Bucyrus Tom Elmore: Seems that I recall one of the old ATSF engine men telling me perhaps 15-or-so years back -- around the time the San Bernadino 4-8-4 was brought to Topeka for Railroad Days -- that the boilers on the Big Hudsons were not suitable for rebuild. Something about high Nickel content in the alloy making them brittle. Suffice it to say that the whole business strikes me as the inexplicable effort of a sadly unimaginative and manifestly uncommitted nonprofit and a typical city government to rid themselves of an irreplaceable treasure which "looks for all the world like an old rusty boat anchor to them."Hard to believe that a city that partly spawned a giant like the ATSF would be so devoid of faith and vision. However -- Topeka, for several decades now by my observation, has been unable to shake this affliction. Very well said, Tom. I believe the city and particularly the Great Overland Station has become so imbued with the green movement that they are ashamed of the big ATSF Hudson. They see it as a powerful symbol of the coal-fired age, and they don't want to be reminded of that. So they are sending the locomotive off to have its image cleaned up.
Tom Elmore: Seems that I recall one of the old ATSF engine men telling me perhaps 15-or-so years back -- around the time the San Bernadino 4-8-4 was brought to Topeka for Railroad Days -- that the boilers on the Big Hudsons were not suitable for rebuild. Something about high Nickel content in the alloy making them brittle. Suffice it to say that the whole business strikes me as the inexplicable effort of a sadly unimaginative and manifestly uncommitted nonprofit and a typical city government to rid themselves of an irreplaceable treasure which "looks for all the world like an old rusty boat anchor to them."Hard to believe that a city that partly spawned a giant like the ATSF would be so devoid of faith and vision. However -- Topeka, for several decades now by my observation, has been unable to shake this affliction.
Seems that I recall one of the old ATSF engine men telling me perhaps 15-or-so years back -- around the time the San Bernadino 4-8-4 was brought to Topeka for Railroad Days -- that the boilers on the Big Hudsons were not suitable for rebuild. Something about high Nickel content in the alloy making them brittle. Suffice it to say that the whole business strikes me as the inexplicable effort of a sadly unimaginative and manifestly uncommitted nonprofit and a typical city government to rid themselves of an irreplaceable treasure which "looks for all the world like an old rusty boat anchor to them."Hard to believe that a city that partly spawned a giant like the ATSF would be so devoid of faith and vision. However -- Topeka, for several decades now by my observation, has been unable to shake this affliction.
Very well said, Tom. I believe the city and particularly the Great Overland Station has become so imbued with the green movement that they are ashamed of the big ATSF Hudson. They see it as a powerful symbol of the coal-fired age, and they don't want to be reminded of that. So they are sending the locomotive off to have its image cleaned up.
The easiest and fastest way to get a city to sell a locomotive to you is to tell them that it is full of asbestos that is oozing out of rust holes and joints. Let me tell you they will sign that locomotive to you faster then the ink can dry.
Thomas 9011 Bucyrus: Tom Elmore: Seems that I recall one of the old ATSF engine men telling me perhaps 15-or-so years back -- around the time the San Bernadino 4-8-4 was brought to Topeka for Railroad Days -- that the boilers on the Big Hudsons were not suitable for rebuild. Something about high Nickel content in the alloy making them brittle. Suffice it to say that the whole business strikes me as the inexplicable effort of a sadly unimaginative and manifestly uncommitted nonprofit and a typical city government to rid themselves of an irreplaceable treasure which "looks for all the world like an old rusty boat anchor to them."Hard to believe that a city that partly spawned a giant like the ATSF would be so devoid of faith and vision. However -- Topeka, for several decades now by my observation, has been unable to shake this affliction. Very well said, Tom. I believe the city and particularly the Great Overland Station has become so imbued with the green movement that they are ashamed of the big ATSF Hudson. They see it as a powerful symbol of the coal-fired age, and they don't want to be reminded of that. So they are sending the locomotive off to have its image cleaned up. The easiest and fastest way to get a city to sell a locomotive to you is to tell them that it is full of asbestos that is oozing out of rust holes and joints. Let me tell you they will sign that locomotive to you faster then the ink can dry.
