#17 is on display at the Boone & Scenic Valley in Boone, IA.

Ex Roberval and Saguenay 17 built by the Canadian Locomotive Company

It was true the 1385 Receive a new Boiler

It really is a shame about #17: de-superheated, feedwater heater removed (and presumably scrapped), and all-weather cab cut up to make an open cab, all for an operation that lasted what, maybe a year or so? There's no way they recovered the cost of any of that work in reduced maintenance, even excluding the reduced efficiency of the engine with the appliances removed.

Since R&S 2-8-0 #17 has been brought up in this thread, a few quick words. I worked with a guy who was related (I think it was his brother-in-law) who told me that Hugh Crane and his compatriots on the CO&E had started out in Live Steam. After a while, they started thinking about a full sized steam powered short line railroad. The CO&E was the result. If they hadn't had the "steam background", the freight end of the CO&E probably would never have seen a steam engine.

Les

Hello The big,
Forgive me for not fully understanding your post and I hope I strike upon the answer you were looking for. Everything we have indicates the #1385 used its' original 1907 boiler until taken out of service in the late 1990's. It will receive an all-new welded boiler when it soon returns to service. mld

Okay i understand sorry for my bad english i speak french and is not easy to write english loll

For the roberval and saguenay 17 i hope in the future she can come back to canada i not say she was not in a good place i love the NA railway's USA and CAN loll

With the discussion of the R&S 17, it seems that this thread has been kind of hijacked. Need to get back to the discussion of CNW 1385.

If the 1385 was superheated some time in the 1920's and got its brick arch and the unusual arrangement of stays then, that means that it operated just fine for at least 30 years. We have no idea of when the cracking referred to in earlier posts happened and we don't know if it was a common or recurring problem with the other 300 locomotives of the class. If it had given the Northwestern a lot of trouble I am sure that they would have changed it or reboilered more than 6 of the R-1's. We know that the 1385 steamed and performed admirably during its excursion days in the 1980's.

But get a new Boiler she lost the history, the soul of the engine no??

This is one of the "great debates" about railroad preservation. Is the artifact or locomotive better off operating with half (or more) of it's "original historical fabric" replaced, or sitting cold and dead with all of it?

There is at least one other C&NW ten-wheeler class that is "virign" as you might say, with most, if not all, of it's orginal parts. So the class is still represented in that original, unouched way (Or as close as you can get to it, this isn't Baldwin #60000).

One argument supporting replacement of parts to make a safe, operable locomotive is that railroads did that kind of thing all the time back in the day, so it's "preserving the way things were done". Another argument that can be made is that the sacrifice of original parts to make (Insert something here) operable is worth the trade off for having something that is "living" and makes a much greater visitor impact and experience.

These are just two examples, everyone has a different opinion on the matter for different reasons. Some are for replacement of parts, some for preservation of the "originality" of the locomotive.

Pretty much boils down to "if you want to use it or look at it". Static display is appropriate for some reasons or circumstances. The original fabric argument seldom applies to equipment your using on a tourist/museum railroad. Wheels, axels, brakes, piping and just about every single part of a pc of rolling stock will eventually wear out and be in need of replacing. Cold hard fact of life, to bad so sad. Look at the builders photo of this locomotive and how she came to be a museum locomotive in 1963. How much do you seriously think is original by 1963. At least one of the cyl is not, smoke box, not, tires not, tender not sure. Point is changing by updates or rebuild is just the way it was and will always be if you use the equipment. So you try to keep it as best you can to the last days in service or back date the equipment but either way it is not going to be original. While I do understand the thought process of keeping things original as possible the same thought process is not compatible with using and complying with todays requirements. It is kind of a mental fluff that doesn't apply very often in the arena of working railroad equipment. The nuts and bolt world is different than what we would like to see. In my not so humble opinion. When two worlds collide kind of thing.

