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. Apr 23rd, 2017, 9:52am
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 8827 times)
GWR90
Historian
Posts: 352
Re: Engine Discussion: CN 3254
 
« Reply #80 on: Aug 17th, 2005, 3:00pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

In the shop again, hopefully will be out by this weekend.

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
NKP759fan
Moderator
Historian
View Profile  

Posts: 1712
Re: Engine Discussion: CN 3254
 
« Reply #81 on: Aug 18th, 2005, 1:39pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

Any news on the 3254 guys? I'm in Poland right now so I would like to know.

« Last Edit: Aug 18th, 2005, 1:39pm 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 #82 on: Aug 20th, 2005, 8:04pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

It made a series of trial runs to Moscow today. It left the yards at 10:30 and returned at about 3:45. It must have performed well because they put Good Vibrations on the excursion consist and everything. It was then put in the roundhouse and the 17 was moved from the boiler wash track to its usual stall. There were no short train rides today since 514 went to Carbondale, 17 didn't have much of a fire or enough pressure and the 54 was in Moscow.

Logged

Moderates: East Broad Top
NKP759fan
Moderator
Historian
View Profile  

Posts: 1712
Re: Engine Discussion: CN 3254
 
« Reply #83 on: Aug 21st, 2005, 3:57am »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

Thanks 3254.

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
GWR90
Historian
Posts: 352
Re: Engine Discussion: CN 3254
 
« Reply #84 on: Aug 27th, 2005, 2:34am »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

3254 is down again for repairs to the trailing truck and as of now the drive wheels are just fine! Should be just fine!

« Last Edit: Aug 27th, 2005, 2:35am by GWR90 » 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: 1023
Re: Engine Discussion: CN 3254
 
« Reply #85 on: Aug 29th, 2005, 9:37am »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

Most recent update... August 28, 2005, CN no. 3254 is back under steam and running the caboose experience train.  I was on the handcar, and quite a few times, I had the pleasure of riding it between the two steam locomotives.  Not a bad job to have.

Logged

www.project3713.com

adam17
Former Member
Re: Engine Discussion: CN 3254
 
« Reply #86 on: Aug 29th, 2005, 4:00pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify   Remove

Every time i've been to steamtown the 2317 was running. dont't get me wrong, i would LOVE to see the mike running, but i love the 2317's whistle. i think its gorgeous. anyay yes they should run thier mike more often like switch between weekends. like 2316 one week the 3254 the next. that would spice things up abit.  

Logged
3254Fan
Historian
View Profile  

Posts: 377
Re: Engine Discussion: CN 3254
 
« Reply #87 on: Aug 29th, 2005, 4:24pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

Well on weekends they've been trying to run both engines, but the 54 is spending too much time in the shops recently. Hopefully now everything is fixed on it, and we'll see it out more often. (Especially on excursions!)

Logged

Moderates: East Broad Top
Southern Green
Historian
Posts: 3475
Re: Engine Discussion: CN 3254
 
« Reply #88 on: Aug 29th, 2005, 4:36pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

   Hi guys-  
 
    How are her bearings?  When I rode on July 31st, they stopped on the way to Toby and on the return trip to check her rod bearings. Seemed like they were doin' good.
 
               Cy


Logged

Go Braves!






NKP759fan
Moderator
Historian
View Profile  

Posts: 1712
Re: Engine Discussion: CN 3254
 
« Reply #89 on: Aug 29th, 2005, 9:17pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

The bearings are alright right now, the 3254 was recently in the shop to take care of a minor problem on the trailing truck.

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
adam17
Former Member
Re: Engine Discussion: CN 3254
 
« Reply #90 on: Aug 30th, 2005, 10:06pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify   Remove

is the 3254 prone to wheel problems or has the shop put a magnet on her?

Logged
NKP759fan
Moderator
Historian
View Profile  

Posts: 1712
Re: Engine Discussion: CN 3254
 
« Reply #91 on: Aug 31st, 2005, 4:08pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

It's not unusual for an 88 year old locomotive to have wheel problems, the wheels have been turning on the 3254 for most of those 88 years, everything eventually wears out. The 3254 was built for freight, so it really isn't an efficient engine, it was built to get freight from one point to another. The CP 2317 passenger engine on the other is a very reliable engine just like most passenger engines were.

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
dh7312
Railfan
Posts: 188
Re: Engine Discussion: CN 3254
 
« Reply #92 on: Sep 6th, 2005, 3:02pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

so how is the 3254 doing is she healty again

Logged

Jerry
The_Red_Baron
TRAINing
Posts: 12
Re: Engine Discussion: CN 3254
 
« Reply #93 on: Sep 6th, 2005, 4:10pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

Hello
 
Without flaming, I'd like to try and clear something up here.  Locomotives were not built more or less efficient or "better" for passenger service.  True, there are differences, the most notable being driver diameter size, but just as much care went into designing, building and maintaining freight locomotives.  A freight locomotive breaking down on a line because it was "less reliable" would cause extensive disruption to a railroad's traffic flow, even if there were three or four tracks like on the NYC, PRR or the Lackawanna for that matter.  
 
