The Minneapolis group who have been given the AT&SF 4-6-4 as a test bed say they are confident that they can create a higher-speed passenger rail locomotive that is cleaner, quicker, and cheaper than any locomotive on the market today.
This proposal seems incredibly long on platitudinous rhetoric and short on substance. The stated mission, coupled with its implications, suggests that the #3463 will be very extensively modified. My interpretation is that it will require new piping, jacketing, cylinders, valves, drivers, rods, and exhaust nozzle. Perhaps it will require new bearings of an improved design on all axles of the engine and tender as well. Jacketing of the boiler, steam pipes, and cylinders will be superinsulated. A streamlined shroud will be added.
It may require a whole new boiler, but if not, it will at least require conversion to a gas producer firebox, which is said to be part of the plan. This will require a different grate system plus the installation of many overfire secondary air inlets. Each of these amounts to creating a small air tunnel piercing both walls of the firebox through the pressure vessel. A GP firebox also needs a nozzle grid of steam distribution under the firebox to cool the fire.
They intend to redesign the steam circuit, so this may require a new design for the throttle and the superheater. Valves and valve passages are part of the steam circuit, but it is not clear what will be done to those details.
It will require a new firing system for the pellets, and possibly a new feed water system. This will be an automatic firing system controlled by the engineer. I am guessing that there will be a lot of computerization applied to the controls, firing, and combustion process. Overall, it seems likely that there will be extensive revision to the entire array of backhead controls.
Also included will be a newly designed and built HEP generator for electrical power for a passenger train. This will be powered by either a steam reciprocating engine or a turbine, and probably be mounted on the tender. Such units may run around 500 horsepower, and this power has to come from the locomotive boiler.
And with all this cutting, welding, machining, and re-designing, there will be bound to be limitations and compromises imposed by the fact that this is a remodel rather than starting with a clean sheet of paper. When you spend this incredible amount of money on the new stuff, why on earth would you want even the slightest bit of compromise forced upon it by working around the remnants of the antique locomotive? I find it most difficult to believe that it would not be cheaper to start with a clean sheet of paper than to hack up this antique locomotive and convert it.
The only silver lining to this cloud is that this proposal seems so far into la la land that it may never reach the point of destroying Topeka’s historic locomotive gift from the AT&SF Ry.
It appears you are creating a notion of what they will do to 3483 out of pure speculation and assumption.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Not at all. It is all from their website and other informational releases that they have published.
I have to agree completely with Bycyrus' comments. Given the scope and significance of the proposed modifications it will be far easier to do a completely new build, and in the end probably cheaper too. Replicating the best features of the 3463's design may be a good idea, using modern materials. But anyone who has tried to renovate old things, whether houses, vehicles or rail equipment, always uncovers more problems and costly headaches as the project progresses.
On the whole, though, I think this will turn out to be a fantasy project. Just hope that reality sets in before any damage is done to the locomotive. The worst outcome would be if there is enough money to get the project underway while hoping the remaining millions will miraculously appear.
John
Ross Rowland tried the same thing a few years ago with an old Chessie steam engine and an organization called "American Coal Enterprises (ACE)." At the time of the video released by Machines of Iron and broadcast on RFD-TV, the railroad was enthusiastic about the idea of returning to steam power, but no more has been heard about the project since then.
The biggest hurdle to overcome will be reconstruction of all the support structures to support a steam engine; i.e., water and coal stops, turntables, roundhouses, maintenance shops, etc. etc.
Bucyrus: While you may well be correct, the information I examined from the sites is pretty vague. And why did they bother (and waste the $) with a "cosmetic" restoration if they were going to totally rebuild/reconfigure?
http://www.csrail.org/index.php/the-plan
http://www1.umn.edu/news/news-releases/2012/UR_CONTENT_389949.html
"Once its modernization is complete, CSR 3463 will have little in common with the smoke-belching steam engine it once was. Featuring a gas-producer combustion system, improved steam circuit, modernized boiler, low-maintenance running gear and steam-powered electric generator (to power the passenger train)."
