With 2816 now in B.C. undergoing winter restoration, I am faced with the question of this locomotives fate. C.P. recently withdrew its bid for B.C. rail, and it appears C.N. will own all of this track.
Will we ever see a C.P. locomotive on C.N. track?
Will 2816 ever leave B.C.?

Kris

generalhummell@shaw.ca

I think you may possibly have two different engines in mind. 2816, the unstreamlined hudson, is CP's corporate ambassador, and she should be running a full slate of corporate heritage and promotion events in 2004. She was restored at the BC rail shops but she is now based in Calgary.

2860 was the streamlined "Royal Hudson" that powered the BC rail steam trains along with 2-8-0 3716. She was owned by the province of British Columbia and operated with British Columbia, not CPR, markings. After the end of the BC Rail steam program she was bought by the West Coast Railway Association and put on static display in Squamish at the West Coast Railway Heritage Park. They have plans to restore to her to operating condition and run periodic excursions in the future:

http://www.wcra.org/hudson/story.htm

As for BCR, CN is not purchasing the railroad, so technically they will not own the track--the province still will. CN is getting the exclusive operating rights, so functionally, yes, BC Rail will look like part of CN. CN has agreed to entertain new tour train operations and somday when 2860 is ready they may indeed be ready to do business with WCRA, but it's far too early to say how and in what form. I wouldn't rule out seeing 2860 on former BC Rail, but it's a ways away at this point.

eledbetter@rypn.org

Kris;

You should have been in Eastern Ontario back in the '80s when we ran ex. CPR 1201 over many CNR lines. CNR were very gracious to us.

re: 2860; I have been doing a little bit of digging for them, as I live in Ottawa and have non-long distance telephone (and 10 minutes drive) from both the warehouse of CPR drawings, and the Canadian Regulatory Agency. Lets just say that the 2860 folks are not sitting still, and are not currently planning to run back and forth on 10 feet of track.

What the official plans are, I don't know, and I don't ask questions. I'm just overjoyed that a proactive group has taken her under their wings.

> appears C.N. will own all of this track.
> Will we ever see a C.P. locomotive on C.N.
> track?
> Will 2816 ever leave B.C.?

John Stewart
Ottawa, Canada.


freewrl-1@rogers.com

Did 2816 have to cross over CN track to visit the restored ex CN 2-8-0? I believe that was Kettle Valley. Anyone know how many operating steam engines 2816 has operated with or been seen with since her restoration? A meeting with 6060 would be interesting.

Joshua

> Did 2816 have to cross over CN track to
> visit the restored ex CN 2-8-0? I believe
> that was Kettle Valley.

I dunno, but asking in a spirit of honest curiosity, why would it really matter? I assume CP and CN have byzantine networks of trackage rights agreements and so forth at various locations, and from the point of view of dispatching, 2816 is just another CPR movement, entitled to go wherever CPR has access under ownership or rights or whatever. Would this not be the case?

Anyone know how many
> operating steam engines 2816 has operated
> with or been seen with since her
> restoration?

Operated with? None, to my knowledge. Most outings have been with a limited specialized consist, either the "Breakfast for Learning" train or the CPR business car/high-end excursion car fleet. She has also pulled some commuter consists on short excursions. Anyhow, she hasn't been doing traditional daylong fan trips or doubleheaders or such.

I do remember seeing an nice staged over and under shot with her in proximity to SSR's former CP engines 136 and 1057 this past year.

A meeting with 6060 would be
> interesting.

Sure, hopefully it'll happen. But it's worth remembering that CPR uses 2816 to support their corporate communications and philanthopy efforts--I think her itinerary is set mostly according to where CP has philanthropic partnerships or other corporate activities to promote.

eledbetter@rypn.org

> With 2816 now in B.C. undergoing winter
> restoration, I am faced with the question of
> this locomotives fate.

Hi Kris,

Do you know what work is being done on #2816 in BC? Could it be she'll be US-compliant next year?

Rob



rdavis@rypn.org

It doesn't really matter if 2816 did operate over CN track, just curious.

