What's Possible?

Restoration Work On CN #40 - A Conundrum!
(Conundrum - a question having only a conjectural answer; an intricate and difficult problem.)

We have been asked to come up with our vision of what CN #40 might look like on a cosmetic restoration.  We are, however, handicapped as we do not know the condition that each element of the locomotive is in.

For example, suggestions have been made on how to "restore" the cab as the top sills of side cab windows were originally curved whereas they are currently straight.  However, an examination of the cab indicates that the top sills are covered by two pieces of sheet metal that are screwed into the cab wall.  Photos in the Bailey & Glithero report indicate that this may have been done during its tenure with the Chaudiere Valley Railway. A cursory examination of the cab indicates that it is a complex amalgam of wood, steel rods, window sashes and other elements.  What would be involved in "restoring" the top sills to their "original" condition. 

Comments have been made that the wooden pilot is not "typical" in that most pilots were made of tubular steel and that the pilot should be replaced.  However, close examination of photos of the pilots of 4-4-0 locomotives, including Grand Trunk, indicate no rivets on early pilots.  There are also stories of locomotives hitting animals with the pilot being shattered into a thousand splinters.  Perhaps the pilot is "typical" and should stay where it is?  (A subsequent review of the appendices attached to the McGee report indicates the pilot was definitely made of wood.)

Major parts of the valve gear are missing.  Some parts have been found with the possibility of installing them on the locomotive.  However, if the locomotive is moved, how will this impact the valve gear in the steam chest?  Are these parts free-moving or are they all seized up?

There are other items that require examination before decisions can be made on how the restoration should proceed.

Preliminary Work Needs To Be Carried Out
This does not mean, however, that studies should be done before ANY work is undertaken on CN #40.

• We have started with needle-gunning and wire-wheeling the firebox and boiler.  There is other rust-removal work that needs to be done.
• The paint on the cab has peeled.  As a minimum, the paint should be stripped, a job that should be relatively easy, and new paint applied. 
• The condition of the valve gear in the steam chests needs to be examined to determine if the gear is free-running or seized.
• There is residue in the bottom of the smokebox.  The nature of this material needs to be determined and steps taken to remove it.
• The boiler tubes are plugged with soot and grime.  These need to be cleaned.
• The smokestack has not been examined to determine whether it can be readily modified or even if the original smokestack rests inside.  The smokestack should be examined.
• There are a large number of loose parts throughout the buildings.  These need to be gathered, catalogued, their condition determined, and new parts fabricated if deemed necessary.
• ...... and a whole lot more preparatory work done.

What should CN #40 Look Like In Its Restored State??
I have no idea as to what CN #40 should look like in its restored state.  After looking at what was done to CP #374, I'm leaning towards restoring CN #40 back to its Museum Train days as being the most feasible.  And if I were to go further, I'd be taking a close look at the likes of similar locomotives like CPR 4-4-0 #71.

 However, there are a number of items that have to be considered before arriving at a definite answer.

We don't know what the condition of the various elements are like.  For example, do we need to replace the cab?  If yes, how difficult would it be to replace the cab?  Do we have the expertise, time, and money to replace the cab.  Is the current cab, in fact, not an "original"?

We don't know what a "typical" Grand Trunk locomotive might have looked like during the period that CN #40 was in operation.  Doing some of the preliminary work and analysis listed above would help us to decide what we would like to have done.  For the moment, we have more than enough work to keep us busy working on CN #40 for quite a number of weeks.

Bob Moore. 

Conservation Considerations

Bailey & Glithero - Suggested Restoration Options
We have been asked to come up with our vision of what CN #40 should look like if it was to be restored.  Seven scenarios are presented in the Bailey & Glithero report:

1. Continuation of its present form for static display.  This involves cleanup and repainting of the locomotive and the addition of missing components (eg ash pan damper arms, eccentrics, missing valve gear, etc)
2. Return to its 1950 restored condition - This is a continuation of the above option with the removal of the knuckle coupler to be replaced by link-and-pin, 
3. Return to its c1925 - c1947 form for static display.  This option involves major modifications to the locomotive with the removal of the existing wooden pilot to be replaced possibly by a switcher pilot, reducing the height of the smokestack, substituting a proper period knuckle coupler, etc.  I don't recommend this option for reasons stated below. 
4. Return to c1925 - c1947 working condition.  This option is discarded as being next-to-impossible.  I agree.  
5. Return to its 1903 - c1925 form for static display - This involves modifications to the cab, substituting a proper period Westinghouse air brake pump, major modifications to the tender.  I don't recommend this option for reasons stated below.  
6. Return to its 1890 - 1903 form for static display - Bailey & Glithero consider this option to be a continuation of the previous option.  This involves further major modifications to the locomotive.  They indicate that this would present the locomotive as being representative of a "true" (my word) Grand Trunk locomotive.  They don't, however, define what such a locomotive might look like.  We discuss this in further detail below.  
7. Return to its 1872 - 1890 form for static display.   Bailey & Glithero are of the opinion that this was apparently in the mind of CN in its 1950/51 modifications to the locomotive in preparation for its role in CN's Museum train.  They are of the opinion that, if this option were to be considered, efforts would be better directed towards building a complete replica locomotive.  This opinion is presented without any form of evidence as to why it would not be possible to do so.  

