Some hard questions:1) In what manner is breaking an arbitrary, 60+ year old speed record for steam traction supposed to "demonstrat the viability of this revolutionary, clean transportation technology"? It demonstrates the physical possibility, but not the commercial viability.2) Can we see an estimated cost comparison of this proposed biomass fuel per BTU or horsepower or pound of tractive effort versus known quantifiers such as coal or fuel oil?3) Does this project plan to subsequently focus its efforts on horsepower and tractive effort production rather than pure speed? If not, is the ultimate, or only, market for this proposed effort passenger operation? What is the target market for commercial production, if any has been identified?4) The several principals named in this effort, including possibly the poster of the above, bring expertise to this project. Unless some or all of them are, as the saying goes, "independently wealthy," they will warrant payment for their consulting and efforts. Has a source of funding for their efforts been located, or are they agreeing to donate their expertise to the cause?5) The costs for physical reconstruction of the locomotive alone--not even any redesign or conversion, simply restoration to operation--under current CFR regulations will probably exceed, even as a most generously conservative guess, several hundred thousand dollars. Has a source for this funding, or the donation of professional services, been identified?6) "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." Is this research available for peer review? May we recommend other "peers" to review this?7) Has the U. of Minnesota's IonE identified any funding sources thus far for start-up and research? Is the underwriting proposed to be private, corporate, government, charitable, or some mix of the above?8) Has either the Transportation Technology Center in Pueblo or Amtrak officials in the Northeast Corridor given any form of tentative agreement to let the resulting locomotive be tested to reach the intended speed? If not, where will the proposed speed test occur?9) The statement by Rod Larkins says “Once perfected, creating the world’s first carbon-neutral locomotive will be just the beginning for this technology which, we hope, will later be used for combined heat and power energy in the developing world as well as reducing the United States’ dependence on fossil fuels.” Is there a railroad goal above and beyond the production of one speed-record-setting locomotive? Or can this be construed strictly as a "publicity stunt" for the research team, university, and biofuels concept?
LNER4472 Some hard questions:1) In what manner is breaking an arbitrary, 60+ year old speed record for steam traction supposed to "demonstrat the viability of this revolutionary, clean transportation technology"? It demonstrates the physical possibility, but not the commercial viability.2) Can we see an estimated cost comparison of this proposed biomass fuel per BTU or horsepower or pound of tractive effort versus known quantifiers such as coal or fuel oil?3) Does this project plan to subsequently focus its efforts on horsepower and tractive effort production rather than pure speed? If not, is the ultimate, or only, market for this proposed effort passenger operation? What is the target market for commercial production, if any has been identified?4) The several principals named in this effort, including possibly the poster of the above, bring expertise to this project. Unless some or all of them are, as the saying goes, "independently wealthy," they will warrant payment for their consulting and efforts. Has a source of funding for their efforts been located, or are they agreeing to donate their expertise to the cause?5) The costs for physical reconstruction of the locomotive alone--not even any redesign or conversion, simply restoration to operation--under current CFR regulations will probably exceed, even as a most generously conservative guess, several hundred thousand dollars. Has a source for this funding, or the donation of professional services, been identified?6) "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." Is this research available for peer review? May we recommend other "peers" to review this?7) Has the U. of Minnesota's IonE identified any funding sources thus far for start-up and research? Is the underwriting proposed to be private, corporate, government, charitable, or some mix of the above?8) Has either the Transportation Technology Center in Pueblo or Amtrak officials in the Northeast Corridor given any form of tentative agreement to let the resulting locomotive be tested to reach the intended speed? If not, where will the proposed speed test occur?9) The statement by Rod Larkins says “Once perfected, creating the world’s first carbon-neutral locomotive will be just the beginning for this technology which, we hope, will later be used for combined heat and power energy in the developing world as well as reducing the United States’ dependence on fossil fuels.” Is there a railroad goal above and beyond the production of one speed-record-setting locomotive? Or can this be construed strictly as a "publicity stunt" for the research team, university, and biofuels concept?
PHEEEEWWWW! Where do I start?
"LNER4472 wrote the following [in Part:]
"7) Has the U. of Minnesota's IonE identified any funding sources thus far for start-up and research? Is the underwriting proposed to be private, corporate, government, charitable, or some mix of the above?8) Has either the Transportation Technology Center in Pueblo or Amtrak officials in the Northeast Corridor given any form of tentative agreement to let the resulting locomotive be tested to reach the intended speed? If not, where will the proposed speed test occur?9) The statement by Rod Larkins says “Once perfected, creating the world’s first carbon-neutral locomotive will be just the beginning for this technology which, we hope, will later be used for combined heat and power energy in the developing world as well as reducing the United States’ dependence on fossil fuels.” Is there a railroad goal above and beyond the production of one speed-record-setting locomotive? Or can this be construed strictly as a "publicity stunt" for the research team, university, and biofuels concept?" (emphasis is added: samfp1943)
To address the last statement first; IS This just a STUNT?
A locomotive that burns anything could hardly be called 'carbon neutral', particularly if the fuel is in part carbon and whatever else could be combined with it to give off heat to boil water to make steam. Don't get me wrong, I love to watch real steam locomotives run in any capacity. But there is something about this project that screams article from 'The Onion'. Even just the term 'carbon neutral' sounds like an oxymoronic term.
I wish them well, but this project possibly should have a Chupacabra for a mascot. I have a feeling that vast sums of money will disappear like blood before vampires.
LDPorta http://www1.umn.edu/news/news-releases/2012/UR_CONTENT_389949.html .... snip .... In November 2011, SRI acquired a large test bed steam locomotive through a no-cost transfer of ownership from the Great Overland Station museum and education center in Topeka, Kan. This locomotive, built in 1937 for the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad as number 3463, will be reconfigured by SRI's locomotive modernization experts, then tested as part of CSR Project 130.
http://www1.umn.edu/news/news-releases/2012/UR_CONTENT_389949.html .... snip ....
In November 2011, SRI acquired a large test bed steam locomotive through a no-cost transfer of ownership from the Great Overland Station museum and education center in Topeka, Kan. This locomotive, built in 1937 for the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad as number 3463, will be reconfigured by SRI's locomotive modernization experts, then tested as part of CSR Project 130.
Stunt, indeed!
Seems like they could have proposed a more modern concept using a efficient modern boiler on a recycled diesel frame, rather than mangle up a old steam loco.
Just the idea of using reciprocating, high maintenance mechanicals is totally ludicrous! Even more than many academics, these people really don't get out much.
Sounds like a tragedy for steam preservation enthusiasts. What kind of so-called museum would give up a rare artifact for mutilation? What's the back story?
Better to burn the biomass fuel in a fixed power plant generating electricity ....
Links to my Google Maps ---> Sunset Route overview, SoCal metro, Yuma sub, Gila sub, SR east of Tucson, BNSF Northern Transcon and Southern Transcon *** Why you should support Ukraine! ***
The steam engine did not fall out of use because of environmental reasons. They don't indicate that the test bed loco will be other than a reciprocating steam loco. They have not explained how they will get by the well known problems that made the railroads switch to diesels. The csrail.org site says that the biofuel still costs more than coal. If the fuel becomes popular with RRs and power plants (TVA is testing it) then like any other fuel the price will go up.
Sounds like pretty exciting news to me! Not only because the 3463 has the potential to be restored to running condition but also because people are looking into developing steam power again.
Like most people I will have my fingers crossed but I think they will learn what we already know. Steam locomotives are terribly inefficient typically having only a 6%-10% efficacy. The ACE 3000 project with all of their expensive and extensive testing with C & O, 4-8-4, #614 along with it's modifications was only averaging a efficiently of 3%. The ACE 3000 project was also started for similar reasons. It would probably be a good idea to have Ross rowland on their project team as he is probably one of the best experts in steam locomotive logistics.