Sounds like a lot of internal changes, less external. And what had 3463 become but a rusting hulk with no external sheeting, incapable of running for 50 years. If this works out, as unlikely as that seems, we might see a living, modern steam engine. What's so bad about that?
Ever since dieselization, there has been small faction of people who believe that it did not have to happen, if only steam had become just a little more efficient. This undying faith continued to push steam development forward in countries where steam held on longer than in the U.S. and other places. The dream has been kept alive and occasionally given a boost by the prospect of rising oil prices and using abundant coal as an alternative fuel.
The common backdrop assumption behind this dream has always been finding a way to make steam more cost advantageous than diesel locomotives.
In that regard, this project with AT&SF locomotive #3463 is unlike any previous aspirations to bring back steam. The central purpose of this project is one component of a goal to replace fossil fuel energy production worldwide with renewable energy. And in the case of this one component, represented by this project, the purpose is to use torrefied biomass fuel to replace coal and oil in power generation and railroad transportation. So, you see, this is not just about restoring an antique steam locomotive so she runs again on fantrips.
Some of the people who have always held out the dream of the return of steam are indeed a part of this project with #3463, but the terms of the project are much broader than anything they ever dreamed of before. The most striking difference is that this current proposal is not based on the goal of replacing diesels with steam for the purpose of reducing cost of operation. Never before has the prospect of returning steam been proposed without that cost reduction component. So this is unlike any previous flirtation with the return of steam as commercial motive power.
Steam locomotives would still be more expensive to run even if the fuel was free.
I've noted previously that the production of torrified biomass does not seem to be very different from a coke oven. It would be curious to find out if the environmental issues involved in the production of the fuel at a commercial level have even been addressed by the proponents of this project or if the fuel can even BE produced at a commercial level.
schlimmSounds like a lot of internal changes, less external. And what had 3463 become but a rusting hulk with no external sheeting, incapable of running for 50 years. If this works out, as unlikely as that seems, we might see a living, modern steam engine. What's so bad about that?
The changes will be internal and external. The engine will be jacketed with a functional aim for wind resistance at 130 mph. Somewhere, there will be the appearance of whatever it takes to house an auxiliary power generator. The group says the engine will bear very little resemblance to the original. Perhaps, at some point soon, they will offer a rendering of what their vision for the locomotive will look like. Perhaps I will offer one first.
I see nothing wrong with building a modern steam locomotive for whatever reason. However, this project strikes me as being so “conquer-the-world” in scope that I have to question its credibility. Nevertheless, they are quite likely to take the first step, which might be the sacrifice of the significant historic artifact of the AT&SF locomotive. People in Topeka would hate to see the locomotive lost to a pipedream that never comes to fruition.
In proper engineering terms of practice, this project should begin with the thorough cad modeling of the existing locomotive. This would occur concomitantly with the design engineering of the modern locomotive. Or the engineering would occur prior to modeling the existing locomotive. So, generally, all the engineering and funding would be in place before disassembling and reworking the historic locomotive.
I am waiting to see if this group puts the cart ahead of the horse and begins the immediate disassembly of the historic locomotive before engineering and designing the new locomotive. That would be the typical amateur approach to this type of project, and a big red flag to the chance of a successful outcome.
Paul and Bucyrus are both right. This is a harebrained scheme like most so called "green" ideas. Not only is there a question of feasibility producing the fuel but where will this "biomass" come from?
"I am waiting to see if this group puts the cart ahead of the horse and begins the immediate disassembly of the historic locomotive before engineering and designing the new locomotive. That would be the typical amateur approach to this type of project, and a big red flag to the chance of a successful outcome. "
Placing the cart before the horse may improve the view from the cart, but it will hardly get the cart to go where you want it to go.