Restoration Limitations
Whenever undertaking any type of work, the major consideration has to be whether the persons undertaking the work have the capabilities, the time, the talent, and the money to do so.  This is also true for restoration work.  Some of the options presented above are well beyond the capabilities of even the most talented museum restoration staff.

Options 3, 4, 5 and 6 require major modifications to the locomotive.  For example, the current wooden pilot would be removed and replaced with a new pilot fabricated from tube steel.  Aside from trying to answer the question "What type of steel pilot - vertical, horizontal, or switcher?", no study has been done to determine the type of work that would need to be done to implement these options.  A cursory examination of the cab walls indicates that it is a complex amalgam of wood, steel rods, sheet metal covering up unknown features, to say nothing of the way that it is fastened to the steel floor.  Bailey & Glithero have offered up options, however, we do not have the benefits of detailed analyses to determine how feasible these options might be.

Option 5 requires major modifications to the tender.  This involves fabricating, shaping, and riveting large sheets of steel, to say nothing of the work required to "peel back" the existing steelwork, the cost of materials, and the time required to make these modifications.  In my opinion, this option is well beyond the capabilities of even the most talented museum restoration staff, to say nothing of the time and cost that would be required to carry out this modification.  

For this reason, I consider Option 3, 4, 5, and 6 as NOT being feasible.

However, before considering Options 1, 2, and 7, we are missing major components to arrive at an informed decison.  We have no indication as to the scope and type of work that needs to be done.  We have no idea as to what CN #40 might have looked like during these time periods.  Before arriving at a decision on how we want to "restore" CN #40, we need to make further examinations of both the locomotive and what other Grand Trunk and 4-4-0 locomotives might have looked like. 

"Models" For CN #40?
In conducting my analysis of the situation, I examined photographs of 166 4-4-0 steam locomotives covering the period from 1861 to the end of steam.  This included photos of CN #40 in its Museum Train regalia.

 In reviewing these photos, it became clear to me of the vision that CN had for the restoration of CN #40.  The most famous 4-4-0 at the time of restoration was Canadian Pacific's "Countess of Dufferin" on display outside their train station in Winnipeg.  The prominent features of this locomotive are its wooden pilot and balloon smokestack.  Except for the presence of a 3rd dome, and the location of the bell and steam dome, the two locomotives are very similar. 

Another model for CN #40 at that time was CPR 4-4-0 #374.  Built by Canadian Pacific in 1886, this locomotive brought the first transcontinental train into Vancouver on 23 May 1887.  It was finally retired in 1945 and put on display in Kitsilano Park in Vancouver.   

The locomotive was restored in time for Vancouver's Expo 86 and is currently on permanent display in the Engine #374 Pavilion at Davie & Pacific Blvd.   

CPR #374 represents the possibilities of what a locomotive restoration project might look like.  Further information on CPR #374 can be found at the end of this link. 

There are major similarities between CN #40 and CPR #374.

What Does A "Typical" Grand Trunk Locomotive Look Like?
No locomotive ever stayed the same from the time it emerged from the builders until the time it was scrapped.  Clegg & Corley demonstrate this very clearly on Page 30 of their seminal book "Canadian National Steam Power.  A photograph of Grand Trunk 4-6-2 #1510 (later CN #5294) is shown at Belleville, Ont soon after construction in 1918.  Below this photo is another one of CN #5294 taken many years later.  A feedwater heater has been added, the pilots have changed, the piping around the water pump is entirely different, in addition to other modifications.

Bailey & Clithero's report indicates that even CN #40 underwent major changes throughout its operating life to say nothing about those changes that are not indicated in their report.  In our previous post, we included photos of "typical" Grand Trunk locomotives.  Here are a few more.

A "typical" Grand Trunk locomotive could look like many of the above and other 4-4-0 locomotives.  For CN #40, it's not a matter of "What would you like it to be?".  Rather, it's what is it possible to do. 

Features & History of CNR 4-4-0 #40

A bit of history of Canadian National's 4-4-0 #40.

Grand Trunk Locomotive Order With Portland Locomotive Works
CN #40 was part of an order of 20 locomotives placed with Portland Locomotive Works of Portland, Maine by the Grand Trunk Railway (GTR) and delivered between November of 1872 and July of 1873.  The locomotive was delivered as #362 in a numbered range of #360 - 379 with builder's #233 in a numbered range of #231 to #253. 

While builder's #246 - #248 were assigned by Portland to non-GTR locomotives, #249 and #250 were assigned to GTR #325 and #326 - two 4-4-0 locomotives with 60" drivers and 16"x 24" cylinders - which were delivered in May of 1873. 

