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. Sep 25th, 2017, 12:57pm
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 8944 times)
GWR90
Historian
Posts: 352
Re: Engine Discussion: CN 3254
 
« Reply #120 on: May 31st, 2007, 2:19pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

While everything 565fan said is true when I was there this past Sunday I noticed that they have started pulling the pistons. Not a normal part of the annual inspection if I recall, so something must have been found. Can anyone confirm this?
 
-Jim


Logged

Some technical facts about GWR 2-10-0 #90
Built: June 1924
Builder: Baldwin Locomotive Works
Builders #: 57812
Class: 2-10-0 Light Decapod
Driver Diameter: 56 inches
Weight w/tender: 186 tons
Fuel: Coal 15 tons
Water: 9,000 Gallons
Sold to the SRR for over $35,000.00 in 1967
565fan
Historian
Posts: 1029
Re: Engine Discussion: CN 3254
 
« Reply #121 on: May 31st, 2007, 10:36pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

Hey, GWR.  I thought you might change your name back to 2317fan after this past weekend .  
 
What was removed was the fireman-side valve, engineer side is still in.  The pistons are still in.  I don't know what is customary, but I don't remember the valves being taken out before.  Boy, is it ever dirty!  I haven't heard what is going on with that.  Very often the pistons are removed during the annual inspection when they need to tram out the cylinder sleeve or replace the rings, but they shouldn't need that type of work this time around.  
 
AnthonyDSRR, I am not going to make a prediction on any date for the first steam up on any locomotive, (anymore).  I will report when they are fired up, though.


Logged

www.project3713.com

565fan
Historian
Posts: 1029
Re: Engine Discussion: CN 3254
 
« Reply #122 on: Jun 11th, 2007, 4:56pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

June 2007 update... Last Thursday, June 7, the FRA inspection went off without a hitch, both with coldwater and warmwater hydros. The piston type valves are being cleaned, and new rings to be installed on them.  I remember a bit of a wheezing sound when 3254 ran the last few years, so this might be the fix she needs. That or a Benadryl.

Logged

www.project3713.com

565fan
Historian
Posts: 1029
Re: Engine Discussion: CN 3254
 
« Reply #123 on: Aug 4th, 2007, 11:33pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

August 2007 update.  The tender repairs are nearly done, and there was actually water in the cistern this week.  It also stayed in the water tank, so I guess the new patch is holding.  The valves have been sandblasted, and await their new rings.  The valve chambers above the piston area are now trammed out, and reassembly may come soon.  With 2317 down for wheel work now, it is anyone's guess as to when the steamers will be back in service.  
 


Logged

www.project3713.com

Anthony_SRR
Former Member
Re: Engine Discussion: CN 3254
 
« Reply #124 on: Aug 5th, 2007, 3:59pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify   Remove

Glad to hear of the news. I hope she is out soon, but with the problem with 2317 is does not seem to good for it to be soon
 
Anthony


Logged
90Fan
Historian
Posts: 2072
Re: Engine Discussion: CN 3254
 
« Reply #125 on: Aug 5th, 2007, 4:12pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

Don't count on steam until September at the earliest. For now, I'd have my fingers crossed that at least one is out in time for their Railfan Weekend on 11/2-4 (what's the official name of that event?).

Logged

I'm ba-ack....for now, anyway.
565fan
Historian
Posts: 1029
Re: Engine Discussion: CN 3254
 
« Reply #126 on: Aug 16th, 2007, 1:04am »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

Together again!  3254 was mated with her tender on Sunday, Aug 12 and with a full load of coal.  The rings still need to be added to the valves, and that should be done by the end of this week. Other minor adjustments and repairs, plus fire and water, will bring her back to life.

Logged

www.project3713.com

Anthony_SRR
Former Member
Re: Engine Discussion: CN 3254
 
« Reply #127 on: Aug 16th, 2007, 5:22pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify   Remove

That is a good sign and September is right around the corner, so hopefully they will have a stemer running soon
 
Anthony


Logged
Pennsyduplex
Railfan
Posts: 124
Re: Engine Discussion: CN 3254
 
« Reply #128 on: Aug 19th, 2007, 5:22pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

She was out and about on Saturday the 18th pulling the excursion train.

Logged

Long live steam!!
de-rail
Historian
Posts: 2104
Re: Engine Discussion: CN 3254
 
« Reply #129 on: Aug 19th, 2007, 8:27pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

Well that was sudden, good to hear that the inspection is over and steamtown has an operating steamengine again.

Logged

"We do not ride on the railroad; the railroad rides upon us." - Henry David Thoreau.

Hudson Revival Project's Facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Hudson-Revival-Project/151566048238757
565fan
Historian
Posts: 1029
Re: Engine Discussion: CN 3254
 
« Reply #130 on: Aug 19th, 2007, 11:44pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

Yes, Saturday's train to Moscow was quite a surprise.  Even that morning, there were no promises that 3254 would tackle the hill, since it was her second day under steam since January.  The valves were still being installed on Friday.  
 
By the way, Saturday the 18th of August was possibly the busiest day in the park all year.  A full 5 car train ran on the D&H line to Carbondale with a D-L C425 and five coaches, the 3254 ran to Moscow with 3 full coaches, and the Scranton Limited, led by 514, had two coaches, and ran five trips that day.  That's a lot of people experiencing the Steamtown magic.  Several people saw the 4 steamers in the locomotive shop, too.


Logged

www.project3713.com

DLW_1602
Railfan
Posts: 172
Re: Engine Discussion: CN 3254
  Picture_1324.jpg - 55353 Bytes
« Reply #131 on: Sep 4th, 2007, 6:10am »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

3254 on 8/30/07 and I took a video of 3254 which is up on youtube.
 