Bucyrus: Tom Elmore: Seems that I recall one of the old ATSF engine men telling me perhaps 15-or-so years back -- around the time the San Bernadino 4-8-4 was brought to Topeka for Railroad Days -- that the boilers on the Big Hudsons were not suitable for rebuild. Something about high Nickel content in the alloy making them brittle. Suffice it to say that the whole business strikes me as the inexplicable effort of a sadly unimaginative and manifestly uncommitted nonprofit and a typical city government to rid themselves of an irreplaceable treasure which "looks for all the world like an old rusty boat anchor to them."Hard to believe that a city that partly spawned a giant like the ATSF would be so devoid of faith and vision. However -- Topeka, for several decades now by my observation, has been unable to shake this affliction. Very well said, Tom. I believe the city and particularly the Great Overland Station has become so imbued with the green movement that they are ashamed of the big ATSF Hudson. They see it as a powerful symbol of the coal-fired age, and they don't want to be reminded of that. So they are sending the locomotive off to have its image cleaned up.
As I understand it, in about 1990, the city gave the locomotive to a group for the purpose of that group restoring the locomotive to operation. So the city was not trying to get rid of an eysore or dangerous liability. Instead, they were supporting a plan to fully restore the locomotive for at least proper cosmetic display, and possibly to operation.
The group (later called The Great Overland Station) receiving the locomotive from the city had a secondary group who were restoring the locomotive. GOS lost interest in restoring the locomotive when they acquired the Union Pacific depot. Then they prevented the group doing the restoration on the locomotive from continuing work because of liability concerns. Then the gave the locomotive to the Minneapolis group to be used as a test bed for a modern locomotive concept.
Great Overland Station had no stake in the locomotive, and apparenly no interest in it, so they gave it away. It makes you wonder why they acquired it in the first place.
That is what always seems to happen with these old steam locomotives. Someone wants it and it sits rotting away for 20, 30, or 40 years. Then someone else takes a interest in it and then suddenly you have 20 people that suddenly don't want it to leave because they want to do something with it now. It's all a bunch of BS and something I have seen time and time again.
Although I have seen quite a few steam locomotives sold by the cities they are displayed in, some still belong to the city even though they are fully restored. I know the SP 4449 still belongs to the city of Portland and they actually have to pay around $5,000 to the city as a lease arrangement ( I don't know if this is per excursion, or yearly). Apparently anyone can rent this locomotive if the city agrees to the terms and they have the know how to do it. How they work out the arrangement with the crew who runs and maintains the locomotive I have no idea. I believe the SP&S 700 also still belongs to the city of Portland and is under similar terms.
I am all for this experiment regardless of what type of modifications are done. But one thing I have learned is that most people don't have a clue what they are doing with these old steam locomotives. I have rebuilt both steam and diesel locomotives as well as numerous passenger cars. When anyone asks me my opinion on steam locomotive rebuilding I tell them that they need to triple their best cost estimate and double their time frame.
What's astounding to me is the overwhelming and seemingly monolithic disinterest Topeka has seemingly always shown toward this very visceral tie to the greatness of the railroad company that made its name famous around the world.3463, as told to me by any number of old time Santa Fe men that used to frequent our booths at the Topeka Railroad Days festival, was, in fact, the all-time speed-record holder for steam power on the Santa Fe Lines. Moreover, the six 3460s were originally built to guarantee the schedule of THE SUPER CHIEF -- first full-scale, long distance limited express provisionally assigned exclusively to diesel-electric power.The power, balance and reliability of the Big Hudsons over long distances was repeatedly proven -- and it's a matter of record that much of their time on the road was spent at high speed. As I recall E.D. Worley's words in his masterwork IRON HORSES OF THE SANTA FE TRAIL - "...they rode like Pullmans and roared like sleek lionesses." Another author described their sheer power as being "like massive steel hammers wrapped in velvet." They would seem to have been the absolute apex of development of the Hudson-type, if not of all dedicated steam passenger locomotion -- and this, of course, is the last and only one remaining in the world.Meanwhile, the idea that this outfit-sans-resume in Minnesota is going to "improve on the joint achievement of the legendary Baldwin Locomotive Works and ATSF Motive Power Department?" It's inescapably outrageous.I once saw an element of Oklahoma state government hand a Rock Island Pacific-type that had been displayed at one of its installations over to an alleged "nonprofit preservation group" based in North Texas. One dollar reportedly changed hands. But once over the Red River, the locomotive was not trucked to the nonprofit, but straight-away to a commercial rail operation in Ft. Worth where its superheater was reportedly transplanted to another engine. The remaining hulk is then said to have been sold for a substantial sum to a certain large museum in Illinois.
As I told the XD of the Great Overland Station Foundation after telling her that story -- "if you let this locomotive leave Topeka, I'd bet that you'll never see it there again."None of this seemed to move her in any way.So it goes.
