tdmidget "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.
"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.
If rigging is going to cost $50,000 then we are all in the wrong business. 500 dollars a hour is $4,000 for a 8 hour day. I gave a quote at $8,000 which would buy two 8 hour days which is more than enough time to load a steam locomotive onto a rail car or truck.
According to this website you can rent a 300 ton crane for a little over $1,000 dollars a day http://www.bigge.com/crane-rental/crane-rental-rates.html
A turbine rotor is a delicate piece of machinery which could take months to build, is expensively insured, and requires special attention, both to pick up and to install. I am sure if it weighs 119,000 pounds then it would have cost in the several millions to purchase. Moving a multi million dollar piece of brand new machinery is a world of difference than a used piece of machinery such as a steam locomotive.
Derelict steam locomotives sitting in parks are practicably worthless. Many cities sell them for as little as $1.00 with the stipulation that you don't cut them up for scrap. Other cities have given them to anyone who wants to restore them. Even a operational, restored, 4-8-4 such as the Milwaukee 261 only sold for $225,000. Premiums for insurance to move this locomotive will be low.
If it was truly going to cost over $100,000 then I think anyone with basic math would simply buy a truck and a trailer and hire a driver. You can buy used semi trucks for $15,000 on up.
You have first overlooked that it will take 2 250T cranes to load it in one piece. The rental is is door to door. It starts when it leaves the yard and ends when it returns. Of course 2 days is enough to load it. It is not enough to cover transport and assembly and disassembly and transport back to the renter's yard. This is how it works. Is there even a crane in Topeka capable of this job? How about 2?
To transport by road will require at least 4, maybe 5 trucks. The boiler is one load, the frame/ wheel assy another, the tender at least one other( probably 2 loads) and the cab and other smaller parts another. The freight rates are wide open. Trailers that cost over w200,00 lbs rent for what ever they can get. $ of them are a real big deal. And you want them all there within 8 hours.
Moving by rail is pretty much off the table. Hi wide, over weight are not in the tariffs. BNSF may not be steam hostile but it AIN"T gonna move on it's own wheels. It will need at least 3 railcars to make the move. No real savings over highway unless you can talk BNSF into a charity move.
Do all that in 2 days/ good luck!
"If it was truly going to cost over $100,000 then I think anyone with basic math would simply buy a truck and a trailer and hire a driver. You can buy used semi trucks for $15,000 on up."
Per the driver the trailer that brought the rotor cost over 200, 000 bucks. Lots of luck finding something for that Loco for 15 Gs'
This is why many restoration jobs fail. There is a total disconnect with reality on what things cost these days.
O5 HopefulI know that the $500,000 is quite high. BNSF wants $100,000 to $150,000 to move a locomotive from Wyoming to Minneapolis.
What does that Wyoming locomotive weigh? What type of locomotive is it? What will it cost to load and unload it from the flatcar?
The problem with nickel steel boilers largely was one of handling of the steel plates at manufacturing , the method of riveting and welding applied and in service it was water testament that had an influence . A comparable thing had happened on DR with 290 psi boilers of carbon steel for three cylinder Pacifics , 41 Mikados , 45 2-10-2 and some of the 50 class Decapods : while for instance boilers of locos built at Maffei were pretty bad , some 41 class 2-8-2 engines built by Schwartzkopff held out pretty well and were no worse is developing cracks than regular plain steel boilers of standard 228 psi . This is why neither DB nor DR in East-Germany reboilered all of their remaining 41 class engines ; the last 41 with original carbon steel boilers being retired on DB in 1968 , actually two years after the reboilered 03.10 class Pacifics were retired ( the class originally had carbon steel boilers although of 228 psi and had been fully reboilered in about 1953 - 55 ) . On DR-East , some 50 class Decapod with carbon steel boilers lasted at least as long as engines of the same class rebuilt with new boilers , one of them even running occasionally today as a preserved engine .
Firelock , your remark about technology having moved on and offering a couple of advantages applicable to classic steam is absolutely correct . As I mentioned before I would estimate the power potential of a decently - not radically - modernized 3563 to be in the 6000 ihp range - decently meaning to apply improvements sure to perform and not offending visual character of the locomotive , in contrast to attempt a sort of revamping beyond recognition , such as has been done pretty recklessly with poor 52 8055 , looking awful enough in this wild mixture of ( some ) modern and antique technics that disharmonize 'loud enough' , the loco having lost her identity as a 52.80 class member while not having attained another typical identity other than that of a one-off non-52 ex-52 .
However , in principle , any steam locomotive of the classic reciprocating engine concept , even a vastly modernized one , is a low efficiency engine and one of inherently low tractive effort for a given total service mass .