Dan
 
There are some other videos from that day and one of 2317 on a moscow trip July1.
 
http://youtube.com/profile?user=ezbowler92


http://Forums.Railfan.net/Images/Steamtown/Picture_1324.jpg
Click Image to Resize

« Last Edit: Sep 4th, 2007, 6:11am by DLW_1602 » Logged
mike_nepa
Historian
Posts: 1847
Re: Engine Discussion: CN 3254
 
« Reply #132 on: Sep 7th, 2007, 9:10am »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

on Aug 19th, 2007, 11:44pm, 565fan wrote:       (Click here for original message)
Yes, Saturday's train to Moscow was quite a surprise.  Even that morning, there were no promises that 3254 would tackle the hill, since it was her second day under steam since January.  The valves were still being installed on Friday.  
 
By the way, Saturday the 18th of August was possibly the busiest day in the park all year.  A full 5 car train ran on the D&H line to Carbondale with a D-L C425 and five coaches, the 3254 ran to Moscow with 3 full coaches, and the Scranton Limited, led by 514, had two coaches, and ran five trips that day.  That's a lot of people experiencing the Steamtown magic.  Several people saw the 4 steamers in the locomotive shop, too.

 
 
I thought the Carbondale trip was canceled? It was on their original excursion page then was dropped and was never put back on it. What happened?
 
Mike


Logged
The_Former_Fireman
Railfan
Posts: 123
Re: Engine Discussion: CN 3254
 
« Reply #133 on: Sep 7th, 2007, 2:50pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

I think the trip to Carbondale that he refered to was a non public charter.

Logged
XPLORER
Historian
Posts: 699
Re: Engine Discussion: CN 3254
  3254-20.jpg - 31423 Bytes
« Reply #134 on: Oct 27th, 2007, 8:11am »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

A pic and a video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYkl5njO3gU


http://Forums.Railfan.net/Images/Steamtown/3254-20.jpg
Click Image to Resize

Logged
JJ Smith
Historian
View Profile  

Posts: 581
Re: Engine Discussion: CN 3254
 
« Reply #135 on: Nov 4th, 2007, 1:03am »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

Did 3254 always have steam heat lines?  I was surprised today when they used steam heat from 3254 for todays trip to water gap.

Logged

Modeling the Pottsville area (RDG, LV, and PRR)
Member: RCT&HS, ARHS
Steve G.
Historian
View Profile  

Posts: 501
Re: Engine Discussion: CN 3254
 
« Reply #136 on: Nov 4th, 2007, 12:04pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

on Aug 19th, 2007, 11:44pm, 565fan wrote:       (Click here for original message)
By the way, Saturday the 18th of August was possibly the busiest day in the park all year.  A full 5 car train ran on the D&H line to Carbondale with a D-L C425 and five coaches, the 3254 ran to Moscow with 3 full coaches, and the Scranton Limited, led by 514, had two coaches, and ran five trips that day.  That's a lot of people experiencing the Steamtown magic.  Several people saw the 4 steamers in the locomotive shop, too.

 
Well, if 7 out of 10 cars on 2 out of 3 trains being pulled by dismals instead of STEAM at STEAMTOWN is magic...  
 
I think every passenger on every Steamtown train ride should be given a free copy of a form-letter that they could put their signature on and mail to their Congressmen, demanding that Steamtown NHS be given the proper budget funding to get enough STEAM locomotives into running condition, so that all STEAMtown trains could be pulled by STEAM, not dismals.
 
The National Park Service museum glorifying the great days of steam motive power, with excursion trains powered by dismals. That teaches the WRONG lesson, in my not so humble opinion.


Logged

Confucius say - "The last minute" is a good thing to have . . . because without it, nothing would ever get done ."
DLW_1602
Railfan
Posts: 172
Re: Engine Discussion: CN 3254
 
« Reply #137 on: Nov 5th, 2007, 6:19am »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

on Nov 4th, 2007, 12:04pm, Steve G. wrote:       (Click here for original message)

 
Well, if 7 out of 10 cars on 2 out of 3 trains being pulled by dismals instead of STEAM at STEAMTOWN is magic...  
 
I think every passenger on every Steamtown train ride should be given a free copy of a form-letter that they could put their signature on and mail to their Congressmen, demanding that Steamtown NHS be given the proper budget funding to get enough STEAM locomotives into running condition, so that all STEAMtown trains could be pulled by STEAM, not dismals.
 
The National Park Service museum glorifying the great days of steam motive power, with excursion trains powered by dismals. That teaches the WRONG lesson, in my not so humble opinion.

 
You know what and I am going to sound a little crud but steamtown is not the only place that needs more funding and where are they going to get the money from the air most of the money is going toward the War and every thing in the USA is falling apart that's how things are intill the war is done or it even might stay the same but hay we will never know intill we are there and now on to other subjects diesels are a pretty good sub for a steamer although not my first pick by the way steamtown is a great place to go they are doing the best they can look at what they have to do.
 
So before you say some thing about steamtown look at what they have to do.
 
Dan


Logged
senselessfool
Enthusiast
View Profile  

Posts: 41
Re: Engine Discussion: CN 3254
 
« Reply #138 on: Nov 5th, 2007, 9:15am »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

nice run-on sentence, but i agree with steve

Logged
DLW_1602
Railfan
Posts: 172
Re: Engine Discussion: CN 3254
 
« Reply #139 on: Nov 5th, 2007, 4:59pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

HaHa funny but you get my point. Explain why you agree with him I like to know? Steamtown cannot please everyone someone has to suffer.
 
Dan


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

« Previous topic | Next topic »