There has been a lot of press about this, so maybe most of you are familiar with it. In 1956, the AT&SF donated steam locomotive #3463 to the city of Topeka, KS. The locomotive was placed on display on property in Topeka owned by Shawnee County, and it has been sitting there ever since. This is a relatively modern 4-6-4 weighing 206 tons.
The following information is according to my understanding from talking to some people in Topeka who are familiar with the story of this locomotive. I do not guarantee the accuracy of the following information, but believe it to be correct to the best of my knowledge.
By the early 1990s, the locomotive had become weathered and needed cosmetic maintenance, which was undertaken at that time by a group of volunteers. Sometime before or during this work, that work group or a part of it claims to have acquired ownership of the locomotive. Subsequently, that group acquired the depot from Union Pacific and changed their name to the Great Overland Station. Then the GOS stopped their members and other volunteers from continuing the restoration work, citing a fear of liability.
A couple months ago, it was reported that a Minneapolis group called; the Coalition For Sustainable Rail has acquired the AT&SF locomotive as a gift from the Great Overland Station. The intent of CSR is to bring the locomotive to Minneapolis, redesign it with many modern upgrades, and to rebuild the locomotive with those modern features. Some people oppose this because the original historic locomotive will be destroyed in this upgrade. Other people support it because they see the upgrade as restoring a locomotive said to have been rusting away in Topeka. The CSR group says the original locomotive will not be destroyed because their modernization work will be reversible.
From what I understand, the “rusting away” charge is highly exaggerated, apparently to justify giving the locomotive to CSR. The engine is somewhat disassembled and was in the process of repainting when work was suspended several years ago, so it does appear disheveled. But the basic machine is actually in relatively good condition for a park display locomotive. So it really was not necessary to get rid of the locomotive in order to prevent it from rusting away.
And regarding the belief that CRS will rescue the locomotive by “restoring” it, one only has to read their entire plan to realize that the so-called restored #3463 will be an entirely new and different locomotive. Even CRS says that the modernized locomotive will bear only the most fundamental resemblance to the present #3463. They refer to the existing locomotive as a “test bed” for the new, experimental locomotive. Their main objective is to create a carbon neutral locomotive that can be used as a prototype for a whole new generation of steam locomotives to replace diesels in modern railroad applications. This new genre of locomotive will burn torrefied biomass fuel.
The CRS group also intends to set a 130 mph speed record with the modernized locomotive.
I have spoken to someone in Topeka who was involved with the original donation from the AT&SF. He says there are several people in town who were involved with the AT&SF at that time, and most of them are not even aware of the fact that the locomotive has been given away. Many of the citizens of Topeka are not aware of the giveaway either. There was no popular outcry demanding to get rid of the locomotive because of it being an eyesore, as some have suggested. This giveaway was done very quietly with little, if any, advance notification.
It seems clear that the railroad donated the locomotive to the city, even if no record exists today. But what is not evident at all is how GOS assumed the right to give the locomotive to someone else who will take it away from its public display and use it to build something else.
My inquiry has shown that GOS is unable provide documentation that they had the right to give the locomotive away. Certainly the AT&SF did not donate the locomotive to GOS, because GOS did not exist at the time of the 1956 donation from the AT&SF.
So, this presents an interesting conundrum shaping up for a possible tug of war over a locomotive whose ownership cannot be formally verified.
http://www.kansasmemory.org/item/212309/page/1
http://www.kansasmemory.org/item/212315/page/1
Interesting - I had read about the idea of taking the engine and souping it up for high speed. I guess I just assumed all the ownership issues were totally clear.
Having lived through the much publicized ACE experiment, which as I recall got as far as frame and drive wheels, the various Dick Jensen fiascos, not to mention the OT but much publicized Marlboro cigarette train, I reserve judgment on the overall idea and whether we will ever see wheels turn. Of course it would be a pity if an historic engine was totally changed, or even had to be scrapped, due to the failure of the overall plan.
Not entirely OT -- a lot of towns got donated steam locomotives back in the 1950s. The ATSF was more generous than most. The Soo Line also donated steamers to many communities.
For the most part those engines were parked in full running order, just as they came. And that means that eventually the towns caught on to the fact that they were the proud owners of a genuine asbestos problem and that it could cost a fortune to clean up after a "free" locomotive. In Galesburg for example the beautiful CB&Q Hudson at the their downtown depot, now also the site of a railroad museum and some other rolling stock, they removed the outer jacket, took off the asbestos, but never replaced the jacket. The smooth lines of the original are hard to detect for all the rivets that can now be seen. But at least the engine was saved.
