Has anyone, anywhere made any cost projections about how much it would cost to gather a group of skilled engineers and have their project be the fabrication of a locomotive? They would build a Q-2 or T-1 PRR locomotive but use the latest in technology as far as bearings and bushings, materials, coatings and what not. And yes, I could guess millions of bucks too. That's and easy answer nd not what I'm looking for but I'm seriously wondering the actual cost not guesses. I picked these two locomotives as they were all scrapped and not one was kept and donated to a museum for posterity. Sad. So what would it take to build one of them?
The brits recently did just that with their Tornado:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/7536023.stm
Springfield PA
The British did that with their 'Tornado' project - That would be a basic guideline to work with. Heck, even an 'off the shelf' diesel(SD70ACe or GEVO) is around $2,000,000 per copy!
Jim
Modeling BNSF and Milwaukee Road in SW Wisconsin
Why would you want to build one of those engines? You would spend all that money and would never be able to run it anyplace. They were so huge, long and heavy that the only place they could operate is a class 1 railroad main route and they aren't going to let you do that. You would be better off building a smaller engine that could operate on a secondary route such as a branch or a shortline.
Maybe a light 4-8-2, a 4-6-4 or 4-6-2.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
If I was planning to reproduce a nice, useful PRR locomotive, I think I'd go for a G5.
On the other hand, why waste spend all that money on early 20th century technology? Wouldn't it make more sense to go for a 21st century design.
If you really want to build a PRR humonguloco, it would be better built as a non-operating 'this is what it looked like' - a lot less expensive, and just about as useful.
Chuck
It makes little sense to build a G5 as one already exists as well as the others may too. And yes, use 21st century technology where it would coincide with the original's design. Hense, my mention of modern bearings, metallurgy and coatings.
Our country relies so heavily on petroleum based fuel that this project could spur a movement into older design but with the added benefit of new technology to be able to work somewhat within guidelines of today. ( Emissions of soot and some steam. Work with me here.) By all accounts a modern steam locomotive would use synthetic lubricants and the old standbys of coal and water and with the benefit of not using diesel fuel. The steamers of old did generate power that diesels have yet to match, true?
If power plants fed by coal from the Powder River Basin burn that coal to generate electricity then why shouldn't the locomotives use that same fuel to deliver it? All this accomplished without any tip of the hat nor bent knee to the Middle East.
Normal 0 21
In Switzerland is also a company established that produce new steam locomotives.
http://www.dlm-ag.ch/en
Steam is labor intensive, both in the cab and with ground support. Government dictated maintenance of steam is high.
1. Diesel, high production and standard designs equal reduced cost.
2. Railroads prefer a "building block" approach -- 3000 or 4000 HP Diesels, add units to match loading, all controlled by one person.
3. One man crew on a Diesel. With freight and a "Wide Cab" (Crew Cab) the conductor will ride up front. Passenger trains have one man engine crews.
4. With Diesel, axel loading can be controlled and traction on each independent axel is monitored by micro-processor.
5. Down time for normal maintenance on a diesel locomotive is short, very short. Change out parts.
6. A ten year "Top Deck" rebuild results in ten more years of service before sale or scrap.
Don U. TCA 73-5735
grayfox455 It makes little sense to build a G5 as one already exists as well as the others may too. And yes, use 21st century technology where it would coincide with the original's design. Hense, my mention of modern bearings, metallurgy and coatings. Our country relies so heavily on petroleum based fuel that this project could spur a movement into older design but with the added benefit of new technology to be able to work somewhat within guidelines of today. ( Emissions of soot and some steam. Work with me here.) By all accounts a modern steam locomotive would use synthetic lubricants and the old standbys of coal and water and with the benefit of not using diesel fuel. The steamers of old did generate power that diesels have yet to match, true? If power plants fed by coal from the Powder River Basin burn that coal to generate electricity then why shouldn't the locomotives use that same fuel to deliver it? All this accomplished without any tip of the hat nor bent knee to the Middle East.
Looks like we're going to have the yearly "Bring Back Steam" debate a bit late this time..
1.Any new coal fired locomotive will be required to meet the same new emissions regs. as modern diesel locomotives i.e the upcoming Tier IV requirements. (and it doesn't matter who controls Congress or the Whitehouse, the change is a done deal). I am certain that a modern coal burning steamer could be designed to operate much cleaner than previous designs but I am also extremely skeptical that it would meet Tier IV.
2.Coal can be converted to diesel fuel, although conventional diesel is more economical presently. Powder river coal could also be converted to electricity via thermal power plant and used to power electric locomotives via catenary although this is very expensive.....
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
Not all coal is alike. PRB coal has a lower sulfur content but also has a lower heating value than Appalachian coal. NP steam locomotives had larger fireboxes so they could burn on-line coal. A steam locomotive designed around Appalachian coal would have lesser performance if you shoveled PRB coal into the firebox.