In this context : mentioned 12 to 20 % thermic efficiency would be an ambitious goal if it was meant as maximum value : 12 % have been attained as optimum working point efficiency heat content of fuel to power at wheel rim by André Chapelon in 4-6-2 , 4-8-0 and 2-8-2 type Paris-Orleans series 231.700 , 24.700 and SNCF series 141.P as can be read in according test reports and railroad technical literature of the time where results were published giving original indicator graphs and other details . 12 % as a service average would be quite another story and pretty hard to attain as it would demand at least the higher one of the mentioned values , 20 % optimum working point efficiency . This would be jjuusst attainable applying all measures including compounding with re-superheating plus two-stage preheating , possibly air-preheating . It could be done only with top-range combustion cleanliness , quite certainly not with any to the mentioned low cost low grade fuels such as indifferent sorts of coal - as used throughout by US RR in the age of steam - less so with bagasse . Simply because the combustion efficiency is not high and logically this drags down engine efficiency . Mind , that Porta's GPCS does not increase combustion efficiency as such , it only helps to trim down some of the steam locomotive's typical losses in combustion , such as loss of unburnt particles . The mentioned 52-8055 rebuilt has no significantly higher overall engine efficiency than a 52.80 in good mechanical condition , run on good , suited quality of black coal with suiting lower calorific value , content of volatiles and ashes - only , 'it' can be run with a clean exhaust due to light oil ( 'diesel quality' ) and it does not have to have grate cleaned . Because of new roller-rods and larger balancing masses in drive wheels 'it' runs smoother than before , which is an improvement , and was officially given a service speed of 60 mph instead of 50 - promoted as a great progress , although if you come to think of it , many of these Decapods were made to run 60 mph plus x during their regular working times on DR and Austrian railways , roller-rods or not , when used in passenger service in the 1950s to 1960s .
By these aspects of efficiency and performance alone - not to speak of prohibitive costs of revamping infrastructure , as mentioned by some in this discussion - IMHO it would be absolutely beyond any serious consideration to propose a return of steam on a commercial basis . This would be like prosing to solve energy questions of today's aviation by returning to piston engine propeller planes like a Super Connie 'modernized' with piston engines tuned to present day high performance standards ( about twice the power then ) and consuming 'bio' oil , in other words consuming our food plants . I'd like to see a power-boosted hi-performance Super-Hyper Connie take off - yet as a darling of classic plane lovers only . With Mickey Mouse attemps like that we will never come to solve the challenging questions of our time ! Why , with oil becoming ever more scarce as inevitably it must with limited resources and limited capacity of atmosphere , too , mind it , American railroads sooner or late will have to realize the diesel locomotive has become outdated , too , and has to be replaced - those who realize according measures and modernizations first will benefit from it and will be among the winners .
So , the big lonely 4-6-4 could provide a good basis for an engine improved in performance and environmental protection ( a big word - we would be happy if it wouldn't pollute as much as it did in the old days , leave alone to 'protect' !) meant for steam tours for the benefit of running steam for the fans . It would not provide a prototype for any sort of a commercial return of steam and it would not be edifying even to try for it .
The times they are a-changing , one folk singer muttered in one of his admired songs - only , he never dreamed how profoundly they were eventually about change ! We shall call ourselves blessed to be in a position even to discuss rebuilding a steam locomotive of the 1940s ..
Regards
Juniatha
Herewith $0.02 worth (actually nearer $2.00) of thoughts about the proposed restoration of ATSF 3463, based on the project website, from a UK fan.
The good news. It’s terrific that something is being done to rescue ATSF 4-6-4 3463 from rusting away. It is the sole surviving US 4-6-4 from the late 1930s, the pinnacle of US design development, Baldwin’s latest and best high speed 4-6-4. The cosmetic restoration is done. Marvellous! Since not a single NYC Hudson survived from this period, nor any of the MILW Hudsons, (which have as good a claim to the World Hall of Fame as any steam locomotive I know of), if there is to be a streamlined shroud, I suggest there should be three, a Blue Goose from the ATSF Historical Society, a Dreyfuss from the NYCHS and an F7 one from the MILWHS. Only about 0.01% of the population would know that that 5450 and 103 thus created weren’t the real Alco thing, and less than half of those would care, so with any reasonable rounding up there would be 100% satisfaction. Four locos for the price of one. Can’t wait. I recognise that this would be a departure from historic practice, in which fans of a particular railroad restore in their own locality. Whether interest in steam locomotives in the US nowadays transcends the fan base of old companies I do not know, but in essence what the 3463 group is proposing is a non-partisan effort. Not sure this concept will fly in the US, but if it’s the only way to enjoy the sight of a latter day US Hudson working, I’m all for it.
The people behind it. Lots of good folks with relevant skills, it seems.
The financial plan. Details of sponsors are given, but it’s not clear they have the multimillions needed . There is a link to the University of Minnesota, which may get State or federal aid to study the proposed fuel, torrified biomass.
The environmental case. The basic pitch is that by burning torrified biomass, a bit like coke, you could create the world’s first ‘carbon neutral’ steam locomotive. 3463 is to be used as a test bed before a ‘proper’ 21st Century locomotive is designed. The oil burning 3460s were designed for easy conversion back to coal firing, good news. However, ‘carbon neutral’ is perhaps a bit ambitious - you sure need a lot of carbon to produce 363 tons of steel, build facilities to maintain it, produce and deliver its fuel and keep the army needed to operate and maintain it alive.
