Brought up this morning on RyPN: legal action on title to ATSF Hudson 3463 in Topeka:
http://cjonline.com/news/local/2017-04-10/court-ruling-topeka-nonprofit-lacks-right-possess-historic-locomotive
I expect to hear something from CSR/SRI later today on what they may plan to do going forward. Before another specula-thon starts winding up, here is what apparently happened the 29th:
SRI's counsel filed a petition for declaratory judgment to "quiet title" back in May of 2014. The City of Topeka was added in July (as the original grant of the locomotive was nominally to 'the children of Topeka').
Judge Hendricks has completely removed the 'nonprofit' (with the expired-in-1973 charter that, under Kansas law, could be (and was) reactivated by little more than a state filing) from any consideration of title. More interesting, perhaps, he also denied a motion for summary judgment made by the City of Topeka, which indicates there is 'enough' of a claim by CSR to warrant further legal discussion and perhaps settlement. There is a note in the story that says CSR and the City government are 'in negotiations'; those are almost certainly going to be the only parties deciding what happens with the locomotive.
I expect the 'next step' would be for the nonprofit to approach Topeka with a complete plan for restoring and perhaps moving the locomotive, and setting up some kind of effective perpetual care account that ensures the locomotive is neither an eyesore nor the wrong kind of liability. Absent that (or a comparable effort from the people who wanted to work on it while GOS was doing its 'typical museum thing') I think the likelihood of a sale (and eventual transfer out of Topeka) is likelier than leaving 3463 to 'more of the same' she has endured up to now. It will be interesting to see exactly who has worked on the locomotive since the original CSR 'stabilization' ... and who has actually contributed funding or planning for the locomotive's ultimate "home" during the time up to the end of March.
Oh, gee. That locomotive is little more than a lawn ornament to the City of Topeka whereas Coalition for Sustainable Rail actually wants to operate it.
As to the historical preservation argument against CSR, they "hot rod" antique cars, don't they? Why can't they "hot rod" a locomotive to represent what the locomotive would have been like had steam engine technology continued to develop, which in fact it has as represented by work by Porta, Wardale, and others culiminating in the CSR project.
The CSR are not enviro-nuts masquerading as steam enthusiasts, they are serious steam enthusiasts masquerading as enviro-nuts to raise the needed funds.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
ANOTHER ATTEMPT TO PUT AT&SF 3463 IN PERSPECTIVE
No less person that TRAINS Magazine Editor David P. Morgan writing in the November 1953 issue comments,
Last of the high-drivered Hudsons
"...that the higher the driving wheel the faster the engine. And yet the 84-inch driver, the biggest to gain any real popularity in this country, almost went out of vogue at the turn of the century, just when the full potentialities of high-speed steam locomotion were about to be explored. But then in something of a coincidence, the 84-inch driver returned 35 years later on the Hudsons of four railroads..."
Today, without exception, the 84-inch-drivered 4-6-4's are dead or doomed. Baltimore & Ohio's Lord Baltimore (Mount Clare, 1935) was scrapped in 1950. Milwaukee Road's six streamlined F-7's (Alco, 1937) went in 1952. Santa Fe's six 3460-class Hudsons (Baldwin 1937) are running out their last miles. And Chicago & North Western's nine streamlined E-4's the newest, most successful but least known of their breed, have felt either the searing cut of the torch..."
--------------------
Continuing - TRAINS Editor David P Morgan in January 1953 writes specifically on the AT&SF 3460 series Hudson engines,
The Bluebird that pulled the Chief
"For all its stainless-steel speedliners and streamlined operations, the Santa Fe has indulged in only one truely streamlined steam locomotive. No. 3460, a 4-6-4 came from Baldwin trimmed with stainless steel and chrome. Its announced assignment was to pull the new Chief between Chicago and La Junta, Colorado, but through the war years it saw service on many lesser but longer mainliners."
"The Santa Fe has never been a road to scrimp when it built steam power, and No. 3460 and its five unstreamlined stable mates (No. 3463 included) live up to the road's reputation for big - and good - engines. They boast 84-inch drivers, the highest on the Santa Fe and a diameter equaled in this wheel arrangement by only the E-4's of the Chicago & North Western and the F-7's of the Milwaukee Road. Their 300-pound steam pressure was, when they were built, the highest to be confined in a staybolted boiler. Their over-all dimensions would give the New York Central, a road famous for the 4-6-4's and restricted clearances, the cold shivers."
----------------------
Continuing - TRAINS Magazine editor David P Morgan writes in the January 1950 issue,
Most famous Hudson
"The citation of a single Hudson as the most famous 4-6-4 is a task that commends itself to intensive research. On the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe. Hudsons with seven-foot drivers have been credited with speeds in excess of 120 miles an hour..."
----------------
I WISH SOMEONE WOULD COMMUNICATE TO THE TOPEKA, KANSAS FOLKS - THAT THEY ARE DEALING WITH THE LAST TRUELY HEROIC STEAM LOCOMOTIVE IN AMERICA - THE REIGNING AND SURVIVING SPEED QUEEN OF AMERICAN RAILROADING! NO HISTORIC AMERICAN RAILROAD ENGINE WITH THIS HERITAGE AND HEROIC HIGH SPEED CAPABILITY EXISTS!
DO WE REALLY WANT TO SEE THIS VERY LAST ENGINE CUT UP AND DESTROYED BY A SCIENCE EXPERIMENT?
Doc
Dr D ANOTHER ATTEMPT TO PUT AT&SF 3463 IN PERSPECTIVE No less person that TRAINS Magazine Editor David P. Morgan writing in the November 1953 issue comments, Last of the high-drivered Hudsons "...that the higher the driving wheel the faster the engine. And yet the 84-inch driver, the biggest to gain any real popularity in this country, almost went out of vogue at the turn of the century, just when the full potentialities of high-speed steam locomotion were about to be explored. But then in something of a coincidence, the 84-inch driver returned 35 years later on the Hudsons of four railroads..." Today, without exception, the 84-inch-drivered 4-6-4's are dead or doomed. Baltimore & Ohio's Lord Baltimore (Mount Clare, 1935) was scrapped in 1950. Milwaukee Road's six streamlined F-7's (Alco, 1937) went in 1952. Santa Fe's six 3460-class Hudsons (Baldwin 1937) are running out their last miles. And Chicago & North Western's nine streamlined E-4's the newest, most successful but least known of their breed, have felt either the searing cut of the torch..." -------------------- Continuing - TRAINS Editor David P Morgan in January 1953 writes specifically on the AT&SF 3460 series Hudson engines, The Bluebird that pulled the Chief "For all its stainless-steel speedliners and streamlined operations, the Santa Fe has indulged in only one truely streamlined steam locomotive. No. 3460, a 4-6-4 came from Baldwin trimmed with stainless steel and chrome. Its announced assignment was to pull the new Chief between Chicago and La Junta, Colorado, but through the war years it saw service on many lesser but longer mainliners." "The Santa Fe has never been a road to scrimp when it built steam power, and No. 3460 and its five unstreamlined stable mates (No. 3463 included) live up to the road's reputation for big - and good - engines. They boast 84-inch drivers, the highest on the Santa Fe and a diameter equaled in this wheel arrangement by only the E-4's of the Chicago & North Western and the F-7's of the Milwaukee Road. Their 300-pound steam pressure was, when they were built, the highest to be confined in a staybolted boiler. Their over-all dimensions would give the New York Central, a road famous for the 4-6-4's and restricted clearances, the cold shivers." ---------------------- Continuing - TRAINS Magazine editor David P Morgan writes in the January 1950 issue, Most famous Hudson "The citation of a single Hudson as the most famous 4-6-4 is a task that commends itself to intensive research. On the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe. Hudsons with seven-foot drivers have been credited with speeds in excess of 120 miles an hour..." ---------------- I WISH SOMEONE WOULD COMMUNICATE TO THE TOPEKA, KANSAS FOLKS - THAT THEY ARE DEALING WITH THE LAST TRUELY HEROIC STEAM LOCOMOTIVE IN AMERICA - THE REIGNING AND SURVIVING SPEED QUEEN OF AMERICAN RAILROADING! NO HISTORIC AMERICAN RAILROAD ENGINE WITH THIS HERITAGE AND HEROIC HIGH SPEED CAPABILITY EXISTS! DO WE REALLY WANT TO SEE THIS VERY LAST ENGINE CUT UP AND DESTROYED BY A SCIENCE EXPERIMENT? Doc
Dr DOn the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe. Hudsons with seven-foot drivers have been credited with speeds in excess of 120 miles an hour..."
