Railfan.net Home Railfan Photos ABPR Archives Staff Safari Photos Railfan Links

Railfan.net Forums Railfan.net Forums Railfan.net Forums
Welcome, Guest. Please Sign In or Register. Jun 28th, 2017, 8:25pm
Categories •  FastIndex •  LongIndex •  Help •  Search •  Members  •  Sign In •  Register


Engine Discussion: CN 3254
   Railfan.net Web Forums
   Tourist Railroads and Museums
   Steamtown
(Moderators: NKP759fan, strasburg90)
   Engine Discussion: CN 3254
« Previous topic | Next topic »
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  ReplyReply     EMail TopicEMail Topic   PrintPrint
   Author  Topic: Engine Discussion: CN 3254  (Read 8908 times)
GP38
Historian
Posts: 801
Re: Engine Discussion: CN 3254
 
« Reply #100 on: Sep 7th, 2005, 5:35pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

 I have also something to say. In my newest book that I bought about CN in the Southern Ontario Region (Steam throught the Niagara Region), CN ran almost as many 2-8-2`s as their 4-8-4`s on all types of trains. Hot freights and short haul trains. So CN was very pleased with their 2-8-2`s. In other words, very reliable locomotives. Hey but age can also be getting to CN 3254 and remember that a mikado isn`t meant to be run like a commuter/excursion locomotive. Also problems will always happen. Even the most modern diesels do break down.

Logged
NKP759fan
Moderator
Historian
View Profile  

Posts: 1712
Re: Engine Discussion: CN 3254
 
« Reply #101 on: Sep 7th, 2005, 7:25pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

Hey Red Baron,
 Yes I remember when the Visitor Center was on South Washington and I also remember the 26, 3254 and 2317 running in the yards back then, I also went on a few Moscow excursions when I was on a few field trips. I'm not saying that all freight locomotives were inefficient, it may seem like I am but I'm not. Now the NKP would be a god example, their Berkshires ran on mostly flat and level land and at high speeds is when a steamer develops most power because of draft etc. I am familiar with how efficient the NKP Berks are, if you didn't notice my name , but back to the 3254. The 3254, from reports by engineers and from conferring with engineers is very inefficient with water and coal. "The 3254 has such an appetite for water that it seems that there is a hole in the boiler", these are the words from a veteran engineer at Steamtown, and also from another veteran engine, "it's really hard to have this engine running right, the fire either gets to hot, or theres no fire at all, the water glass is constantly dropping, the 2317 is a much better and efficient engine, I rather fire that engine anyday". As much as I like the 3254, I have to agree with these statements. I know your getting a little ticked off but when the facts are staring you straight in the face, you can't just keep fighting them, no harsh feelings. I'm sure that the 3254 was a very reliable engine when it was built, but for an 88 year old machine, it's doing ok.


Logged

Nickel Plate Road "Berkshire" #759
Built: August 1944
Builder: Lima Locomotives Works
Driver diameter: 69 inches
Boiler Pressure: 245
Coal: 22 tons
Water: 22,000 gallons
Retired: 1958
Used on the famous High Iron Excursions
http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/steamtown/shs2o.htm
3254Fan
Historian
View Profile  

Posts: 377
Re: Engine Discussion: CN 3254
 
« Reply #102 on: Sep 7th, 2005, 10:28pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

I'm sorry, I'm not trying to get into any fights but I don't think that the amount of coal and water an engine carries has anything to do with its efficiency. I don't see why that keeps being mentioned. Efficiency has to do with how the engine operates and how well, not how much coal it can carry.

« Last Edit: Sep 7th, 2005, 10:29pm by 3254Fan » Logged

Moderates: East Broad Top
NKP759fan
Moderator
Historian
View Profile  

Posts: 1712
Re: Engine Discussion: CN 3254
 
« Reply #103 on: Sep 7th, 2005, 10:38pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

Hey 3254,
 I wasn't saying that the 3254 is inefficient because it does not have alot of water capacity or coal, but "The 3254 has such an appetite for water that it seems that there is a hole in the boiler", and it eats thru coal like crazy. Steam locomotive efficiency mainly has to do with the boiler, and how fast it can produce steam. The Theoretical maximum efficiency for a steam engine is 21%, compared to the diesel 95% or so. The efficiency of the 3254 is about 8%. No fighting please.


« Last Edit: Sep 7th, 2005, 10:46pm by NKP759fan » Logged

Nickel Plate Road "Berkshire" #759
Built: August 1944
Builder: Lima Locomotives Works
Driver diameter: 69 inches
Boiler Pressure: 245
Coal: 22 tons
Water: 22,000 gallons
Retired: 1958
Used on the famous High Iron Excursions
http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/steamtown/shs2o.htm
3254Fan
Historian
View Profile  

Posts: 377
Re: Engine Discussion: CN 3254
 
« Reply #104 on: Sep 7th, 2005, 10:48pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

I'm not fighting with you, but the discussion on 3254 being inefficient was because of its running gear problems, not how fast it can produce steam.