The brave sole survivor AT&SF 4-6-4
To restore to working order
after some 40 plus years as a 'long-term-rust-away-experiment'
.. well ..
let's say : it can be done , uhm , yep
To rebuild in the sense of tech revamping
.. uhm-mhm ..
let's say : sounds interesting - or shocking ..
( depending on point of view and degree of optimism / scepticism ; if actually it would turn out to be interesting , would depend on happy sailing round a couple of rough capes with good luck and sharp skills
.. and lest we forget : some ten million $ would help , though without guarantee ..
Queen of Hudsons status :
Sorry , that excessive pressure drop issue from throttle to steam chest , 'mild' superheating and chocked exhaust ( the source of highly praised lioness roar !) somewhat marred the picture . The size and proportion of boiler by itself was admirable - no doubt ! The 84 ins drive wheels were an asset . The absolute 'square-rigger' tender wasn't really intended to compete at any industrial design award contest , I believe . The Santa Fe cab harmonized well with the general figure .
She would provide plenty of potential for a sensitive , knowing technical up-grading , respecting both AT&SF original intentions and appearance , though .. free wheeling some 6200 ihp continuous output @ 100 mph , hands down , with exhaust purring contently ..
There you are : that's the problem .
Regards
Juniatha
Juniatha,
I would think that the Milwaukee Baltics were a bit closer to being the Queen of the 4-6-4's, seeing that they did run at 100+ MPH on a daily basis - keeping in mind that I don't have the fine details on pressure drop between the boiler and valve gear, back pressure, etc.
Good to see you back.
- Erik
If you can tolerate their inverted bathtub streamlining.
I have seen comments posted on other forums that say this ATSF locomotive has a special nickel-steel boiler, and that it is difficult or even impossible in some ways to work on because of the material it is made of. Does anybody have any information on this detail?
Even if the boiler is in good enough condtion to steam, I am guessing that some of the redesign will require modification to the boiler pressure vessle. The gas producer firebox will require multiple penetrations through the inner and outer walls of the firebox for the purpose of introducing secondary combustion air.
I read somewhere, sometime, that nickle steel boilers were a failure almost immediately they were tried and didn't last too long in service, being replaced with conventional steel boilers ASAP. Maybe this Hudson still has its nickle steel boiler, maybe it doesn't, maybe it never did. If this locomotive went through its entire service life with a n-s boiler it would be the exception, not the rule.
Well, I can't confirm it, but the source of what I heard about nickel steel boilers said that #3463 has one at this time. It would be interesting to know if that is true, and if it presents any issues in the rebuild.
The streamlined Baltics used on the Hiawatha's apparently had nickel steel boilers and were retired ca 1950 due to cracks forming in the boilers. AT&SF 3463 is a contemporary of the Milw Baltics, so it wouldn't be out of the question that it had a N-S boiler as well with many of the same issues.
On a kind of related note, San Onofre nuclear generating station had the steam generators on units 2 & 3 replaced recently. Changes in regulations required that the tubes be made a bit thicker, so more tubes were put in to maintain the same heat transfer as the original S-G's. Turns out the increased density of tubes is leading to increased wear and the tubes are needing to be plugged a lot earlier than planned for - still room for oopsies in boiler making. One point - leaks in the steam generator tubes are much more an operational headache tha a safety concern.
I have never been a big fan of steam really, but Id do see potential for modern steam. No steam wasn't an antiquated technology our implementation of it was really was, kinda like how nuclear power is. Many improvements have been made to the tech for example the gas producer combustion system, lempor exhaust, streamlined steam circuit, etc. The list goes and you can find many technical pages about modern steam. Any who the real cost of owning one of these things is not efficiency, labor, or maintenance cost but infrastructure cost, you would of course need facilities for servicing these and most importantly the facilities for solid fuel which do exist but in limited numbers. In terms of maintenance the frame and boiler would be welded, the wheels equipped with roller bearings, the boiler would be insulated with modern materials, and of course chemical treating of the boiler so in terms maintenance it would be same, but some people would even argue less maintenance, of course repairing a diesel locomotive is a highly technical process by comparison to repairing a steamers (not saying there isn't skill in fixing one though). In terms of efficiency you can achieve about 12-20% efficiency with modern steam which honestly isn't great but it is running on a super cheap source of energy like coal, coke, bagasse, or in this case that fancy charcoal stuff they call biocoal. So the real cost is changing infrastructure like I mentioned and of course the labor, transport, and fueling using solid fuel. The boiler and firebox could be self monitoring and in theory remove the need for a fireman. In terms of milage you could equip with a condensor and not have to refuel and rewater it nearly as much. I'm no engineer truthfully but the neither are the majority of people here, how many people here have modernized a steam loco, built a locomotive, or have undertaken a task as technical as this one answer: almost none, so don't criticize unless you have done something similar to this.