In any case I hope funding holds out and the 3463 is returned to steam once again. Regardless if the project is a success or a failure at least the 3463 is getting it's legs stretched and a new coat of paint.
I thought this could be interesting until I got to the second paragraph regarding beating a 130 mph speed record. Sure, there are lots of railroads around with suitable Class 8 track. Moreover, they are eagerly awaiting the chance to have their well maintained track structure beaten to death by a heavy steamer.
NOT!
After reading their web sight info. I think they have in mind converting that hudson into a small version of the pennsy turbin. (Lionel start retooling the 671!)
Thomas 9011 Sounds like pretty exciting news to me! Not only because the 3463 has the potential to be restored to running condition but also because people are looking into developing steam power again. Like most people I will have my fingers crossed but I think they will learn what we already know. Steam locomotives are terribly inefficient typically having only a 6%-10% efficacy. The ACE 3000 project with all of their expensive and extensive testing with C & O, 4-8-4, #614 along with it's modifications was only averaging a efficiently of 3%. The ACE 3000 project was also started for similar reasons. It would probably be a good idea to have Ross rowland on their project team as he is probably one of the best experts in steam locomotive logistics. In any case I hope funding holds out and the 3463 is returned to steam once again. Regardless if the project is a success or a failure at least the 3463 is getting it's legs stretched and a new coat of paint.
The project almost sounds like a bunch of steam guys that are using technology to rebuild the 3463 and watch it run again. It is only a test bed since that locomotive would require ten times the personnel to maintain and run it compared to any diesel. They do seem to be trying some cutting edge improvements but in the end, the project might pave the way for use of the fuel in new power plants in the future.
This is a great project for all of us if the 3463 actually gets to run again even in some modified fashion.
CZ
Ahhh, excuse me but....didnt Diesels replace Steam simply because the maintanence labor costs for steam was far in excess of that of Diesels, not to mention that diesels have grown in power far beyond their steam predecessors?
Steam locomotion is a very inefficient conversion of energy into power, it always has been. Its just that from the 1830's till the 1950's it was the best form of locomotive power available until the rise of the diesel/electric traction motor was widely introduced.
If they want a "carbon neutral" steam engine they had better to investigate placing a small nuclear reactor on board to heat the water because anything that burns fuel will create CO2.
Have fun with your trains
To me, the research angle seems more like a cover for an attempt to exceed Mallard's speed record for steam. Besides the damage to the track from dynamic augment, the damage to the running gear at that speed could be considerable. Mallard did not escape unscathed when it set the record.
Remember this is 2011 not 1937 there has been great advances in making lighter/stonger metals that could be used for the rods and linkage that would greatly reduce the dyamic argument.
CSSHEGEWISCH To me, the research angle seems more like a cover for an attempt to exceed Mallard's speed record for steam. Besides the damage to the track from dynamic augment, the damage to the running gear at that speed could be considerable. Mallard did not escape unscathed when it set the record.
The 3463 has 84" drivers and that is probably the reason it was choosen for this task. Too bad it did not have the light weight roller bearing side rods like the 2900 series 4-8-4's. CZ
When I heard about this project, I expected to see people overjoyed for this project to move ahead. But the first response was to tear down this idea.Will this project work out? Maybe,maybe not, but let some of us enjoy the thought of a modern upgraded steam locomotive and wait for more information before tearing the project apart .Even if this does not move ahead it may get railroad in the news in a positive light,this is a good thing.
Seems like the skepticism about this 'Project' has a number of valid areas of concern.
In my mind, "funding" is a major hill to climb.
Seems as if any project involving the restoration of a steam locomotive, crashes first into the reality of never enough initial funding for completion of the project, it always exceeds the first estimates. I think the 'Tornado Project' in England came in somewhere around (US) million Dollars(?). Maybe, if that was in English Pounds(?) which would be considerably more,I think.
Burning 'Biomass' was a tried method prior to early 1900's. When locomotive fuel was cut, and stacked for locomotive fuel along the ROW from whatever the available wood species were. In the early engines, its' efficiency was questionable at best, but speed was not an option, not nearly as much as simply getting to the destination.
Coal burning where it was readily available was the next step to improve efficiency, but even then; the best locomotive fuel was the cheapest grades a railroad could buy, in buy. In anthracite areas, it was 'colm' and the coal used in SE Kansas by the MKT RR was a grade so low it had a lot of mud in it, mined in railroad owned mines. Creation of smoke was a noticeable by product of the burning of those grades. Would be very problematic in today's ecologically aware environment.
As mentioned by another Poster. You would have to wonder how much study has been done by the academics who are trying to reinvent a 'new' steam locomotive. AS was suggested Ross Rowland& his company's work would be the first place to start, ans well as to examine closely the ACE 3000 Project. My
I looked at their web sight again and it seems that most of the people that was in on the designing of the ACE 3000 project are involved in this one. So maybe it might succesd where the ACE failed. All we need now is the Fed's to give the railroads a tax break or subscide to bring back the steam locomotive. Then watch how many re-builds take place
Poor 3463 is gonna get butchered as a plaything for a gaggle of envirogeeks playing with other peoples money. What did it do to deserve this? Maybe BNSF ought to claim breach of donation agreement and reclaim the big fella.
Hey, ya know what? I just got home from an Italian restaurant and have a half-carafe of vino in me and I feel goooooooood! So as far as I'm concerned if the guys and gals working on 3463 have the money in hand and want to go for a steam speed record I say GO FOR IT! STEAM RULES! Steam was king when diesel was a pup and steam will be king when diesels time is up!
Mind you, I wish Juniatha would weigh in on this one! She's got the best steam brain on this Forum! And how!
Semper Fi! Carry on!
mudchicken Poor 3463 is gonna get butchered as a plaything for a gaggle of envirogeeks playing with other peoples money. What did it do to deserve this? Maybe BNSF ought to claim breach of donation agreement and reclaim the big fella.
Yes, absolutely. I think you have summed this up very well.
This proposal seems incredibly long on platitudinous rhetoric and short on substance. The stated mission coupled with the implications suggest that this ATSF 4-6-4 will be very extensively modified. My interpretation is that it will require a new boiler, piping, jacketing, cylinders, valves, drivers, rods, and exhaust nozzle. I suspect it will require a new throttle and extensive revision to the backhead controls. It will require a new firing system for the pellets, and possibly a new feed water system. 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. In fact, I find it hard 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.
Reply to some other comments about carbon neutral: Burning wood is considered to be carbon neutral whereas burning coal or oil, is not. Coal and oil are considered to have their CO2 sequestered. In other words, the CO2 is permanently locked up as long as you don’t burn them. The CO2 in wood is not considered to be sequestered because the wood will rot in a small number of years and release all of its CO2 just as it will if you burn it.
However, the objective of being carbon neutral assumes a belief that CO2 is destroying the planet, and not everyone believes that.
The torrefied biomass pellets that will be used to fire this carbon neutral locomotive must be manufactured in a plant. I would like to see a cost analysis for this process. However, since the objective is to be carbon neutral, I am not sure if there is an expectation that the fuel be less costly that coal or oil. Carbon neutral can be a objective that requires a higher cost. I wonder if they will use bamboo flooring in the cab.
I do agree with you Bucyrus on starting from a clean sheet. Look what was done in the UK with the Tornado. New everything with a welded frame to boot. As you suggested, the amount of modifications is going to leave what, just the frame, cylinders, pony wheels, cab and tender original?
Ross Rowland’s proposed steam design from the 90’s(?), the ACE 3000 would be a recommended starting point their to expand on their design goal. Maybe go back to Porta's first project engine Argentina and work up the design from there (I believe the Argentina my even still exist.)