True, passenger trains once had a much higher prestige than they do now, but freight was very important too.  Besides bulk commodities like coal, you had perishables like produce, milk, slaughtered beef that had to get to market within certain time frame, particularly when ice blocks were the primary form of refrigeration.  
 
So, in short, the freight hogs had to perform as well as their faster cousins, they just traded speed for power, but certainly not efficiency or reliability.  
 
For years the 3254 was the more "reliable" engine at steamtown.  Its certainly put more time on the road than the 2317.  The 2317 has proved to be, at times a temperamental engine.  Its a lot like a Jaguar sportster, a finely tuned performance machine that can become quite cantankerous on short notice.  The 2317 has had numerous derailments, many more than the 3254 (fortunately quite minor) that predate the time when it derailed in the gap, dating all the way back to Vermont.  The bearing issues that steamtown is dealing with on the 3254 have nothing to do with it's being a freight engine or not, they are simply due to the age of the beast.  Hopefully things will be in check soon and you'll see the freight engine being much more reliable once again.  I for one miss the 2317 though.
 
The Red Baron


Logged
GWR90
Historian
Posts: 352
Re: Engine Discussion: CN 3254
 
« Reply #94 on: Sep 6th, 2005, 9:31pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

Well my good sir it is my opinion and the opinion of people on the train crew at Steamtown that the 2317 is the much more reliable engine. Yes it has had a few minor derailments but it has always had a higher efficency and reliability rateing then the 3254. If you will take notice that with all of the 2317's current mechanical problems it is still out there and running. Almost every three excursions this summer the 3254 seems to encounter one problem or another. So it is my belief and the belief of others that when it comes right down to the bare facts the 2317 is the far more efficent engine, as well as the most reliable.

« Last Edit: Sep 6th, 2005, 9:49pm by GWR90 » 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
NKP759fan
Moderator
Historian
View Profile  

Posts: 1712
Re: Engine Discussion: CN 3254
 
« Reply #95 on: Sep 6th, 2005, 9:46pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

on Sep 6th, 2005, 4:10pm, The_Red_Baron wrote:       (Click here for original message)
Hello
 
Without flaming, I'd like to try and clear something up here.  Locomotives were not built more or less efficient or "better" for passenger service.  True, there are differences, the most notable being driver diameter size, but just as much care went into designing, building and maintaining freight locomotives.  A freight locomotive breaking down on a line because it was "less reliable" would cause extensive disruption to a railroad's traffic flow, even if there were three or four tracks like on the NYC, PRR or the Lackawanna for that matter.  
 
True, passenger trains once had a much higher prestige than they do now, but freight was very important too.  Besides bulk commodities like coal, you had perishables like produce, milk, slaughtered beef that had to get to market within certain time frame, particularly when ice blocks were the primary form of refrigeration.  
 
So, in short, the freight hogs had to perform as well as their faster cousins, they just traded speed for power, but certainly not efficiency or reliability.  
 
For years the 3254 was the more "reliable" engine at steamtown.  Its certainly put more time on the road than the 2317.  The 2317 has proved to be, at times a temperamental engine.  Its a lot like a Jaguar sportster, a finely tuned performance machine that can become quite cantankerous on short notice.  The 2317 has had numerous derailments, many more than the 3254 (fortunately quite minor) that predate the time when it derailed in the gap, dating all the way back to Vermont.  The bearing issues that steamtown is dealing with on the 3254 have nothing to do with it's being a freight engine or not, they are simply due to the age of the beast.  Hopefully things will be in check soon and you'll see the freight engine being much more reliable once again.  I for one miss the 2317 though.
 
The Red Baron

 
Well my good sir lol, I would have to agree with 2317. The 2317 is a far more efficient and reliable engine that the 3254. The 3254 as I stated before was built for short distance services because the tender can only hold 7200 gallons, and the boiler on 3254 is smaller than the 2317's. A bigger boiler means more power and efficiency, the freight engines were reiliable but not very efficient. Now railroads like the Pennsy and the D&H had the most efficient freight locomotives in my opinion, but the D&H definetly comes on top with all their experimental locomotives. Not to be off topic but the D&H pacific 653 had 64,000 pds tractive effort, about the same as a NKP Berkshire. Passengers engines were far more efficient as engineers at Steamtown can tell you.


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 #96 on: Sep 7th, 2005, 12:00am »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

I didn't mean to say that the 2317 wasn't a good engine, it certainly is, just wanted to point out that, despite it's recent problems, the 3254 has been a steady performer for quite some time and the 2317 has had it's problems too.  A friend of mine who used to fire at Steamtown said he used to favor the 2317 over the other engines and I'm inclined to take his word for it.    Does the 17 have a bigger boiler and bigger tender, yes by all means.  But the 2317 is a simply larger, newer engine that the 3254.  
 
