CSSHEGEWISCHThe counterbalancing in such a situation would have to be almost mathematically perfect to minimize track damage. At that speed, even lightweight rods could generate a lot of dynamic augment, doing a real number on the track and roadbed. Abuse and damage to the locomotive itself is also guaranteed at such a speed. If I recall correctly, "Mallard" was abused pretty badly when it set the speed record of 126 MPH.
Mallard's problem was an improper detail design of the inside big end, which I understand was subsequently fixed (so the problem would not recur even with the excessive 'contribution' from the center cylinder due to problems with the conjugated gear). It was far less a dynamic-balance issue than an excessive-cylinder-contribution issue.
Keep in mind that the rotating balance of the drivers can be made almost arbitrarily perfect, and in any case a fairly high nominal augment force can be (and is) accommodated in the suspension due to the high imposed axle load through the springing. Where the problems crop up early are in the actual rod forces, I think particularly in the main pins, where damage from stresses is cumulative and failure likely to occur at high speed and high developed horsepower, likely very typical of a record run (Mallard was at about 40% cutoff at the recorded maximum speed).
Here is one of the important characteristics of the divided-drive principle, and of the idea of low or zero overbalance. For high speed, and high cyclic rpm, the relative importance of surge diminishes, and you're left with the yaw issues (the internal rod stresses not being affected by overbalance provided in the counterweighting). These are easier to compensate in a longer wheelbase locomotive that does not 'drive' onto the center of the yaw moment (which, for example, a Hudson like 3463 does) through, for example, the stiff lateral compliance used on the N&W class J.
I strongly suspect that very low (on the order of the vertical thrust component in the main at 'full' high-speed throttle and cutoff) or zero overbalance is a likely design requirement for any locomotive based on a Ripley Hudson to reach anywhere near 130mph. I also expect very fine dynamic balancing adjustment of the running gear, first with only enough steam to provide necessary lubrication, and then working up to high power. That is one of the purposes of the 'roller rig' that takes the place of now-long-gone test plants...
The counterbalancing in such a situation would have to be almost mathematically perfect to minimize track damage. At that speed, even lightweight rods could generate a lot of dynamic augment, doing a real number on the track and roadbed. Abuse and damage to the locomotive itself is also guaranteed at such a speed. If I recall correctly, "Mallard" was abused pretty badly when it set the speed record of 126 MPH.
A little math...
130 mph is 2.167 miles per minute
2.167 miles is 11,441.76 feet per minute
11,441.76 divided by 60 seconds is 190.70 feet per second
A 7 foot driver (84 inches) has 22 feet of circumference
The drivers on 3463 will have to rotate at 8.67 revolutions per second to go 190.70 feet per second or 130 mph
kgbw49,
Thanks for the post -
- and there you have it ATSF 3463 was built as Baldwin contract #62089 in 1937 and should have this number on its BUILDERS PLATE! This would make the ATSF 3463 the last newest most powerful survivor "Hudson" 4-6-4 built in America and a truely modern heroic engine.
The best of the best! To cut this up for some kind of engineering experiment would be a historic travesty. CSR should look elsewhere for its project locomotive.
-------------------------
Doc
3463 ready for duty...sure would look great at the head of an excursion train out of Chicago Union Station since Dearborn Station is not used for rail transportation anymore...
Link to Surviving North American 4-6-4 Hudson Steam Locomotives from steamlocomotive.com...
http://steamlocomotive.com/lists/searchdb.php?whyte=4-6-4&country=USA
Only 10 Hudsons survive in the US:
ATSF 3450, 3463
CB&Q 3001, 3003, 3006, 3007, 4000
C&O 490
CP 2839
NKP 170
Johnbill,
That is a very interesting history you recite of the Topeka fairgrounds and Union Pacific station and Overland Station.
Legally, however, the original statement you made is the only seemingly significant one, "That the city of Topeka bought the ATSF 3463!" or was given the engine.
Whatever did or did not transpire at the fairgrounds does not effect the city ownership of the locomotive unless they sell or give the locomotive away legally, by offical letter or bill of sale. I assume the city decided to keep the engine at this or another location but ownership was with Topeka city government. I assume it would take an act of the City Council or other government official designated with legal control of city property such as the city attorney acting under official instructions to be rid of it. There seems to be no legal record at all of the City of Topeka doing any of this. Likely this is the reason for the legal squabble - if they had a clear letter of ownership CSR would have exercised it - and they haven't.