If anything, I hope they are reading these post and would welcome guidance and education on the history of steam from the vast knowledge found here. Has anyone suggest to them a reproduction of a Pennsy S2, John Henry (N&W steam turbine), or maybe a NYC J3 Hudson might bring a few green dollars in fan support?
Mntrain - Welcome to trains.com!
Darren (BLHS & CRRM Lifetime Member)
Delaware and Hudson Virtual Museum (DHVM), Railroad Adventures (RRAdventures)
My Blog
This proposal is about wedding a special fuel with an ultra-modern steam locomotive. In a way, I would postulate that this is far more ambitious than the ACE-3000 project was. That locomotive was intended to burn coal. The SRI locomotive will burn a highly specialized manufactured fuel pellet that might be described as ultra dense charcoal.
The first question these pellets raise is this: Using the most efficient biomass feedstock possible, how many acres would it take to produce enough on a sustainable basis to power all rail transport in the U.S.? Or to ask it in another way, what percentage of the U.S. land mass would be required to produce the trees, switch grass, or whatever biomass was the most productive? Would 1/3 of the U.S. land mass be enough? Surely these developers have calculated the answer to this question.
I am sure there will be enough trees and logging waste to produce enough pellets to demonstrate the SRI prototype locomotive, but the prototype is intended to usher in widespread use of this torrefied wood pellet technology. So, it raises the question of how to produce the feedstock. There are many ways to make synthetic fuel, and you always hear claims such as the ability to power our cars on algae for example. But how much algae, and how much cost to produce it?
So, I believe the issue of producing the torrefied pellets has not been resolved to a practical level. The developers of the process speak of a crudely made, prototype boiler for burning the pellets. Crudely made? A crudely made prototype suggests that the focus is on the theory, and not on the practical execution. Will the prototype SRI locomotive be crudely made as well? If not, it will surely require an enormous amount of engineering and design.
This locomotive will have a lot of new technology including a new exhaust nozzle system, a gas producer firebox, and superinsulated piping. Will it have a high pressure, watertube boiler, or will they stay with a firetube boiler? Will it have fluidized bed combustion, or is that not combinable with a gas producer firebox? How much computer technology will go into the control systems? I am guessing that a lot will.
A proper engineering and design phase for this project might cost as much or more than the machine shop work, materials, and assembly. I would think that if you had ten engineers and cad designers working on the development, it might take them at least five years. So the free locomotive that they have acquired as a basic foundation is just a token in the total scope of work and cost of the project.
The real key to convincing me whether this is serious will be to watch what they do next. They should carefully measure and cad model the entire ATSF locomotive as a starting basis for their design. Then they should begin the long process of engineering and development for the new locomotive. When that development work is complete, they would finally begin disassembly of the ATSF locomotive, begin the fabrication of the new parts, and the modification of existing parts. That is the proper, professional course of action.
But I wonder if they will instead immediately begin tearing down the ATSF locomotive and start making modifications on the fly without any logical sequence, doing some design work concomitantly. I will be watching to see if that is their approach. That is the amateur way of product development. It is often referred to as “Cut and try.”
I would like to put my two sence worth in on what a modern steam locomotive could be to use today's technoglogy and compete with diesels.
First, I would use electric transmission, with ac motors, an alternators for motive power, like modern diesels, possibly using iderntacle equipment.
I would use modern power-plant technology, possibly natural gas fired, since that seems to be the future low pollution nearly infinite resource fuel available in North America.
There is a somewhat new development in power plant turbines. Use of partial circumference power. Imagine that at each quarter point around the circumference there is an exhaust port immediately followed by the injection port. The turbine can operate at full speed with only the two opposite quarters working, two on each side or top and bottom (keeping rotational balance) for half power or with all quarters working for full power at the same speed. From what I have read, efficiency can be high in both modes.
So here is a 3750HP locomotive, with two turbines, one 3000, one 750HP, each also efficient at half power, same RPM, each with its own AC alternater. The smart electroncis for control, rectification, combination, and frequency control for driving the motors. Trottle positions:
0, idle, Run 1 375HP, 2 750. 3 1500. 4 1875 5 2250, 6 3000, 7 3375 8 3750
Sort of a mineature power plant on wheels, with high pressure boiler. and possibly, as others suggested, the reuse of old diesel frames and trucks.
daveklepper I would like to put my two sence worth in on what a modern steam locomotive could be to use today's technoglogy and compete with diesels. First, I would use electric transmission, with ac motors, an alternators for motive power, like modern diesels, possibly using iderntacle equipment. I would use modern power-plant technology, possibly natural gas fired, since that seems to be the future low pollution nearly infinite resource fuel available in North America. There is a somewhat new development in power plant turbines. Use of partial circumference power. Imagine that at each quarter point around the circumference there is an exhaust port immediately followed by the injection port. The turbine can operate at full speed with only the two opposite quarters working, two on each side or top and bottom (keeping rotational balance) for half power or with all quarters working for full power at the same speed. From what I have read, efficiency can be high in both modes. So here is a 3750HP locomotive, with two turbines, one 3000, one 750HP, each also efficient at half power, same RPM, each with its own AC alternater. The smart electroncis for control, rectification, combination, and frequency control for driving the motors. Trottle positions: 0, idle, Run 1 375HP, 2 750. 3 1500. 4 1875 5 2250, 6 3000, 7 3375 8 3750 Sort of a mineature power plant on wheels, with high pressure boiler. and possibly, as others suggested, the reuse of old diesel frames and trucks.
Seems like a mighty complicated machine if the fuel is going to be Natural Gas. There are a number of LNG and CNG fueled locomotives operating around the world, most have diesel powerplants converted to burn gas (either spark initiated like the engines used in the MK1200G or dual fuel where a small "pilot charge" of diesel is injected along with the NG). there are also several gas turbine locomotives running in Russia on LNG....
There have been several of recent proposals to build new biomass powered steam engines so this is one more for the list...
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
carnej1 ... there are also several gas turbine locomotives running in Russia on LNG....
... there are also several gas turbine locomotives running in Russia on LNG....
This would also eliminate the need for supply water or a condenser.
I will tell you one thing. It will take balls of steel to ride that big 4-8-4 doing 130 mph! That locomotive will be bouncing around like a jack rabbit at that speed.
One thing people must remember is that back when steam locomotives were in freight service they were running all the time pulling trains at near their limits. It took a lot of maintenance and manpower to keep them running. Steam locomotives like the 3751 and the 4449 only come out a few times a year and pull a dozen or so cars. This does not put a significant strain on the locomotive or does it require a lot of maintenance. That is why both the 3751 and the 4449 run their programs with really no funding, a minimal workforce, and a sparse repair facility.
I am a little more skeptical about this 3463 project after looking at the sponsors. Most of the sponsors were two bit no names. Add to the fact he is depending on donations. Good Lord! Sounds like a University student wants to restore a steam locomotive, run it to 130 and is using alternative energy as the pitch.
...If I were the cynical type, I would say this sounds like a bunch of steam fans, with no actual railroad operating experience, trying to jump on the taxpayer grant funded "green energy" gravy train. Just so they can play with a Choo-Choo. A Solyndra type venture, just on wheels! LOL.
...Oh, wait a minute, I am a cynical type. I guess that what happens when you actually have worked in the industry since 1977, and have seen this trainwreck come screeching down the track before in the mid-1980's...
Anyone else keep thinking about how they put those special logs into the steam locomotive in back to the future 3? Every time one of those logs was put in there the boiler pressure went up hundreds of pounds.
I guess natural gas should be used in a direct gas turbine rather than boiling water. YOu are right.
But even if it is coal burned to boil water, I still think today and electric transmission makes sense.
