Railway Preservation News
http://www.rypn.org/forums/

CNR 46, 47, and 49 4-6-4T's
http://www.rypn.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=41487
Page 1 of 4

Author:  Richard Glueck [ Sat Dec 23, 2017 11:02 am ]
Post subject:  CNR 46, 47, and 49 4-6-4T's

New thread, as these are NOT Hudsons.

These little commuter locomotives were constructed for bi-directional service out of Montreal. #46 remains at Valle Junction, Quebec, and appears to be in pretty good condition. Most parts were in place when I last examined it. A representative of the group which owns it, told me they might consider selling it to get money for other projects.
#47, outdoors and neglected at Steamtown, seems the ideal locomotive for their operation. Nelson Blount loved her until the revelation of lack of boiler information came to light. Her papers were destroyed in a fire, years before. Solution, at least my first thought is to drag her indoors, tear her down, examine everything, document it, and return the locomotive to service with a clean slate.
#49, part of the national Canadian collection. She's indoors, dry, and painted. Maybe some day???

Attachments:
tmpE1D9_1024x768.jpg
tmpE1D9_1024x768.jpg [ 151.38 KiB | Viewed 2023 times ]

Author:  Dave Crosby [ Sat Dec 23, 2017 11:27 am ]
Post subject:  Re: CNR 46, 47, and 49 4-6-4T's

I'll never quite understand where this seemingly universal desire to steam up Steamtown's 47 comes from. Its a purpose-driven design with a resulting limited range in terms of fuel and water. There's literally a dozen better candidates on the lot. A Canadian white elephant in an American railroad museum.

As for the boiler papers. That's a red herring that's been around as long as time itself. Any engine would need proper, updated Form 4 calculations.

Author:  daylight4449 [ Sat Dec 23, 2017 11:44 am ]
Post subject:  Re: CNR 46, 47, and 49 4-6-4T's

Dave Crosby wrote:
I'll never quite understand where this seemingly universal desire to steam up Steamtown's 47 comes from. Its a purpose-driven design with a resulting limited range in terms of fuel and water. There's literally a dozen better candidates on the lot. A Canadian white elephant in an American railroad museum.

As for the boiler papers. That's a red herring that's been around as long as time itself. Any engine would need proper, updated Form 4 calculations.

I think part of the appeal comes from what it could theoretically do. Something the size of the X10s could handle most of what your average tourist operation calls for, can handle the track speeds, and while it's range is limited (not so much of a problem on a round trip that measures only a few miles) they're designed to preform the same regardless of the orientation of the engine...

Author:  WVNorthern [ Sat Dec 23, 2017 12:01 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: CNR 46, 47, and 49 4-6-4T's

Perhaps the desire to see 47 running again comes from the fact that it is an unusual wheel arrangement. If restored, it would be the only one of its type in steam.

Author:  6-18003 [ Sat Dec 23, 2017 1:09 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: CNR 46, 47, and 49 4-6-4T's

CNJ ran a lot of very similar 4-6-4Ts, so I am sure some of the attachment comes from that. SNHS is looking (long term) to steam up a companion engine to BLW #26, and I am sure they would respond favorably to fan pressure if several well-heeled donors voiced their opinion. CN 3377 is supposedly getting the nod for restoration after 3713 though, so I don't know how they would feel about having two operable Canadian engines again.

My opinion for the immediate future would be for any fervent fans in the PA/NY/NJ area to volunteer with the Iron Horse Society and ask the park to cover the cost of asbestos abatement so the group can fully inspect and stabilize the engine.

Author:  Richard Glueck [ Sat Dec 23, 2017 1:24 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: CNR 46, 47, and 49 4-6-4T's

Somebody closer to Steamtown operations can chime in with more authority, but yes a complete Form 4 and u/t is called for. Yes, CNJ and several other lines ran similar tank locomotive. Fuel and water capacity is limited, but doesn't knock her out of the running completely. I would love to see 3377 brought back as a primary locomotive, but really for tourist jaunts, I can't imagine why you wouldn't use #47.
I have been told, the reason Canadian locomotives are used is because modifications and repairs don't have to be strictly historical. What is modern and works, is done.

Canadian National 47
(ex-Grand Trunk Railway 1542)
Power type Steam
Builder Montreal Locomotive Works
Order number Q-241
Serial number 54896
Build date September 1914
Configuration 4-6-4T
UIC classification 2′C2′ h2t
Gauge 4 ft 8 1⁄2 in (1,435 mm)
Leading wheel
diameter 31.25 in (0.794 m)
Driver diameter 63 in (1.600 m)
Trailing wheel
diameter 31.25 in (0.794 m)
Minimum curve 16°
Wheelbase 39 ft 4.5 in (12.00 m)
Length 50 ft 2.25 in (15.30 m)
Weight on drivers 146,000 lb (66.2 t)
Locomotive weight 275,000 lb (124.7 t)
Fuel type Coal
Fuel capacity 5 long tons (5.1 t)
Water capacity 2,900 imperial gallons (13,000 l; 3,500 US gal)
Boiler pressure 210 lbf/in² (1.45 MPa)
Firegrate area 47 sq ft (4.4 m2)
Heating surface:
Tubes and flues 1,628 sq ft (151.2 m2)
Heating surface:
Firebox 160 sq ft (15 m2)
Superheater type Schmidt
Superheater area 342 sq ft (31.8 m2)
Cylinders Two, outside
Cylinder size 21 in × 26 in (533 mm × 660 mm)
Valve gear Walschaerts
Valve type 11-inch (279 mm) piston valves
Tractive effort 32,487 lbf (144.51 kN)
Train heating Steam heat
Train brakes Air
Career GTR » CN
Class GTR: K2
CN: X-10-a
Power class CN: 32%
Number in class 2 of 6
Number GT: 1542
CN: 47