Another thing, for motor vehicles like cars or boats the state demands and issues a "certificate of title." I never heard of a railroad locomotives - which run on private trackage and private "right of way" of ever having a document from a Secretary of State such as for use on public highways. Instead railroad locomotives are delivered from their manufacturer over private railways and not public highways.
The railroad that purchased the locomotive was given instead a bill of sale or letter of ownership, Sometimes a Bank or financial house would finance or the transfer of funds providing the trust or bank the document of ownership - this was often the case with diesel locomotives which showed banking and trust ownership on their builders plates as the legal owners.
With regard to traditional steam locomotives, the locomotive was given a cast metal BUILDERS PLATE bolted to each side of the locomotive smoke box that would give its offical CONSTRUCTION NUMBER. This would be the official reference to its construction contract. Original BUILDERS PLATES are very collectable and are usually stolen from park display locomotives like ATSF 3463 - historic engines will often have them removed and kept locked up for safe keeping sometimes replaced with duplicates for show purposes.
When a railroad acquired a steam locomotive it would assign it an ENGINE NUMBER which followed the engine as long as it was on the property of that particular railroad and so would follow it afterwards hence the many railroad engine numbers we all know and love - UP 844 - NW 611 - NYC 3001 etc.
ATSF 3463 would be known by this assigned locomotive number and by the Baldwin Locomotive Company BUILDERS PLATE number given it at its construction and usuallty included on all official company paperwork.
----------------------
I have also occasionally seen the engine identification numbers in the cab on the backhead of the locomotive firebox of some railroads, and usually all the individual parts of the engine have an identifying number stamped in them, so when disassembled for repair they can be gotten back to the engine they belong to.
Considering the number of steam locomotives produced, which was often very small the numbers are mostly used for reference purposes not identification because unlike automobiles, stealing a steam locomotive was not really likely to occur. At present I am guessing probably not more than 450 total production "Hudson" 4-6-4 locomotives were ever constructed by all builders in the United States.
Surviving "Hudson" engines are probably not more than 20 of which ATSF 3463 is undoutebly the largest most powerful, and most famous example that still exists. Except for a few operating Canadian Pacific engines I have never seen an operating American "Hudson" 4-6-4 and know of none undergoing restoration. All of which is remarkable considering how common they were on some railroads like the New York Central.
--------------------
I believe Santa Fe 3463 should not be turned into some "engineering test bed" for several reasons. First its impractical as anyone who restores such an engine knows - ATSF 3463 was built BRAND NEW in two or three weeks from raw materials when it was constructed. To restore this same engine would take a professional group several years and untold thousands of tedious hours with sometimes questionalble results.
The Coalition For Sustainable Rail could have a brand new engine build in China or other foreign country like England for half the trouble of trying to get that old Santa Fe "war horse" going again let alone modified into that hideous or should I say ludicrious engineering creation they are trying to create to run on modified biomass wood products.
Consider that in another 15 years ATSF 3463 will be almost 100 years old!
and Give me a break!
---------------
Fellow bloggers haven't been much help. so have done my own digging.
The UP station opened for business in 1927.
AT&SF sold 3463 to city of Topeka in 1956.
The last scheduled passanger train was on May 2. 1971.
UP continued to use station for office space (in addition to or in place of offices at 4th and Kansas...or was that 5th?)
1988 UP closes down operations at station and leaves it abandon.
1992 Fire destroys west end of building
1992 Railroad Heritage Inc leases building from UP
1998 UP donates building to Topeka Railroad Days ( thought to be a subsidarary of Railroad Heritage Inc)
2000-2002 restoration of building and grounds undertaken.
2004 Great Overland Station officially opens
Given this timeline, I will state once again, from 1957 through 1973 3463 rotted on the fairgrounds.
I must include the 1973 cutoff date as that is when I left Topeka in search of employment. I have been back many times and not seen anything different other than the move to back behind the trees next to where the racetrack used to be.
The city of Topeka was given a diamond but didn't know the worth of a diamond. When I say city I mean the citizens, the government, everyone.
I guess I mean myself as well. I never even took my son down to see her. He was only 3 but might have remembered, but I sure never appreciated.
So bottom line is nobody knows where the court case is or if there has been a resolution in the ownership dispute.
I will bow out of this blog and joust windmills in my neck of the woods.
Johnbill
84-inch-drivered Hudsons (or Baltic)...
Milwaukee Road F-7...
