The City is offering the locomotive for sale, but no asking price is stated. Their Request for Proposal is asking respondents to make an offer to purchase the engine. The RFP also asks respondents to explain how they will re-locate, maintain, house, and care for the locomotive; and to also explain how they will educate the public about the locomotive. And with all of this questioning, the City's RFP makes no mention of what the City expects in regard to these explanations they are asking for. So the RFP implies that the sale will come with lots of strings attached, and yet they do not say exactly what they will require.
For some amount of time, the RFP was being actively offered without any requset for an offer to purchase. So it seemed as if they were trying to hire an independent contractor to maintain the locomotive.
It would be hard enought to know what to bid on the locomotive if it was just being sold outright. I would think that whatever the market value is, it would be much lower if the purchase has all of the City's conditions attached. And without those conditions being clearly specified by they City, I cannot see how anyone could respond the RFP.
So this is a very strange situation. I spoke to someone from the City who told me that the newpaper article misrepresented the City's position. I contacted three City Council member by email and phone message asking for clarification. None of them replied.
STEVE GENTRY What's with towns/cities in Texas? Within the last couple of years, Houston practically evicted the Texas Railroading Heritage Museum (formally Houston Railroad museum). My understanding is that the property it was formally located on became of value and Houston wanted to facilitate the sale of the property. Now Amarilo want's to sell the 5000, which I question the legality of. Some railroads, and ATSF was one of them, placed engines on permanent loan, so long as they, the receiving party, agreed to at least keep the engine in cosmetically good appearance. I'd say that Amarilo would have to produce proof of ownership before selling.
What's with towns/cities in Texas? Within the last couple of years, Houston practically evicted the Texas Railroading Heritage Museum (formally Houston Railroad museum). My understanding is that the property it was formally located on became of value and Houston wanted to facilitate the sale of the property. Now Amarilo want's to sell the 5000, which I question the legality of. Some railroads, and ATSF was one of them, placed engines on permanent loan, so long as they, the receiving party, agreed to at least keep the engine in cosmetically good appearance. I'd say that Amarilo would have to produce proof of ownership before selling.
The city owns it and the Santa Fe does not even exist any longer. The BNSF does not want to get involved in a sale of a loco donated over 50 years ago by the former Santa Fe Railroad. That loco should be on a National Historical Society list to protect it. The chance of it ever running again is close to zero since its top speed would be too low for main line running. Z trains normally do 70mph on mainline track and the 5000 would not be up to that speed for a long trip.
CZ
steve24944 This showed up on my home page today http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/07/25/texas-city-tries-to-sell-historic-108-foot-steam-locomotive.html
This showed up on my home page today
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/07/25/texas-city-tries-to-sell-historic-108-foot-steam-locomotive.html
Same article that was linked earlier, word for word, just a different website.
thomas81z Firelock76 I did some checking. UP moved Soo Line 2719 in 2006 to the Lake Superior Railroad museum, I think it's safe to assume the then 83 year old locomotive had friction bearings, and UP authorised a 40 mph track speed for the move. So unless UP's policy has changed since then I wouldn't think there'd be a problem with an antique move now. i want to know what the end game is &why this was put in motion.At this late date it will not be scrapped . It's future is unknown......
Firelock76 I did some checking. UP moved Soo Line 2719 in 2006 to the Lake Superior Railroad museum, I think it's safe to assume the then 83 year old locomotive had friction bearings, and UP authorised a 40 mph track speed for the move. So unless UP's policy has changed since then I wouldn't think there'd be a problem with an antique move now.
I did some checking. UP moved Soo Line 2719 in 2006 to the Lake Superior Railroad museum, I think it's safe to assume the then 83 year old locomotive had friction bearings, and UP authorised a 40 mph track speed for the move. So unless UP's policy has changed since then I wouldn't think there'd be a problem with an antique move now.
i want to know what the end game is &why this was put in motion.At this late date it will not be scrapped . It's future is unknown......
I think all of us steam freaks do. As Overmod said, there's a paucity of information in that article and it leaves more questions than it answers. I can't help but think there's some kind of a behind the scenes deal going on but as to who, what, when, where, why, and how it's anyone's guess.
Someone familiar with the Amarillo scene's going to have to sound off on this.
http://trn.trains.com/locomotives/2013/08/big-boy-story-began-in-1940
7th paragraph in states Big Boys were equipped with roller bearings.
I can't cite a source right now, but I am pretty sure that I have read that the UP 800s, 3900s (3800s, 3700s) and 4000s all were delivered with roller bearings. I am going to try to follow up on that.
There's more left unsaid in that story than said.
Who had the original 'sole bid', and what were the reasons found for its rejection?
Why has the museum not asked for donation of the insurance coverage (both from local agents or from one of the underwriting companies, both of whom can and will value the resulting publicity) -- and then listen very carefully to the free loss-mit advice the underwriters can provide them...
