&N #13 - "2nd-hand, damaged" at $500
• #7, Shay, Lima 226, 11/1888, bought new - "2nd-hand, damaged" at $500
• #8, 2-6-0, Baldwin 5122, 5/1880, x-U&N #24 - "2nd-hand, damaged" at $500
• #9, 2-6-0, Baldwin 5129, 6/1880, x-U&N #25 - "2nd-hand, damaged" at $500
• #?, 4-4-0, Porter 465, 12/1881 or 473, 1/1882, x-C.V. #11 or #15 - "2nd-hand, damaged" at $500

There are only 14 locomotives known to have been acquired prior to the date of this 1894 report, just as there are only five locomotives known to be gone prior to the date of this report. It seems inescapable, therefore, that the remaining nine engines are the nine engines on this 1894 report.

"For the year 1895" shows the U.C. to have eight (8) locomotives, down by one (1) since the 1894 report; 1895 shows:

• Two "Good" at $3,000 each - U.C. #s 2 and 3, the 2 being upgraded on account of a major overhaul in August 1894
• Four "2nd-hand, old & out of date" at $500 each
• Two "dismantled & in scrap heap" at $100 each

The one locomotive gone in the year prior to the 1895 report quite clearly is one of those seven (7) shown as "2nd-hand, damaged" in the 1894 report; and it would seem that it was sold, as otherwise one would expect to find three locomotives as "dismantled & in scrap heap" in the 1895 report. The only locomotive even suspected of being sold in this period is the Shay, U.C. #7, which went to the Oregon Lumber Company; therefore, "it is believed" that U.C. #7, Shay c/n 226, Lima 11/1888, is the engine gone in the year prior to the 1895 report.

"For the Year 1896" again shows the U.C. to have eight (8) locomotives, but there has been a change in the total taxable value, 1895 having been $6,200, while 1896 shows $7,000. The reason for this alteration is that the U. C.'s brand-new Baldwin 2-8-0 #1 arrived in November of 1895 - and, therefore, one old locomotive has to go away in order to keep the total count at eight. So, 1896 shows:

• Two engines as 'good' at $2,000 each, which would be the new #1 and the #3, nearly-identical 2-8-0 Baldwin engines
• One engine as 'fair' at $1,000, being #2, the former Connotton Valley Baldwin 2-8-0
• Four engines as '2nd-hand, old and out of date' at $500 each; this we assume to be the same four that were shown in 1895 as "2nd-hand, old & out of date" at $500 each
• One engine is shown as 'dismantled, worthless' at no stated value. The one engine gone was one of the two shown in 1895 as "dismantled & in scrap heap," leaving one such engine to appear in the 1896 report, now 'worthless' rather than at $100 as was shown in the 1895 report.

Of course, one wonders which engine is gone in the year prior to the 1896 report; but the information at hand will not permit a clear statement in that regard. Logic would indicate it to be the least useful of the several possibilities, which we would think would be the 'other' Porter 4-4-0, an engine that even if it were operable would be of very limited usefulness on a railroad with grades in excess of 6 percent almost anywhere they might try to use this engine, plus its limited usefulness as a source of spare parts for the other engines on the roster, now all Baldwin engines. Therefore, we will say "it is believed" that the engine gone in the year prior to the 1896 report was the Porter 4-4-0, either c/n 465 or 473 (hopefully, someday that too will be figured out - which is it?)

"For the Year 1897" shows seven (7) locomotives, at a total taxable value of $8,500, so there has been another old loco dropped in the year prior to the 1897 report. At this point, if we have been correct in our beliefs, the engine gone will have to be one of the former Utah & Northern Baldwin moguls, but it is impossible to say which one, on the present information. As to the other engines:

• Two are 'good' at $3,000 each - which would again be #1 and #3, the large 2-8-0 engines
• One is 'fair' at $1,000, and again, this is the #2, former C.V. 2-8-0
• Two engines are 'very old, not much use' at $500 each
• One is 'old, no good, unserviceable' at $500
• One is 'worthless' at no stated value.

Again, if we have been correct up to this point, these last four old engines are all former Utah & Northern Baldwin moguls.

"For the year 1898", which we will note that by 1898, is as of the first Monday in February, in this case February 7th., shows the U.C. (now under lease to the R.G.W) as having five (5) locomotives, total value (for taxes) of $7,300, and defined as:

• Two 'fair' locomotives at $3,000 each (U.C. #s 1 and 3, of course)
• One 'poor' locomotive at $1,000 (U.C. #2, inescapably)
• Two engines 'good for scrap only,' at $150 each, which two are undoubtedly former Utah & Northern moguls, as were the two engines disposed of in the year prior to the 1898 report.

"For the year 1899" shows four (4) locomotives, total value $7,150, everything being the same as the 1898 report, except that labels (good, fair, poor) are gone, as is one of the two engines described as 'good for scrap only' in 1898, which, as we believe, was not scrapped, but sold to the Glasgow & Western Exploration Co. for use on their Golconda & Adelaide RR in Nevada, and was former Utah & Northern Baldwin mogul #17, c/n 4562, 3/14/1879, of unknown U.C. number since losing #2 to the former Connotton Valley 2-8-0. This mogul appears to have been sold to the Glasgow & Western Exploration Co. in October or November of 1898; it also saw service on the Nevada Short Line and on the Nevada Central, and is still in existence, being on display at the California State Railroad Museum in its Nevada Short Line dress.

"For the year 1900" shows the U.C. as having five (5) locomotives, at $3,000 each. This change comes about by there having been two additional 2-8-0 engines coming in 1899, and the last of the old U&N moguls going out.

To the three existing 2-8-0 engines (which had been renumbered in July 1898 from 1, 2 and 3 to 01, 02 and 03, respectively) was added two more 2-8-0 engines, numbers 04 and 08. The 04 was bought by the RGW from the Rio Grande Southern, #30, in September 1899, and put in service in November 1899 as U.C. engine 04 (the RGS had bought the engine in 1892 from the RGW, #74, and it had previously been D&RGW (Utah) #74, D&RG #74, built by Baldwin, c/n 5164, 6/1880). The other added engine #08, had been RGW #8, previously RGW #109, a narrow gauge engine widened in 1890 and renumbered 8 in 1892, re-narrowed about October 1899 and put in service as U.C. 08 in that month. Previously to being RGW 109, this engine had been D&RGW (Utah) #109, and originally, D&RG #294, built by Baldwin, c/n 6145, 4/1882.

The old U&N mogul dropped in the year prior to the 1900 report was almost certainly scrapped.

"For the year 1901" shows nothing in narrow gauge. However, the U.C. branch is shown as having assigned to it two locomotives, formerly narrow-gauge, 'set-out' to standard gauge, which were former numbers 01 and 03, widened in 1900 and becoming R.G.W. numbers 1 and 13, respectively. As to the other three engines, the 08 had been re-widened and returned to being RGW #8. Numbers 02 and 04 were sold in October 1900 to Sumpter Valley, as their #8 and #7, respectively.

C'est fini, enfin.

###