There is a post from someone named "Dave" at the Railway Preservation forums on this subject who seems to personally know one of the people involved in the project. I am going to quote several portions of his post here, which allay the preservation fears many have had, and explain the point of the project in greater detail:
"Based on what I have been told, and knowing either by reputation or by direct contact and experience many of the parties, this is a dead-serious way of developing a new, potentially carbon-neutral external combustion technology suitable for use as a power generator (much along the lines of some of the Cyclone Engine proposed uses) and the high speed steam locomotive demonstrating it is a rolling billboard (with benefits). A prototype for the generator will be installed to provide HEP from the locomotive. I'm personally aware of the preservationist credentials of many of those involved. I asked some specific questions, and I have been advised that the locomotive will first be moved (intact if possible, without wheels if necessary) from its outdoor location into a private shop, where it will remain essentially intact until funding required for the operating overhaul is completely raised - no plan to turn it into a bunch of rusting parts scattered around the country. Many groups calling themselves museums can't say the same. Should the funding not be forthcoming, it wil revert to a display locomotive but indoors. The work is planned to be reversable, but will have some visual impact during the demonstration operation. Much of the combustion system alteration will be within the envelope of the existing boiler; however, the steam pipes will be replaced with larger diameter, and a streamlined shroud will be installed as the most obvious. A strategy has already been worked out for high speed and normal track speed operation including a period of test operation with the inclusion of recording instruments to accurately measure the operating characteristics of the locomotive. This not only quantifies the characteristics of the new fuel, but provides a basis for comparison with the historic data gathered by the Santa Fe decades ago in testing. Some very highly qualified and very respected operating people will be joining the program provided it gets as far as operation."
So, if the project falls through the locomotive is preserved in a better condition than where I can see it through my office window rotting away down there by the creek here in Topeka. If it succeeds, then it might look something like the "Blue Goose." And, the main point of the project is to demonstrate the new biocoal fuel, for which the locomotive will be a "rolling billboard" that the public can easily understand and connect with. I don't see anything here to object to, and I work in historic preservation.
Some personal thoughts on the biocoal fuel and the future of steam locomotives in daily use: whether you believe that CO2 is causing a major global problem or not, what will begin to be a major global problem in the near future is the basic fact that oil is a limited resource and will do nothing but get more expensive as we have to go to greater lengths to find and extract it. In the world of declining oil, the variable fuel inputs of a steam engine make it far more resilient than the limited liquid-fuel options of an internal combustion engine.
For the sake of having ideas for a cost-effective plan B for the transportation and energy systems on which our modern civilization depends, this project's alternative fuel/"green tech" goals have merit.
I followed that thread on RPN Forum where Dave made the post you have quoted above. My first observation is that if the intent is to develop a new torrefied biomass fuel for application to power generation for large scale and for small scale such as powering individual homes, then why not just go ahead with that development?
This idea of creating a modern steam locomotive as a “rolling billboard” strikes me as an incredible distraction to the core purpose. Instead of producing a modern locomotive, why not just develop and build a small-scale power generation unit and promote it? The billboard does not need to roll. The new fuel and its stationary power generation can easily be promoted through mass communication and direct demonstration. There is plenty of product development and engineering that will have to go into the stationary power application, which is what Dave says is their core purpose. So why not start there?
A steam locomotive is not a symbol of modern development even if it is a modern steam locomotive. So, even if it is a rolling billboard, does that billboard send the correct message?
For the fantastic sum of money it will require to redesign and convert the AT&SF locomotive, they could be well on their way to accomplishing what Dave says is their core purpose.
However-- I do not believe that Dave is correct about what he says is their main purpose. If you look at this page of the CSR website, it sounds like they indeed are intent on developing a modern steam locomotive, and not just a rolling billboard for power generation. For instance, they 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. Look at this page:
http://www.csrail.org/index.php/the-train
If you click on the active links associated with the terms, “quicker” and “cheaper,” they open to further evidence that they intend to replace current diesel-electric locomotives with modern steam locomotives burning torrefied biomass fuel.
Bucyrus said, in part:
"... linked in Thread;
"...If you click on the active links associated with the terms, “quicker” and “cheaper,” they open to further evidence that they intend to replace current diesel-electric locomotives with modern steam locomotives burning torrefied biomass fuel..."
I won't argue about the reconfiguration of the former ATSF locomotive, BUT It surely seems that the (re-?) development of Steam Locomotive technology would bring to the fore the same rationalles that caused its demise.
The need for specific Labor Skill Technologies that used to exist at points around the ailroad's systems to maintain the Seam Locomotives, plus their rapid disappearance in the face of the Diesel Locomotive technology.
Steam is all about the infrastructure of specialized mechanical labor forces to maintain the Steam Locomotives; while Diesel Locomotives require specialized labor skills, but nowhere near in the numbers that were required in the days of steam engines.
The reintroduction of a Steam Locomotive technology seems to be a re-invention of the wheel, after a better one was developed and in widespread use. My point seems to be if there needs to be a new steam technology, use it to power electrical power plants, where there seems to be a more crying need for it.
Well, I've read through the CSRail website, and it sounds interesting, VERY interesting. The thing I would question is the need for a 130 mile-per-hour steam locomotive. The idea to me at least is to provide reliable FAST rail transportation as opposed to ultra high-speed transportation, a good solution NOW against a PERFECT solution later.
At any rate a mass application of fast steam would require a rebuilding of the whole steam industry from scratch, and I just can't see it happening, as much as I'd love to see it.
Anyway, I wish them the best of luck. It'll be cool to see, no doubt about it!
If someone wants to invent the Perfect(ly) Modern Steam Locomotive (a goal similar to writing the Great American Novel), how about building it sub-scale, say, in one of the scales popular with the live steam people?
You might even get some high-skill volunteers to build large parts of it? Maybe those live steamers or Milwaukee Zoo-scale locos are not the real thing and that there are certain scaling laws on boilers, etc.. But I think you could learn a lot at much less expense by building a sub-scale prototype.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
We're dealing with enviro retards here. This will be just like corn ethanol, requiring more energy to "torrify" wood than it yields.
There are swaths of America that have never recovered for the cutting of every tree to supply minscule 4-4-0s 130 years ago. These people have never given any thought to how much wood would be required to duplicate the output of even 1 modern diesel electric locomotive. Yeah, they are the same ones who want you to recycle paper to "save" trees.
They say this will open the door to steam boilers and power plants generating 5 to 5,000 kilowatts., here's a 5 kilowatt power plant:
http://www.grainger.com/Grainger/DAYTON-Portable-Diesel-Generator-2ZRR2
So to replace that you want a boiler and steam turbine? Hah!!! There is no market for a 5 MW power plant except the very largest standby systems. A steam system will not work for standby power.
This is another Solyndra type scheme that it a farce to anyone with a brain. If these ideas had merit,
they would be profitable. If they were profitable they would be no shortage of entrprenuers and companies going after those profits. Any scheme that needs your tax dollars is a loser for sure.
You want to know what "torrified" Biomass is ? Go to your grocery and buy a bag of charcoal. That's all it is. Now extrapolate the price of that charcoal to 4000 hp and see if it is practical.
tdmidget,
I agree with all of your points. This one is particularly succinct:
“Yeah, they are the same ones who want you to recycle paper to "save" trees.”
Which way is it with trees? Are they a scarce resource that needs to be saved, even by such outlandish measures as using less toilet paper? Or are they a renewable energy resource?
One thing that people need to understand about this proposal is that it is not about finding a cheaper, better way of doing something. It is not about market economics. It is about eliminating the use of fossil fuels, and that objective comes at a cost. The cost of green steam will be higher despite what the CSR website claims. Many people do not believe there is a good reason to eliminate the use of fossil fuels, so they will not want to spend more to meet that objective.
Therefore, the only way for this to come to fruition is to be imposed by regulation under the assumption that it is for the greater good of society to eliminate the use of fossil fuels.
