|
Home
CNR Stats |
Analysis Of Locomotives Owned & Operated By Canadian National Railways Notes
Road Cond Brick Auto. Number Class R/D T.E. Age 11/47 Sprhtr F.W.H E.S.I Arch B.D. Stoker Booster Notes ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== ======= ====== 6167 U-2-e Atl. 67,100 7 P(Rep) Yes Yes Nil Yes Nil Mech. YesRoad Number Several abbreviated road names appear throughout this report. They are as follows:
The analysis breaks the railway down into the following regions and districts:
Tractive Effort is the amount of force exerted between a locomotive's driving wheel and the surface of the rail. The tractive effort for steam locomotives is determined through the following equation:
Variables "D" and "S" are diameter of the cylinder and length of the piston stroke respectively, in inches, while "P" is the boiler pressure in P.S.I. and "W" is the diameter of the driving wheels in inches. For a locomotive such as CNR 6167, the formula works out to:
As well, a number of engines were equipped with booster engines, in which case the analysis will list the tractive effort with the booster engine engaged which would add an extra 10,000 lbs. of Tractive Effort to the the figure. Lastly, when diesels started to appear, CN applied the haulage rating concept to its diesel fleet. Diesels can be rated in two ways, Starting Tractive Effort and Continuous Tractive Effort. Intially CN choose to use the Starting Tractive Effort as its haulage rating for diesels. The copy of this record that I secured from the National Archives did list the Tractive Effort for Diesels. What really shocked me when reading the document, was the fact that an ALCo S2 is listed as developing 60,000 lbs. of Tractive Effort (60%) which is more then my Northern! After a little sleuthing, I realized what was going on, and after checking an edition of the CNR Diesel Unit Data book, I learned that the Continuous Tractive Effort rating on an S2 was only 34,000 lbs (34%). CN eventually realized that Contiunous Tractive effort was a more useful figure and began using that figure. Early diesels did in fact have the Starting Tractive Effort (expressed as a haulage rating) listed on the side of the cab, for exaple 60% for an NW2, but this was later revised. Given how convoluted the issue was, I choose not to list the Tractive Efforts for Diesels in this report. After studying photographs in my collection it seems that by 1949 CN decided to rate Diesels by their Continuous Tractive Effort. However in the 50's CN adopted a new classification scheme for its Diesels that displayed horsepower, and judging by photos, I suspect this new scheme was introduced in 1954 when CN revamped its image and adopted the Maple Leaf Monogram. Condition at December 31, 1947 The CNR reported on the condition of its locomotives using the following terms:
GoodThe condition of a steam locomotive was based on several factors, chiefly, the number of miles since the locomotive's last No. 5 or heavier classified repairs, and the condition of the tires of which were the main basis for Good and Moderate. Poor however, could be reported in three ways which were: Mileage basis and tires (Mil); Under and awaiting No. 5 or heavier repairs (Rep) and; Outlawed in the next three months if an extension on the locomotive's tube time is not going to be applied for (O.L.). The definitions of Mileage for Good, Moderate and Poor are as follows:
Type Of Engine Good Moderate Poor ============== ============== ============== ============== Hudson Up To 75,000 75,001 To 96,000 Over 96,000 Mountain Up To 60,000 60,001 To 85,000 Over 85,000 Northern Up To 55,000 55,001 To 80,000 Over 80,000 Pacific Up To 60,000 60,001 To 80,000 Over 80,000 Mikado Up To 40,000 40,001 To 60,000 Over 60,000 Consolidation Up To 35/40,000 35/40,001 To 50/60,000 Over 50/60,000 Ten-Wheeler Up To 40,000 40,001 To 60,000 Over 60,000 Santa Fe Up To 35,000 35,001 To 50,000 Over 50,000 Texas Up To 35,000 35,001 To 50,000 Over 50,000 Mogul Up To 35,000 35,001 To 50,000 Over 50,000 Switcher Up To 35,000 35,001 To 50,000 Over 50,000 Suburban Up To 35,000 35,001 To 50,000 Over 50,000 The condition of the tires took into account the height of the flange, the thickness of the tire (measured when the tire was last turned) and the depth of the groove in the tire. This column indicates whether or not a given locomotive was equipped with a Superheater with either a "Yes" or a "Nil". This column indicates whether or not a given locomotive had a Feed Water Heater applied with either a 'Yes' or a 'Nil'. The CNR used a variety of Elesco equipment, such as the "W-6-½" and "CF-1" reciprocating pumps, as well as the "DL" centrifugal pump, in addition to the various sizes of Elesco Heaters. The CNR also employed Worthington and Coffin Feed Water Heater equipment. This column states whether or not a given locomotive is equipped with an Exhaust Steam Injector with either a "Yes" or a 'Nil". This column states whether or not a given locomotive was equipped with a Brick Arch in the firebox, with either a "Yes" or "Nil". This column states whether a given locomotive was equipped with Continuous Blow Down, Signal Foam Meter (Electromatic Blow-Down), or neither with a "Cont.", "Elec." or "Nil". This column states whether a given locomotive was equipped with a mechanical stoker, or was hand fired with either a "Mech." or "Hand". The CNR used a variety of stokers from the Standard Stoker Co., such as the HT (as on CNR 6167), BK, or Duplex mechanical stokers. This column states whether or not a given locomotive was equipped with a booster engine with either a "Yes" or "Nil". When I first became aware of this document in 2002, it was in the possession of the "National Archives of Canada", however, by the time I got around to getting a copy of it in 2006, they had changed their name to "Library and Archives Canada". This document can be found in "Rg 30, Vol.2252" along with a whole pile of railway related records. Their website can be found here. Where possible, I have tried to verify the information in this report against other records in my collection, and most of it is reliable. Several insignificant incidents of things such as tractive effort, age, and class were misreported here and there, but have been corrected. Three contradictions of note have been discovered within the report though. The original summary page reported that 102 and 56 Consolidations were equipped with Feed Water Heaters and Exhaust Steam Injectors respectively, while 101 and 57 respectively were accounted for. As well, the summary also states that 22 Santa Fes were equipped with boosters, while only 20 were found. These, incidents (especially the the last one) could be but simple typo's, but are difficult (especially in the case of the first two) to corroborate or disprove.
|