Chicago & Northwestern E-4...
Santa Fe 3460 Class Blue Goose...
Perhaps the intern should put his money where his mouth is and join the "Coalition for Sustainable Rail" to work on the rebuilding and upgrading of ATSF 3463, assuming that they actually own it.
I've read that ATSF 3460 was also referred to as "Mae West" in deference to its curvaceous styling.
AT&SF 3463 was one of 6 super Hudson 4-6-4 steam locomotives built for fast passenger name trains before WWII. Similar to the work performed by the famous J3 Hudsons of New York Central. AT&SF 3460 was streamlined like the Dreyfus styled Hudsons of the Central, however, unlike the Central only ATSF 3460 recieved the treatment. Affectionately called the "blue goose" it was painted robbins egg blue in color!
The J1 New York Central 4-6-4 Hudsons did achieve near 100 mph in regular service and were considerably smaller than the ATSF 3460's. The J3 New York Central 4-6-4 Hudsons equipped with combustion chamber firebox and smaller diameter cylinders and full roller bearing drive did achieve well over 100 mph.
ATSF 3463 is actually a closer relative to two other western American railroad Hudson design steam locomotives. Milwaukee Railroad massive F7 streamline 4-6-4 hudsons that pulled the Hiawatha name trains. Automotive grade crossings north of Chicago were all placarded with signs warning motorists "trains cross this road at over 100 mph." Unfortunately none of the Milwaukee F7 engines were saved. Also close in design to the ATSF 3463 was the Chicago And North Western Railroad class E-4 Hudson steam locomotives of which none were saved either.
The ATSF 3460's were massive "Hudson" engines over 16 feet tall with extremely large drivers and higher boiler pressure built late in the steam production era and I would be surprised if they did not exceed the speed of the New York Central engines owing to this size increase. Santa Fe was a railroad well equipped to run its name trains at the maximum possible train speeds on a regular basis and set the worlds record long distance run with ATSF 3461 pulling "#8 Fast Mail" a total of 2,227 miles running thru from Los Angeles, California to Chicago, Illinois running at its regular speed of 90 mph and making only 5 stops for fuel.
Coalition for Sustainable Rail (CSR) us fully aware that the ATSF 3463 is equipped with a General Steel Castings "cast steel frame with integral 24 X 30 inch cylinders and all accessory brackets including extra mounting locations for conversion to coal fire," a massive high pressure 300 psi boiler and a large oil fired high temp firebox with combustion chamber situated over near 84 inch BoxPok speed balanced drive wheels on roller bearing axles with light weight rodding - this baby is built to run and they know it!
-----------------
As a side note, I was always enamored with the ATSF 3460's and had LIONEL TRAINS version from my very youth - Lionel 685 and 2055 were the closest with an inaccurate "beatle brow" a la "Madame Queen" Elesco feed water heater version as Lionel 665 and 2065. I was so enamored with the graceful little Hudsons that I tried to match their Baldwin builders photos of them by painting them grey and relettering them for the ATSF railroad.
Yah there are no historic locomotives remaining of the New York Centrals famous "Hudson J1's" to match the many Lionel copies but the original Lionel "Santa Fe hudson" remains today in Topeka - won't someone please paint LIONEL LINES on the ATSF 3463 and take a photo so we can get that out of our system! - Union Pacific did for the toy train convention on UP 844 - check out U-tube!
---------------------
RMEI remain far less sanguine, until explicitly assured otherwise, of the engine's future anywhere in Topeka, where there is a long track record of critical incompetence and at least an apparently marked disdain for actual volunteer groups willing or able to work on 3463 -- even cosmetically. It would be nice to have someone 'in the know' who can say exactly what the group(s) pursuing the legal challenge will do with the locomotive, in both the short and long run, if judgment is made to keep it in Topeka somewhere.
I am not quite sure what you mean in your reference to “a long track record of critical incompetence.”
There is a long track record of dedicated and competent maintenance and upkeep. The phase of deterioration began when Great Overland Station banned the competent maintenance and upkeep. I am not quite sure what GOS is all about, but it strikes me that they had little interest in doing anything with #3463. I perceive that their interests lie in more sophisticated and lofty goals involving far ranging objectives about community and culture, all revolving around the architectural theme of the restored U.P. station. So, in my opinion, they gave the locomotive away to be rid of it.
So this always repeated gripe that the people who want to retain the locomotive are unworthy because they let the engine rot when they had custody to it is not true.