And she did doublehead with the ex CN Kettle Valley 2-8-0 (#2141), I was looking at a website earlier in the week with photos of this. That's why I was curious to how many other engines she's come across.

Joshua

> Do you know what work is being done on #2816
> in BC? Could it be she'll be US-compliant
> next year?

The only thing 2816 needs to become fully FRA compliant is the second water glass. All of the other requirements of Part 230 were adopted by the Canadians virtually verbatim, and 2816 was restored to those standards. They did not install a second water glass at the time due to concerns about "historical accuracy." (Note that those concerns did not extend to the ditch lights!).

I understand they applied or intend to apply to FRA for a waiver of the requirement for a 2nd water glass, but, IMO, it's VERY doubtful that FRA will bend on this sensible requirement.

The point being it won't take much to make 2816 fully Part 230 compliant.

> I understand they applied or intend to apply
> to FRA for a waiver of the requirement for a
> 2nd water glass, but, IMO, it's VERY
> doubtful that FRA will bend on this sensible
> requirement.

> The point being it won't take much to make
> 2816 fully Part 230 compliant.

I wonder, then, if we'll se 2816 operating in the U.S. in 2004? I'd love to see it come charging through Minnesota. Who knows, they could even run some excursions?
Mark D.

When I was at Dendoff (think thats a close spelling) Spring in the Vancouver, BC area this fall they said they were making new leaf springs for the 2816.

Hi Kris,

> Do you know what work is being done on #2816
> in BC? Could it be she'll be US-compliant
> next year?

> Rob

> The only thing 2816 needs to become fully
> FRA compliant is the second water glass.

Out of curiosity are the new FRA Reg's specific for 2 water glasses or for redundant methods of verifying water levels in the boiler. Would the tri-cocks on the backhead of 2816 not give that second means of verification?

Thanks for the answer in advance.

Mike


cottagebound@hotmail.com

> Out of curiosity are the new FRA Reg's
> specific for 2 water glasses or for
> redundant methods of verifying water levels
> in the boiler. Would the tri-cocks on the
> backhead of 2816 not give that second means
> of verification?

Absolutely not. Try cocks are not an acceptable second method; the regs specify 2 glasses. Try cocks are notoriously unreliable because they can cause a false water level reading. This was verified a number of times in tests done by the ICC back in the 1920's and 1930's, and also reliance on try cocks lead to a few boiler explosions. Try cocks give a flase snse of security; that's why they have been banned in new power boiler construction for many decades.

OK, what's the consensus on the spelling of these suckers.

I believe the commonly accpeted is tricocks, but I have seen tri-cocks, trycocks, try cocks and tri cocks.

I assume "trycocks" and "try cocks" are the least accurate, since the "tri" refers to three. Yes, there are boilers with "bi-cocks." Yes, it does seem that the "try" spelling is common overseas.

Of course, we could just say "gauge cocks" I guess.

> Hi Kris,

> Do you know what work is being done on #2816
> in BC? Could it be she'll be US-compliant
> next year?

> Rob

Rob,

Winter restoration from its 2003 cross canada trip is underway in the B.C. rail steamshops. To respond to Eric from a previous response, 2816 is not based out of Calgary anymore. Their building has been sold and their turntable has been torn out. They are looking for a second waterglass however it looks as though this outfit is loosing not only a place to work but funding to back such a substantial budget. Are you sure C.N. will let such a public relations flagship traverse their track???



generalhummell@shaw.ca

To respond to Eric from a
> previous response, 2816 is not based out of
> Calgary anymore. Their building has been
> sold and their turntable has been torn out.
> They are looking for a second waterglass
> however it looks as though this outfit is
> loosing not only a place to work but funding
> to back such a substantial budget. Are you
> sure C.N. will let such a public relations
> flagship traverse their track???

Good to know--always happy to get corrected with better info. As for CN, not sure about anything here, I sure have no special wisdom to offer. I just assume CP wouldn't send here anywhere they don't have trackage rights to, but that's all I have, an assumption.


eledbetter@rypn.org