April 2006 Photo (C&H #202, DS44-1000 Baldwin)

The CopperRange.org Discussion Board: Featured Photo of the Month: April 2006 Photo (C&H #202, DS44-1000 Baldwin)
By Kevin E. Musser (Admin) (66.227.205.157) on Sunday, April 02, 2006 - 10:58 pm:

Staying on the C&H theme I have been on for the last few months, but moving ahead about 50 years, here is a nice side view of C&H #202, a Baldwin DS44-1000, seen here in Calumet. Photo taken and provided by Tim Lab. Tim Lab Collection


By Orv (204.39.18.143) on Tuesday, April 04, 2006 - 2:25 pm:

I often wondered what the C&H diesels looked like out of their shelters. I went to Suomi for two years 1968-1970 but never saw these engines because of the strike. I could see or hear the Soo Line every week day taking a few freight cars up to Calumet and returning about a hour later with some different ones. That was usually around 9:00 A.M. Always geeps, once I saw a lone F-7. Caboose 595 on the tail end every time I watched it. The Copper Range activities could be seen from my dorm window across the canal. Pretty far away but at least I could tell when they were active. I would visit the engine house a few times every year and talk to whoever was inside. One time an employee told me that a crew was taking some C&H engines down to McKeever to interchange with the Milwaukee Road when the rails split apart because of all their weight. I wonder if the 202 was one of these engines? Anyone out there with more info?


By Tom Roberts (69.218.252.193) on Wednesday, April 12, 2006 - 1:53 pm:

Thanks Kevin! That is a great shot if I ever get to having some models painted for C&H. I can forward it to the painter and/or decal maker so they have something to follow. Tom Roberts


By John P (24.15.13.239) on Monday, April 17, 2006 - 9:48 am:

while i know the tracks are gone, does the building still stand?


By Paul H. Meier (12.158.3.254) on Monday, April 17, 2006 - 11:26 pm:

Yes, the building still stands. It is the former C&H machine shop. The loco is on one of the roundhouse leads. The roundhouse still exists, but doesn't look very round anymore.


By Al welty (216.137.180.79) on Thursday, April 27, 2006 - 3:05 pm:

just watched C&H 202 chug through Loomis WI still looks the same but had EL&S added on the side


By joe (204.39.18.143) on Wednesday, May 03, 2006 - 12:32 pm:

Check out the rear marker lights!


By Chris (24.247.193.11) on Wednesday, May 10, 2006 - 9:53 pm:

Are those really classification lights on the back of the 202? Were these common on diesel switchers?


By Tim Lab (24.247.24.246) on Thursday, May 11, 2006 - 11:16 am:

At the time the C&H diesel #202 was photographed, all locomotives required classification lamps. If you look closely at the front of the #202 you will see that class. lamps are hung there, also, indicating that the unit regularly ran with either end forward. Later generations of diesels had the class. lamps built into the car body. In more recent times these same units appear with blanked-out covers indicating where the class. lamps had been. I do not recall when class. lamps were eliminated or even if those rules have been eliminated, but to answer your question, yes, they are indeed there and served a purpose at that time. You would want to model them that way. The Copper Range Baldwin's used them, also. I think the question begs a better answer, so I will submit it to my friends at Trains Magazine and possibly they will write up an explanation. In fact they may already have done so in an earlier issue. If so, I'll report back here. - Tim


By Ken (24.247.194.113) on Friday, June 16, 2006 - 9:49 pm:

Am I reading too much into this? The C and H had Baldwins, the DSS&A had them, E&LS still does, the Copper Range did, CNW and The Milwaukee Road had them too. Were they better suited for the harsh winter climate of the U.P?


By Tim (24.247.24.246) on Saturday, June 17, 2006 - 3:59 pm:

As an old head once said, "Baldwin sure had a successful salesman in the Western UP!" ;-) In all seriousness, there is some truth to that statement. During that era, diesel production was back-logged, and the salesman that could promise the quickest delivery stood a good chance for the sale. I have never heard of any collaboration between the CRR and the C&H to purchase simimilar brands. I have heard said that some consideration was given to builders who used C&H or Copper Range products, such as copper wire, in their locomotives, but that is only word of mouth. Most of those roads listed needed to haul heavy rock or pellet trains, but I have never heard that Baldwins did any better in Winter.


By Paul H. Meier (12.158.3.254) on Wednesday, June 21, 2006 - 12:01 am:

I have read somewhere, (it may have been Abby's book)that Baldwin was more willing to deal with the issues around blowing snow and dirt (snirt) on the Northern plains. During the rush to dieselize, the minor builders did have more of a chance because of the backlog of orders. Also there is the trust factor that the old steam builders had over the up-start EMD. C&H and COPR had experience with both Baldwin and ALCO. Actually, during the early going, and other than ALCO's ill-advised rush to market the 244, EMD wasn't all that much better than the rest. Like VHS vs. Betamax, they they got more units in service sooner. EMD also recognized standardization was the way to go with diesels before the steam guys did. Once EMD was the majority supplier, it made sense for major operators to standardize with EMD. So it goes! But there are still ALCO 539's working long after almost all their EMD contemporaries have bit the dust. Same for the C&H Baldwins.


By Gary (139.171.25.140) on Tuesday, June 27, 2006 - 11:42 am:

Went to St. Paul in the early 1970's and saw three Milw AS-616's running together. What a sound! Liked the way the number boards looked on them. Saw Baldwin switch engines just like the C&H in the nice picture above. Thanks for bringing back the memory.


Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.