Railroad to Freedom
Absolutely no credibility to some one who who say "any who".
tdmidget Absolutely no credibility to some one who who say "any who".
The way I choose to speak does not effect my credibility.
What do you suppose it would cost to move that locomotive from Topeka to Minneapolis? I am guessing that it would have to be partially disassembled and moved by 3-4 truck trips. Considering, the disassembly, loading, trucking, and unloading, can this be done for under $500,000?
You know, there's been a lot of good, intelligent comments about this rebuild, from the "go for it" to the "is it wise" and of course the "should-they-shouldn't-they" thoughts, but honestly, I don't think there's any railfan out there worthy of the name who isn't interested in seeing how a steam engine with all the imrovements suggested by Porta, Giesel, and Chapelon would perform. I know I am and I suspect so are quite a few others. Remember the "state of the art" in American steam ended 60 years ago, and considering the advances in mechanical knowledge since that time it would be VERY interesting to see how a modified steamer would perform.
Since it'll take years for this to come to fruition this is one thing I'll be relegating to the mental "back burner" and not giving much thought to until it comes about. I don't REALLY expect to see the whole steam industry recreated, but this experiment IS interesting, to say the least.
I think people should also consider that countries such as Britain and its colonies, Germany, China, India, Korea(both north and south), soviet union, and of course industrial railways used steam for considerable periods of time and in fact there are a lot of barriers to entry for diesel technology to list a few
the obvious it costs money to buy new equipment and change infrastructure
Oil was generally expensive in many parts of the world
coal to oil techniques are generally uneconmomical
it required greater engineering knowledge to build a diesel locomotive, though the mass production of diesels and standardization of parts helped make it cheaper
Like I mentioned before it requires more technical skill to repair diesels.
Anyways I think I should also note that Switzerland is putting steamers back in service using porta techniques.
Switzerland putting steamers back in service? On a regular basis and not a "novelty" basis? Wow, this is the first I've heard of it. What are they using for fuel? I though all the Swiss coal was gone. Considering the Swiss went to main line electrification a long time ago this is a surprise.
Firelock76 Switzerland putting steamers back in service? On a regular basis and not a "novelty" basis? Wow, this is the first I've heard of it. What are they using for fuel? I though all the Swiss coal was gone. Considering the Swiss went to main line electrification a long time ago this is a surprise.
Well a rack railway was put back in service using steam they replaced the self propelled diesel railcars with steamers, this system acts as public transit and as a tourist attraction. A diesel powered paddle boat which originally converted from steam to diesel to save cost was converted back to steam power to save cost and of course for the novelty, the boiler and what not are remote controlled and self monitoring so the same crew can used as the diesel. DLM 52 8055 pulls the swiss orient express. Anyways there are other examples while these are mostly for tourist attractions they are being run for a commercial purpose, these companies did use steam for not only the novelty but the cost savings too. The tech is from DLM AG. the locomotives run on light oil.
edit: I also forgot fireless locos are being put back into regular commercial service by this same company too
http://www.dlm-ag.ch/en
Juniatha The brave sole survivor AT&SF 4-6-4 To restore to working order after some 40 plus years as a 'long-term-rust-away-experiment' .. well .. let's say : it can be done , uhm , yep To rebuild in the sense of tech revamping .. uhm-mhm .. let's say : sounds interesting - or shocking .. ( depending on point of view and degree of optimism / scepticism ; if actually it would turn out to be interesting , would depend on happy sailing round a couple of rough capes with good luck and sharp skills .. and lest we forget : some ten million $ would help , though without guarantee .. Queen of Hudsons status : Sorry , that excessive pressure drop issue from throttle to steam chest , 'mild' superheating and chocked exhaust ( the source of highly praised lioness roar !) somewhat marred the picture . The size and proportion of boiler by itself was admirable - no doubt ! The 84 ins drive wheels were an asset . The absolute 'square-rigger' tender wasn't really intended to compete at any industrial design award contest , I believe . The Santa Fe cab harmonized well with the general figure . She would provide plenty of potential for a sensitive , knowing technical up-grading , respecting both AT&SF original intentions and appearance , though .. free wheeling some 6200 ihp continuous output @ 100 mph , hands down , with exhaust purring contently .. There you are : that's the problem . Regards Juniatha
A nice name.
The 3463 is not the only Santa Fe 4-6-4 that still exists. The 3450, a smaller but very nice 4-6-4 is still around at Pomona.