With all respect to DPM, this is complete and utter hogwash.
The maximum effective speed - determined more from steam-passage and valve limitations than frontal area or suspension - was somewhere in the 105mph region. On top of that was the absence of Wagner bypass valves (as on the later 4-8-4 classes). The Blue Goose streamlining might have been good for a couple of mph, but its weight would have decreased the effective load the engine could pull.
It might be remembered, if this view seems a little extreme, that the AAR testing of the C&NW E-4 with train, which DPM appears to indicate as a comparable design, couldn't even get to 'the ton' with the test train (istr 98mph and a fraction) which is a clear indication that 84" drivers, relatively short stroke, and high pressure are not any guarantee of high speed.
On the other hand, I don't think anyone can complain that the purpose-built MILW A class Atlantics couldn't reach the 128mph that Albert Bruce of Alco went on record as stating.
Here's the thing: the 3460 class was a relative failure as a true high-speed road locomotive, considering the enormous size and weight needed to achieve markedly inferior speed performance to 4-8-4s with lower drivers. It would be ridiculous to think this design would come anywhere near 120mph, to say nothing of the intended 130mph or better, without fairly thoroughgoing modifications to various defectively-conceived systems -- none of which are particularly 'science experiment' strange, or particularly difficult to 'revert to original' when Project 130 is finished. The most radical change would be in the steam chests and passages, and the PRR patents as early as the late '40s, made suitable for the prospective 'assembly-line' conversion of T1s into T1as, clearly establish how this can be done cost-effectively (now, in fact, far more cost-effectively with modern materials and facilities).
I recognize that my point of view is not that of a 'serious preservationist,' and that I'm interested where Shaun and the other Project 130 people can take the design. In my opinion the locomotive is far better when fixed and put in steam, whether with politically-correct grant-supported fuel or not, than rusting away while Topekans bicker with each other and undercut any meaningful attempts at restoration or operation.
I think it's been well established what is needed, and what is appropriate, to ensure that 3463 will be restored to historic state as needed. I keep seeing the same whining ignorance of this coming up time and time again, to the point that if I were Davidson Ward I would be losing patience with some of the folks involved. Doc, in particular, I'm a bit surprised with, as he was firsthand associated with a major steam 'resuscitation' back in the days that sort of thing was unfamiliar and ridiculed as unlikely to succeed, and is (I hope) becoming associated with an effort to do the same for 3001 in Elkhart.
One question out of curiousity as to fuel type for the conversion.
Since 3463 was designed from the drawing board up as an oil burner, without the need for grates or any kind of ash containment, does anybody know if there is enough room under the firebox for that equipment?
I am assuming the CSR people probably looked at that already and have concluded "Yes", but I was just wondering.
Of course, there are numerous documented cases of conversions of original solid fuel (coal) firing to oil firing, but probably not that many that went the other way - original oil firing to solid fuel (coal) firing.
There are cases of a locomotive being converted from coal to oil and back to coal, but in those cases of course the locomotive undergoing conversion back to oil had room for the equipment because the original design was set up to handle coal.
Thanks for any thoughts or information!
kgbw49Since 3463 was designed from the drawing board up as an oil burner, without the need for grates or any kind of ash containment, does anybody know if there is enough room under the firebox for that equipment?
According to CSR/SRI (in a couple of the technical articles and posts on their Web sites) the Ripley Hudsons were explicitly designed to be able to use solid fuel, so the short answer is "yes".