I'm glad we are agreeing Bucyrus. These "green" energy schemes are being imposed by force and subsidy (another form of force) because they are not practical and economically feasable. Our nation is already at serious economic disadvantage and higher energy costs will only make it worse.
There's been a lot od doubts expressed concerning this project. My own concern is about the proposed shroud. The 3463 is a remarkably handsome locomotive just as it now sits. Any shroud is likely to be an aesthetic disaster. In addition a shroud on a locomotive is a big pain in the posterior for the mechanical staff when they have to do servicing and repair work. My suggestion would be to forget the shroud or at least leave it off until you break the engine in and deal with the inevitable teething troubles and technical glitches. Believe me, you'll be glad you did!
I agree with Mr. Jim. Leave the shroud off, at least until all the "bugs" are out of the engine and it's running as it should.
THEN if they want to put a "Dreyfuss" shroud on I say GO FOR IT!
Even without the shroud, I don’t expect this locomotive to be recognizable as the original ATSF 4-6-4. The group that will do the conversion has said as much. If you read all their news releases, it is apparent that they intend to change many features of the locomotive. I wonder if they will convert it into a cab-forward design in order to sell the idea as a replacement for current diesel locomotives.
On another note, there is a developing story that questions the ownership of this locomotive, and whether The Great Overland Station group in Topeka had the legal title to it and the right to give the locomotive to the Minneapolis group.
It looks like the lawyers will shoot down this whole project before it gets started, even though it looks like it would fall flat on its own merits.
Jeez, I wish Juniatha would weigh in on this whole concept, her engineering expertise and insights would we most welcome. Anyone heard from her lately, she doesn't seem to have been very active on the Forum the past few weeks.
Bucyrus Even without the shroud, I don’t expect this locomotive to be recognizable as the original ATSF 4-6-4. The group that will do the conversion has said as much. If you read all their news releases, it is apparent that they intend to change many features of the locomotive. I wonder if they will convert it into a cab-forward design in order to sell the idea as a replacement for current diesel locomotives. On another note, there is a developing story that questions the ownership of this locomotive, and whether The Great Overland Station group in Topeka had the legal title to it and the right to give the locomotive to the Minneapolis group.
I wouldn't worry too much about ownership. The majority of the time (nearly always) the ownership belongs to the city it was donated to. There is usually a vote by the city council and I have never heard of any city council denying sale of a park locomotive to a group who is interested in restoring it or moving it to a museum. The majority of the time these park locomotives are in bad condition and nothing but a eye sore to the city they belong to. I have read several stories of park locomotives being sold for $1.00 with the stipulation that they do not get cut up for scrap.
Even if they decide to keep it there is lots of other locomotives they could use for their project. There is a big Santa fe 4-8-4 in Pueblo,Colorado just collecting dust and rust.
The ownership issue is being researched by myself and others, including a reporter for the Topeka newspaper. So far, I have learned that no record exists that shows transfer of ownership from the ATSF to the city of Topeka.
The general justification for giving away the locomotive was that it was rotting away to nothing, and the Minneapolis group would restore it to operating condition.
The “rotting away” charge was an uninformed exaggeration based only on the need for paint. And the plans of the Minneapolis group will change almost every last detail of the locomotive, so it will bear only the most basic fundamental resemblance to the original.
The Minneapolis group went to Topeka and spent a week repainting the engine, and it made a “night and day” improvement in the appearance. With the minor exception of a few disassembled details, the engine now looks perfectly presentable as a static display.
It is sitting in a display setting on a dedicated piece of property for that purpose where it has sat since 1956. I cannot believe that the people of Topeka would not be willing to contribute to general upkeep and painting as a continued display of this treasured icon of the age of steam and the city’s heritage intertwined with the AT&SF Ry. Some tasteful fencing, and perhaps a canopy would make bring the display up to the highest standards.
There is a fair amount of backlash developing among the people of Topeka as they learn about giving this locomotive away without asking the citizens first. And a lot of people are not buying the lame excuse for giving the engine away.
Gentleman & Ladies,You might want to look at these 2 new pages from their website to reduce your fears on how the locomotive will be modified: (It won't become a cab forward.)http://www.csrail.org/index.php/the-plan/faqshttp://www.csrail.org/index.php/the-plan/faqs/locomotive-questions
The frequently asked questions section referenced above lists as one of the features a "climate controlled cab"! I just can't believe this is a serious project by responsible adults.
Dakguy201 The frequently asked questions section referenced above lists as one of the features a "climate controlled cab"! I just can't believe this is a serious project by responsible adults.
The proposed ACE-3000 was to have a climate controlled cab, why wouldn't their future proposed prototype have a climate controlled cab? They didn't say 3463 was getting one.
LDPorta,
I only mentioned the prospect of being converted to cab forward on the previous page as pure speculation. But then yesterday, when your first link above was posted on RPN, in its paragraph #2, it did indeed state that the locomotive would be converted to cab forward to be patterned after current Amtrak locomotives, just as I had speculated on the previous page of this thread.
However, now that statement has been removed from the above first link. Why did they change their mind?
Just to clarify, the link yesterday did not say specifically that the AT&SF locomotive would be made cab forward. It was not clear on that point. It suggested that cab forward was part of the intended pattern for production versions of the new locomotive, but was not clear as to whether or not cab forward would be part of the prototype made from the Topeka locomotive.
I have not seen any change on the 1st link. It always said the future proposed prototype would be cab in front, a new build. The second link discussing modifications to 3463 doesn't include modification to the cab. They have a email link on there website. Why don't you email and ask.
Oh yes, I see that it has not changed. It still says cab forward for the production design.
I looked over their "to do list." Why did it remind me of young Jimmy Gatz's to do list in "The Great Gatsby", "Study electricity and needed inventions. Be nicer to parents."
I think it is cool to do the full Chapelon-Porta-Wardale treatment to an old steam locomotive, but that has already been done and there is published data on what is possible. The other suggestion was the 1-crew automatic boiler control operation (how is that even supposed to work on solid fuel -- do stokers work automatically enough that you could trust a firebed completely to automatic systems? What about the risk of a boiler explosion?)
Seems that I recall one of the old ATSF engine men telling me perhaps 15-or-so years back -- around the time the San Bernadino 4-8-4 was brought to Topeka for Railroad Days -- that the boilers on the Big Hudsons were not suitable for rebuild. Something about high Nickel content in the alloy making them brittle. Suffice it to say that the whole business strikes me as the inexplicable effort of a sadly unimaginative and manifestly uncommitted nonprofit and a typical city government to rid themselves of an irreplaceable treasure which "looks for all the world like an old rusty boat anchor to them."Hard to believe that a city that partly spawned a giant like the ATSF would be so devoid of faith and vision. However -- Topeka, for several decades now by my observation, has been unable to shake this affliction.
Well the Germans had a coal fired cab-forward in use prior to World War Two, however there was a fireman in the back monitoring the fire and water, the cab in front only being used by the engineer to run the locomotive. How the two of them communicated is anyones guess, unless the engineer trusted the fireman to do his job and just didn't think about it. I doubt it was a roaring sucess, as all other German steamers had a conventional layout.
That being said, while I like the idea of a modern steam test-bed, I wouldn't go the cab-forward route, it would ruin the locomotive big time. No reason for a cab-forward anyway, certainly not for visibility. You can't stop that thing on a dime not matter what!
Firelock76 That being said, while I like the idea of a modern steam test-bed, I wouldn't go the cab-forward route, it would ruin the locomotive big time.
That being said, while I like the idea of a modern steam test-bed, I wouldn't go the cab-forward route, it would ruin the locomotive big time.
If you read their website it doesn't say they are going to put a forward cab on 3463, but a future new design.