Dave Nelson
http://cjo-cdn.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/superphoto/11195587.jpg
http://cjo-cdn.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/superphoto/11195588.jpg
http://cjo-cdn.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/superphoto/11195600.jpg
http://cjo-cdn.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/superphoto/11195592.jpg
http://cjonline.com/node/122321/photos
http://cjonline.com/news/2012-05-26/full-speed-ahead-locomotive-overall-chugs-along#1
Why bother with a steam locomotive for test bed purposes? I thought one of the many reasons that diesel replaced steam (besides maintaince considerations - Wash & Brush Up and MU capability) was the constant pounding of the reciprocal motion (which to many defines a steam locomotive) was much harsher on the rails than the smooth rotational motion of the average diesel, particular for any road locomotive at any decent rate of speed - are they planning to remove the driving rods and pistonsand replace them with steam turbine drives?
What is rather ironic is that the Great Overland Station is founded on the mission of preserving and displaying railroad history. So why would they simply dispose of the most important piece in their own town? Preserving locomotive #3463 is exactly what the AT&SF and city representatives intended in 1956. There was a great deal of communication and decision making to get just the right locomotive for the Topeka display.
Here is a link showing some of the display construction for Great Overland Station. They have several pieces of rolling stock:
http://www.greatoverlandstation.com/railroad_park_106.html
On the one hand, keeping a Santa Fe engine seems important for a museum in Topeka, but on the other, the 4-6-4 may be too complicated.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
I know one of the principals, but I'm taking a stand one way or the other.
IIRC, one significant part of the plan was the use of solid biofuels.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
Could you explain that ? It makes no sense to me. "I know one of the principals, but I'm taking a stand one way or the other." That's nonsense if ever there was such.
Re: solid fuels, how many facilities do you know of that are set up to handle it? Won't it be a net loser, like ethanol, when you factor in harvesting, transporting, "torrifying"( formerly known as pyrolizing, but I guess that doesn't sound "green" somehow), transporting again, etc, etc? If burning solid fuels to operate reciprocating steam engines was viable, we would still be doing it. After all we still had all the infrastructure to fuel and service these machines then. Now we have none of that and we know that external combustion solid fuel engines are not viable.
Do you figure in the planting and the harvesting with the price of the ethanol? We have an ethanol plant here in town. Trains and long rows of trucks bring corn into the plant. And the farmer gets a good price for his corn, so what does he care who does what with it. Because of the ethanol plant more farmers are growing that kind of corn instead of other crops. All crop prices go up, and this is good for the economy and for all of the farm community. Guess what? We have enough land to feed the world AND run the cars IF AND ONLY IF someone is willing to PAY for the crops. Crop inputs are expensive, and the farmer will not grow crops that he cannot sell at a profit. But the ethanol plant pays him good money and so he will grow the kinds of corn that they want to buy.
How is this bad, that farmers should be able to make a profit?
ROAR
The Route of the Broadway Lion The Largest Subway Layout in North Dakota.
Here there be cats. LIONS with CAMERAS
tdmidget Could you explain that ? It makes no sense to me. tree68I know one of the principals, but I'm taking a stand one way or the other." That's nonsense if ever there was such.
Could you explain that ? It makes no sense to me.
tree68I know one of the principals, but I'm taking a stand one way or the other."
That's nonsense if ever there was such.
Simply pointing out that I'm acquainted with one of the folks involved. That won't color any comments I make on the topic.
tdmidgetRe: solid fuels, how many facilities do you know of that are set up to handle it? Won't it be a net loser, like ethanol, when you factor in harvesting, transporting, "torrifying"( formerly known as pyrolizing, but I guess that doesn't sound "green" somehow), transporting again, etc, etc? If burning solid fuels to operate reciprocating steam engines was viable, we would still be doing it. After all we still had all the infrastructure to fuel and service these machines then. Now we have none of that and we know that external combustion solid fuel engines are not viable.
I haven't read much of anything on the viability of biocoal. I would suppose that it could well involve the by-products of another process, as I'm sure the pellets used in pellet wood stoves does. I'm guessing the fuel already exists - I can't see them inventing that, too.
As you point out, the maintenance end of the operation will definitely be an issue.
Let's suppose, for a moment, that the group is able to modify the locomotive in such a way as to not greatly change its appearance, and that the design is at least moderately successful. It might mean another steamer on the circuit!