The situation with torrefied fuel is a bit more complicated than that, but still almost certainly "yes". The only thing other than combustion-air preheating that needs to go "under the firebox" (i.e. below the plane of the bottom of the mud ring) would be the ashpan and dampers, and those aren't rocket science to design and install. If the degree of torrefaction is not as high as I expect this project's to be, the mass of physical ash accruing in the ashpan may be greater than for typical coals (or torrefied-product cofiring, as with the existing torrefaction schemes in Europe), which means that some kind of 'ashaveyor' system might be desirable to allow longer trips without specialized environmentally-friendly ash dumping equipment. Porta, among others, worked out some perfectly effective methods for doing this; it is also possible that some of the technology recently used on the S.S. Badger could be adapted here.
As far as I know, all the preparation and feed equipment for the torrefied fuel would be similar to that for a typical stoker installation, to the rear of the firebox and on the tender. Primary air preheat would almost certainly be via Snyder preheaters, and likely using exhaust steam at an appropriate point down the Rankine cycle.
Personally, I still think a major part of their development needs to be concerned with cofiring, rather than 'straight' 100% renewable energy. But I'm mindful that the whole Project 130 effort is publicity for renewable energy, and so it may be that just for legal marketing reasons the use of pure highly-torrefied fuel will be justifiable. That stuff can be made almost arbitrarily close to coke with specified ash content and additives, if the people involved don't care about briquetted fuel's traditional cost disadvantages...
RME Personally, I still think a major part of their development needs to be concerned with cofiring, rather than 'straight' 100% renewable energy. But I'm mindful that the whole Project 130 effort is publicity for renewable energy, and so it may be that just for legal marketing reasons the use of pure highly-torrefied fuel will be justifiable. That stuff can be made almost arbitrarily close to coke with specified ash content and additives, if the people involved don't care about briquetted fuel's traditional cost disadvantages...
The sense I get is that the Project 130 people want to modify a U.S. Class I Railroad steam locomotive according the Chapelon/Porta/Wardale principles and the 100% renewable energy is a "cover story" for these efforts.
It is kind of like engineers wanting to get government research grants. The project is really about playing with robots or microwave amplifiers or writing cool software algorithms, but the grant proposal has to salute whatever social theme the agency directors are advancing because a Congressional committee or the White House is breathing down their necks.
Engineers are not far enough removed from the autism spectrum to care about 100% renewable anything -- they just want to see wheels turning or microwaves beaming or some such thing.
RME
Some such thing!
---------------
I'm sorry? More perspective and knowledge than David P Morgan who was at the masthead of TRAINS MAGAZINE for 40 years!
And the men of the steam engineering department who spent their lifetime building and maintaining the fleet of Santa Fe steam." What did they know? That they sould lay claim to the performance of the AT&SF 3460 series locomotives?
Was it timely opinon - actual knowledge - engineering prowace - or just overall familarity with the entire world of the later day steam locomotive performance!
------------------
Let see now? How about we take the British Mallard and let the Steam Locomotive Institute have a go at tearing that one up? Or even better lets take the restoration of Toranado so recently reconstructed by the British and - lets say - make a "science experiment" of it - just so we can truely get it to perform 21st Century style - on modern bio mass fuel.
If CSR wants a locomotive - let them build one - and it would be better for everyone concerned to let AT&SF 3463 rust in peace.
I would demand no less were it the last remaining New York Central "Hudson!" Some things my friend ARE SACRED!
Wonderful job the Brits did with the care and keeping of the historically significant last remaining clipper ship - Cutty Sark - what didn't burn by accident they pieced together again and call it "un-sail-aby restored." It could be a plan for CSR and the then forever "un-run-able restoration" of AT&SF 3463!
- Doc
These drawings are from CSR's web site:
http://csrail.org/santafe3463/
3463 as delivered to the City of Topeka 1956...
3463 as proposed to be modified to burn torrified bio-mass...
It looks like the big external visual differences would be grates and the "J-style" tender sideboards.
With deepest respect to all opining, and no offense intended, if that gets this stallion to run again, I would be one that would not object, and it if ends up being a way to bring back the logging industry and provide good paying jobs to areas of the country that could certainly use them, I would be an even bigger cheerleader.
Just one respectul opinion.