The worker's comp is a different situation, but there too I suspect there are exemptions from full coverage for nonprofit entities. Or legislative means of securing an exemption for particular entities or efforts, which should probably be pursued. I surely can't argue with the presupposition that any city-related activity ought to have 'social justice' concerns for workers incorporated into it.
I'd also be tempted to prepare a bill for the city concerning the amount of time and cost that have been put into 'the asset', assigning a fair market value of the 'improved property' above the mere scrap value of the components -- might even compare this with the situation in Topeka where the historical value is perceived as much more than the economic 'opportunity value'. That might not go far legally, but it would be interesting to see how the press and public opinion might view the issue if presented in that sort of light.
As far as Madame Queen's friction bearings are concerned, whether it could be moved on anything other than a flatcar depends on who's rails it's traveling on. CSX would say no, Norfolk-Southern doesn't care as long as proper precautions are taken. UP moved the Big Boy as is with no trouble, but of course they had plans for that one.
Everyone else I admit I don't know.
As Scooby Doo would say, "Ruh-roh".
I am guessing that Madam Queen is probably equipped with friction bearings, and so any transport of substantial distance would have to be on a very heavy-duty flat car such as occurred with Reading 2100.
If it has to go from Amarillo I hope it ends up somewhere that it can be well cared for, such as the Museum of the American Railroad in Frisco, TX, or the Age of Steam or such, rather than being made in to Dollar Shave Club razors.
From reading that article I get the impression "the fix is in," but for who, what, and why is anyone's guess.
In more recent news for this thread:
The plans for "Madam Queen" could be derailed by the city of Amarillo, which owns the locomotive and the ground where she has sat for so many decades.
Short Story: The city is planning to sell Madam Queen, and the volunteer group who has put so much effort into working on her, and plans to eventually restore the locomotive to operation, has no chance of buying her.
http://amarillo.com/news/2016-07-22/amarillo-officials-plan-sell-historic-madam-queen
I guess this is another case where the city just has no clue what they have or what they are doing. Unfortuanately, unless the community steps in and speaks up, I don't see this ending well.
thomas81z kgbw49 You guys are good! I pulled out my copy of "Steam's Finest Hour" edited by David P Morgan and they indeed have the Sante Fe 2-10-4 tractive force listed at 93,000 lbs, just as you noted. Thanks for helping get the correct number out there! How is that book. STEAMS FINEST HOUR"???I might pull rhe trigger,if you guys recommend it
kgbw49 You guys are good! I pulled out my copy of "Steam's Finest Hour" edited by David P Morgan and they indeed have the Sante Fe 2-10-4 tractive force listed at 93,000 lbs, just as you noted. Thanks for helping get the correct number out there!
You guys are good! I pulled out my copy of "Steam's Finest Hour" edited by David P Morgan and they indeed have the Sante Fe 2-10-4 tractive force listed at 93,000 lbs, just as you noted. Thanks for helping get the correct number out there!
How is that book. STEAMS FINEST HOUR"???I might pull rhe trigger,if you guys recommend it
Anything David P. Morgan put his hand to is worth grabbing if you see it. In fact, if you find a copy of "The Mohawk That Refused To Abdicate" grab that one too. DON'T be put off by the garish 1970's dust jacket, the book is a treasure, an absolute masterpiece, DPM at his finest.
M636Cthe actual result of limited cutoff is greater variability in the tractive effort over the piston stroke.
M636CCertainly the effective tractive effort should be based on some calulation of Mean Effective Pressure in the cylinder, which is reduced by limited cutoff, but account needs to be taken of the peaks as well.
The problem with torque peakiness is that it generally produces added propensity to slip (and commensurate wear when slip occurs) -- as you note -- but I think usually produces far less effective increase of starting TE on an actual train. It may pay to remember that actual 'work' done by the steam (reflected in the actual loss of heat that produces nucleate condensation) requires actual expansion, which is related volumetrically to angular rotation of the drive system in a reciprocating locomotive, so the amount of actual work done by the steam over the 'slip' angle will be no greater than that done over the same angle 'non-slipping' -- the difference being that during the slip there is commensurately lower contribution to TE measured over a longer time baseline (such as average TE over one full revolution, which is one intellectually-honest way to go about calculating it) and therefore less, rather than more, effective TE for that part of wheel rotation. (It might be added that, as with high-speed slipping in duplexes, the net loss if the drive system accelerates in slip, before adhesion is restored, may be more than the theoretical contribution from EP peaking and hence derived torque peak.
David Wardale at one point calculated the effective torque 'on drivers' for a full revolution, with datum points (as I recall) 15 degrees apart. I do not remember the cutoff used to produce this, and I would highly appreciate someone providing a link to the actual diagram (the index in my copy of Red Devil being somewhat uninformative if it is, as I recall, in that book) so I can see the stated assumptions. I thought then, and still do, that it would be useful to develop a 'continuous' simulated approximation, with the kinds of variable 'parametrization' that could be achieved in Dockstader's or Radow's simulations, that mapped 'average' wheelrim torque peakiness directly for all the different adjustments, and then showed the effect of rotational inertia and axle load, etc. in slip recovery. That will be done as part of the T1 Trust multiphysics modeling, but I'd certainly like to see the tool available earlier...
I found it useful (lo! these many years ago) to look at the analogue of torque ripple (in three-phase power translated to motor torque) and at the analogues of the techniques used to reduce it electrically, when considering three-cylinder torque. There is an analog also for a duplex phased at 45 or 135 degrees ... where the load on one engine is affected by the instantaneous torque produced by the other ... but it might be noted that in an unconjugated duplex, the peaks are still likely to produce the augmented wear over the potentially short range of tread arc M636C noted.
I would also be interested in knowing if these locomotives displayed 'skid' wear corresponding to the range of peak compression, if they were operated in a manner that produced 'excessive' compression at any time. This might not be as 'continued' as the wear 'zone' for acceleration, but might be deeper into the tread metal if the braking effect on the comparatively small rotational-inertial mass of the rods and drivers decelerated them more sharply than they started to accelerate under steam.
timz kgbw49 5011 class ATSF 2-10-4s with 74 inch drivers, 310 PSI, and 108,961 lbs of tractive effort That's the figure you get with the usual TE formula, assuming 85 percent MEP. All SFe 2-10-4s had limited cutoff-- about 67% on the 5001 and 5011 class, so 85% MEP is too high. Ditto if you calculate TE for the later SFe 4-8-4s, which had 60% cutoff.
kgbw49 5011 class ATSF 2-10-4s with 74 inch drivers, 310 PSI, and 108,961 lbs of tractive effort
That's the figure you get with the usual TE formula, assuming 85 percent MEP. All SFe 2-10-4s had limited cutoff-- about 67% on the 5001 and 5011 class, so 85% MEP is too high.
Ditto if you calculate TE for the later SFe 4-8-4s, which had 60% cutoff.
kgbw495011 class ATSF 2-10-4s with 74 inch drivers, 310 PSI, and 108,961 lbs of tractive effort
kgbw49Thanks. The number listed was pulled off Steamlocomotive.com web site. http://www.steamlocomotive.com/texas/?page=atsf If that is what Santa Fe claimed then it is good enough for me.
Look more closely at those stats. If Madam Queen produced more than 113K TE at any time, any day, I'd be utterly astounded.
That is a geometry consideration, not a calculated TE according to formula. Work the numbers, or get an official ATSF figure for the 5011 class from somewhere like Santa Fe Big Three. But it's unlikely to be 108.000lb -- that is Q2 country with the booster cut in, a very, very different world from any straight 2-10-4 with main pins that survive.
Thanks. The number listed was pulled off Steamlocomotive.com web site.
http://www.steamlocomotive.com/texas/?page=atsf
If that is what Santa Fe claimed then it is good enough for me.
I know they also claimed 66,000 lbs TE for their Northerns.
kgbw49ATSF 2-10-4s with 74 inch drivers, 310 PSI, and 108,961 lbs of tractive effort
SFe claimed 93000 lb.
Found this shot of a KCS 2-10-4 ready to pull what looks like the whole yard out of town. With 70 inch drivers, 310 PSI and 93,302 lbs of tractive effort, they came close in performance to the Pennsy & C&O 2-10-4s, but still lagged the 5011 class ATSF 2-10-4s with 74 inch drivers, 310 PSI, and 108,961 lbs of tractive effort...
ATSF 2-10-4 in Ohio on coal for comparison...
Another KCS 2-10-4 coaled up and ready to drag half of Kansas City south...
Then here is a frosty day in Northern Minnesota with a bundled-up brakeman riding the front footboards...
We all do what we can. I have 261 in my back yard.
Getting back to the original item on this post, the 5000 is a great locomotive with a lot of history for sure. Running it on any modern railroad would probably be prohibited by the railroad. The two major Santa Fe locomotives, the 3751 and the almost completed 2926 would be the best candidates for any excursion and yet they are not welcomed with open arms today. The 3751 normally runs under an Amtrak contract which has allowed several trips in the past few years. The other major factor is cost.
The 2926 is now under cover and should be completed in a year or so, but the lack of money has always slowed any progress to the completion. How many of us on this post besides myself has donated any money to the 2926??
lol as you are well aware,the 9000s were not curve friendly
So i cant see the union pacific steam program adding the lone survivorFirelock76 That 2-12-4 is just too cool for words! What wouldn't we give to see the UP 4-12-2 9000 running again? Just two chances of that happening however, slim and none. Sigh.....
Firelock76 That 2-12-4 is just too cool for words! What wouldn't we give to see the UP 4-12-2 9000 running again? Just two chances of that happening however, slim and none. Sigh.....
That 2-12-4 is just too cool for words!
What wouldn't we give to see the UP 4-12-2 9000 running again?
Just two chances of that happening however, slim and none.
Sigh.....
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.