Logged

Moderates: East Broad Top
NKP759fan
Moderator
Historian
View Profile  

Posts: 1712
Re: Engine Discussion: CN 3254
 
« Reply #105 on: Sep 8th, 2005, 7:16am »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

Oh Sorry.

Logged

Nickel Plate Road "Berkshire" #759
Built: August 1944
Builder: Lima Locomotives Works
Driver diameter: 69 inches
Boiler Pressure: 245
Coal: 22 tons
Water: 22,000 gallons
Retired: 1958
Used on the famous High Iron Excursions
http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/steamtown/shs2o.htm
The_Red_Baron
TRAINing
Posts: 12
Re: Engine Discussion: CN 3254
 
« Reply #106 on: Sep 8th, 2005, 3:54pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify


 
I'm not getting worked up myself, and I will wholeheartedly agree that the 2317 is a better engine overall than the 3254.  I just wanted to make the point that freight engines were built to be every bit as relaible and have the same periods of "down time" as their passenger counterparts and that making comparisons between freight and passenger engines in gerneral based on two different engines, from two different roads wasn't the way to go.
 
Also that sometimes the 3254 gets a bad rap, but as a good friend (a former steamtown fireman) once said "If the 3254 died tommorrow, with all that we've had her do, she wouldn't owe us a dime".  While it is definitly a hungrier loco than the 2317, it certainly has proven to be just as relaible, until the bearing thing.
 
I think we've hashed this issue to death, and I respect the opinions of 759 and 3254 fan alike.
 
The Red Baron


Logged
S.S.T.S. 6464
Historian
View Profile  

Posts: 984
Re: Engine Discussion: CN 3254
 
« Reply #107 on: Sep 8th, 2005, 6:35pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

While all points are valid, I can't give preference to any one steamer over another. Operating steam in any form is a major treat these days and cannot be overlooked. Plus you're not even talking two engines of the same wheel arrangement, you might as well be comparing an 0-4-0T with the Big Boy. I'm happy with any steamer no matter what the specs.

Logged

West Chester Railroad www.westchesterrr.net
-The Route of the Flying Turkeys!
I lay my head on the railroad tracks, to wait for the double E,
the railroad don't run no more. Poor Poor pitiful me! -Warren Zevon
WMSR_734
Former Member
Re: Engine Discussion: CN 3254
 
« Reply #108 on: Sep 8th, 2005, 7:31pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify   Remove

on Sep 8th, 2005, 3:54pm, The_Red_Baron wrote:       (Click here for original message)

 
I just wanted to make the point that freight engines were built to be every bit as relaible and have the same periods of "down time" as their passenger counterparts and that making comparisons between freight and passenger engines in gerneral based on two different engines, from two different roads wasn't the way to go.

 
Well said. Two perfect examples of frieght locomotives that are always running with no back-ups are WMSR #734 and NH&I #40. They both are frieght locomotives, and they show up for work every day. It has nothing to do with an engine being built for frieght or passenger. Believe me, 2317 is just down right luck. That's just the way it was built. You could have a sister engine of 3254 and a sister engine of 2317 and it could be the the other way around.
 
-Colin


« Last Edit: Sep 8th, 2005, 7:32pm by wm734_fan » Logged
NKP759fan
Moderator
Historian
View Profile  

Posts: 1712
Re: Engine Discussion: CN 3254
 
« Reply #109 on: Sep 8th, 2005, 8:01pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

Hey WM fan,
 The 2317 isn't lucky, it was well taken care of and built. Although the frame is a little bent from an accident in the 40's but it still has been a problem free engine ever since I can remember. Now get the tires replaced and get that engine back on the main!!!


Logged

Nickel Plate Road "Berkshire" #759
Built: August 1944
Builder: Lima Locomotives Works
Driver diameter: 69 inches
Boiler Pressure: 245
Coal: 22 tons
Water: 22,000 gallons
Retired: 1958
Used on the famous High Iron Excursions
http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/steamtown/shs2o.htm
90Fan
Historian
Posts: 2072
Re: Engine Discussion: CN 3254
 
« Reply #110 on: Sep 24th, 2005, 6:09pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

I'm planning a visit in October. Will 3254 be running? Will 2317 do yard duties? I'd like to ride them both, or at least one!
 