Dr D RME Some such thing! --------------- I'm sorry? More perspective and knowledge than David P Morgan who was at the masthead of TRAINS MAGAZINE for 40 years! And the men of the steam engineering department who spent their lifetime building and maintaining the fleet of Santa Fe steam." What did they know? That they sould lay claim to the performance of the AT&SF 3460 series locomotives? Was it timely opinon - actual knowledge - engineering prowace - or just overall familarity with the entire world of the later day steam locomotive performance! ------------------ Let see now? How about we take the British Mallard and let the Steam Locomotive Institute have a go at tearing that one up? Or even better lets take the restoration of Toranado so recently reconstructed by the British and - lets say - make a "science experiment" of it - just so we can truely get it to perform 21st Century style - on modern bio mass fuel. If SCI wants a locomotive - let them build one - and it would be better for everyone concerned to let AT&SF 3463 rust in peace. I would demand no less were it the last remaining New York Central "Hudson!" Some things my friend ARE SACRED! ---------------- Wonderful job the Brits did with the care and keeping of the historically significant last remaining clipper ship - Cutty Sark - what didn't burn by accident they pieced together again and call it "un-sail-aby restored." It could be a plan for SCI and the then forever "un-run-able restoration" of AT&SF 3463! - Doc
If SCI wants a locomotive - let them build one - and it would be better for everyone concerned to let AT&SF 3463 rust in peace.
Wonderful job the Brits did with the care and keeping of the historically significant last remaining clipper ship - Cutty Sark - what didn't burn by accident they pieced together again and call it "un-sail-aby restored." It could be a plan for SCI and the then forever "un-run-able restoration" of AT&SF 3463!
Cubs win the World Series
Trump wins the Presidential Election
A team overcomes a 25 point deficit to win the Super Bowl
A Green Steam Locomotive
Respect for Dr. D and kgbw49...The scales tip ever so slightly to kgbw49 for me.
If this was a NYC J3a, well that would be a miracle, and I probably would side with Dr. D.
Get this gal up and running using everything we have learned and may have applied, in theory anyway. It can always be "restored" back to original if it is a failure and then we still have a working locomotive.
What if it is a tremendous success? See above first 3 lines.
Well considering that according to everything I have read on the Santa Fe big 3 engines all were designed to be switched over to coal if the need ever arose I'm not seeing what the big issue is. Yes they are going to make some improvements internally to her however there is not much more to do overall these engines already have full roller bearings and everything that could have been done when built to make them as efficent as possible back then. It would be nice to see jsut how fast an 84 inch drivered Hudson can fly just once in my lifetime even if they have to take it to Peublo to the TTR to let it happen. Just imagine a Steam engine that could run 130+ and be happy doing it. Then realize that it was built almost 100 years ago.
I've got to go with the others who say bring it back to life, in whatever form, and I'll tell you why.
Once a year they hold air races in Reno, Nevada. There's a category called "Unlimited" where the racing planes are highly modified World War Two fighters like the P-51 Mustang, the F4U Corsair, the P-38 Lightning, and various others.
Do I like the idea of modifying these historic artifacts, some almost beyond recognition, and then putting them in an extremely high-risk situation? No I don't. But you know what, they aren't my airplanes. I don't own them nor do I pay for their upkeep. I have no right to tell the owners what to do with them. None at all.
So, if the crew that's got 3463 wants to do the mods, let them. If those drawings posted are any indication the appearance isn't going to change all that much, and if what they do brings that locomotive back to life again so much the better.
As long as they don't paint it candy apple red and put racing stripes on it!
Like sex, there's no such thing as bad....it's relative, but relatively kewl.
I can appreciate both sides of the matter. The purist in me sez if you're gonna run a steamer, fix it, paint it, and get a fire in it...pronto.
The other side sez, if you wanna run a steamer, fixing it has a new meaning. What will it take to get the maximum enthusiasm from a critical or an appreciative prospective support base? Tweaking the running gear? Adjusting for an acceptable fuel? Merely announcing that it will be "...new and improved?" Like Tide detergent used to do?
All of life's challenges require negotiation, even with Ma Nature. With a stated goal, you'll get support and resources. From there, it's all time 'n talent.
Get that purty lady drawing steam again.