It is good that we have pie-in-the-sky dreamers, otherwise the world would come to a stand-still. Still the LION would not put new technology into a steam locomotive, at least not until the project is perfected elsewhere. LION looks at electrical power plants. 60%+ of the BTUs go up the chimney. Fix that and you will have found the holy grail of energy Independence, and anything less is just so much mental fantasy.
ROAR
The Route of the Broadway Lion The Largest Subway Layout in North Dakota.
Here there be cats. LIONS with CAMERAS
The aim of this project is to develop a steam locomotive that is cheaper to operate and maintain than today’s diesel-electric locomotives. Is this possible?
Will the HSR of tomorrow be powered by modern steam locomotives? Steam ruled the rails for more than a century. Is external combustion going to return as the way of the future?
Here is what the Minneapolis based CSR group says about it:
“Preliminary research shows that CSR’s test locomotive will cost less to maintain and less to fuel, and will exhibit greater train handling performance than any diesel-electric locomotives available today. The modern steam locomotive has relied on technology that has been neglected for decades. This is about to change. With the ability to burn biocoal efficiently and without negative impact on the environment, CSR’s modern steam locomotive will also exhibit significantly better horsepower output at higher speeds than the current diesel-electric locomotives that pull the majority of passenger trains in the United States.”
After reading that statement, I wonder how many engineers are on the staff of CSR. It looks more like wishful thinking than anything else.
The Coalition For Sustainable Rail makes this technical statement:
The majority of intercity passenger rail in the U.S. operate over tracks with the capacity for "higher speeds" of 110-125 mph.
However, in the absence of modern steam engines capable of reaching those speeds quickly, passenger rail providers are forced to rely on diesel-electric passenger locomotives, which develop maximum horsepower at low speed.
Combined with inefficiencies of traction motors encountered at high revolution, these diesel trains exhibit sluggish acceleration above 25 miles per hour, hampering their ability to reach full potential at 110 or 125 mph.
By comparison, the modern steam locomotive develops and maintains maximum horsepower above 40 mph, enabling higher speed acceleration than alternatives available today.
Initial computer simulations suggest that the CSR's modern steam engine will significantly out-accelerate a modern diesel-electric locomotive to 110 mph, meaning that passenger operators would be able to realize electric-like acceleration at or below the cost of the diesel-electrics they currently use.
That statement undermines my confidence in their engineering expertise.
It is true what they say about a steam locomotive developing maximum horsepower above 40 mph. However, it is untrue that diesels develop maximum horsepower at low speed. They develop maximum horsepower at any speed.
Therefore in comparing steam to diesel, it is the steam locomotive that suffers a deficiency in developing its horsepower because it cannot develop full horsepower at lower speeds.
Steam locomotives develop their maximum horsepower at higher speeds.
Therefore, if a steam locomotive and a diesel locomotive of the same horsepower were each accelerating the same trainload from zero to 110 mph, the diesel would achieve that speed first.
This is because the steamer will not be able to develop its full horsepower until it reaches the higher range of speeds, whereas the diesel will develop full horsepower over the full range of 0-110 mph.
Dang, never have read so much negativity about something new and cool. I'd even donate time to wrench on 'er, and go real fast like.
Adrianspeeder
USAF TSgt C-17 Aircraft Maintenance Flying Crew Chief & Flightline Avionics Craftsman
One would have to read all of the information resources for the Coalition For Sustainable Rail in order to grasp what their mission actually is.
It is a two-pronged, worldwide objective:
1) Replace coal with torrefied biomass for the generation of electricity.
2) Replace oil with torrefied biomass for railroad transportation.
Some have compared the CSR plan to the past ACE development for a modern steam locomotive. I would say that the CSR plan is at least a thousand times larger in scope than the ACE plan was.
In detail, the CSR plans to engineer and design a modern steam locomotive prototype, and then build it from the remains of AT&SF #3463. They will use the prototype to set the world speed record at 130 mph. Presumably, this would be done at the Pueblo test track site.