Further, as has been pointed out here, the idea that farmed wood could become a ubiquitous fuel of the future, including in a locomotive boiler, is a complete environmental and economic nonsense. Most stuff on the internet about torrified biomass is written by enthusiasts. This seems a reasonably balanced view:
http://www.all-energy.co.uk/UserFiles/File/2007PaulMitchell.pdf
From this, it seems that the idea is in fact to make better use of waste from wood processes, rather than farming trees to produce coke. How much waste wood there is to burn, and where it’s best to burn it are unanswered questions. Not in the boiler of a reciprocating steam locomotive, I would have thought. (In my view farming biomass for fuel is scandalous. Supplies of e.g. phosphate fertiliser are not limitless, and phosphate is essential for life. I feel it in my bones. But try telling the Senators who have got ethanol production in their States that). So, maybe there is a Federal or State gravy train that can be tapped into, and by sequestering someone else’s money, 3463 might steam again, as we would all like to see. Surely you want this project to succeed rather than someone else’s, as Machiavelli might have said?
The Marketing Case. US passenger rail hangs on by a thread. There is no non-electrified railroad that that has or plans 125mph speeds, so the market for a 125mph locomotive is not clear. Few US railroads want 80 year old steam locomotives anywhere near their tracks. No community would want a fire throwing behemoth polluting their atmosphere on a regular basis. Not a strong case.
The economic case. As has been pointed out here, the reciprocating steam locomotive died for very good economic reasons, many not related to its thermal efficiency and only by spending a large fortune can they be kept running. This is true the world over, and even given free, carbon free fuel, nothing would change in my view if that fuel could be burnt elsewhere. Surely there are always better things to do with energy sources? You can boil water with about 80% efficiency, but even the best reciprocating engines waste 80% of the heat in the steam, and precious little of this can be usefully recycled, thus maximum 16% efficiency referred to cylinder output, less at the drawbar. What about a future in which oil or natural gas is phenomenally expensive? A lot of other things will have changed by then, but I’m going to bet rail transportation will not be going back to solid fuel reciprocating steam. I will not be putting my pension fund towards supporting the proposition.
The improved efficiency case. It is implied that modernisation would lead to a significant improvement in efficiency. I believe this is optimistic thinking too. Looking at the specifics on the website:
· Conversion to GPCS firebox. GPCS has not proved a viable option so far, but with a big stretch of the imagination, this could deal with the number 2 loss of efficiency in a steam locomotive at high steam rates, the loss of unburned fuel. These losses depend on a) the quality of coal b) the specific rate of evaporation (lbs steam/sqft grate/hr) and c) the degradation of coal in the mechanical stoker screw. For good quality hand fired coal, unburned losses are pretty low at less than 600 lbs/sqft/hr. So GPCS only ‘works’ above this rate. Now US steam passenger locomotives were generally not steamed at more than 600lbs/sqft/hr. This was sufficient to produce 70000lbs/hr steam to the cylinders on a feedwater heated 100 sqft grate type, the best part of 5000 cylinder horsepower with steam age superheat and exhausts. In fact, no more than 4000HP was needed to time schedules. I do not know, but suspect that the reason for the low specific evaporation rates was to minimise boiler maintenance costs. Conclusion if so: higher working steam rates at which GPCS might provide a significant benefit would require a complete redesign of the boiler. Further, and more importantly, the mechanistic reason for the loss of unburned fuel is not well understood. With coal, it is related to the production of fine char, and the smaller the coal feed particles, especially from stoker feed, the higher the losses. My suspicion is that the two key factors are the surface area of the coal and the rate at which that surface is burning. The faster the burn and the higher the surface area, the more char is produced per unit of heat produced. However, this applies to burning coal! (a different mechanism applies to unburned losses in an oil fired boiler). Will torrified biomass produce the same char flow as coal? Could it be worse? Does torrified biomass produce char at all? Does anyone know? The design of steam locomotives requires that very large amounts of heat are produced in a very small space, under high draught, and this provides some unique challenges, which need to be understood for burning torrified biomass before anyone starts worrying about GPCS.
· Application of modern boiler water treatment system. Can’t argue with this, but this is about maintenance, not efficiency
· Increased superheat temperature. The effect of improvements such as this on engine efficiency can now be estimated accurately by a computational fluid dynamics (CFD) package. We know from the ATSF test report on 3461 that the inlet steam could reach 750-800oF, but was more often 650-700oF. This is because superheat increases with specific evaporation rate, and as noted above, this was relatively low in the US. How much efficiency could be gained by going to 750-800oF at normal rates? About 3%.
· Reduce pressure drop in steam circuit. There are two drops to consider, between the regulator and the steam chest, and from the steam chest to the cylinders. Looking at the ATSF data, boiler pressures on test were around 290 psi, and the indicator cards show that steam chest pressures were generally about 260 psi at high steam rates, say a 30psi loss. There was a constant loss of ca 12psi between the superheater inlet and the valve chest, but pressure drop between the throttle and superheater inlet increased from 4 to 18psi as steam rate increased, indicating a restriction in flow through the throttle. If this total pressure drop could be reduced by 20psi, what would be the gain in efficiency from being able to use shorter cut offs this would allow? CFD says about 2%. On the second question, the ATSF data show that both on their 4-6-4, but more particularly on their 4-8-4, maximum cylinder pressure was some way below steam chest pressure, it’s difficult to get 30000+lbs steam/hr into a single cylinder! For this reason, lead on US locomotives was quite long, 0.3125” on the 4-6-4, 0.25” on the 4-8-4. So, pressure held up better in the 4-6-4, a good thing for efficiency but the longer lead is marginally worse for efficiency. How does it all work out? Well, it’s very finely balanced and CFD says it doesn’t matter much, so steam age engineer’s gut reaction that low initial cylinder pressure was a bad thing is not really correct.
