Richard,
No. 1 was a problem child. In fact there is correspondence between Lacroix and the General Equipment Company, from whom they purchased the locomotive, accusing them of purchasing the locomotive from its previous owner (Grasse River) for scrap value and palming it onto Lacroix for a nice profit. They of course denied it
Pipes were clogged, flues leaked, linkages were rusted solid, tires were flat spotted,
(we found a tubular ring used with acetylene to heat tires for expanding and fitting) and one manifold pipe to the steam chest leaked badly.
(at least one of these pipes is still on-site) In fact there is some doubt as to wether the Grasse River even ran this locomotive after they purchased it from the Potato Creek. Again, Lacroix's men were not railroad men. The price was right so Lacroix bought it. Sort of like me buying a used nuclear reactor. In fact, the records show that over 60% of the total lost time due to locomotive malfunction from August 1927 through Sept. 1933 was tallied-up by No. 1 in that first brief 1927 season!
One source states that Lacroix was offered two MEC locomotives used on the Kineo branch (formally Someset railroad) However, I have doubts about this. I do have a letter from the MEC comparing two Kineo branch locomotives to Lacroix's and listing fuel consumption. - Lacroix was obsessed with fuel consumption. In fact there is a letter where he complained about one engineer using 16 gallons per trip more than another! Eventually the MEC sent an engineer with oil burner experience to the EL&WB to teach them how to be more fuel efficent. He in fact burned more oil than Lacroix's worst engineer.
Once No. 2 arrived in March of 1928 the incidences of locomotive malfunctions decreased dramaticly. Admittedly in 1928 Lacroix cut back from a 24 hour schedule
(General Equipment cited over-use and lack of maintence to blame for the breakdowns) to insisting on a minimum of 5 trains per day wether it took 8 hours or 15. This of course colors the data.
Does this mean No. 1 was never used again? No. According to Edwin Robichaud (former employee) No. 1 became the spare. Unfortunatly the records do not distinquish between the locomotives so we don't know how often it was called back into service. We know it was still in use in 1928 because there is a letter stating that they changed-out the burner unit for the same type used in No. 2.
I think at the close of the operation No. 1 was pretty much dead. However they still considered it valuable enough to move into the shed. I suspect they installed a temporary switch behind No. 2 and removed it afterwords. Again, this is speculation with no hard proof.
To add more confusion, the engine house shown in the previously posted photos from 1933
is not the original. Photo's from 1927 and the March, 1927 alignment drawing (see below) shows it located on the
other side of the Tramway with only
one lead track. This provides support for my theory that No. 2 was an emergency purchase and that Lacroix's original, albiet, nieve plan was to have only one locomotive - No. 1
Best regards,
Terry Harper