CNR 46, 47, and 49 4-6-4T's

70000 · **Posted:** Mon Dec 25, 2017 12:21 pm

daylight4449 wrote:

Going off topic AGAIN, but is it just me or does that coach in the picture that 6-18003 posted look decidedly British? That's something I don't remember seeing down there...

It is a British coach - From the Great Western Railway - but it's actually been back here for the past 10 years, which dates that photo somewhat!

http://www.cs.vintagecarriagestrust.org ... sp?Ref=224

Presumably obtained at the time the two Southern Railway (UK) locos - "Repton" & the M7 tank loco - were bought by Nelson Blount. Both those locos have been back in the UK for some time now as well.

Old Smokey · **Joined:** Sun Oct 15, 2017 7:58 pm **Posts:** 40

Richard...Enjoying the discussion about CNR 47/49. Certainly a number of different perspectives....Before we all get bent out of shape...Here's what Steamtown had to say...back in the day...when they commissioned this report.

Richard Glueck · **Posted:** Tue Dec 26, 2017 11:43 am

The more I listen to the participants, the more I read the historical data, the more I'm inclined to think she should be returned to service as an easily fired, economically operated live locomotive. She's certainly as useful as Baldwin #26, with the exception of her being a CNR loco.
I would remind the group of #46's possible availability in Valle Jonction, Quebec.

Tavor · **Joined:** Fri Dec 21, 2012 4:32 pm **Posts:** 169

Richard Glueck wrote:

I would remind the group of #46's possible availability in Valle Jonction, Quebec.

Really? More info?

J3a-614 · **Posted:** Tue Dec 26, 2017 2:11 pm

From the National Park Service report:

Quote:

. . .a rare surviving example of a suburban locomotive of which no American made examples exist.

Well, if you're talking about the double enders that New York Central and subsidiary Boston & Albany ran, and the 4-6-4Ts of the Central of New Jersey, yes, that's true.

But there is an American suburban locomotive around, though a good deal older and on the west coast. It's Central Pacific's former 233 in Sacramento.

http://portal.parks.ca.gov/CapitalDistr ... llets.aspx

http://donsdepot.donrossgroup.net/dr3299.htm

http://donsdepot.donrossgroup.net/dr0500/sp1903.jpg

http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.p ... showexif=1

And I nearly forgot--Illinois Central 201, which would be considered a Forney.

http://www.railarchive.net/randomsteam/ic201.htm

http://www2.irm.org/blogs/archives/1558 ... -2013.html

http://transport.castlegraphics.com/dis ... play_media

A bit of nit-picking? Well, I guess I have to plead guilty as charged!!

70000 · **Posted:** Tue Dec 26, 2017 2:21 pm

LeoA wrote:

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.

One of the Australian preserved lines in Queensland have done a sort of conversion job along those lines to a D17 4-6-4T, though I'm assuming this is due to weight restrictions on some of the trestle bridges on the line, rather than range extension.
They have removed the side water tanks from the loco and it now runs with a water tank mounted on a bogie wagon behind....

Attachment:

3-777.JPG [ 216.62 KiB | Viewed 1267 times ]

The loco originally looked like this....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queenslan ... locomotive
Presumably the original coal capacity has been retained, as the bunker behind the cab is solely for fuel, unlike the Canadian locos.

Richard Glueck · **Posted:** Tue Dec 26, 2017 4:40 pm

And the perfect paint scheme for Steamtown, too!

Les Beckman · **Joined:** Tue Aug 02, 2005 1:25 pm **Posts:** 5231

70000 wrote:

One of the Australian preserved lines in Queensland have done a sort of conversion job along those lines to a D17 4-6-4T, though I'm assuming this is due to weight restrictions on some of the trestle bridges on the line, rather than range extension.
They have removed the side water tanks from the loco and it now runs with a water tank mounted on a bogie wagon behind....

Attachment:

3-777.JPG

The loco originally looked like this....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queenslan ... locomotive
Presumably the original coal capacity has been retained, as the bunker behind the cab is solely for fuel, unlike the Canadian locos.

Well darn! Just when Pat Fahey convinced me in his comment in the recent "NYC Hudson Question...." thread that a 4-6-4T shouldn't be considered as a Hudson Tank or a Ten-Wheeler but as a Baltic Tank Type, along comes the photo of this locomotive! Well, it ain't a tank engine anymore, so Baltic Tank doesn't seem to fit. So can we now call this engine a Hudson? Still no? Well, clue me in someone. I am confused! What a way to end the year!

Les

G. W. Laepple · **Joined:** Mon Aug 23, 2004 5:10 pm **Posts:** 981

Having spent a fair amount of time over the years bouncing around in the cabs of various saddletankers masquerading as main line locomotives on several short (under 10 miles) tourist lines, I'd have loved the ride afforded by the likes of No. 47!

Richard Glueck · **Posted:** Tue Dec 26, 2017 8:41 pm

A little bit more temptation.

superheater · **Joined:** Sun Aug 22, 2004 11:54 pm **Posts:** 1813

6-18003 wrote:

superheater wrote:

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

Won't get 5 coaches. 3713 is going to have to be worked hard to get 5 up the main and her TE is just over 40k.

Reading and Northern's 425 (Similar TE ~31k) pulled 5-6 coaches in mid 90's.

By way of comparison, 2317 pulled 8 car trains with 46K, and I think on a few occasions-10 cars. I think on those occasions when there were 10; NKP 514 was dispatched to Winton as protection power, but that was 20 years ago.

IC 790 would actually be among the best engines that could be restored; as with most small-drivered Consolidations, it develops its peak power in the 20-25mph range which comports with heritage operating speeds. Of course a turntable or wye on the east end would be helpful with such an engine.

WVNorthern · **Posted:** Wed Dec 27, 2017 2:41 pm

Wasn't there a wye at one time at the summit of the grade out of Scranton to turn the Lackawanna helper engines?

rjenkins · **Posted:** Wed Dec 27, 2017 3:48 pm

To the suggestion of lopping off the tank and making a tender engine out of her, that seems like a waste of a (relatively) unique tank engine. She may not be "historic" on this side of the border, but she fills a gap in the story of steam locomotive development where some of the railroads closer to home (B&A, Reading, etc.) failed to preserve some of their own examples. Also, the conversion would effectively make her into just another CN 4-6-0, and there are already a few of those around that could use a little TLC and/or a place to run.

R. Hahn · **Joined:** Sun Aug 22, 2004 5:01 pm **Posts:** 89

Just in case anyone wants proof of 47's operation under Blount https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqAmm5WaZ-I

Reading 900 · **Posted:** Wed Dec 27, 2017 4:56 pm

Richard, the Jubilee has not had a covered stack in over 10 years, the 519's stack hasn't been covered in close to 25 years.
I was at the Steamtown railfan weekend while in Vermont in 1973 when the 15 blew a flue and came back light from it's last run, and has not run since. Talk about getting sprayed with fine wet cinders!

Alan

CNR 46, 47, and 49 4-6-4T's

Who is online