I don't think you have to build a new steam locomotive to use coal for fuel. There is something called Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle - IGCC, that's being promoted by, who else - GE, where they can use any type of coal to process and sell the waste sulfur on the side. Several power plants have this system and its used for gas turbines also. Greatly reduces the polution and they don't have to fiddle with scrubbers. The gas from this process can also be used to make synthetic diesel fuel which means that no changes have to be made in the locomotive fleet. The Air Force and some airlines are promoting a similar program to produce synthetic Jet A. The Air Force, of course, would like to not relie on foreign sources to support their operations.
To get back to the main subject, steam locomotives are maintenance hogs. look at all the problems that the excursion groups are having just to keep them going. In this case, the smaller and simpler, the better. In which case the G5 would be about right. There are still 2 LIRR units that they have been trying to restore forever though.
I'd re-create a Milwaukee Road Hiawatha Atlantic-type if I were going to resurrect an extinct type. Small enough to run on museum rail and at the same time large enough to haul a respectable rake of passenger equipment for fan excursions.
And the very fastest steam locomotive in design in North America. I agree. Either it or a Pennsy E-6.
If you think coal can be cheaper than diesel, read George Will's December 29 column in the Washington Post.You will learn that the price of coal is rising and will continue to do so, mostly because of Chinese demand. This year China, which has vast coal reserves of its own, became a net importer of coal. It is estimated that 15 years hence, 350 million Chinese will be living in cities that do not now exist. They will need electricity. They will have to build new electric generating capacity equal to today's entire United States to meet that demand. PRB coal is going to fill most of that demand and it won't be cheap. The good news is the USA will become the world's coal equivalent of OPEC. Now, if only we could tap our own oil and gas reserves...
I would personally like to see a steam locomotive which can be controlled by computer both in the cab and remotely.
Didn't someone build a new wood - oops, biofuel burning 8 wheeler a couple of years ago with all the fancy trim. Probably has the best modern materials and brakes. I think the name is "Leviathan"
daveklepper And the very fastest steam locomotive in design in North America. I agree. Either it or a Pennsy E-6.
Any project that could be built would have limitations running on any mainline rails today. Amtrak can run specials with steam, but most other railroads do not favor running steam on their mainlines.
BNSF just turned down the 3751 to run one excursion train this summer to Chicago. They did this even after the 3751 has completed many great trips in excursion service but it requires service stops and this takes time since most stops are on the main line. Any new locomotive would have to run on branch or museum type rails most of the time. Why built a 100 mph locomotive for a 10 mph railroad.
We have many other locomotives in parks that could be rebuilt for a total cost of about $1,000,000.00 and we have trouble raising that type of money. Most new projects would run about 4 to 5 M. The A-1 in the UK cost over 2M and it is a rather small locomotive in size when compared to modern US steam locomotives.
How many of us out there have contributed to the 261 or 2926 fund lately? They both need money to complete their back shop work.
Here is the linl to "Leviathan" and it's builder David Kloke:
http://www.leviathan63.com/
My God, "Leviathan" looks more like a piece of exquisite jewelry than a locomotive. Just stunning! Well, you know what they said in the 19th Century: Anything that works well, looks well, because beauty and utility are one in the mind of God.
Ha I was right! There is a group building a new PRR T-1. Look it up, not hard to find.
Bob.
I met the boys from the T1 group at a trainshow weekend before last. Had a fun conversation with them too. All mature men and not "pie-in-the-sky" dreamers. Frequent Forum poster "Feltonhill" was one of the group and it was a thrill to meet him!
Bought a T1 T-shirt and a pin too!
A reproduction of a New York Central Hudson 4-6-4 would be eminently more practical and technologically on a par with the British Toranado reproduction. Its a do-able project.
Several NYC Hudson 4-6-4 locomotive designs were developed J-1 to J-3. The first NYC Hudson 5200 J-1 used a locomotive frame built up from structural steel members which were bolted together as opposed to being constructed upon a large single pour steel casting used in later locomotive designs.
- The NYC Hudson was one of the worlds most famous passenger engines pulling the Twentith Century Limited, Lakeshore Limited, Empire State Express, Chicago Mercury, Detroit Mercury, the New England States etc. just to name a few.
- The New York Central operated the Hudson locomotives across Massachusets, New York, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois and Michigan. Most of the Eastern United States would be home to railfan excursions and branch line tracks.
- The NYC Hudson was fully capable of running branch line service and turning out heroic performance at speed with full passenger loads. This engine was the major passenger power for the NYC for twenty years and the number of locomotives constructed was in the hundreds. It is for this reason it would be a worthy reproduction project - and also because the loss of all the originals is a lamented historic event.