I think it is fair to say that the news of the sale of the locomotive to CSR triggered a reaction to question the right sell the engine as well as to mount an effort to keep it in Topeka. The objective of this group is to cosmetically restore and display the locomotive in an excellent setting with a protective pavilion, lighting, and security. It is pretty much what the ATSF anticipated when they gave the engine to the City.
I have been somewhat close to this development through communication with the various interested parties, including the City of Topeka, and Shawnee County. In these communications, Shawnee County representatives asked Great Overland Station for documentation showing their ownership of the locomotive. Great Overland Station could not provide any such documentation. So I would like to know on what authority, Great Overland Station decided to sell the locomotive. I would also like to see the bill of sale.
As I mentioned above, I do not know what the present status of this dispute it. The last I heard, a final legal decision was pending. For all I know this may have happened, and the ownership issue has been settled.
Alathough I believe the N&W J, the Niagra, the Ripley Northerns and some other 4-8-4s were a better solution for the PRR's use than the T-1, I do not regard the T-1 as a flop. If dieselization had not come so fast, minor impromements would have been made, such as the more advanced Franklin system, and the locomotive would have met goals in an outstanding manner, possibly have been the very best high speed passenger steam locomotive ever built. That is, of course, one of the goals of the group that wishes to revive the design.
I never suffered a delay when riding behind one on the four or five times I did just that, Red Aarrow, Trailblazer, General.
Euclid Paul Milenkovic ... I am trying to tell you that CSR are a version of "steam nuts" and all of this "green bio-fuel" is just a cover to justify tinkering with a steam engine. All of this obsession and obsessing over preservation and historical authenticity. If on an alternative timeline steam hadn't been scrapped that soon, the locomotive in question may well have been subject to the same modifications. People want to preserve a snapshot-in-time version of steam power without considering a what-steam-could-have been version? Preservation smerservation, I just want to see that locomotive under steam! I would rather see the locomotive preserved as an intact historical artifact than turned into a highly modified "test bed" for a science experiment. If they are really about what they claim to be about, designing and building a new locomotive would be far less costly than what they say they will do with the 3463.
Paul Milenkovic ... I am trying to tell you that CSR are a version of "steam nuts" and all of this "green bio-fuel" is just a cover to justify tinkering with a steam engine. All of this obsession and obsessing over preservation and historical authenticity. If on an alternative timeline steam hadn't been scrapped that soon, the locomotive in question may well have been subject to the same modifications. People want to preserve a snapshot-in-time version of steam power without considering a what-steam-could-have been version? Preservation smerservation, I just want to see that locomotive under steam!
... I am trying to tell you that CSR are a version of "steam nuts" and all of this "green bio-fuel" is just a cover to justify tinkering with a steam engine.
All of this obsession and obsessing over preservation and historical authenticity. If on an alternative timeline steam hadn't been scrapped that soon, the locomotive in question may well have been subject to the same modifications.
People want to preserve a snapshot-in-time version of steam power without considering a what-steam-could-have been version?
Preservation smerservation, I just want to see that locomotive under steam!
I would rather see the locomotive preserved as an intact historical artifact than turned into a highly modified "test bed" for a science experiment.
If they are really about what they claim to be about, designing and building a new locomotive would be far less costly than what they say they will do with the 3463.
Here's the thing: That locomotive flat out can barely get itself past 100mph, let alone anywhere near the intended "Project 130" target speed. Even if there were no difficulties imposed by using torrefied firing/co-firing, there are substantial and extensive changes required in steam circuit, suspension, guiding and balancing that would likely make the locomotive very different from its 'historical' configuration and appearance. This class was a bigger flop than a T1 as effective high-speed passenger power, and I confess I would be interested to see what the design could do with the obvious design and construction boners remediated. However, while I have not seen Shaun's full 'laundry list' of necessary alterations, it would be disingenuous to call them merely 'tinkering with a steam engine'.
It is possible that Ward et al. haven't actually realized all the sequential things that are involved in operating a reciprocating locomotive at very high road speed, or how quickly catastrophic effects can emerge with only slight increases in speed (the PRR class J high-speed testing being one interesting example). Even so, however, there are numerous parts and systems from 3463 that could be used 'less expensively' than building them from scratch -- the drivers, frame, boiler shell, and other components for a start. My own, highly personal suspicion is that taking the 3463 down and using the parts as patterns (or starting points for properly-dimensioned modified components or systems) is a likelier development path than physically making all the changes to the 'historical fabric' that will be needed ... especially if the nickel-steel boiler turns out to have the common sorts of difficulty so often encountered on "modern" designs of this vintage. Even so, I suspect there are some things -- the cast bed frame, for example -- that would be cheaper to modify appropriately than duplicate fully ... at least in the early stages of the development work.