Attachments:
cn47_2.jpg
cn47_2.jpg [ 118.81 KiB | Viewed 1892 times ]

Author:  QJdriver [ Sat Dec 23, 2017 1:43 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: CNR 46, 47, and 49 4-6-4T's

47 wouldn't be the only serviceable 4-6-4T.

The Germans have several, I saw one of them (can't recall the road number) in Dresden four years ago.

Personaly, I think she's a cool little teakettle...

Author:  6-18003 [ Sat Dec 23, 2017 1:51 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: CNR 46, 47, and 49 4-6-4T's

Rich, the theory about having more freedom to modify the Canadian equipment has been debunked here before. It may have been an unofficial standing order years ago but the park is not under any restriction. Same as the 'lost papers' on #47. It only mattered when she was in service under Blount.

Author:  WVNorthern [ Sat Dec 23, 2017 2:13 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: CNR 46, 47, and 49 4-6-4T's

I should have qualified my statement to say "the only servicable 4-6-4T in the US."

Author:  ekrwy2 [ Sat Dec 23, 2017 2:50 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: CNR 46, 47, and 49 4-6-4T's

“I have been told, the reason Canadian locomotives are used is because modifications and repairs don't have to be strictly historical. What is modern and works, is done.“

Forgive me for asking this question, which is steam locomotive sacrilege. Has anybody ever thought about chopping off the rear end and putting a regular tender behind these locomotives? From an operating-longer-distance perspective, that would make sense to me. I am now officially covered up in the fetal position waiting for punches and kicks to ensue.

Author:  Finderskeepers [ Sat Dec 23, 2017 3:28 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: CNR 46, 47, and 49 4-6-4T's

I've often thought that this would be about perfect for what Steamtown needs for power.
Obviously they had range as they were used in Montreal commuter service. They were equally at home in either direction, something that can't be said for say a 2-8-0. Would have the same fuel economy as a 10 wheeler, so not a total pig on coal. Easy to spin on the turntable, short and compact...what's not to like?

Author:  Dave [ Sat Dec 23, 2017 4:13 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: CNR 46, 47, and 49 4-6-4T's

This is starting backwards. First, if Steamtown wants to run something apart from the 0-6-0 in steam, they will have already justified it by having decided on the service (product) it needs to provide. So, if you know the service, you can compare the collection with the service, and come up with the best candidates to potentially perform it. Trying to justify a restoration for some undefined service that nobody knows is needed isn't a rational approach.

So, does Steamtown want to run a commuter-like service with fast starts and stops of light trains? If so, great choice - otherwise a meaningless topic.

Author:  6-18003 [ Sat Dec 23, 2017 4:35 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: CNR 46, 47, and 49 4-6-4T's

Overall goal is for two serviceable mainline engines (3713 & 3377), and two for on-site interpretation/yard shuttle service (BLW 26 & ?). In theory, this would guarantee steam on a regular basis. If you are familiar with the "Scranton Limited," then you know what is required of the mystery engine.

Author:  superheater [ Sun Dec 24, 2017 12:25 am ]
Post subject:  Re: CNR 46, 47, and 49 4-6-4T's

Dave Crosby wrote:
I'll never quite understand where this seemingly universal desire to steam up Steamtown's 47 comes from. Its a purpose-driven design with a resulting limited range in terms of fuel and water. There's literally a dozen better candidates on the lot. A Canadian white elephant in an American railroad museum.

As for the boiler papers. That's a red herring that's been around as long as time itself. Any engine would need proper, updated Form 4 calculations.


Amen.

5 Tons of coal and 2900 gallons probably means Moscow is a stretch, and 31K TE translates to maybe 5 coaches max on Pocono grade. Good for the shuttle and perhaps the occasional jaiunt to Carbondale

Powerwise, a G-5 with fuel and water limits.

Author:  LeoA [ Sun Dec 24, 2017 1:52 am ]
Post subject:  Re: CNR 46, 47, and 49 4-6-4T's

I wouldn't damage the looks of it by doing that, if it were to ever happen.

But perhaps convert the existing water tank to additional coal storage, and use an auxiliary water tender behind her. You'd then have longer range, but the locomotive itself isn't externally altered like it would be if the existing coal bunker and water tank were removed entirely.

Seems like a better compromise if the coal capacity then would be adequate.

Page 1 of 4 All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/