Kgbw49
Having reviewed the proposed CSR modifications to AT&SF 3463 I would challenge you and others that these are much more extensive than are indicated.
-------------
First, to pull out the oil fired burners and firepan and to add grates requires the entire replacement of the lower firebox section and addition of suitable biomass fuel delivery. And or including heavy modifications to the tender which is set up now as an oil tank.
Santa Fe spent may years dialing in the oil fire system and its delivery including sizes and placement of the burners suitable adjustments of the fire nozzles and drafting of the burner oil pan in order to get the system designed in 1938 to work. When 3463 was new it took several years for Santa Fe to just get the engine to work the way it should. Santa Fe had the strength of a highly skilled maintaince department and extensive shop personel to work out this difficult job. How can CSR possibly duplicate this?
The redesign of the steam passages to the cylinders requires extensive modifications to the cylinder saddle which while weighing many tons, is cast onto the locomotive frame in one solid steel piece. This modification would require extensive welding and machining of the entire steam delivery system in ways that are not capable of being changed back. Any mistakes in this re-design could defeat CSR's entire project and render the engine unable of ever performing as well as it did for the Santa Fe.
------------------------
The redesign of the valves and pistons with lighter materials - these were already highly refined light weight alloy parts - requires all new parts to be fabricated and fitted including likely reboring of the cylinders making the original parts not usable in the future.
Changing the "valve events" for the better is unlikely as Santa Fe and Baldwin Locomotive Works were already getting about everything they could with the existing Walschaerts valve gear - as it was designed in 1937. Any real inprovement would require a complete redesign of locomotive to include a Franklin later generation "poppet valve system." This would be "back shop madness" as the changes are so outrageously extensive. This would forever completely and extensively change the locomotive with questionable results. New York Central was unclear if such changes were worth it in its 4-8-4 development.
--------------------------------
Redesign of the "steam dry pipe" and the "raising of the superheat temperature" would require the complete disassembly and redesign of the boiler and the rebuilding of the steam delivery system with additional or redesigned Type E superheaters. This is something that even the Union Pacific Steam Program would not attempt and they have considerably more money and experience.
The redesign of the late generation "open design" feed water system which was highly advanced for its time! About all the engineering improvement possible was achieved in the 1930's. Can this be improved without an entirely different system which includes extensive modifications to the boiler front end design, as the later feed water systems were integrally designed into the entire boiler. Further improvements of feed water temp are while sounding fairly simple - requiring of a complex and reliable system design with extensive maintaince requirements - all of which were worked out wonderfully by the railroad accessory manufacturers of the period. This reliable system cannot be duplicated with any likelyhood by CSR. Further, any failure in the long proven reliable feed water systems is a public danger of catastrophic explosion.
Additionally, the many accessories of the locomotive designed by suppliers were all "well worked out" systems in a fairly old technology that is still current today - these are not easily duplicated and improved with reliability.
I seriously doubt if this locomotive can be modified the way in which CSR wishes it to look or remain in any condition resembling itself today.
The ATSF 3463 was as "high tech" as it exists today - as the attempt to recreate a modern Pennsylvania Railroad Duplex T1 4-4-4-4. WITH NO MODIFICATIONS.
-------------------
CSR these folks need a credability check and have no proven track record of railway locomotive development!
Any person who has advanced level degrees from a University can attest their major function is to educate students not do effective creative research and engineering design! Leave this to the corporate world which has deep pockets and who would never attempt such a project!
----------
Sorry,
The 3460 class was definitely born to run...
Dr D SCI these folks need a credability check and have no proven track record of railway locomotive development! Any person who has advanced level degrees from a University can attest their major function is to educate students not do creative research and engineering design! Leave this to the corporate world which has deep pockets and who would never attempt such a projectl Sorry, Doc
SCI these folks need a credability check and have no proven track record of railway locomotive development!
Any person who has advanced level degrees from a University can attest their major function is to educate students not do creative research and engineering design! Leave this to the corporate world which has deep pockets and who would never attempt such a projectl
Chill, brother-man:
http://csrail.org/who-we-are/
http://5at.co.uk/index.php/modern-steam-2/steam-specialists/shaun-mcmahon.html
You suppose at least Shaun McMahon of the Ffestiniog Railway at least has some track record with railway steam locomotive work? This is how I base my remarks that the project is serious steam enthusiasts looking towards green biofuel as an excuse rather than greenies looking to mess up a steam locomotive.