The main features of these locomotives were their 66" drivers and 16"x 24" cylinders.  A scan of GTR locomotives built before, concurrent and after this time period indicate that these features appear to be standard with driving wheels being 60" or 66" in diameter and cylinders being 16"x 24" or 16"x 26".

GTR locomotives went through renumberings in 1898 and 1904.  In the 1898 renumbering, GTR #362 received GTR #40.  The only locomotives in the original order that survived into the 1904 renumbering were #364 (#170), #366 (#168) and #376 (#171).  All others had been scrapped or sold.  (Andrew Merrilees Collection, Library & Archives Canada, MG31 Series A10, Volume 19, Handwritten Notes "GTR Locomotives", Pages 43 & 44)

While there are no photos of #362 during this time period, a photo of #271, built in 1874, might give us an idea of what our locomotive looked like at that time. (The date of the photograph is unknown.) 

The main features of #271 are its 16"x 26" cylinders and the 60" driving wheels.  The locomotive is equipped with a wood-burning smokestack as evidenced by the logs protruding from the tender.

Another photograph from the Maine Memory Network shows a Grand Trunk 4-4-0 photographed circa 1875.  There appears to be a load of coal in the tender

Except for the smokestacks, the placement of the steam and sand domes, and the curved side-cab windows, the locomotives are cosmetically very similar in many respects to #362 (#40) in its current form. 

Sale to Breakey Lumber/ Chaudiere Valley Railway
In 1903, #362 (#40) was sold to Breakey Lumber of Chaudiere Mills (formerly Breakeyville) in Quebec's Beauce Region, about 90 km southwest of Quebec City.

In 1846, Hans Denaston Breakey, an Irish immigrant, established the first of several saw mills in partnership with his brother-in-law, Charles King.  In the spring of 1847 they initiated yearly timber drives on the Chaudière between the southern Beauce and Chaudière Mills which would continue uninterrupted until 1947. At the height of the timber drives during the 20th century the firm would employ up to 2,000 men each spring.

With the retirement of his father, John Breakey assumed control of the business in 1870.  Initially, oxen and horses hauled the timber from Breakey’s mill to New Liverpool (Saint-Romuald) on the St Lawrence River, where his firm had docking facilities. There it was loaded on schooners for shipment to Quebec City and then overseas. In 1883 Breakey built a six-mile stretch of railway from his mill to Chaudière-Bassin, close to New Liverpool. In 1898 he and other members of his family incorporated the Chaudière Valley Railway Company. The proposed line was to run along the Chaudière from Scott-Jonction (Scott) to Chaudière-Bassin so as to incorporate the section already in operation and then to continue past Lévis to a terminus at deep water.  This part was never built.

By 1895 Breakey employed 600 men and 300 horses in the lumber camps during the winter; 200 men and 20 horses worked at the mill and elsewhere during the summer. The mill processed 33,000,000 board feet of lumber per year into beams, planks, laths, railway ties, and telephone and telegraph poles. About ten years later an historian of the lumber industry, James Elliott Defebaugh, described Breakey’s mill as “one of the largest if not the largest spruce deal mill in the province of Quebec.” 

With the death of John Breakey in 1911, the family began production of pulpwood and in 1922 they completely abandoned the manufacture of sawn lumber.  In 1947 they added a groundwood mill to their facilities. (Dictionary of Canadian Biography Online - John Breakey)

It was usually the case that industrial operations such as Breakey Lumber would purchase used locomotives from the railways or from the scrap dealers for their railway operations.  Very rarely were locomotives purchased new from the builders.  Such was the case with Breakey Lumber when they purchased GTR #362 (#40) in 1903.  At that time, GTR #362 (#40) had been in service for 31 years.  Aside from minor maintenance, these industrial locomotives very rarely had major overhauls, except for those that would keep the locomotive operating.  Bailey & Glithero indicate that its truck and tender wheels were replaced in 1925, along with its tender tank and a Westinghouse air brake pump.

Other than "quick changes" such as wheel sets, break rigging, and other easy change-outs, it is unlikely that #362 (#40) would have received major overhauls as there was usually an inexpensive supply of used locomotives from the railways or the scrap dealers.

Acquisition by Canadian National Railways
Canadian National Railways acquired the Chaudiere Valley Railway in 1947.  This included GTR #362 (#40).  Bailey & Glithero show the locomotive at CN's Charney yard (south shore of the St Lawrence River opposite Quebec City) in 1949.  The locomotive has a "switcher" pilot that allows brakemen to stand on the footboard and a "balloon-type" smokestack.  With the advent of Canadian National's Museum Train in 1950, the smokestack was raised and the switcher pilot replaced with a wooden pilot similar to those shown in the photos above.  In 1951 a "knuckle" coupler was added so that the locomotive could be transported around the country as part of CN's Museum Train.  In 1966, the locomotive was donated to the Canada Science & Technology Museum.