This begs the question (which Euclid is partially hinting at, in a sense) of what happens when it turns out to be impossible to reach 130mph, or Mallard's record, or even the 110mph that good ATSF 4-8-4s should be safely capable of. Then, I suspect, you'll have your "tinkering" to get big steam to run, and perhaps with only minimal (and very easily 'reversible') changes from historically-accurate appearance.
I remain far less sanguine, until explicitly assured otherwise, of the engine's future anywhere in Topeka, where there is a long track record of critical incompetence and at least an apparently marked disdain for actual volunteer groups willing or able to work on 3463 -- even cosmetically. It would be nice to have someone 'in the know' who can say exactly what the group(s) pursuing the legal challenge will do with the locomotive, in both the short and long run, if judgment is made to keep it in Topeka somewhere.
[/quote]
Paul Milenkovic Goodness gracious. They are not planning to hide an oil tank in the wood pile Knots Berry Farm style let alone turn the tender into a Diesel B-unit to propel a fake steamer. They want to make that locomotive steam. I am trying to tell you that CSR are a version of "steam nuts" and all of this "green bio-fuel" is just a cover to justify tinkering with a steam engine. All of this obsession and obsessing over preservation and historical authenticity. If on an alternative timeline steam hadn't been scrapped that soon, the locomotive in question may well have been subject to the same modifications. People want to preserve a snapshot-in-time version of steam power without considering a what-steam-could-have been version? Preservation smerservation, I just want to see that locomotive under steam!
Goodness gracious. They are not planning to hide an oil tank in the wood pile Knots Berry Farm style let alone turn the tender into a Diesel B-unit to propel a fake steamer. They want to make that locomotive steam.
I am trying to tell you that CSR are a version of "steam nuts" and all of this "green bio-fuel" is just a cover to justify tinkering with a steam engine.
I am not sure what they want. I have heard, as you say, that they are just railfans using the "green bio-fuel" as a cover to play with trains. If that is the case, I think they have less credibility than what is implied in the grandiose plan they have put on the table. I would rather see the locomotive preserved as an intact historical artifact than turned into a highly modified "test bed" for a science experiment.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
I realize this is straying from the topic but just so I can better understand what is going on...
Who had title to the Topeka "Union Station" back when the last UP passenger train stopped? If I remember, it was during the time that Rock Island was taken over by Cotton Belt and Amtrak was taking over passenger service. Who had title to it when the vagrants managed to set fire to it? and what year was that? Who had title and was able to raise the funds to restore it? and what year was that?
johnbill
johnbill All, Not sure if this is a restoration issue, a paternity suit, or an old fashioned case of sour grapes. I witnessed the shutdown of Topeka Blvd back in '56 to push 3463 across to the fairgrounds. I watched her rot and be plifered over the years. Topekans are now (and have been since this contraversy started) starting to care about this piece of history, after letting it sit and rot and finally being bannished to a remote fairground location? That's one side of this story.
All,
Not sure if this is a restoration issue, a paternity suit, or an old fashioned case of sour grapes.
I witnessed the shutdown of Topeka Blvd back in '56 to push 3463 across to the fairgrounds. I watched her rot and be plifered over the years. Topekans are now (and have been since this contraversy started) starting to care about this piece of history, after letting it sit and rot and finally being bannished to a remote fairground location?
That's one side of this story.
That is one side of the story, but I believe it is not accurate.
The party responsible for letting the locomotive rot is Great Overland Station (GOS). There was a volunteer group that did a lot of restoration work with the plan of moving the locomotive to the Union Pacific station in Topeka. As I understand it, that group was doing the work on behalf of the presumed owner of the locomotive called Topeka Railroad Days. TRD was reorganized as GOS, and GOS focused their efforts on working on the U.P. station. GOS abandoned the plan to move the locomotive to the U.P. station. At the same time, they forbade the volunteer group from doing any more work on the locomotive. That is when the engine began to deteriorate. It was GOS that was responsible for the deterioration.