Its two different railroads, two different designs.  The CN had passenger engines roughly the size of the 3254 (much smaller than the 2317, CN 5288 formerly of the steamtown collection is a good example) and the CP had freight locomotives roughly the size of the 2317, CP 5631 in NY is an excellent example of that, much larger than it's CN counterparts.  Comparing the 3254 to the 2317 is like comparing apples to oranges.  Two different railroads, two different designs, 7 years apart.  Its like comparing your 95 Subaru 2 door to your 88 Ford wagon, its two compltely different designs.  If you talk to some of the old CP engineers, as I once had the pleasure to, they would tell you that the 5300's (freight engines) were every bit as RELIABLE as the 2300's (passenger engines).  You can't draw conclusions on one breed of locomotives vs another just because of what you see at steamtown, its too small of a case study.
 
Perhaps "efficient vs not efficient" isn't the right analogy, but the fact remains that freight locomotives were every bit as RELIABLE as passenger locomotives.  The concept that a freight locomotive wasn't expected to perform as well on the road as a passenger engine just doesnt hold water.  Like I said, with the possibilities of service disruptions (can't have a psgr train struck behine a broken down freight train now can we) and delayed goods to customers, the freight engines had to be every bit as reliable.
 
They had to be.
 
The Red Baron


Logged
NKP759fan
Moderator
Historian
View Profile  

Posts: 1712
Re: Engine Discussion: CN 3254
 
« Reply #97 on: Sep 7th, 2005, 7:30am »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

Your making a comparison of CP freight engines and passenger, were comparing a CN freight engine. Well I know that the S-1's weren't very efficient but were a well designed machine, although the tender is way to small. Although freight was a railroads main income, the locomotives pulling the freight were not always up to the task of pulling the freight. I'm just saying that the 3254 is not a very efficient locomotives but it gets the job done. A fantastic example of efficient frieght engine would have to be the RDG T-1. With that Wooten firebox, the most efficient firebox in the steam era and still is , it can really produce power.  As I stated before like a bzillion times, freight engines were reliable but not very efficient.

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 #98 on: Sep 7th, 2005, 1:20pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

759 Fan, I was just trying to correct this "not meant to be reliable" thing that you've put out there on several occasions, for example on June 11th you said...
 
"It always seems that the 54's bearing is always overheating or something. The 3254 was never meant to be a reliable engine, just meant to go freight from one short point to another".    
 
I wanted to correct that, because it just isn't a true statement.  The 3254 was built to be reliable, and it certainly was on the CN, the Gettysburg and at Steamtown until this bearing issue that came up last year.  Even before the 2317's wheels were condemned for road work, the 3254 logged much more time on the main that the 2317, since the beginning of NPS excursions in 1989, proving it just as reliable than the 2317.
 
Furthermore, I don't know why I can't let this go, but I'd really like to make this point.  Freight locomotives in most cases were just as efficient as passenger engines.  The 3254 may or may not be a good example to use as a representative example of all freight locomotives.  Take a look at some notable classes of freight engines.  The NKP S Class was so efficient that the Nickel Plate turned away diesel power for freight in the 1950's.  The Reading T-1's were another good example, not to mention the A class on the N&W.  I can go on and on, the PRR's 2-8-2's that were basically a freight version of the K4, the lackawanna's 4-8-2's are another good local example of a very reliable and efficient machine, the list goes on and on and on.  Just pointing out that freight engines, by and large were very efficient machines.
 
The major difference in freight vs. passenger is tractive effort vs. maximum speed, not efficient vs. not efficient.  Railroads were very mindful of fuel savings and manpower investment and the goal was to get the most out of every dollar, freight or passenger.
 
 
As a sidebar.  Years ago, before your time at Steamtown 759 Fan, Steamtown would run 2317 in the morning and 3254 in the afternoon when they ran two trips to Moscow from the old entrance center on Washington avenue.  It was a good test of "efficiency" because the 2317 and 3254 could pull the exact same train over the exact same route and use nearly identical amounts of coal and water.  The 3254 does have a woefully small tender, but that has nothing to do with the efficiency or performance or the locomotive itself.
 
The Red Baron


Logged
3254Fan
Historian
View Profile  

Posts: 377
Re: Engine Discussion: CN 3254
 
« Reply #99 on: Sep 7th, 2005, 3:13pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

I didn't want to get involved here, but figured I'd throw a few things in. Neither of you are really right or wrong. In the longrun, 759fan was right that passenger engines were generally more reliable engines than freight engines. But Red Baron is also right by saying that 2317 and 3254 are two enigines of different wheel arrangements, built by different builders and in different years, and neither is truly more reliable than the other. It's just like automobiles. Two cars of the same make and model don't always run the same or are the same in regards to reliability. Two S-1-b's say 3253 and 3254 also may not have run the same. It all depends who put them together, who repaired them, which one was taken care of better and so on. No two locomotives are alike and no two are really more reliable than the other. Things happen over time, just like the 3254's wheel problems. It doesn't mean its less reliable than 2317.

« Last Edit: Sep 7th, 2005, 3:15pm by 3254Fan » Logged

Moderates: East Broad Top
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  ReplyReply     EMail TopicEMail Topic   PrintPrint

« Previous topic | Next topic »