· Improve adjust valve settings. The 3460s had relatively short steam lap (1.125”) and this means that steam flow at a given cut off is less than it might be, so to achieve a target power, cut off has to be lengthened, reducing efficiency. If the valve events of the J3 were adopted (1.625” lead) CFD says efficiency at speed would improve by about 2%, and if the device used on the ATSF 4-8-4s to increase their steam lap to 2.125”, the benefit could be as much as 3%. What happens if you increase valve size? Well, steam flows faster, so you can work in more efficient shorter cut offs, but CFD says there’s little efficiency gain because the larger valves allow steam to escape faster at the end of the expansion; smaller valves mean the steam escapes more slowly, and it does more useful work in the ‘toe’ of the indicator diagram.
· Improve backpressure. This only works if there’s a serious backpressure problem. There wasn’t on the 3460 class at the steam rates at which they were normally worked, but backpressure was about 10psi at their highest rate of working. What happens if you halve this? A gain of about 4% in efficiency.
· Summary of engine efficiency improvements. Below are the actual estimates from CFD of the effect of the above changes working at constant steam rate, based on an illustrative CFD calculation for 44% cut off at 64 mph which reproduces pretty faithfully what the ATSF actually found for 3461. ‘As is’ condition has 260psi steam chest pressure, 13” valves, 1.125” steam lap, 4 *3.5” nozzles, and 695oF inlet. ‘Full package’ includes all the improvement options. The combined benefit package adds up to an efficiency improvement of but 11%! How come Chapelon was able to claim so much more? The answer is on the final row. If you take the ‘full package’ at the same operating condition as ‘as is’ you see there is a spectacular 25% increase in power. But steam has gone up by 20%. Only the increase in superheat and reduction in backpressure directly improve efficiency; the other approaches require reduction in cut off. In his Compounds, the higher steam flow options helped, because restricted steam flow into the HP cylinders can limit power (this does not apply to simples working at speed which are boiler limited).
Engine 3463
Cut-off
Speed
St.cons
IHP
Back Pressure
Efficiency %
Upgrade efficiency:
as is
Condition
%
Mph
lb/hr
Psi
As is
43.9
64
59633
4022
10.99
12.7
280 psi steam chest
41.3
59559
4097
10.81
13
1.02
15" valves
42.2
59583
4040
10.94
12.8
1.00
1.625" steam lap
40.8
59587
4096
10.86
12.9
4*4" nozzles
43.1
59593
4152
6.3
13.1
1.03
750F inlet
45.2
59613
4153
11.75
Full package
37.4
59557
4473
6.55
13.9
1.11
71556
5060
10.03
· Streamlining. This does offer significant advantages at speeds of 70+ mph. Not any old streamlining however. Looking at how modern traction has evolved, I would think the MILW design might have had some useful aerodynamic purpose.
· The rest talked about. Sundry improvements to reliability, no game changers, and as with any design changes it might prove they are more difficult than it seems, or more trouble than they are worth.
· Conclusion. Even if you spend millions of dollars in addition to the basic restoration costs to improve power and efficiency, you’re not going to get anything that’s dramatically better than 3463 as was, certainly nothing that would change the underlying economics of steam.
Improved boiler output? As noted above the oil burning 3460s were not tested at very high specific evaporation rates. There are many reasons why this might be, some related to the use of oil as a fuel, but what is clear is that solid fuel grates, whilst also not steamed much above 600lbs/sqft/hr in daily service, could be steamed at 1000+lbs/sqft/hr for show off stunts (Niagara and T1 tests, Chapelon 4-8-0, Mallard to mention some). Now these efforts were generally made with very high calorific value coal, 13500-15000Bthu/lb. Torrified biomass is about 11000Bthu/lb, and it may well be that the ‘stunt’ limit of a boiler fired with this material would be less. I am going to suppose that the ‘stunt’ limit for 3463 would be about 85000lbs/hr with torrified biomass.