It is the proverbial {ms?} beat the dead horse as the decision was made to go ahead with a new boiler. A good contractor with some experience and success has been chosen thankfully. So we are going to see how this plays out. Regards, John.

as12:

As far as I can tell there are at least two other C&NW R-1's in existence. Number 444 is at the Forney Museum in Denver, and 173 is said to be displayed at the Quincy Smelting Works in Ripley, MI, with an NP tender.

This prompted me to recall that one of the preserved NP 4-6-0's is displayed with a non-NP tender. I think it's number 1382 in Helena, and I think the tender came from a GN engine. If 173's current tender is appropriate, it might be nice to put it with the NP 4-6-0. I have no certain knowledge of this, nor the condition of any of this equipment. Maybe somebody else can chime in.

I have no idea of the depth of commitment to RR preservation at Quincy, MI. If they aren't serious preservationists with a commitment to the equipment's future security, maybe North Freedom would be a better place for 173.

Another C&NW engine of note is 4-4-2 1015 at the Museum of Transport in St. Louis. She spent a significant amount of her time in service in Northern Wisconsin, and would make far more sense in the North Freedom collection than in St. Louis. Of course, this is opinion, and it's not for me to dictate.

Tom

Preservation standards do not prohibit the consumption or replacement of original fabric or the upgrade of systems in a manner that will decrease wear on the artifact.

The amount of replacement of original fabric is up to the owner of the artifact and the intended interpretive purpose of the artifact. As long as all modifications are documented and the replacement is accurate to the target era or is a best possible replacement given what is available, it is permitted. A good example of this is the USS Constitution. A large amount of the original wood has been replaced because its owner, the US Navy, sees the best interpretive value of the artifact as a seaworthy vessel capable of use as a training ship and not as a display in dry dock.

Likewise, upgrades in systems are allowed if it will decrease wear or better protect the artifact. A good rail-specific example of this is the lube lines that were installed by the National Park Service in Baldwin 26, which was originally built with oil cellars with waste packing. As part of 26’s operational overhaul/rebuild, the Park Service’s preservation specialists installed an Armstrong Oiler setup, with a center lube line feeding the journal and the outer lines feeding the shoe and wedge. More generally, maintenance upgrades such as this are common in historic structures where HVAC and fire suppression are upgraded from the original or added when none originally existed.

A lot of the over emphasis on original fabric considerations comes from the manner in which preservation standards evolved originally from preservation efforts involving structures. Not as many components are consumed through usage in a structure when compared to a machine such as an operating steam locomotive. In an historic home, for example, those that are consumed, either though exposure to the elements (roofing, siding, or windows), or which are exposed to wear and tear (flooring, door knobs, or plumbing/light fixtures) are generally consumed at a much slower rate. Since these materials were both more likely to be original and more likely to last once stabilized and preserved, more emphasis is/was on preservation of original fabric of the structure being rehabilitated.

To an extent, it needn't be either/or, one can save the original boiler so it could be studied by future historians who want to look at how it was constructed. That is what the 2ft gauge WW&F Ry. Museum in Maine did with the boiler from their #9, when built by the Portland Company it had a lap seam boiler that is now verbotten in Maine, they built a new boiler but have the original boiler on display at the museum.

The topic of how much of the original artifact remains is always a question.

As has been mentioned, railroads did a lot of repairs, both light and "heavy". You don't expect an engine to have the original boiler tubes (and if it does, you're not going to be able to steam her up until you change them.) On the other hand, typically things like frames, drivers (but not tires) and boilers would be original. Even that isn't always true though. I always joke that when restoring a Reading T-1 to "as built condition" you need to be careful, lest you end up with a 2-8-0 instead.

That said I think most folks would assume the boiler is original, as are the drivers and frame etc. It's like old cars, when you replace the engine, even with the same type engine, it's now a "restoration" rather than "original".

Whether that's good or bad is up to the party doing the work and the intended use. If you can find a 57 Chevy parked in a barn with 200 miles on it, you're presumably not going to drive it down the freeway on the original tires. But you might park it in a glass case like that.

Fixed that for ya.

http://www.railpictures.net/photo/514341/

http://rypn.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=34129