Looking beyond railroads, it's possible that biocoal may have other applications in the current effort to reduce/eliminate the use of "regular" coal, and that this project may be a proving ground for that - but that's another story and said discussion would probably get the thread locked...
dknelsonInteresting - I had read about the idea of taking the engine and souping it up for high speed. I guess I just assumed all the ownership issues were totally clear.
The ownership issues are not clear at all:
A written request to the City of Topeka asking for records showing the receiving of the locomotive or the transfer of ownership to another party indicated that no such records exist.
A written request to Shawnee County asking for the same records, and also for any record of an agreement to display the locomotive on county property indicated that no such records exist.
Shawnee County office extended this request to the Great Overland Station, and they replied that they have no record of receiving ownership of the locomotive.
Perhaps the agreement consisted of a handshake and a smile.
tree68Perhaps the agreement consisted of a handshake and a smile.
That may very well be the case. And if so, it will be sufficient as long as nobody challenges it. But I have spoken to people who are considering challenging it.
If somebody gives you a valuable antique pocket watch, you put in your pocket and leave. If somebody else can prove they own it, you might have to give the watch to them.
If somebody gives you a 206-ton locomotive, you ought to make sure you have clear title before you spend a quarter million dollars to move it. You would not want to have to return it back to the rightful owner, and spend another quarter million dollars to do so.
If I may, Larry and tdM, Larry inadvertently (I think?) forgot the 'not' in his statement about knowing one of the principals....he is not taking a stand....
If I am mistaken, I'll surely know soon...
selector If I may, Larry and tdM, Larry inadvertently (I think?) forgot the 'not' in his statement about knowing one of the principals....he is not taking a stand.... If I am mistaken, I'll surely know soon...
Yer right - how I missed that twice[/s]thrice escapes me. I'm not taking a stand. I'm just another semi-interested bystander.
Sign of 1998 Topeka Railroad Days and the hope of displaying the locomotive at the UP station.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sneebly/3934761141/
Model Builder Works to Capture Spirit of Locomotive 3463
Topeka Capitol-Journal, April 27, 2003
For seven years, David Nicholson has labored over the construction of a model that is a replica of a Santa Fe steam locomotive in Topeka...
Nicholson, A former resident of Carbondale now residing in Enid, Okla., is nearly finished building a model of Santa Fe locomotive 3463. The real locomotive ran more than 1.8 million miles before it was retired and moved to the fairgrounds in Topeka in 1956.
Nicholson, 48, said the real locomotive was a popular site for many years but has lost its prominence and needs to be fixed up. It sits near the Kansas Expocentre.
Nicholson grew up in Carbondale, the son of a Baptist pastor. His great-grandfather was an engineer on the Missouri Pacific. Nicholson became interested in the Santa Fe while in high school and made friends with the time services department in the general office building in Topeka. He fell in love with clockmaking and repair and has spent most of his life in the clock repair business...
While growing up in Kansas, his parents would take him to the fairgrounds at S.W. 17th and Topeka Boulevard. For many years, the Santa Fe locomotive was a popular meeting spot. It has been moved south to behind the Topeka Harley-Davidson shop at 2047 S.W. Topeka Blvd.
Because he has such fond memories of the 3463 locomotive, Nicholson decided to build a wooden scale model of it. The scale he chose was 1/16th, in which 3/4 inch equals 1 foot. The locomotive and tender are just over 6 feet long.
He called his model the Spirit of Topeka.
"When I look at this, I see the spirit of Topeka," Nicholson said. "Some towns were built by the railroad. But Topeka was the town that built the Santa Fe."
Nicholson obtained blueprints of 3463. The late Wilbur Frey, of Sierra Vista, Ariz., helped him get started.
All of the wheels roll on the locomotive, and the drivers and rods function when pushed by hand. The interior of the cab has all of its gauges.
Nicholson said the real 3463 locomotive in Topeka has a fascinating history. It was designed in Topeka by mechanical engineer H.H. Lanning and his staff. Baldwin Locomotive Works in Pennsylvania built it for the Santa Fe in 1937. Santa Fe had staff at Baldwin overseeing the construction of the locomotive.
The initial assignment of the 3463 was between Chicago and La Junta, Colo. It was 992 miles via the Ottawa junction and 1,006 miles via Topeka.