Could 3463 ever reach 130 mph, even with the above upgrades? The short answer is no. The only 125+mph rated track is in the northeast corridor. A non starter. The only track with 120mph steam pedigree in the US is from Crestline west on the PRR- another non-starter - and after Caledonia near Milwaukee. So let’s suppose that nice Mr Hunter Harrison would cough up the $$$$ to rebuild the MILW from Rondout to Milwaukee. Let’s not stretch Mr Harrison’s generosity too much, and only ask him to rebuild/resignal/superelevate the line to 100mph standards as far as Sturtevant, 125 mph beyond there- back to the 1940s, for beyond Sturtevant, a MILW Hudson averaged 120mph for 5 miles I believe. Now reaching 130mph is about a) mechanical robustness, and a reciprocating steam locomotive is a pretty daft contraption to try to achieve high speed with, but I’d back 3463 for a one off attempt and b) HP. The Santa Fe rated the 3460s at 4350HP, but as noted above, this was at pretty modest steam rates for the size of the boiler. If you thrashed an upgraded 3463 to a boiler limit of 85000lbs/hr, you could get about 6000IHP at 130 mph. Completely unknown territory from a mechanical perspective, but the boiler at least would be up for this. So we run 3463 out to Sturtevant with the Afternoon Hiawatha consist, cruising at 100mph. This requires only 3000-3800IHP, completely in its comfort zone. (I would have the MILW shroud on). The good old days return, and there’s not a dry eye at the trackside. At Sturtevant we go for it, giving it a full 6000IHP, the change of grade kicks in, and what do we get at the foot of the 0.67%? About 125mph. What do need to get 130mph? Over 7000IHP. This is just simple mechanics. 130mph is a fantasy. The only option I can suggest is that one sweet-talks that nice Mr Rose into using the Santa Fe west from Kingman. Just by releasing the brakes at the top of the downgrade, 3463 and the Afternoon Hiawatha would be doing about 130mph by Topock simply from the effect of gravity. There is however a bit of a curve after Yucca, so it might be best to apply a bit of steam to get to 130mph before there. In fact, a mere 2000HP would get you well into the 140s. Whether you could then stop is a different question.
Overall conclusion. The good news is someone cares enough to get the restoration process started, and they have a good set of skills. They don’t appear to have the funds needed for the project. They are selling the idea on an environmental platform, possibly to get Government funding, and to tap the wider world’s pockets there is a claim, spurious in my view, that 3463 could reach 130mph. There is no doubting my mind that some improvements to the efficiency and power of 3463 could be made, but it is exceedingly unlikely to change the economics of the reciprocating steam locomotive. I can’t imagine if torrified biomass did become a viable fuel that you would want to burn it in a locomotive boiler. In any case, work needs to be done to find out how useful this is in a locomotive boiler. 3463 modified to burn coal is a place to start, though there are easier, less costly ones. Send a few tons of the stuff over here, for example. These do not seem sound starting points if the project is to be funded by disinterested or profit orientated third parties.
Personally, I’d be more than happy just to see 3463 running as was. If I may be undiplomatic, it is scandalous you guys let it get into such a state in the first place. If anyone really cared about US steam history it would have been up and working a long time ago. Sure, that might have cost a few million dollars, but as anyone knows the only thing you need to look after a steam locomotive is a small fortune, and to get that, you have to start with a big one, and have abundant free time and relevant skills. Plenty of folk over here in the UK have come to terms with that, and that’s why you’re never more than 50 miles from a working steam line in England and Wales. Dreams cost time and money.
If the people on the project have the finance, and the business, engineering and people skills to make this happen, they deserve every bit of support. If they want to tinker with 3463 to get some improvements in efficiency and reliability, and put a solid fuel grate in, if that’s their entry price, I’m ok with that too. But the project will only succeed if it’s based on rational premises, or there is someone or some group with a large, irrational cheque book. That's why Tornado exists. Time to get you cheque books out, steam fans, I think.
I don’t see this as a locomotive restoration. And they are not selling the idea on an environmental platform as you surmise. They are selling the idea of carbon neutral energy. If anything, the locomotive is just a platform to sell that idea. They have told us that they see the rebuilt #3463 as a rolling billboard to sell torrefied biocoal to the world market. There is no question about whether that is the best fuel for a modern locomotive. That has got to be the fuel because the fuel is the whole point of what they are doing.
They have also told us that the rebuilt #3463 will bear only the most fundamental resemblance to the historic configuration.
I have read several different website and new release items on this 3463 project, and am struck by just how big the proposal is. In fact, I think they tend to discredit themselves by the “conquer-the-world” scope of their proposal.
This is the scope:
1) Develop and perfect the torrefied biocoal product.
2) Develop and prefect the commercial production process for the biocoal product, including biomass agriculture and fuel pellet manufacturing.
3) Develop the engineering and design for a modern carbon neutral steam locomotive prototype.
4) Rebuild #3463 to become the prototype carbon neutral locomotive.
5) Test the prototype locomotive including the setting of a 130 mph speed record.
6) Run the locomotive to promote the use of biocoal.
7) Continue locomotive development to achieve an engineered design for a production locomotive to replace diesel-electric locomotives for commercial railroad use worldwide.
8) Develop the engineered design for torrefied biocoal generating plants for worldwide application in a variety of scales ranging from single household application to full size municipal plants.
Bucyrus What does that Wyoming locomotive weigh? What type of locomotive is it? What will it cost to load and unload it from the flatcar?
It's a Northern and it would pulled in a dedicated train not on a flat car.
Somehow I foresee that long before 100MPH those cute little pellets will be sucked right out the stack.
Maybe. But those pellets are to be highly compressed during manufacturing, so they will be as dense as coal. And then there is the gas producer firebox, and lempor exhaust. I am not sure how those features will affect the tendancy to lift the fuel out of the fuel bed.