As a culmination of GOS’s disinterest in #3463, they sold it to CRS in Minnesota. The group trying to hold on the engine today is simply a reorganization of the effort to preserve the locomotive that has always existed despite the resistance of Great Overland Station. Upon learning of the sale of the engine, they began to question who actually owned it and whether GOS had the right to sell it.
Eventually, they made the case that GOS did not have a clear title to the engine, and that has been in court for some time. It has been several months since I have had an update, so I don’t know if the court action has been settled. Can anyone here confirm the present status?
Of course the other side of the story about the fate of the locomotive is that if the locomotive is allowed to leave Topeka, it will once again return to its former glory steaming down the mainline as God intended. I would prefer that outcome if the party delivering it had legal title; and if a historical restoration to operation was their stated plan. The latter is certainly not the case with the mission of CSR. In my opinion, their objective seems farfetched and scattered. I fear that it could easily result in the loss of the locomotive. It is of little comfort to hear them say that their work will be reversible, which they offer as proof that the locomotive will not be lost or permanently disfigured as an experimental test bed for green transportation. Their claim that their work will be reversible seems highly disingenuous because any action is reversible. The real question is about how much reversing will cost. You could reverse the scrapping of historic locomotives if you simply built a new one.
Just so no misunderstanding, my original post referred to Zoo only because the Milwakee Zoo was involved. No put down of the smaller machines.
Are there scalings between large and small, sure. Are they accurate, who knows or better yet, who cares.
CSR tested it's fuel on a ZOO engine. They could have tested it anywhere that a controlled fire could be lit. Fuel burns, burning fuel produces heat, heat can be used to do work, in this case boil water creating steam. CSR's "scientific experiment" was flawed by the fact that the particular Zoo engine used had its own unknown "scientific effeciencies and ineffeciencies".
Where in transportation development was the steam turbine/electric locomotive? Heaven forbid, where was the nuclear steam turbine/electric?
Reminds me of an afternoon of train watching in San Luis Obisbo, Ca.
The north and south Coast Daylights were fighting for platform space as both were late and both arrived at the same time. On track #3, a northbound freight had tied down to wait for the priority traffic to clear the main line. Tied down may not be the correct term. Both power units had been shut off.
Passengers are cleared, time to get back to work. Young engineer tries to start lead unit, an EMD unit. Battery wasn't that strong and that old beast coughed, sputtered but would not start. The persistant engineer continued until he ran the last crank out of the battery. He radios for help, gets told to kick himself in the rear, start the #2 unit , connect the power busses and start the lead.
Unit #2 was a GE turbine electric. With a quick flash of fire out the exhaust there was the scream of engine and all was well.
The lead engine, probably embarressed at this point, had no problem firing up with a hot start voltage.
What's the point? Maybe that young engineer in Ca learned some common sense. Maybe learned some things beyond common sense.
Maybe the Minnesota U students involved with CSR will learn as well. I hope so.
So far I have seen some interesting comments and heard some intresting thoughts and opinions. I assume 3463 is still sitting on the back lot of the fairgrounds and lawers are continuing to get paid for the continuences they can create. Hell of a way to run a railroad!
This thing about "zoo engines."
Amusement park gauge locomotives seem affordable for people who want to study steam locomotive concepts in a way that mainline standard gauge is not.
Think of it. The most operational experience for the Gas Producer Combustion System, something the CSR people are touting, was obtained with L. D. Porta's modifications to steam locomotives on a coal-hauling line in Patagonia, the far southern portion of Argentina in the direction of and approaching the climate of Antartica.
That line, which hauled a commercially significant amount of coal, was 2-foot gauge. Someone can tell me if there are scaling laws where something done in 2-foot narrow gauge or in "zoo" gauge doesn't work the same way in mainline standard gauge. But a zoo gauge T1 would cost much less than the full size one planned.
CAZEPHYR Like most of the possible rebuilds into a super loco, this one seems to lacking any progress. Even if all of the steam maintenance issues were solved, it would still require about 10 times the maintenance that any diesel or electric requires. The railroads that owned and built their own steam locomotives purchased diesels in the end just to eliminate hundreds of backshop and round house jobs. How wonderful it is to see a steam locomotive running on excursions, but in every day use they are very high in maintenance. Larry
Like most of the possible rebuilds into a super loco, this one seems to lacking any progress. Even if all of the steam maintenance issues were solved, it would still require about 10 times the maintenance that any diesel or electric requires.
The railroads that owned and built their own steam locomotives purchased diesels in the end just to eliminate hundreds of backshop and round house jobs.