In conjunction with this locomotive development, they will perfect the scientific basis for making torrefied biomass pellets, and then will develop full scale manufacturing process including biomass feedstock production, and manufacturing plants.
Following this will come a second phase of developing the production steam locomotives that will outperform diesel locomotives, and do so at a lower cost.
As a parallel development, the group will engineer and design a range of torrefied biomass generating plants from large regional plants down to plants small enough for a single household.
To adrianspeeder, thank you for your service, Airman! This old Marine says "Semper Fi" to you!
Sorry, I don't know if the Air Force has a similar saying!
To adrianspeeder, thank you for your service, Airman! This old Marine says "Semper Fi" to you! Sorry, I don't know if the Air Force has a similar saying!
Thanks! I really like doin' my job. We have some goofy sayin' like "Fly, fight, win" or some nonsense, but I go with, "Pull the chalks, maintenance rocks."
Adrianspeeder, as one who pulled chocks out from under USAF wheels for a LONG time, the only time I've used chalks is while playing pool...
As a former statistical planner, I hear a lot of `rose-colored glasses' rhetoric. SHOW ME THE NUMBERS! Absent real, and realistic, numeric estimates and comparisons, this whole thing is about as valid as the contents of a hot air balloon.
I say again, I hope this doesn't result in scrapping the loco when reality catches up with this dream world.
Chuck [MSgt(ret)USAF, served from Korea through SEA]
Chuck,
You have hit the nail on the head. I believe scrapping #3463 is very much a possibility as this odd scenario plays out. The overall project of the Minneapolis group will require a lot of serious fundraising, including federal funding, which is currently a volatile issue. Just moving the engine to Minneapolis will cost $300,000-$500,000. They have estimated the cost of building a new, modern locomotive out of the remains of #3463 to be $3,000,000.
This will probably require new parts for at least half of the locomotive, plus all of the engineering and design that must go into a completely new locomotive in terms of thermal dynamics and modernized machinery. Just to rebuild the current historical locomotive to operating condition would probably cost at least $1,500,000. So I would say that their estimate for the new locomotive is extremely, unrealistically low.
Pie-in-the-sky dreams at underestimated costs are a red flag to investors. Therefore, I believe that there is a high probability that this project will lose steam or even die.
The plan was to move the engine this fall, but I would not be surprised if the engine is still sitting in the same place a year from now, facing an indefinite future. If the deal falls through, Great Overland Station will become desperate over the condition of the locomotive, a lack of funding to do anything with it, and the rising liability. The city and county will join right into the desperation. That is just the kind of distressed situation that leads to an impulsive decision to scrap a locomotive.
So, I do not think there is much chance, if any, to undo the deal between the Minneapolis group and GOS, but I do believe there is a very good chance that the deal will simply fall through. And if it does, I would say that there is at least a 50:50 chance of this scrapping scenario developing. To head this off will require someone with vision to step forward just in time. Saving the engine under those circumstances will require a quick action by someone with a vision.
What happened to this loco in the end? I apologise in advance if this is common knowledge - this topic and the link below came up whilst I was doing a search on 'torrefied biomass'.
There seem to be ongoing research efforts into using torrefied biomass as a steam loco fuel:
http://biomassmagazine.com/articles/14837/biofuel-tests-in-milwaukee-zoo-locomotives-a-success
If a research group wished to demonstrate 'future steam' on standard gauge railways it might actually be cheaper to build a new loco from scratch rather than try to adapt a historic one. This would also get railfans and others on-side rather than upsetting them as the use of the AT&SF loco appears to have done.
The appeal of a 'future steam' loco to railfans would probably depend on how closely it resembled a 'real' steam locomotive. Livio Dante Porta and later, David Wardale, developed a number of ideas which improved the efficiency and performance of the classic steam loco.