Well, it sounds like we are getting a little closer to an estimate of the cost to move #3463, including disassembly, rigging, loading, transportation from Topeka to Minneapolis, re-rigging, and unloading (not including reassembly).
Thomas 9011,
I think you are underestimating the cost. How much time will it take to unbolt the smokebox from the cylinder saddle? Or would you simply cut the smokebox bottom to separate from the saddle? How long will it take to unfasten that boiler from the frame? What about separating the tender from its trucks? Will these separations require lifting support during the removal of fasteners? If so, that might require jacks and blocking as a cheaper option than holding with crane during the slow process of unfastening.
Crane service will be needed at both ends. Even excluding re-assembly, the most reasonable way to execute the unloading is to set the boiler back onto the frame, and set the tender back onto its trucks. How long will it take to perform the delicate task of setting these items into proper position, ready for reassembly?
How many smaller items will be removed from the boiler and frame assemblies in order to equalize the weight distribution between the 3-4 truck loads to Minneapolis? How long will that take? That will require a small crane to lift the items for separation.
I have heard that the engine weighs 200 tons. Maybe somebody can confirm the dry weight of engine and tender. If 200 tons is correct, 3 trucks would have to carry about 67 tons each. I would just guess that a haul of that weight is going to need a lot of special care, permits, flagging, escort, etc.
So what is all that going to cost? I’m looking for a number.
[quote user="Juniatha"]
/quote]
A nice pithy analogy....
If the goal is to produce a steam locomotive that operates at both high efficiency and high speed, then the experience with Pennsy's S-2 suggests that a steam turbine would be the way to go. This would most likely need some sort of gearbox to keep steam consumption at low speeds from getting out of hand.
As for a hot rod Connie, Lockheed apparently tried fitting turbo-prop engines to a Connie, but ran into problems with tail flutter. Since fixing the triple tail would have been too much work, Lockheed started from scratch and designed the Electra as the follow on. Unfortunately, they didn't pay sufficient attention to the interactions between the engines and wings... FWIW, the DC-7C was a bit faster than the corresponding L-1649 Connie, though much less distinctive looking. Both had a 4 year period flying routes too long for jets and both were retired soon after as the maintenance on the Wright turbo-compounds was much higher than the P&W R-2800's used on the DC-6's.
A new piston engine airliners would most likely use diesel engines as the SFC would be around 0.3lb/hp-hr (vs 0.4 lb/hp-hr for the turbo-compounds) and be able to run on Jet-A fuel. The 115/145 Avgas used by the propliners hasn't been available for a few decades. Then again, an electric short haul airliner isn't out of the question - similarly, battery locomotives may replace many applications for diesels.
- Erik
Well, I guess if nobody can provide a cost estimate for moving #3463 from Topeka to Minneapolis, I’ll just go with my original ballpark estimate of $500,000.
Raising and spending the money for the move will be the first significant expenditure. Until that happens, I have no faith in the grand proposal. As I mentioned, the ownership of this locomotive is in question. So, even if the money to move it is available, doing so is risky if the title to ownership is in doubt. You would not want to spend the money to move the engine to Minneapolis, and then end up having to return it to Topeka.
Hey, how about a biomass-fueled Lockheed Constellation? No big deal, convert the conventional recip engines to steam (sure, it can be done!) , put a good sized boiler in the fuselage, a couple of bins for the biomass fuel, and a couple of husky guys that can shovel like maniacs.
OK, it won't work, I know, but it WOULD be cool!
And I'm glad to see Juniatha's back with a vengeance! Steam topics ain't the same without her!
Uhm , Firelock , this would make the fuselage into a fuelage , I presume .
And , don't forget : shall we have condensers onboard ( spread out in the wings - hot wings not prone to be plagues with icing problems - *g* ) or add up to the already abounding condensing trails ? If you'd opt for trails , after all the 'conspiracy people' are in desperate need for some news , too , don't they , it would make a great sight for flying into a sunset above the Caribean sea ...
At least we don't need starter motors - that should make up for the mass of -uhm- one extra machinist ( just to avoid the outdate-odored word of fireman ) , maybe ?
= J =
.. and one more word on so called carbon-oxid-neutral 'Bio-Fuel'
1. ) Oil *IS* Bio-Fuel , it represents the end-product of decayed forests of the times of the dinosaurs - to think of that should make it clear enough that we a consuming earth's resources at 'super-sonic speed' in comparison to it's having been buit up . Still , seen in a larger context , oil *IS* carbon-oxid-neutral if you look at it the 'right' way - again which should make clear enough the absurdity and short-sightedness not to use more direct wording of the whole proposition .
2.) There is no such thing as 'waste wood debris' . Wood debris other than old cars , washing machines , computers and you name it , is not a 'waste' material but in natural circulation of material under energization by sun has a value and a purpose : it is needed to produce new soil by processes of defying and with the help of micro organisms , from bacteria to insects . Natural forests have ground covered with decaying plants and only that is what allows them to regenerate and keep up the cycle for millions of years or until the climate conditions change beyond a certain trigger value . Mankind , calling themselves homo sapiens , the wise one , are unwise enough not just to break the circle but also to call their foolishness 'carbon-oxid-neutral' . What engines from cars to locomotives exhaust to atmosphere does not do anything to the benefit of our basic supports of life on earth and therefor it is simply cynical to call any of those 'environmental-friendly' - what we try to do presently is to reduce the degree of environmental-agressiveness' - that's all .