How wonderful it is to see a steam locomotive running on excursions, but in every day use they are very high in maintenance.
Larry
I guess that is the conventional wisdom, that steam is high maintenance.
There are two kinds of maintenance. One kind is along the lines of scheduled repairs -- truing drivers, reboring cylinders, remachining bearings, straighening frames, descaling boilers, tightening superheater headers, fixing leaks. The other kind is related to day-to-day operations -- taking on coal and especially water and emptying the ash pan along with filling oil cups (later, applying Alemite grease). I suppose there is a third kind of maintenance intermediate between the two -- unclogging flues, smokebox cleaning, unblocking spark arresting screens.
Sources range from the Notorious H. F. Brown to David Wardale have supplied data that with respect to the first kind or "shop" maintenance, steam locomotives hold their own against Diesels, especially when considering new vs old locomotives and how maintenance of all types of locomotive increases with age of the equipment.
With respect to the second kind of maintenance, I get the impression from Wardale's book that it is more of an operational inconvenience than a significant portion of cost.
Consider the need for water. At the heydey of steam a lot of resources went into providing water, but on the subject of a condensing vs a non-condensing locomotive, Wardale did not consider the cost of providing that water that big of a deal in turms of percentage of total costs. Rather, the need to supply water is regarded as an operational "headache."
Think of the controversy regarding Diesel emissions fluid (DEF). The use of DEF to control NOx emissions from Diesels is probably a minor added cost, the trucking industry along with Amtrak has resigned themselves to using DEF to meet the new regulations, but the freight railroads really dug in their heels on that one in a way that does not appear rational on the surface. Not using DEF requires more expensive redesigns of locomotive engines and it introduces uncertain added maintenance expenses for when EGR systems clog up, but the railroads simply did not want the operational burden of another substance they supplied to a locomotive in addition to fuel and sand.
Admittedly there are certain burdensome operations with a steam locomotive, especially if it is a one-of in excursion or tourist service. A big one is performing a "cold start" on a steam locomotive. This not only can take many hours, there was a Web page "Booting a Steam Locomotive" that broke the operation into many steps that the operator needed to get right.
On the other hand, Wardale explains that with the QJ steam fleet in China, they would simply keep a locomotive in steam round-the-clock between what if I remember were monthly boiler washouts. When one crew went off the locomotive, another crew would take its place, and they did this 24-7.
Getting back to that AT&SF Hudson, what I think the Coalition for Sustainable Rail is "about" is a bunch of tech-savy steam enthusiasts wanting to "hot rod" an express passenger locomotive. You can kind of tell by the names of people on the project and checking them against the Usual Suspects of tech-savy steam people. The thing about high-speed rail combined with carbon-neutral biofuel, it seems to me, is an excuse to justify the project.
So the Coalition for Sustainable Rail (CSR) is just another group of steam-punk geeks like the T1 Trust. Whether that AT&SF Hudson is ever steams again or not probably has less to do with any argument with the local people intent on having it continue to rust apart in a park and more to do with CSR's ability to raise money, either through donations from steam enthusiasts or from grants to develop their biofuel.
A steam engine has limitations. Mechanical valves, linkages, driving arms and rotating devices can only move so fast. I think the fastest for a steam loco was about 100 MPH back in the old days. Maybe some 100 " drivers could do the job but I bet starting up might have some problems.
Who owns charitable gifts? If CSR plays their cards right, this could end up in the US Supreme Court arguing this issue.
I have a suggestion for all involved. If the lumber yard spur is still in existance, put the engine on it and take it to the Great Overland Station where the claimed owners live, scrape off the rust and use plenty of black paint. Build a house for it or let it sit for another 50 years and rust away. UP 844, 4014 and 3985 can all bow their stacks in a moment of rememberance as they steam through.
johnbill Say the article about CSR and the zoo engine running "biofuel". What is the latest on CSR's bid to convert "3463 to biofuel" and run 135 MPH? Last I heard, things were tied up in court over the little matter of ownership. That was over a year ago.
Say the article about CSR and the zoo engine running "biofuel".
What is the latest on CSR's bid to convert "3463 to biofuel" and run 135 MPH?
Last I heard, things were tied up in court over the little matter of ownership. That was over a year ago.
As far as we know, no new news or movement of the 3463 out of it location.
That was the last I heard as well. It would be nice if someone could update this with the most recent action in court.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.