After World War II, as more diesel locomotives came into service, 3463 was used between Kansas City and Oklahoma City and later between Kansas City and Tulsa, Okla. In 1950, it was used between Newton and Belen, N.M. In March, 1953 Santa Fe 3463 was kept at Newton as a back-up engine for passenger service, and used on some Boy Scout events in July, 1953.
In December 1953, double-heading on a train from Newton to Emporia was to be 3463's last run under steam.
The 3463 remained in Emporia until it was donated to Topeka on in 1956. Then 3463 was moved to the fairgrounds in Topeka for display. It was dedicated on Nov. 3, 1956. The 3463 is the only 3460 class 4-6-4 locomotive to be saved for display. All others were sold for scrap metal on June 14, 1956.
"It was only fitting a locomotive designed in Topeka would end up on display in Topeka, the birthplace of the famous railway: The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe," Nicholson wrote.
"
How is this bad, that farmers should be able to make a profit?"
Which farmers do you favor and why?
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/07/31/13051968-give-us-a-break-from-ethanol-drought-hit-livestock-producers-ask-epa?lite
Also, seems I heard something about a drought?
Bucyrus dknelson: Interesting - I had read about the idea of taking the engine and souping it up for high speed. I guess I just assumed all the ownership issues were totally clear. The ownership issues are not clear at all: A written request to the City of Topeka asking for records showing the receiving of the locomotive or the transfer of ownership to another party indicated that no such records exist. A written request to Shawnee County asking for the same records, and also for any record of an agreement to display the locomotive on county property indicated that no such records exist. Shawnee County office extended this request to the Great Overland Station, and they replied that they have no record of receiving ownership of the locomotive.
dknelson: Interesting - I had read about the idea of taking the engine and souping it up for high speed. I guess I just assumed all the ownership issues were totally clear.
ATSF probably had a file on the donation (they probably took a tax deduction for it and similar donations, so there would have to be some paperwork). If so, it's just possible that it survived and BNSF has it. On the other hand, given the age of the transaction, it's also possible that the file was destroyed as part of a periodic purge of obsolete records.
Yes, that could also explain why the city of Topeka has no record of ever owning the locomotive as well. But the main point I see now is that the organization (Great Overland Station) that gave the locomotive away a few months ago has no record or proof of ever owning it. And the locomotive was never even moved onto their property.
Making corn into ethanol for gas powered cars and trucks is at a minimum of 33% to as high as 50% loss if you look at it in its BTU form. National Geographic did a long article in 2007 called "Growing Fuel". It covered several different types of plants to make ethanol from. They thought it was about a 1:1 ratio of petroleum used to make 1 gallon of straight corn ethanol when they include fertilizers which are derived from petroleum. A gallon of 100% corn ethanol has 67% of the BTU of a gallon of gasoline. Having grown up on a farm I would say 95% of the machines used to til, plant, spray, harvest and transport the corn are diesel powered. Have you followed behind a diesel truck? They stink up the air. We go through all of this so an automobile, SUV or truck pollutes a little less? Sounds like a waste of time to me. Other articles that I have read about corn ethanol think it takes 1.2 to 1.3 gallons of petroleum to make 1 gallon of corn ethanol which has 67% of the BTU of a gallon of gasoline. A gallon of diesel has a little bit more BTU than a gallon of gasoline. There was one plant that stood out from the rest: sugar cane. It has an 8x return on input. The people of Brazil are a lot smarter about ethanol than we are.
Modeling the "Fargo Area Rapid Transit" in O scale 3 rail.
In some of the discussion on this locomotive issue on other forums, several have made the point that these display locomotives become hazards due to lack of maintenance, kids playing on them, or asbestos issues. And therefore, cities are anxious to give them away just to get rid of them in some cases. Yes, that does happen, but that scenario does not apply to the #3463.
If Great Overland Station could not handle the job of displaying the engine on their site, why did they not just turn it over to a volunteer group who would have made it presentable on the site where it has stood since 1956? I cannot believe that there would not be enough volunteer funding in Topeka to give the engine the home it deserves.
An engine like that, fully restored cosmetically, and placed in a landscaped setting under an architecturally pleasing canopy would be extremely attractive and fascinating. That was the whole point in the first place. That is why the city wanted the locomotive, and it was why the AT&AF gave it to them.
So why has the locomotive quietly been given away to some group to use as a “test bed” for a pie-in-the-sky idea about replacing the world’s diesel locomotives with carbon-neutral steam locomotives?
Carbon-neutral steam locomotives?
Who thought that idea up?
I don't get it.....
