What about transferring all the operating parts to '77, once '54's boiler has gone the limit?

Joe, her tender was in bad shape. They scrapped the top of it and then a local company built a new stainless steel tender for 54. I saw pics in the F3 thread. The took the tender chassis from 77 and started restoration on it and the stainless steel tank is going on it. That should be done the end of the year. 54's tender will now be 77s tender. The trucks aren't back in cause of the plan to rebuild the chassis for 54.

Richard, From what they shop told me 77's boiler is unknown. They have never really inspected it. But 54's boiler is good to go and just got new tubes. So they have looked at the chassis from 77 and it's better than 54's. So they may plan on starting the chassis early restortation, based on 26 and 3713 completion, this way they can reduce the down time of 54. Once all that is done they plan on putting 77 back together and place her out front. All the trucks are located inside and kept together.

As always, Steve, thank you. You're a font of reliable information.

When F. Nelson Blount's crew looked at the 3377 it had been literally just out of the shops before being put on the dead line. The original intention was to use the 3377 in freight service on the GMRC, but by the time it arrived in N. Walpole, it and its sisters had been stripped by copper and brass thieves. This, and the realities of operating a freight railroad, put the 3377 on the back burner.

Romi Romano

To answer Robert John Davis' question; yes, Steamtown in Vermont considered restoring CN 2-8-2 #3377 to service. As originally envisioned by the State of Vermont, the Vermont Bicentennial Steam Expedition was to have THREE steam trains operating simultaneously around the State for the National Bicentennial in 1976 and the Vermont Bicentennial in 1977. If Steamtown had supplied locomotives for three trains, the candidates for restoration to service were CP 4-6-2 #2317, CN 4-6-2 #5288, and CN 2-8-2 #3377. Why these? Because the State VBSE planners insisted they wanted "big locomotives"! Due to cost factors, the VBSE plan was scaled back to one train--and #2317 became the locomotive chosen for restoration, though work was never completed in time for it to run on a very abbreviated VBSE excursion schedule. However, both #5288 and #3377 were excellent candidates for a return to steam at the time. If I recall correctly, #3377 had only 520 miles out of Class repairs by the CN--and #5288 was a 'zero mileage' locomotive out of Class repairs. (Bob Adams recently told me that when Blount personnel went up to Canada to inspect #5288, the locomotive was in a roundhouse with a fire laid out on the grates and a line connected to house steam--all ready for a fire up that never came. Unfortunately, the CN chose to remove a number of parts from #5288 before they shipped it to Vermont--something that irked Nelson Blount greatly.)

Frederick G. Bailey

Steve,

Interesting commentary about #3377's chassis being refurbished for use under #3254 when the latter becomes due for its 1472 day inspection. Do you know when #3254's 1472-day time is up? Yes, they just retubed the #3254--but from all reports I've seen, they didn't do any other 1472 day inspection work.

Frederick G. Bailey

From reports on the street it seems that the quality of boiler tubes today is not very good. Decades ago you would retube a steamer, run it 5 years, and then get extensions. I know a number of locomotives in the 80's and into the early 90's were running on tubes installed in the 60's. Now it seems a set of tubes does not last the full run between federal work-ups. This is the case with stationary boilers as well. I've seen boilers run for decades on original tubes only to be retubed and 5 years out needing a tube job again.

[quote="Frederick G. Bailey"]the candidates for restoration to service were CP 4-6-2 #2317, CN 4-6-2 #5288, and CN 2-8-2 #3377.

Frederick G. Bailey[/quote]

Was 5288 the engine that was sold to TVRM?

Yes, fortunately for them, but unfortunately for those of us who wanted to see her stay in the northeast - she was a regular on the Central Vermont.

Rob

'77's tender frame was put under the new welded tank for '54. 54's tank has been leaking for years, particularly on the front right.

See here:
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=325990&nseq=4

The 3377 is a parts engine to keep the 3254 in service. The lead and trailing trucks were some of those parts. The new tender tank will go on the 3254 tender frame. It's on the 3377 frame temporarily. The 3377 tender frame is quite different than the 3254 tender frame. 3377 has 2 draw bars. The 3254 has one bar and safety chains. The two types of frames are NOT interchangeable without extensive rework.

Yes, she was donated to TVRM by NPS. Although she does have a few missing pieces, they can be replaced readily (well, with some $$). Her running gear does appear to be zero mileage and her shop records confirm the essentially zero mileage status. It does appear that she was given a break in run after shopping due to the very light soot on the flues. How well the external shell fared under the jacket and lagging in the northeast winters will be the determining factor in the difficulty of her rebuild when the time comes. Those of us that inspected her supposed the biggest hurdle would likely be the flexible stay sleeves and caps. Unfortunately, rotten sleeves mean new bolts. Her tender is fairly well shot around the bottom and the coal bunker (expected) and the stoker screw is yard art or a mailbox post in the waiting, but overall, she is a very good rebuild candidate as retired locomotives go.

Michael Brown
Logistics coordinator for the 5288 move
TVRM

Thanks Bruce! I thought I might be missing some info. Doe you guys have any room left in the shop? You guys are busting at the seams up there.

Fred, I'm not sure when she is due for her 1472-day inspection. But from what I get to see when I'm up there is that when they do it, they will take her down to the last nut and bolt. #26 is going to be a brand new when she come out. Those guys really work hard to make sure its right. It does take longer but they will replace stuff that is close to being bad just to make sure it will last. Talking thru e-mail things are moving nicely with #26 and the boiler work is getting there.

Thanks all for the information.

A couple of questions though.
1) While at Steamtown a couple weeks ago I saw 3377 CN's railroad name on the tender was cut out and leaning against the backshops. Any reason why?
2)I know that 3377 is going to get made up and put in display with 3254's past tender. Where will Steamtown get the materials for all her missing wheels?

Thanks for the help,
12riccal

Examining CN Mechanical Department diagrams, the S-1-b class (3254) and S-1-d class (3377) appear to be quite similar (if not identical) in terms of overall specifications such as cylinders wheels, grate size, number of tubes in the boiler, overall boiler size etc, and the wheel spacing seems to the same between both classes. Unless there are differences I'm not aware of, perhaps swapping frames might be possible.