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:
- 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)
- 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,
- 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.
- Return to c1925 - c1947 working condition. This option is discarded as being next-to-impossible. I agree.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
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.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment