Steam & Excursion > CNJ 592 (camelback)

My son and I paid a visit to the B&O Museum for the first time in over ten years. One of the engines I was really looking forward to seeing was CNJ 592, a 4-4-2 camelback engine. It's only one of two surviving CNJ steam engines and as the CNJ is my favorite railroad, this was highly anticipated in seeing again.

My son asked about whether a camelback type engine could be restored (monetary issues aside). I know the The Interstate Commerce Commission banned construction of new engines of this type in the (mid?) 1920s and that legal and safety issues would prevent the restoration of a camelback type engine.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/22/18 15:18 by OCtrainguy.

---

---

---

How many Atlantic types exist in the US in any configuration? In addition to this one, I can think of SP 3025 in L.A. and PRR 7002 in PA. Others?

Im quite sure the READING had several.

Jim
Hatboro, PA

“and that legal and safety issues
> would prevent the restoration of a camelback type
> engine....”

I like you son’s approach... Essentiality, it COULD be done..

So, specifically, which ‘legal’ issues are barriers?
And what safety concerns are are you referring to?

I am aware of the fears you seem to be pointing to.
I suspect that fears are what’s at work...

We have the capacity to measure and design and craft work-arounds and improvements.

Restoration is always possible,; but, first slaying the ‘fear dragon’ has to be resolved.

But, there are no factual reasons why the loco could not be physically restored to operation.
There are many modern improvements that I would use to ensure greater safety, & I don’t see 90-mph as a realistic possibility...
But she regularly used to do that...
It’s a light duty machine from are era of wooden coaches, etc.. so, it would be more of a curiosity, than effective excursion loco.

Another subject: Don’t forget famous Atlantic is the PRR 4-4-2 , #460, also at Strasburg.

Wes

utwazoo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> How many Atlantic types exist in the US in any
> configuration? In addition to this one, I can
> think of SP 3025 in L.A. and PRR 7002 in PA.
> Others?

Also DT&I 45 / Michigan Central 8085 at Greenfield Village.

Tom Coughlin
Stow, MA

wcamp1472 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> “and that legal and safety issues
> > would prevent the restoration of a camelback
> type
> > engine....”
>
> I like you son’s approach... Essentiality, it
> COULD be done..
>
> So, specifically, which ‘legal’ issues are
> barriers?
> And what safety concerns are are you referring
> to?
>
> I am aware of the fears you seem to be pointing
> to.
> I suspect that fears are what’s at work...
>
> We have the capacity to measure and design and
> craft work-arounds and improvements.
>
> Restoration is always possible,; but, first
> slaying the ‘fear dragon’ has to be resolved.
>
> But, there are no factual reasons why the loco
> could not be physically restored to operation.
> There are many modern improvements that I would
> use to ensure greater safety, & I don’t see
> 90-mph as a realistic possibility...
> But she regularly used to do that...
> It’s a light duty machine from are era of wooden
> coaches, etc.. so, it would be more of a
> curiosity, than effective excursion loco.
>
> Another subject: Don’t forget famous Atlantic
> is the PRR 4-4-2 , #460, also at Strasburg.
>
> Wes

Personally, I would love to see an engine like this restored. The thought would be whether a camelback, with the cab over the boiler, would be allowed to operate in this day and age, considering the cab position. A second thought would be that the first concern would be on crew safety. Insurance issues maybe? But, I am very far from an expert on the subject. The information you provided is great.

And yes, I saw PRR #460 in Strasburg last year and it looks great!

Wasn't the little ex-Reading 0-4-0 Camelback at Strasburg a candidate for restoration a few years ago, or was that just cosmetic?

utwazoo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> How many Atlantic types exist in the US in any
> configuration? In addition to this one, I can
> think of SP 3025 in L.A. and PRR 7002 in PA.
> Others?

There is the Chicago & Northwestern 1025 at the Museum of Transportation outside of St. Louis. Based on the photos I've seen, it's in very rough condition.

CPR_4000 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wasn't the little ex-Reading 0-4-0 Camelback at
> Strasburg a candidate for restoration a few years
> ago, or was that just cosmetic?
Someone in the know said that because of regulations they will only restore it cosmetically.
John in White Marsh, Maryland

Lets nip this outlawed fallacy in the bud...

There's nothing on the books that would prevent a restoration of a camelback to service.  New camelback construction was banned by the ICC in the 20's, but remember, the CNJ ran theirs on high speed trains into the 50's.  The steel mill at Bridsboro ran what we now know as Strasburg's 4/1187. 

Strasburg's restoration of the 1187 did not happen because of a cost/benifit analysis, NOT because its operation would be forbidden.  The 4-4-0 in St Louis and 4-4-2 in Baltimore are owned by museums that don't have excursion lines and typically don't restore steam power to operation (save for a few small engines at the B&O).  Their ownership (and possibly their physical condition) is what pervents their operation.

If someone wanted to build a new camelback ala the T-1 or Tornado project, there would be nothing on the books to prevent its operation.  Period.

Dave

 

As long as we’re soeculating...
I’d love to see a pair restored....
Re-do the PRR 460 AND the CNJ  582... run as double-headers ...

thatd be neat..

w.

Bridge60 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lets nip this outlawed fallacy in the bud...
>
> There's nothing on the books that would prevent a
> restoration of a camelback to service.  New
> camelback construction was banned by the ICC in
> the 20's, but remember, the CNJ ran theirs on high
> speed trains into the 50's.  The steel mill at
> Bridsboro ran what we now know as Strasburg's
> 4/1187. 
>
> Strasburg's restoration of the 1187 did not happen
> because of a cost/benifit analysis, NOT because
> its operation would be forbidden.  The 4-4-0 in
> St Louis and 4-4-2 in Baltimore are owned by
> museums that don't have excursion lines and
> typically don't restore steam power to operation
> (save for a few small engines at the B&O).  Their
> ownership (and possibly their physical condition)
> is what pervents their operation.
>
> If someone wanted to build a new camelback ala the
> T-1 or Tornado project, there would be nothing on
> the books to prevent its operation.  Period.
>
> Dave
>
>  

Sure there would, the ban from the 20's you mention in the first paragraph.

Posted from Android

Doug Wetherhold
Macungie, PA

Ban...

i agree. 
The new-construction camelback Ban would still be in effect.

W.


 

A ban from the ICC, which no longer exists.

Posted from Android



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/24/18 06:01 by Bridge60.

Bridge60 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A ban from the ICC, which no longer exists.

OK, so now it is called "The Federal Railroad Administration", but all the previous rules & regulations would still be in effect. When the name changed from the "ICC" to the "FRA", they didn't just throw everything from the "ICC" into the trash can.

I respectfully disagree with the notion that there is any valid, current regulation that would preclude building a camelback if someone wanted to.

That being said, if someone finds it in writing I'll be happy to eat crow.

Posted from Android