Your remarks about the University being no place for creative research and engineering design speaks to a popular misunderstanding of the mission of a major public research university and how such creative work is inseparable from educating our best students.
David Wardale writes in "Red Devil" how there was a thought to modify C&O 614 along these lines as part of the ACE project to re-boot Class 1 steam in the early 1980s and how at least one preservation-minded engine crew member working for Ross Rowland took a dim view.
I for one do not regard the history books on the development of railroad steam power as closed. An important part of that history was designers with vision -- Chapelon, Porta, and Wardale -- modifying existing steam locomotives to show how much room there was for improvement, especially within the "classic Stephenson" steam locomotive. I energetically disagree that the 3463 represents the pinnacle of what could be accomplished with steam -- even in its era. Porta, especially, believed that steam technology was marked by arrogance and complacency that allowed Diesels to sweep them aside. The can't-be-possible improvements in performance achieved by Chapelon, Porta, and Wardale speak to this.
We are not even talking about taking irreplaceable WW-II historic airframes and "tuning" their engines until they they are at the edge of blowing up in the Reno Air Races. Provided the crew keeps their eyes on the sight glasses, this locomotive will not be blown up.
Paul Milenkovic,
While I grant you that Chapelon was the famous French steam locomotive designer, I would also point out that he was that design engineer of a huge system of functional railways in the 1930s developing an existing technology in the midst of a functional corporate structure.
David Wardale was the designer for South African Railway system who was also doing design work within the context of an exisisting corporate railway struture with extensive shop facilities and deep pocket of money and talent to assist him.
Likely there are small subtle improvements that can be made to ATSF 3463 which could improve the existing locomotive. Changes such as the alloy roller bearing side rods, modification to exhaust nozzle and smoke box design. All these are proven paths.
It is also obvious that the CSR program are students who are equally interested in railfan steam train operation as they are impetious youth engineering students dreaming of a second shot at steam railway locomotion.
I would point out that without extensive railroad support and significant shop facilities they are unlikely of ever even getting ATSF 3463 running let alone re-engineering it.
You will remember that as a youthful university student, I was also involved in the restoration of Pere Marquette 1225 a 2-8-4 locomotive belonging to Michigan State University. With the approval of the school we did restore this engine to operable condition within the scope of 20 years with the help of the State of Michigan and considerable volunteer talent.
I challenge you to explain to me how such a group of students is capable of doing the massive work required that NO MODERN RAILROAD would attempt!
As an educator myself I am fully aware of the vision and phenomenon of youth - "That tomorrow will always be great - we will rebuild the world - go to MARS - re invent the wheel!" These are the visions of youth not the reality! And common to all generations of young students and dreamers!
It takes the hardened reality of mature persons in full commitment of their working lives to accomplish these dreams, however, and then it is uncertain what and when will be accomplished.
Yes the ACE 3000 project corporate proposal to build steam railway locomotion - using plasma fired boilers- was the attempt to accomplish this misson in the real world.
Leave your students to the potential they will accomplish upon graduation, not on the pipe dreams of "super bio mass ATSF 3463." Which is the stuff of dreams! I have been there and seen that animal for what it is. Broken lives and waisted lives of students who should have long ago gone on to real productive lives in the business and scientific world!
No modern railroad is attempting this because they don't want to be bothered. Furthermore, Shaun McMahon is not some starry-eyed young University of Minnesota student.
By the way, the ACE 3000 project didn't involve anything at all like a "plasma fired boiler", whatever that is. It was intended to have a Gas Producer Combustion System with a Cyclonic flame path to further reduce carryover of small coal particles from the firebed -- this technology along with its pros and cons is discussed at great length by Wardale in "Red Devil." I also understand your concern about wasting the lives of university students on a futile project, but what are "waisted lives"? Are you complaining about women students wearing "leggings" or "yoga pants" to class?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.