Full stop - let's go back to steam
Juniatha Uhm , Firelock , this would make the fuselage into a fuelage , I presume . And , don't forget : shall we have condensers onboard ( spread out in the wings - hot wings not prone to be plagues with icing problems - *g* ) or add up to the already abounding condensing trails ? If you'd opt for trails , after all the 'conspiracy people' are in desperate need for some news , too , don't they , it would make a great sight for flying into a sunset above the Caribean sea ... At least we don't need starter motors - that should make up for the mass of -uhm- one extra machinist ( just to avoid the outdate-odored word of fireman ) , maybe ? Regards = J =
Hey, condensers in the wings! I never thought of that! You see, that's the difference between a qualified engineer and a psycho like me. What's stumping me now is where do we put the whistle? Now it's not a problem if the fuel takes up most of the "fuel-es-sage", all we do it get some old C-82 "Flying Boxcars" and couple them on behind the Connie. Ah, the mind reels...
Oh, I mentioned earlier coal could be considered the original "biomass" fuel as well. Barring that, how's about some "Soylent Green"? I'll go quietly...
I have done some research comparing the Reading 2100 to the ATSF 3463. I am comparing both steam locomotives because the Reading 2100 is very similar to the 3463. The Reading 2100 was also transported by rail completely intact on a flat car from Ontario, Canada all the way to Tacoma, Washington.
The weight of the Reading 2100 is 441,300 lbs.
The weight of the ATSF 3463 is 412,330 lbs.
So actually the Reading 2100 is heavier then the ATSF 3463. The ATSF 3463 is no heavier than a common C44-9.
I will give my two cents regarding the shipping. The last thing in the world I would do is ship this by truck. I would also strongly go against removing the locomotive piece by piece. I have spent years working on locomotives and most of my life working on heavy equipment. You will probably have to heat every one of those bolts up with a torch or cut them off to remove them. Those larger bolts are going to need hydraulic wrenches to remove them. You are also going to need people who have a heavy background in this type of work.
I can see this process getting extremely expensive as you are basically doing a good portion of the overhaul which is removal and disassembly. It would require probably at least 30 personnel total and take several weeks. We all know the more people who are involved the more complicated things get.
The smart choice and most cost effective choice is to ship it by rail. If the Reading 2100 can be shipped by rail across 3/4 of America on a flat car I don't see why the 3463 can't be also. The cars transporting the locomotive and tender are simple 8 axle cars. According to this website http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/rsList.aspx?id=QTTX&cid=3 there is a ample supply of these type of cars with high capacities.
If you are going to ship it on a flat car you don't even need any cranes. If you have a few hundred feet of track available you can build a grade along with track going up to the flatcar. I have seen this used many times by many railroads. I personally saw the Rainier 2-6-6-2T loaded this way. A flat car isn't even 6 feet high.
Using a crane I still estimate it would cost $8,000 to get it loaded and then another $17,000 to transport it by rail. From other posts on this very website concerning how much it cost to move goods by rail....
http://cs.trains.com/TRCCS/forums/t/187338.aspx
I agree except on the cost of the cranes. It will take 2 250T hydraulic cranes to load it. At 5-6 hundred/ hr door to door there is no way you will come out under 50G even if the cranes are in the same town.
If disassembly for trucking was required I could separate the boiler and frame in 2 weeks with 8-10 millwrights. We do this heavy work in power plants all the time. We recently removed a generator rotor at Palo Verde (492,000 lbs) in 3 days and 10 hours.. If you do it that way it will require at least 4 trucks, 3 overweight hauling about 80 T each. ! each for the boiler, frame, and tender plus 1 for the cab and probably the tender trucks. It will take a couple of days to load them IF they are ready to lift as the trucks can pull up. Big bucks and the same on the other end to unload.
In short, I can see it done on the Topeka end for $50G plus about 150G trucking. Unload another 50 grand.
For that you could have had a new boiler probably. Add a new frame and running gear and you might have something. You would have more than an 80 year old piece of history that should have been restored instead of destroyed.
I see three possible purposes for the locomotive:
1) Maintain it as a static display in Topeka. Landscape the site in a way that complements the display. Build a an architecturally pleasing canopy structure over the locomotive.
2) Rebuild it to to run in its historical configuration.
3) Execute the plan by Coalition For Sustainable Rail.
Item #1 is reasonable. Contrary to the popular story, the locomotive is not rusting away to nothing. In fact, it was undergoing thorough cosmetic restoration, but the work was suspended due to organizational issues.
Item #2 is unlikely due to the cost and the difficulty of acquiring rolling stock and a place to run the engine.
Item #3 is a pipe dream. And it will result in the demise of the locomotive as an historical artifact.
A lot of people who are not thinking this through and / or are only seeing a portion of the plan, believe that Item #3 amounts to saving a locomotive from the fate of rusting away to destruction.