Brian


Logged

I'm ba-ack....for now, anyway.
joneau261
Historian
Posts: 3629
Re: Engine Discussion: CN 3254
 
« Reply #111 on: Jan 16th, 2007, 2:36pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

I remember on 3254 that there was a much deeper whistle. It was the on when I saw her in 2004, and in this video
 
http://steamlocomotive.info/vidlocomotive.cfm?display=1076
 
Anybody know anything about it, and why Steamtown lately has been using the raspier 5 chime?


Logged

"Railfans are clingy, complaining dumbsnots who will never ever be grateful for any concession you provide. The moment you shut out their shrill tremulous complaints, the happier you'll be for it.
Incidentally, how about donating to Railfan.net?"
WM734
Former Member
Re: Engine Discussion: CN 3254
 
« Reply #112 on: Jan 16th, 2007, 5:28pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify   Remove

The whistle was never changed, however they tuned and modified it so it would sound the way it originally did when it was first built and put atop a locomotive on the Canadian National.  It is a true CN 5-note steam whistle.

« Last Edit: Jan 16th, 2007, 5:29pm by wm734_fan » Logged
joneau261
Historian
Posts: 3629
Re: Engine Discussion: CN 3254
 
« Reply #113 on: Jan 16th, 2007, 5:38pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

Are you serious? Wow, I guess a little tuning is all it takes to fix it. The deeper sound was fine, but it sounds even better today!

Logged

"Railfans are clingy, complaining dumbsnots who will never ever be grateful for any concession you provide. The moment you shut out their shrill tremulous complaints, the happier you'll be for it.
Incidentally, how about donating to Railfan.net?"
Adam17
Former Member
Re: Engine Discussion: CN 3254
 
« Reply #114 on: Jan 17th, 2007, 12:16pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify   Remove

I personally love the CN 5'er on the '54. I really can't get enough of it. And for you're view pleasure, crank up the speakers and listen to CN #3254, as this engineer knows how to blow the whistle.
 


« Last Edit: Jan 17th, 2007, 12:23pm by adam17 » Logged
LegendZ26
Railfan
Posts: 168
Re: Engine Discussion: CN 3254
  Steamtown/3254.jpg (Note: Can't Find Attachment!)
« Reply #115 on: Feb 14th, 2007, 7:17pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

Hey guys.  This is my first post ever on railfan.net.  I am a diehard railfan and have grown up seeing and riding behind 3254 and absoluteley love this Mike.  I just hired on with NS a few months ago as a conductor, but am a die hard Steam fan.  lol  Just thought I would share a pic I took of 3254 in the fall this year!!!

« Last Edit: Feb 15th, 2007, 6:22pm by LegendZ26 » Logged

Reading T-1
Wheel Arrangement 4-8-4
Length 110'-6"
Drivers 70"
Weight 278,200 lbs over drivers
809,000 lbs total locomotive with fully loaded tender
Grate Area 94.5 sq ft
Cylinders 2 @ 27 in. dia. and 32 in. stroke
Cylinder HP 3147 HP
Boiler Pressure 240 psi
anthonyd_SRR
Former Member
Re: Engine Discussion: CN 3254
 
« Reply #116 on: Feb 15th, 2007, 5:15pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify   Remove

WELCOME TO RAILFAN and congrats on your NS job
 
Anthony


Logged
90Fan
Historian
Posts: 2072
Re: Engine Discussion: CN 3254
 
« Reply #117 on: Feb 15th, 2007, 8:30pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

on Feb 14th, 2007, 7:17pm, LegendZ26 wrote:       (Click here for original message)
Hey guys.  This is my first post ever on railfan.net.  I am a diehard railfan and have grown up seeing and riding behind 3254 and absoluteley love this Mike.  I just hired on with NS a few months ago as a conductor, but am a die hard Steam fan.  lol  Just thought I would share a pic I took of 3254 in the fall this year!!!

 
Quite a pic you got there, Kenny! Nice job!


Logged

I'm ba-ack....for now, anyway.
565fan
Historian
Posts: 1029
Re: Engine Discussion: CN 3254
 
« Reply #118 on: May 29th, 2007, 12:34pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

May2007 repair update: Those of you who look at Steamtown Photos thread, around pages 36 and 37 will see photos of the Mike undergoing her annual inspection. On Sunday, May 27, she was getting a cold water hydrostatic test. The cap is on the steamdome, but some parts of the throttle are still outside the dome.  When this test is over, she is one step closer to returning to the rails.  The actual day she returns will depend on 2317's reliability, but with a successful two weeks of running, she shouldn't delay any repairs for 3254.

Logged

www.project3713.com

anthonyd_SRR
Former Member
Re: Engine Discussion: CN 3254
 
« Reply #119 on: May 30th, 2007, 4:07pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify   Remove

So if all goes well with 2317 how long before we see 3254 behind trains again?
 
Anthony


Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  ReplyReply     EMail TopicEMail Topic   PrintPrint

« Previous topic | Next topic »