- A Hudson tender exits today in museum inventory, and possibly a rear locomotive engine truck with booster steam engine still exists in the bottom of the Mohawk River in Lake Falls NY.
- This locomotive would be a huge draw for railfans because this was one of the worlds most famous locomotives of which none exist today. It is entirely repairable within the common limited technology and loose tolerances used in its design. Boiler pressure 225 psi, Walscharts valve action, choice of roller bearing main and bronze bushing drive rods.
- Some Hudson engines were streamlined in several designs which could be added as optional styling for a reproduction locomotive without compromizing historical authenticity.
Doc
Dr DA reproduction of a New York Central Hudson 4-6-4 would be eminently more practical and technologically on a par with the British Tornado reproduction. Its a do-able project.
The only difference, really, is that the T1 people are motivated and active. There was at least one 'Hudson' development effort that involved the Chinese, which was said to have been cancelled when the American developer found out what the Chinese would be selling the second copy for after he'd paid for all the re-engineering, tooling, etc. (Personally, I think all that would be money well spent, even if I made profit only for people I disliked ... but that's another story entirely!)
I do think, though, that rebuilding 3001 is a priority over any Hudson new build. Dollar for dollar.
I firmly believe that the T1 Trust (or whatever they call themselves) believes that they have all the engineering worked out but seem to have neglected some important matters. Assuming that they can get their toy assembled, where will they be able to operate it? NS seems to be amenable to steam operations, but that can change after Wick Moorman retires. None of the other Class One roads are too big on steam operations by outsiders and beyond Iowa Interstate, not too many regionals may permit it, either. Also, what if the re-incarnated T1 turns out to be as much of a dog as the originals?
CSSHEGEWISCH Assuming that they can get their toy assembled, where will they be able to operate it?
Assuming that they can get their toy assembled, where will they be able to operate it?
Check their website:
The question most asked to the T1 Trust is, "Where will it run when complete?". We are pleased to announce that the Trust has received three letters of invitation to operate on various railroad lines around the country. We have received formal letters from Steamtown National Historic Site in Scranton, PA, the Steam Railroading Institute in Owosso, MI and the Cuyahoga Valley Scenic Railroad in Independence, OH. All three organizations have a long track record of handling mainline steam locomotives and can easily support the T1 locomotive operation when complete.
CSSHEGEWISCHI firmly believe that the T1 Trust (or whatever they call themselves) believes that they have all the engineering worked out but seem to have neglected some important matters.
"Neglected" is an awfully strong word - are you qualified to judge their supposed ignorance? Perhaps you would be so kind as to list the areas that you think have been ignored, and why you so firmly believe the engineering will not have addressed them.
While some of the early assumptions made by the Trust were overexaggerated, there is no doubt that there will be places to run the locomotive. I for one think that the low-augment design, and the perhaps overemphasis on design-for-maintenance that the Trust's engineering committees are using, will make it reasonable for the replica T1 to run anywhere a steam locomotive of comparable size would. (If I recall correctly, all the size dimensions for N&W 611 are larger than the T1 except nominal rigid wheelbase, and the 611's system of low overbalance increases lateral stiffness beyond what the T1 design imposes).
It may well turn out that the T1 design is a 'dog' net of all the corrections and improvements, including those that correct and improve mistaken 'conventional wisdom' and railfan fairy tales. If it does, the likeliest source will be high-speed slipping (and there are fixes for that which don't involve radical redesign or constructional 'do-overs'). A number of T1 problems were characteristic of conditions and problems in late PRR revenue service, and wouldn't apply on a 21st-Century replica being run in excursion service by people specially trained in the 'ways' of sophisticated duplex-drives. A number of other T1 problems are at least addressed, and probably solved, with better materials and fabrication techniques.
Wislish,
History has NOT treated the Pennsylvania T-1 4-4-4-4 Duplex drive favorably. The railroad itself seems to have come to the conclusion that the design went into production before the practical aspects of it could be entirely worked out.
Like wise history has lavished nothing but praise for the New York Central S1a - S2b Niagara 4-8-4 locomotives. New York Central seems to have been entirely satisfied with premere speed and ecomomy and service life of the NORTHERN. Paul Kiefer, who headed NYC locomotive design, felt the S2b with Franklin Steam Distribution through poppet valves was the high water mark of power and of successful passenger locomotive design in America. I am not sure that New York Central ever fully realized what had been developed in this locomotive.
I also realize the Pennsylvania Duplex with two 4 coupled drive sets has inherent power producing potential over that of the standard American 8 coupled drive - but was this ever a practical design? - history seems to think not. So just what is it you would see achieved in a reproduction of the T-1 design that has not already been searched out by the Pennsylvania Railroad?