Paul Milenkovic I think it is cool to do the full Chapelon-Porta-Wardale treatment to an old steam locomotive, but that has already been done and there is published data on what is possible. The other suggestion was the 1-crew automatic boiler control operation (how is that even supposed to work on solid fuel -- do stokers work automatically enough that you could trust a firebed completely to automatic systems? What about the risk of a boiler explosion?)
From my knowledge of modern steam there is a lot of ground still to till after the Red Devil. And the N&W TE-1 Jawn Henry for all of its faults had a very effective automated boiler control system, so 1 person operation shouldn't be a problem. I am sure the engineering team that is doing the design knows all about how to design boiler controls.
Tom - Welcome to trains.com!
Tom Elmore Seems that I recall one of the old ATSF engine men telling me perhaps 15-or-so years back -- around the time the San Bernadino 4-8-4 was brought to Topeka for Railroad Days -- that the boilers on the Big Hudsons were not suitable for rebuild. Something about high Nickel content in the alloy making them brittle.
Seems that I recall one of the old ATSF engine men telling me perhaps 15-or-so years back -- around the time the San Bernadino 4-8-4 was brought to Topeka for Railroad Days -- that the boilers on the Big Hudsons were not suitable for rebuild. Something about high Nickel content in the alloy making them brittle.
According the article on this in the August 2012 Railfan and Railroad, the engine will be "modified with lightweight rods, roller bearings, and a new boiler...."
As far as the fuel, it will use "biocoal" which is made from baking "cellulosic biomass, such as wood, at high temperatures in an oxygen-free environment." It notes that this fuel produces less ash and smoke, and releases less polution, but "costs 75 per cent less than the equivalent amount of diesel fuel".
wjstix As far as the fuel, it will use "biocoal" which is made from baking "cellulosic biomass, such as wood, at high temperatures in an oxygen-free environment." It notes that this fuel produces less ash and smoke, and releases less polution, but "costs 75 per cent less than the equivalent amount of diesel fuel".
The production process of "biocoal" sounds suspiciously like a coke oven, which has a justified reputation as an environmental nightmare. "Biocoal" also sounds like a fancy name for charcoal.
Tom Elmore Seems that I recall one of the old ATSF engine men telling me perhaps 15-or-so years back -- around the time the San Bernadino 4-8-4 was brought to Topeka for Railroad Days -- that the boilers on the Big Hudsons were not suitable for rebuild. Something about high Nickel content in the alloy making them brittle. Suffice it to say that the whole business strikes me as the inexplicable effort of a sadly unimaginative and manifestly uncommitted nonprofit and a typical city government to rid themselves of an irreplaceable treasure which "looks for all the world like an old rusty boat anchor to them."Hard to believe that a city that partly spawned a giant like the ATSF would be so devoid of faith and vision. However -- Topeka, for several decades now by my observation, has been unable to shake this affliction.
Very well said, Tom. I believe the city and particularly the Great Overland Station has become so imbued with the green movement that they are ashamed of the big ATSF Hudson. They see it as a powerful symbol of the coal-fired age, and they don't want to be reminded of that. So they are sending the locomotive off to have its image cleaned up.
Bucyrus Tom Elmore: Seems that I recall one of the old ATSF engine men telling me perhaps 15-or-so years back -- around the time the San Bernadino 4-8-4 was brought to Topeka for Railroad Days -- that the boilers on the Big Hudsons were not suitable for rebuild. Something about high Nickel content in the alloy making them brittle. Suffice it to say that the whole business strikes me as the inexplicable effort of a sadly unimaginative and manifestly uncommitted nonprofit and a typical city government to rid themselves of an irreplaceable treasure which "looks for all the world like an old rusty boat anchor to them."Hard to believe that a city that partly spawned a giant like the ATSF would be so devoid of faith and vision. However -- Topeka, for several decades now by my observation, has been unable to shake this affliction. Very well said, Tom. I believe the city and particularly the Great Overland Station has become so imbued with the green movement that they are ashamed of the big ATSF Hudson. They see it as a powerful symbol of the coal-fired age, and they don't want to be reminded of that. So they are sending the locomotive off to have its image cleaned up.
Tom Elmore: Seems that I recall one of the old ATSF engine men telling me perhaps 15-or-so years back -- around the time the San Bernadino 4-8-4 was brought to Topeka for Railroad Days -- that the boilers on the Big Hudsons were not suitable for rebuild. Something about high Nickel content in the alloy making them brittle. Suffice it to say that the whole business strikes me as the inexplicable effort of a sadly unimaginative and manifestly uncommitted nonprofit and a typical city government to rid themselves of an irreplaceable treasure which "looks for all the world like an old rusty boat anchor to them."Hard to believe that a city that partly spawned a giant like the ATSF would be so devoid of faith and vision. However -- Topeka, for several decades now by my observation, has been unable to shake this affliction.
The easiest and fastest way to get a city to sell a locomotive to you is to tell them that it is full of asbestos that is oozing out of rust holes and joints. Let me tell you they will sign that locomotive to you faster then the ink can dry.
Thomas 9011 Bucyrus: Tom Elmore: Seems that I recall one of the old ATSF engine men telling me perhaps 15-or-so years back -- around the time the San Bernadino 4-8-4 was brought to Topeka for Railroad Days -- that the boilers on the Big Hudsons were not suitable for rebuild. Something about high Nickel content in the alloy making them brittle. Suffice it to say that the whole business strikes me as the inexplicable effort of a sadly unimaginative and manifestly uncommitted nonprofit and a typical city government to rid themselves of an irreplaceable treasure which "looks for all the world like an old rusty boat anchor to them."Hard to believe that a city that partly spawned a giant like the ATSF would be so devoid of faith and vision. However -- Topeka, for several decades now by my observation, has been unable to shake this affliction. Very well said, Tom. I believe the city and particularly the Great Overland Station has become so imbued with the green movement that they are ashamed of the big ATSF Hudson. They see it as a powerful symbol of the coal-fired age, and they don't want to be reminded of that. So they are sending the locomotive off to have its image cleaned up. The easiest and fastest way to get a city to sell a locomotive to you is to tell them that it is full of asbestos that is oozing out of rust holes and joints. Let me tell you they will sign that locomotive to you faster then the ink can dry.
Bucyrus: Tom Elmore: Seems that I recall one of the old ATSF engine men telling me perhaps 15-or-so years back -- around the time the San Bernadino 4-8-4 was brought to Topeka for Railroad Days -- that the boilers on the Big Hudsons were not suitable for rebuild. Something about high Nickel content in the alloy making them brittle. Suffice it to say that the whole business strikes me as the inexplicable effort of a sadly unimaginative and manifestly uncommitted nonprofit and a typical city government to rid themselves of an irreplaceable treasure which "looks for all the world like an old rusty boat anchor to them."Hard to believe that a city that partly spawned a giant like the ATSF would be so devoid of faith and vision. However -- Topeka, for several decades now by my observation, has been unable to shake this affliction. Very well said, Tom. I believe the city and particularly the Great Overland Station has become so imbued with the green movement that they are ashamed of the big ATSF Hudson. They see it as a powerful symbol of the coal-fired age, and they don't want to be reminded of that. So they are sending the locomotive off to have its image cleaned up.
As I understand it, in about 1990, the city gave the locomotive to a group for the purpose of that group restoring the locomotive to operation. So the city was not trying to get rid of an eysore or dangerous liability. Instead, they were supporting a plan to fully restore the locomotive for at least proper cosmetic display, and possibly to operation.
The group (later called The Great Overland Station) receiving the locomotive from the city had a secondary group who were restoring the locomotive. GOS lost interest in restoring the locomotive when they acquired the Union Pacific depot. Then they prevented the group doing the restoration on the locomotive from continuing work because of liability concerns. Then the gave the locomotive to the Minneapolis group to be used as a test bed for a modern locomotive concept.