There might be scope for a joint project between researchers and railfans to design and build a new locomotive to both test new concepts and provide 'new-heritage' power for excursions.
IslandManWhat happened to this loco in the end?
I started this thread and made the last post in the summer of 2012, and still do not know what the fate of 3463 is destined to be. The last time I talked to one of the people in the Topeka group opposing CSR was shortly before the last court resolution. At that point, the locomotive was fenced off to public access, and had been partly disassembled including the removal of the rods. I do not know how well the exposed parts have been protected from the weather. I was also told that several parts of the valve gear had been removed and taken elsewhere.
The court eventually made a decision that apparently went against the group fighting to keep the engine in Topeka. It was popularly characterized as being in favor of CSR who wants to modernize the locomotive with green technology.
However, it seemed to me that the court did not actually award the engine to CSR. In fact they determined that the organization (Great Overland Station) that sold the engine to CSR did not have the legal right to sell it. As I understand it, what the court decided was that the City of Topeka has always been the owner and still is the owner. It was the City that earlier decided to get out of the responsibility of ownership by giving the locomotive to a group that eventually became Great Overland Station.
What I concluded is that it is once again up to the City to decide what to do with the locomotive. If anyone here knows where this presently stands, the information would be most welcome.
I have heard countless recitations of the claim that the original owner of #3463 had let the engine sit and rot, while CSR will save the engine from that terrible fate and restore it to its former glory. I don’t know how much more untrue and harmful of a statement could be made. It was Great Overland Station, the organization that sold the engine to CSR apparently without legal title, which stopped and further prevented the ongoing restoration in Topeka several years ago. The actual phase of rotting in Topeka began at that point and continues.
http://cjonline.com/news-local/2014-06-01/debate-over-ownership-atsf-no-3463-enters-shawnee-county-court
There is no article dated later than this on the local Topeka newspapers web page
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
We have had substantial discussion in previous threads, and there is more with a slightly different focus on RyPN.
The gist of the court argument was that it is unclear who actually "has" title to 3463; the only sure thing being that BNSF if they wanted to claim visible breach of contract against the City of Topeka, if the City is adjudicated to be a proper agent for 'the children of Topeka', could regain legal possession without any further confusion; and that the fake group 'reinstating' the old corporation has no right to it at all.
There was some confusion about the CSR/SRI people opening 'negotiations' with the City of Topeka: that is best thought of as 'covering contingencies' just in case the ongoing legal proceedings do give the City some authority over disposition, perhaps through condemnation of 'abandoned' property.
I was expecting at least one follow-on proceeding by now, even if it were only a continuance. And perhaps there has been but the press hasn't cared to cover it.
Meanwhile, of course, most of the actual point of the torrefied fuel, treated or untreated, has gone away along with the coal with which it would be co-fired, so the whole basis that underlay both Project 130 and the follow-on 'high-speed passenger locomotive' designs is pretty much defunct. Trump might be pro-coal in some contexts but I doubt he is similarly bullish on untried alternative-fuel projects for Amtrak ... and I doubt that either the 'next Administration' nor the composition of the corresponding Congress would be terrifically supportive.
As I noted before, the logical thing is for BNSF to take back the asset, put together a better deed of gift actually specifying both the agent to represent the children's interest 'in perpetuity' and the consequences if that agent fails to continue or act, and then re-give the locomotive to that agent. The City of Topeka is probably not too interested in assuming the responsibility/liability of the big attractive nuisance 3463 now represents, and I suspect they would be far more willing to either pass 'agency' or license to someone who is both willing and financially able to put the big girl in proper shape and then ensure she stays that way.
I'm agnostic about whether the CSR/SRI under Shaun McMahon or a better-organized group of the real 'restorers' pre-GOS winds up empowered to do restoration. As long as whoever it is does an actual MECHANICAL restoration, as close to operability as 1572-day optimization would permit.
Thanks to 2017 contributors to this thread for the updated info about AT&SF loco 3463. There seems to be one hell of a legal mess concerning this poor loco. I hope this can be sorted out.