The Pennsylvaina RR seemed much more satisfied with their Duplex Drive 4-4-6-4 Q-2 freight engine that the Duplex Drive T-1 passenger engine. When comparing the Q2 Duplex Drive to the similar 4-10-2 Texas M-1 design - Pennsy concluded the operating costs of the Duplex did not merit the 1000 horsepower performance increase it offered.
Had Pennsylvaina bothered to develop a 4-8-4 to compare to its 4-4-4-4 would they not have come to similar results? Finding the power increase not merited to the expense? And so why not just build the never done Pennsylvania NORTHERN 4-8-4 using the T-1 design as a pattern? Was not this what the poppet valve 4-8-4 New York Central Niagara came to be? That would be an interesting comparison NYC Niagara to the Pennsy Northern. Surely these questions must have been raised before the T-1 reproduction group decided to go to all the trouble to attempt the build this massive new T-1 locomotive?
Possibly you could share some of your passion for the T-1 as most of us are REALLY IN THE DARK concerning "Why does the world need another Pennsy T-1?" - for the fun or for the glory or for a top speed championship run?...or because the T-1 represents the avenue approach not taken in most steam locomotive designs?... or because its just such a cool steam locomotive and we all want to see it run again?
You have been talking up this T-1 build project for quite a while, and been shy of any real criticism of it - and I have really been wondering why?
I think for all of us the T-1 project is a curiosity - and that if anyone could reflect on a good case for "building a reproduction the T-1" you would!
I don't have time for more than a quick set of comments now, but will have more this evening.
Dr DHistory has NOT treated the Pennsylvania T-1 4-4-4-4 Duplex drive favorably.
I am tempted to quote the famous Henry Ford quote about history in this context. It applies in spades.
The railroad itself seems to have come to the conclusion that the design went into production before the practical aspects of it could be entirely worked out.
That is very clear. Issues with the equalizing alone will establish that, even ignoring the very substantial list of changes made to the spring rigging on the 'production' locomotives. I will take up the Franklin type A issues later, except as noted briefly below.
Likewise history has lavished nothing but praise for the New York Central S1a - S2b Niagara 4-8-4 locomotives. New York Central seems to have been entirely satisfied with premere speed and economy and service life of the NORTHERN.
You seem to forget the mass boiler swap, the problem with bending main rods, and the likely issues with main-pin overloading (one of the things that the C1a design would definitively relieve!) Also how quickly the Niagaras disappeared -- according to Haas and some others, being essentially sabotaged in their operation to get them to break more quickly -- while PRR still had some of their T1s on the property. That is not to say anything about the Niagara design, other than it had, in its own way, just as much immediate obsolescence as an 'improved' (theoretically post-1948) T1 was likely to have
Paul Kiefer, who headed NYC locomotive design, felt the S2b with Franklin Steam Distribution through poppet valves was the high water mark of power and of successful passenger locomotive design in America.
This shows one of the dangers of 'history' -- you get this directly out of the 1947 report on motive power. But where is the subsequent report on the effectiveness of the poppet valve Niagara that he promised?
In my opinion, the S2a (there was no S2b) was designed explicitly to achieve no more than the power of the standard Niagara -- it already being as great as any working 'eastern Northern' needed to be -- on substantially less fuel and water. It did accomplish this, but at such a mechanical cost that it was retired early -- again, I believe, while T1s were still running -- and instead of being rebuilt was simply scrapped. In particular, note that there was not even an attempt made to do a rotary-drive conversion. That speaks volumes to me.
I can understand why NYC just scrapped the S2a, diesels were already showing their stuff, and even Kiefer's treatise showed that they were adequate for the demands of the service.
CSSHEGEWISCHI can understand why NYC just scrapped the S2a, diesels were already showing their stuff, and even Kiefer's treatise showed that they were adequate for the demands of the service.
The thing Kiefer's treatise did not show was how good the E8s would be compared to the E7s. Reading between the lines, the Niagaras were optimized for long, very fast passenger trains operating with reasonable frequency. As soon as that service no longer 'paid', the high guaranteed mileage that went with the relatively high availability was no longer there. And without the high mileage, the substantial fixed costs attributable only to steam could more truly be seen. To me, the difference between 1947 and 1950 is shown up most dramatically by the fate of the S2a, even though Kiefer did not make the mistake of designing it for still more Brobdingnagian horsepower through the same already-tortured rods and main pins.
I also find it interesting to see Kiefer's evaluation of the different offerings just then coming 'on line' from the builders, and the stated reasons for their perceived advantages in that era, by comparison with the 'same' horsepower in EMD passenger power. We know now (for example) what a problem the Gravel Gerties would be; it's interesting that the NYC either didn't recognize or wasn't expecting the problems with them...
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.