Juniatha .. and one more word on so called carbon-oxid-neutral 'Bio-Fuel' 1. ) Oil *IS* Bio-Fuel , it represents the end-product of decayed forests of the times of the dinosaurs - to think of that should make it clear enough that we a consuming earth's resources at 'super-sonic speed' in comparison to it's having been buit up . ...
1. ) Oil *IS* Bio-Fuel , it represents the end-product of decayed forests of the times of the dinosaurs - to think of that should make it clear enough that we a consuming earth's resources at 'super-sonic speed' in comparison to it's having been buit up . ...
How about calling oil and coal "fossil bio-fuel".
Its coal that is formed from decaying forests, oil is a waste product from diatoms (a form of algae) and is being produced all the time. Exxon Mobil is investing heavily to genetical produce diatoms that will only produce gasoline or diesel fuel or jet A. I don't know what they will do for asphalt but as it stands now they can get a form of light crude oil from it that will require further processing. Years ago the University of Rhode Island's research vessel spent about 6 months at Walvis Bay off the coast of South Africa investigating where this process is going on naturally.
As far as "bio-coal" is concerned it sounds like wood pellets like what my neighbor uses in his wood stove as supplemental heating.
Why does everyone want to put it on a flatbed or trailer? It can be pulled as is just take the rods off. CB&Q Hudson 3007 was moved from Iowa and a 2-10-2 was moved from Texas. They went to the Illinois Railway Museum.
creepycrank Its coal that is formed from decaying forests, oil is a waste product from diatoms (a form of algae) and is being produced all the time. ...
Its coal that is formed from decaying forests, oil is a waste product from diatoms (a form of algae) and is being produced all the time. ...
While there have been shown to be associations between oil and fossil diatoms in sedimentary rock; to say oil is their waste product that is presently being produced is quite a leap. Please supply a reference.
WHAT? As soon as the rods are off an incredible imbalance is created. It can only move about 10 MPH with the rods on. Do you think taking them off will be a improvement?. Moving on it's own wheels is entirely up to the carrier. They don't want to do it from the git-go and you want to complicate it?
[quote user="MidlandMike"]
creepycrank: Its coal that is formed from decaying forests, oil is a waste product from diatoms (a form of algae) and is being produced all the time. ...
[/quote
Try this http://www.exxonmobil.com/corporate/files/news_pub_algae_factsheet.pdf
The horses mouth. The part about the U of RI I got from the ships engineer not a scientist and it was 25 years ago. Exxon-Mobil announced this program 2 years ago. If you google "synthetic fuel" you get all sorts of interesting stuff and you might also try the Dept. of Energy.
tdmidget WHAT? As soon as the rods are off an incredible imbalance is created. It can only move about 10 MPH with the rods on. Do you think taking them off will be a improvement?. Moving on it's own wheels is entirely up to the carrier. They don't want to do it from the git-go and you want to complicate it?
I didn't mean all the rods. Just the connecting rods. They moved 3007 at approximately 30 mph except around sharp curves.
.
[quote user="creepycrank"]
[/quote]
Thanks for the reference link. This Exxon-Mobil project is trying to create bio-fuel. To quote them:
• If successful, bio-oils from photosynthetic algae could be used to manufacture a full range of fuels including gasoline, diesel fuel and jet fuel that meet the same specifications as today’s products.
They are not there yet but they are working on it. I just wanted to clear up any misconception that people might have gotten (at least I got) from the original post that seemed to suggest that oil brought up from oil wells was the same thing as this projected bio-fuel. I hope they are successful, but I am not counting on it for anything more than a partial supplemental oil supply.
O5 Hopeful tdmidget: WHAT? As soon as the rods are off an incredible imbalance is created. It can only move about 10 MPH with the rods on. Do you think taking them off will be a improvement?. Moving on it's own wheels is entirely up to the carrier. They don't want to do it from the git-go and you want to complicate it? I didn't mean all the rods. Just the connecting rods. They moved 3007 at approximately 30 mph except around sharp curves.
tdmidget: WHAT? As soon as the rods are off an incredible imbalance is created. It can only move about 10 MPH with the rods on. Do you think taking them off will be a improvement?. Moving on it's own wheels is entirely up to the carrier. They don't want to do it from the git-go and you want to complicate it?
That has always been the preferred method of moving these huge steam locomotives if they can connect to a main line track. They moved Great Northern 2507 that way in 2003. Here is a video link showing the move
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPb3yzLYit4&feature=results_main&playnext=1&list=PLDBDB7F850525A87C
It's a little more complicated when you have to move it by rail because the air brake system has to be in working order. Usually the tender has friction bearings which has to be replaced with roller bearing which is no big deal. Flange height due to worn wheels could cause problems.
That is by far the best and cheapest method. I know that BNSF is very supporting regarding these moves and nearly always does them for free. I know they moved the Great northern 2507 for free. They are also moving the entire collection of the museum of the American railroad in Dallas, Texas for free. That move (which is happening pretty soon) includes a Big boy, Centennial, GG1, and a whole host of other locomotives including other steam engines.
So what is the latest word on moving the engine to Minneapolis?
What are they waiting for?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.