Any argument carried far enough will end up in Semantics--Hartz's law of rhetoric Emerald. Leemer and Southern The route of the Sceptre Express Barry
I just started my blog site...more stuff to come...
http://modeltrainswithmusic.blogspot.ca/
blownout cylinder Carbon-neutral steam locomotives? Who thought that idea up? I don't get it.....
Yeah, once we get everything carbon neutral, what are the plants going to use to grow?
Plants give off CO2 when they are burned. They give off the same amount if they just decompose. But, although they give off CO2 during decomposition or burning, they consume the same amount of CO2 when they grow. So it is a closed cycle of consuming CO2 and then giving it back to the atmosphere. Because of that balanced, closed cycle, wood or plant fuel is considered to be carbon neutral.
Fossil fuels such as coal, presumed to have originated as plants, also consumed CO2 when they originated, and fossil fuels too give off the same amount of CO2 when they are burned. But coal is in the ground, and it won’t give off its CO2 unless it is dug up and burned. So the CO2 in coal is considered to be “sequestered.” The same is true of oil and gas. So, these fossil fuels are not considered to be carbon neutral. So the advocates of carbon neutral fuels wants to leave fossil fuels in the ground so their CO2 remains locked up or sequestered.
So the point of the AT&SF locomotive project is to burn a solid fuel manufactured briquette made from wood or other biomass feedstock such as switch grass or giant king grass.
The point is not to be less costly than burning coal or diesel. The only point is to be carbon neutral, and this may indeed cost more than burning fossil fuels. In the big picture, the objective of this Minneapolis group known as the Coalition For Sustainable Rail is to eliminate the use of fossil fuels for rail transportation worldwide.
the Grand Canyon Railway is partially fueling their Steam Locomotives on used French Fry oil so it's not exactly a new idea...
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
Excerpt from minutes of Kansas Expocentre Advisory Board Meeting, May 23, 2012
Cook stated the train on site, Locomotive 3463, which belongs to the Great Overland Station/City, has sold the train to a firm out of Minnesota that is going to take the train to Minnesota and renovate it [to] create a clean bio-fuel steam engine that they will take around the country to push more renewable fuels for the diesel and the train and locomotive industry. They are receiving some federal grants to do this and they are looking for additional funding as it will be a five million dollar project to get this train up and running and to get the train from here to Minnesota. The group came in last week and cleaned it up and repainted the train and relabeled it and found the spare parts that were taken off the train throughout the years and put them back on and hopefully they will be back this fall. If the project falls through we have a brand new nice black train.
Commissioner Ensley stated when the Expocentre was constructed the train sat on Topeka Boulevard at the gate and it cost $25,000 at that time in 1984 to move it from the gate to its current location. It was moved by laying track down. Cook stated they will move it out by using a very large crane to where they will have a very large truck available to put it on.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:L2H9lFyEYmMJ:http://www.snco.us/commission/meeting/packet/20120702_ap.pdf+%22Locomotive+3463%2C+which+belongs+to+the+Great+Overland+Station%2FCity%22&hl=en&ct=clnk
Here's the original press release from the U of MN
http://www1.umn.edu/news/news-releases/2012/UR_CONTENT_389949.html
There are two goals for the development of torrefied biomass, sometimes called bio-coal:
1) Perfect the fuel.
2) Perfect the agriculture and manufacturing process for the fuel.
From what I have read, the torrefied wood pellets have not yet been perfected as a fuel, but they are close. Most of this development work has been done making small batches in experimental laboratory apparatus. Once it is perfected, a production system must be developed that will include the entire process from biomass agriculture to the pellet manufacturing plant.
The preferred feedstock would probably be switchgrass or giant king grass. This would require production land, cultivation, seed stock, planting, fertilizing, possibly pest control, possibly irrigation, harvesting, and transporting to the plant.
At the plant, the grass would be dried, shredded, cooked in the torrefication process, ground, and mechanically pressed into molded pellets. I have seen no cost breakdown for this process. It would be interesting to learn how many BTUs would be produced per acre per season.
One of the references for this Coalition For Sustainable Rail states that they will spend $3 million redesigning and rebuilding the locomotive, and $5 million perfecting the torrefied fuel and developing the manufacturing process.
Notice that, "Some of the funding is government grants."
In today's political climate, anyone relying on government grants isn't building on sand. He's building on Jell-o.
This has the general smell of, "Go GREEN at any cost, no matter how preposterous." I just hope they don't end up scrapping a nice display loco when the whole cardboard house blows away...
Chuck
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.