"Future steam" seems to come up every now and then, for example the ACE 3000 project back in the 80's. I think we can discount any 'new steam' project based on coal, for environmental reasons (too much CO2, for example). Torrefied biomass *might* be a possibility as it is essentially CO2 neutral, is a homogenous product made from any woody plant material with a very high energy conversion efficiency, has a high energy density and if made from woody material than has not been painted, treated with preservatives etc gives an ash which could be used as a fertilizer. As it would not be possible to use torrefied biomass in any internal combustion machine an updated steam loco *might* be a useful development, especially for developing countries.
Latest I could find on the CSR website is from April '17.
http://csrail.org/newsroom/?offset=1492629300356
Elsewhere on the website it seems they want to market thier product to 'solid fuel heritage operators' looking for coal alternatives in a 'post coal' world.
MarknLisaLatest I could find on the CSR website is from April '17. http://csrail.org/newsroom/?offset=1492629300356
The linked report begins with this:
T O P E K A, K A N S A S | April 11, 2017 – Shawnee County District Court has ruled in favor of Sustainable Rail International d/b/a Coalition for Sustainable Rail (CSR) in its case concerning quiet title of the former Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway (ATSF) steam locomotive No. 3463.
Can somebody provide any documentation that this is true? CSR had claimed that they had purchased the locomotive from Great Overland Station. Then a group in Topeka challenged CRS’s claim. The judge ruled that the Topeka group had no valid claim to the locomotive. So, going just that far, it would appear that CSR’s claim of ownership has been validated by denying the claim by the Topeka group.
But there is more to the story:
The court also ruled that the Great Overland Station never owned the locomotive, so their sale of the locomotive to CSR was invalid. CSR never received proper title to ownership in their presumed purchase from GOS. The reason GOS never owned the locomotive is that the City of Topeka never made a documented transaction to sell the locomotive to GOS.
So, how does anyone come up with the idea that CSR now somehow magically owns the locomotive just because a Topeka group has been found to have no claim on the locomotive?
The only conclusion I can see is that the City still owns the locomotive as they have since it was gifted to them in 1956 by ATSF.
I could be wrong, but if the forgoing is true, the CSR’s claim that the court has ruled in their favor strikes me as highly disingenuous.
Euclid MarknLisa Latest I could find on the CSR website is from April '17. http://csrail.org/newsroom/?offset=1492629300356 The linked report begins with this: T O P E K A, K A N S A S | April 11, 2017 – Shawnee County District Court has ruled in favor of Sustainable Rail International d/b/a Coalition for Sustainable Rail (CSR) in its case concerning quiet title of the former Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway (ATSF) steam locomotive No. 3463. Can somebody provide any documentation that this is true? CSR had claimed that they had purchased the locomotive from Great Overland Station. Then a group in Topeka challenged CRS’s claim. The judge ruled that the Topeka group had no valid claim to the locomotive. So, going just that far, it would appear that CSR’s claim of ownership has been validated by denying the claim by the Topeka group. But there is more to the story: The court also ruled that the Great Overland Station never owned the locomotive, so their sale of the locomotive to CSR was invalid. CSR never received proper title to ownership in their presumed purchase from GOS. The reason GOS never owned the locomotive is that the City of Topeka never made a documented transaction to sell the locomotive to GOS. So, how does anyone come up with the idea that CSR now somehow magically owns the locomotive just because a Topeka group has been found to have no claim on the locomotive? The only conclusion I can see is that the City still owns the locomotive as they have since it was gifted to them in 1956 by ATSF. I could be wrong, but if the forgoing is true, the CSR’s claim that the court has ruled in their favor strikes me as highly disingenuous.
MarknLisa Latest I could find on the CSR website is from April '17. http://csrail.org/newsroom/?offset=1492629300356
We are living in a world where highly disingenuous have become the norm.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.