CZ
In what kind of shape?
I believe the ATSF locomotive will never leave Topeka. So far, it has only been donated. No money has changed hands, so there is nothing committed. But moving the locomotive to Minneapolis will require serious money. Nobody is going to want to spend that money when there is no clear title to the ownership of the locomotive.
To ontheBNSF: Thanx for the Swiss update!
Does anyone know if they would be able to lay panel track on the Shunga Trail and drag it backwards to the existing rail? I am unfamiliar with Topeka but I assume this trail was originally a rail line. It is approximately 1 mile down that trail if it went under the 2 roads and then under the rail and up the hill to meet the tracks near 15th street. I believe moving by rail would be much cheaper and simpler than moving it by truck. If this was possible it would only have to cross one street on the panel track.
O5 Hopeful - Welcome to trains.com!
Darren (BLHS & CRRM Lifetime Member)
Delaware and Hudson Virtual Museum (DHVM), Railroad Adventures (RRAdventures)
My Blog
O5 Hopeful Does anyone know if they would be able to lay panel track on the Shunga Trail and drag it backwards to the existing rail? I am unfamiliar with Topeka but I assume this trail was originally a rail line. It is approximately 1 mile down that trail if it went under the 2 roads and then under the rail and up the hill to meet the tracks near 15th street. I believe moving by rail would be much cheaper and simpler than moving it by truck. If this was possible it would only have to cross one street on the panel track.
I am not familiar with the layout of Topeka or the location of the locomotive. Someone who lives there and is familiar with the locomotive commented on another forum. He said that the organization known as The Great Overland Station was intersted in moving the engine from the exposition grounds where it is displayed to the U.P. depot (which is now owned by GOS). They wanted to move the locomotive by rail, but neither BNSF or UP would permit the locomotive to move across their bridge over the river.
I don't know if that same issue would apply to routing the engine to Minneapolis. And if it does not, I suspect that rail shipment on the locomotive's wheels would present some serious challenges if it were even doable. GOS had considered cutting the locomotive into several pieces to move it to the U.P. depot in Topeka.
So, all things considered, whether shipped by truck or by rail, I suspect the cost will be very high. It would be interesting if somebody with direct experience would comment on the possible cost of the move. Would $500,000 get the locomotive moved to Minneapolis?
$500,000 is way off base. I know it cost approx. $8,000 to bring in one of those heavy duty cranes to pick up a locomotive and to move it either onto a flat car or truck. It would cost probably anywhere from $1,500 to $3,000 to lease the trailer. Then another company would supply a truck and driver. You would also have to pay for a pilot car and his meals and lodging. Moving a locomotive over a few states would probably set you back a cool $25,000 when it is all done.
Moving it by rail would be much cheaper. Much like a truck trailer you would have to lease a special flat car which would probably set you back $2,000-$3,000 per day, and add another $8,000 for the crane. Most railroads charge you approx. $2.00-$3.00 per car, per mile. You would probably have one locomotive on a flat car and one tender on a flat car so about $6.00 per mile. Railroads also charge fuel surcharges, pickup and drop fees, and a ton of other fees.
Here is a photo of the Reading 2100 which is a bit smaller locomotive but gives you a good idea of how a locomotive can be moved on a flat car with minimal effort http://www.trevorheath.com/livesteaming/Reading.htm
My main question is I didn't know how long the road bridges have been there and if they were put there after the railroad was gone they could be too low to allow the locomotive to pass under.
I know that the $500,000 is quite high. BNSF wants $100,000 to $150,000 to move a locomotive from Wyoming to Minneapolis.
"I know it cost approx. $8,000 to bring in one of those heavy duty cranes to pick up a locomotive and to move it either onto a flat car or truck."
Way off base. A 250 ton hydraulic truck crane will cost about 500/hr. That is from the time it leaves until it returns. If the crane yard is across the street you might get it for that. Mobilization will be extra as there will be additional truckloads of counter weight and rigging. Oh yeah, rigging. Just the rigging to lift it without damage in one piece will cost about $50,000.
Plus one 250T crane can't do it you'll need 2.
i recently installed a turbine rotor that weighed 119,000 lbs. Freight from South Carolina to Arizona was over $50,000 and it wasn't even over width.
So what is the cost estimate to move the 4-6-4 and tender from Topeka to Minneapolis? Just give me the final cost. You can leave out any cost of re-assembly at the point of delivery.
1) COST TO MOVE BY RAIL:________________
2) COST TO MOVE BY TRUCK:________________
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.