Great Overland Station had no stake in the locomotive, and apparenly no interest in it, so they gave it away. It makes you wonder why they acquired it in the first place.
That is what always seems to happen with these old steam locomotives. Someone wants it and it sits rotting away for 20, 30, or 40 years. Then someone else takes a interest in it and then suddenly you have 20 people that suddenly don't want it to leave because they want to do something with it now. It's all a bunch of BS and something I have seen time and time again.
Although I have seen quite a few steam locomotives sold by the cities they are displayed in, some still belong to the city even though they are fully restored. I know the SP 4449 still belongs to the city of Portland and they actually have to pay around $5,000 to the city as a lease arrangement ( I don't know if this is per excursion, or yearly). Apparently anyone can rent this locomotive if the city agrees to the terms and they have the know how to do it. How they work out the arrangement with the crew who runs and maintains the locomotive I have no idea. I believe the SP&S 700 also still belongs to the city of Portland and is under similar terms.
I am all for this experiment regardless of what type of modifications are done. But one thing I have learned is that most people don't have a clue what they are doing with these old steam locomotives. I have rebuilt both steam and diesel locomotives as well as numerous passenger cars. When anyone asks me my opinion on steam locomotive rebuilding I tell them that they need to triple their best cost estimate and double their time frame.
What's astounding to me is the overwhelming and seemingly monolithic disinterest Topeka has seemingly always shown toward this very visceral tie to the greatness of the railroad company that made its name famous around the world.3463, as told to me by any number of old time Santa Fe men that used to frequent our booths at the Topeka Railroad Days festival, was, in fact, the all-time speed-record holder for steam power on the Santa Fe Lines. Moreover, the six 3460s were originally built to guarantee the schedule of THE SUPER CHIEF -- first full-scale, long distance limited express provisionally assigned exclusively to diesel-electric power.The power, balance and reliability of the Big Hudsons over long distances was repeatedly proven -- and it's a matter of record that much of their time on the road was spent at high speed. As I recall E.D. Worley's words in his masterwork IRON HORSES OF THE SANTA FE TRAIL - "...they rode like Pullmans and roared like sleek lionesses." Another author described their sheer power as being "like massive steel hammers wrapped in velvet." They would seem to have been the absolute apex of development of the Hudson-type, if not of all dedicated steam passenger locomotion -- and this, of course, is the last and only one remaining in the world.Meanwhile, the idea that this outfit-sans-resume in Minnesota is going to "improve on the joint achievement of the legendary Baldwin Locomotive Works and ATSF Motive Power Department?" It's inescapably outrageous.I once saw an element of Oklahoma state government hand a Rock Island Pacific-type that had been displayed at one of its installations over to an alleged "nonprofit preservation group" based in North Texas. One dollar reportedly changed hands. But once over the Red River, the locomotive was not trucked to the nonprofit, but straight-away to a commercial rail operation in Ft. Worth where its superheater was reportedly transplanted to another engine. The remaining hulk is then said to have been sold for a substantial sum to a certain large museum in Illinois.
As I told the XD of the Great Overland Station Foundation after telling her that story -- "if you let this locomotive leave Topeka, I'd bet that you'll never see it there again."None of this seemed to move her in any way.So it goes.
The brave sole survivor AT&SF 4-6-4
To restore to working order
after some 40 plus years as a 'long-term-rust-away-experiment'
.. well ..
let's say : it can be done , uhm , yep
To rebuild in the sense of tech revamping
.. uhm-mhm ..
let's say : sounds interesting - or shocking ..
( depending on point of view and degree of optimism / scepticism ; if actually it would turn out to be interesting , would depend on happy sailing round a couple of rough capes with good luck and sharp skills
.. and lest we forget : some ten million $ would help , though without guarantee ..
Queen of Hudsons status :
Sorry , that excessive pressure drop issue from throttle to steam chest , 'mild' superheating and chocked exhaust ( the source of highly praised lioness roar !) somewhat marred the picture . The size and proportion of boiler by itself was admirable - no doubt ! The 84 ins drive wheels were an asset . The absolute 'square-rigger' tender wasn't really intended to compete at any industrial design award contest , I believe . The Santa Fe cab harmonized well with the general figure .
She would provide plenty of potential for a sensitive , knowing technical up-grading , respecting both AT&SF original intentions and appearance , though .. free wheeling some 6200 ihp continuous output @ 100 mph , hands down , with exhaust purring contently ..
There you are : that's the problem .
Regards
Juniatha
Juniatha,
I would think that the Milwaukee Baltics were a bit closer to being the Queen of the 4-6-4's, seeing that they did run at 100+ MPH on a daily basis - keeping in mind that I don't have the fine details on pressure drop between the boiler and valve gear, back pressure, etc.
Good to see you back.
- Erik
If you can tolerate their inverted bathtub streamlining.
I have seen comments posted on other forums that say this ATSF locomotive has a special nickel-steel boiler, and that it is difficult or even impossible in some ways to work on because of the material it is made of. Does anybody have any information on this detail?
Even if the boiler is in good enough condtion to steam, I am guessing that some of the redesign will require modification to the boiler pressure vessle. The gas producer firebox will require multiple penetrations through the inner and outer walls of the firebox for the purpose of introducing secondary combustion air.
I read somewhere, sometime, that nickle steel boilers were a failure almost immediately they were tried and didn't last too long in service, being replaced with conventional steel boilers ASAP. Maybe this Hudson still has its nickle steel boiler, maybe it doesn't, maybe it never did. If this locomotive went through its entire service life with a n-s boiler it would be the exception, not the rule.
Well, I can't confirm it, but the source of what I heard about nickel steel boilers said that #3463 has one at this time. It would be interesting to know if that is true, and if it presents any issues in the rebuild.
The streamlined Baltics used on the Hiawatha's apparently had nickel steel boilers and were retired ca 1950 due to cracks forming in the boilers. AT&SF 3463 is a contemporary of the Milw Baltics, so it wouldn't be out of the question that it had a N-S boiler as well with many of the same issues.
On a kind of related note, San Onofre nuclear generating station had the steam generators on units 2 & 3 replaced recently. Changes in regulations required that the tubes be made a bit thicker, so more tubes were put in to maintain the same heat transfer as the original S-G's. Turns out the increased density of tubes is leading to increased wear and the tubes are needing to be plugged a lot earlier than planned for - still room for oopsies in boiler making. One point - leaks in the steam generator tubes are much more an operational headache tha a safety concern.
I have never been a big fan of steam really, but Id do see potential for modern steam. No steam wasn't an antiquated technology our implementation of it was really was, kinda like how nuclear power is. Many improvements have been made to the tech for example the gas producer combustion system, lempor exhaust, streamlined steam circuit, etc. The list goes and you can find many technical pages about modern steam. Any who the real cost of owning one of these things is not efficiency, labor, or maintenance cost but infrastructure cost, you would of course need facilities for servicing these and most importantly the facilities for solid fuel which do exist but in limited numbers. In terms of maintenance the frame and boiler would be welded, the wheels equipped with roller bearings, the boiler would be insulated with modern materials, and of course chemical treating of the boiler so in terms maintenance it would be same, but some people would even argue less maintenance, of course repairing a diesel locomotive is a highly technical process by comparison to repairing a steamers (not saying there isn't skill in fixing one though). In terms of efficiency you can achieve about 12-20% efficiency with modern steam which honestly isn't great but it is running on a super cheap source of energy like coal, coke, bagasse, or in this case that fancy charcoal stuff they call biocoal. So the real cost is changing infrastructure like I mentioned and of course the labor, transport, and fueling using solid fuel. The boiler and firebox could be self monitoring and in theory remove the need for a fireman. In terms of milage you could equip with a condensor and not have to refuel and rewater it nearly as much. I'm no engineer truthfully but the neither are the majority of people here, how many people here have modernized a steam loco, built a locomotive, or have undertaken a task as technical as this one answer: almost none, so don't criticize unless you have done something similar to this.
Railroad to Freedom
Absolutely no credibility to some one who who say "any who".
tdmidget Absolutely no credibility to some one who who say "any who".
The way I choose to speak does not effect my credibility.
What do you suppose it would cost to move that locomotive from Topeka to Minneapolis? I am guessing that it would have to be partially disassembled and moved by 3-4 truck trips. Considering, the disassembly, loading, trucking, and unloading, can this be done for under $500,000?
You know, there's been a lot of good, intelligent comments about this rebuild, from the "go for it" to the "is it wise" and of course the "should-they-shouldn't-they" thoughts, but honestly, I don't think there's any railfan out there worthy of the name who isn't interested in seeing how a steam engine with all the imrovements suggested by Porta, Giesel, and Chapelon would perform. I know I am and I suspect so are quite a few others. Remember the "state of the art" in American steam ended 60 years ago, and considering the advances in mechanical knowledge since that time it would be VERY interesting to see how a modified steamer would perform.
Since it'll take years for this to come to fruition this is one thing I'll be relegating to the mental "back burner" and not giving much thought to until it comes about. I don't REALLY expect to see the whole steam industry recreated, but this experiment IS interesting, to say the least.
I think people should also consider that countries such as Britain and its colonies, Germany, China, India, Korea(both north and south), soviet union, and of course industrial railways used steam for considerable periods of time and in fact there are a lot of barriers to entry for diesel technology to list a few
the obvious it costs money to buy new equipment and change infrastructure
Oil was generally expensive in many parts of the world
coal to oil techniques are generally uneconmomical
it required greater engineering knowledge to build a diesel locomotive, though the mass production of diesels and standardization of parts helped make it cheaper
Like I mentioned before it requires more technical skill to repair diesels.
Anyways I think I should also note that Switzerland is putting steamers back in service using porta techniques.
Switzerland putting steamers back in service? On a regular basis and not a "novelty" basis? Wow, this is the first I've heard of it. What are they using for fuel? I though all the Swiss coal was gone. Considering the Swiss went to main line electrification a long time ago this is a surprise.
Firelock76 Switzerland putting steamers back in service? On a regular basis and not a "novelty" basis? Wow, this is the first I've heard of it. What are they using for fuel? I though all the Swiss coal was gone. Considering the Swiss went to main line electrification a long time ago this is a surprise.
Well a rack railway was put back in service using steam they replaced the self propelled diesel railcars with steamers, this system acts as public transit and as a tourist attraction. A diesel powered paddle boat which originally converted from steam to diesel to save cost was converted back to steam power to save cost and of course for the novelty, the boiler and what not are remote controlled and self monitoring so the same crew can used as the diesel. DLM 52 8055 pulls the swiss orient express. Anyways there are other examples while these are mostly for tourist attractions they are being run for a commercial purpose, these companies did use steam for not only the novelty but the cost savings too. The tech is from DLM AG. the locomotives run on light oil.
edit: I also forgot fireless locos are being put back into regular commercial service by this same company too
http://www.dlm-ag.ch/en
Juniatha The brave sole survivor AT&SF 4-6-4 To restore to working order after some 40 plus years as a 'long-term-rust-away-experiment' .. well .. let's say : it can be done , uhm , yep To rebuild in the sense of tech revamping .. uhm-mhm .. let's say : sounds interesting - or shocking .. ( depending on point of view and degree of optimism / scepticism ; if actually it would turn out to be interesting , would depend on happy sailing round a couple of rough capes with good luck and sharp skills .. and lest we forget : some ten million $ would help , though without guarantee .. Queen of Hudsons status : Sorry , that excessive pressure drop issue from throttle to steam chest , 'mild' superheating and chocked exhaust ( the source of highly praised lioness roar !) somewhat marred the picture . The size and proportion of boiler by itself was admirable - no doubt ! The 84 ins drive wheels were an asset . The absolute 'square-rigger' tender wasn't really intended to compete at any industrial design award contest , I believe . The Santa Fe cab harmonized well with the general figure . She would provide plenty of potential for a sensitive , knowing technical up-grading , respecting both AT&SF original intentions and appearance , though .. free wheeling some 6200 ihp continuous output @ 100 mph , hands down , with exhaust purring contently .. There you are : that's the problem . Regards Juniatha
A nice name.
The 3463 is not the only Santa Fe 4-6-4 that still exists. The 3450, a smaller but very nice 4-6-4 is still around at Pomona.
In what kind of shape?
I believe the ATSF locomotive will never leave Topeka. So far, it has only been donated. No money has changed hands, so there is nothing committed. But moving the locomotive to Minneapolis will require serious money. Nobody is going to want to spend that money when there is no clear title to the ownership of the locomotive.
To ontheBNSF: Thanx for the Swiss update!
Does anyone know if they would be able to lay panel track on the Shunga Trail and drag it backwards to the existing rail? I am unfamiliar with Topeka but I assume this trail was originally a rail line. It is approximately 1 mile down that trail if it went under the 2 roads and then under the rail and up the hill to meet the tracks near 15th street. I believe moving by rail would be much cheaper and simpler than moving it by truck. If this was possible it would only have to cross one street on the panel track.
O5 Hopeful - Welcome to trains.com!
O5 Hopeful Does anyone know if they would be able to lay panel track on the Shunga Trail and drag it backwards to the existing rail? I am unfamiliar with Topeka but I assume this trail was originally a rail line. It is approximately 1 mile down that trail if it went under the 2 roads and then under the rail and up the hill to meet the tracks near 15th street. I believe moving by rail would be much cheaper and simpler than moving it by truck. If this was possible it would only have to cross one street on the panel track.
I am not familiar with the layout of Topeka or the location of the locomotive. Someone who lives there and is familiar with the locomotive commented on another forum. He said that the organization known as The Great Overland Station was intersted in moving the engine from the exposition grounds where it is displayed to the U.P. depot (which is now owned by GOS). They wanted to move the locomotive by rail, but neither BNSF or UP would permit the locomotive to move across their bridge over the river.
I don't know if that same issue would apply to routing the engine to Minneapolis. And if it does not, I suspect that rail shipment on the locomotive's wheels would present some serious challenges if it were even doable. GOS had considered cutting the locomotive into several pieces to move it to the U.P. depot in Topeka.
So, all things considered, whether shipped by truck or by rail, I suspect the cost will be very high. It would be interesting if somebody with direct experience would comment on the possible cost of the move. Would $500,000 get the locomotive moved to Minneapolis?
$500,000 is way off base. I know it cost approx. $8,000 to bring in one of those heavy duty cranes to pick up a locomotive and to move it either onto a flat car or truck. It would cost probably anywhere from $1,500 to $3,000 to lease the trailer. Then another company would supply a truck and driver. You would also have to pay for a pilot car and his meals and lodging. Moving a locomotive over a few states would probably set you back a cool $25,000 when it is all done.
Moving it by rail would be much cheaper. Much like a truck trailer you would have to lease a special flat car which would probably set you back $2,000-$3,000 per day, and add another $8,000 for the crane. Most railroads charge you approx. $2.00-$3.00 per car, per mile. You would probably have one locomotive on a flat car and one tender on a flat car so about $6.00 per mile. Railroads also charge fuel surcharges, pickup and drop fees, and a ton of other fees.
Here is a photo of the Reading 2100 which is a bit smaller locomotive but gives you a good idea of how a locomotive can be moved on a flat car with minimal effort http://www.trevorheath.com/livesteaming/Reading.htm
My main question is I didn't know how long the road bridges have been there and if they were put there after the railroad was gone they could be too low to allow the locomotive to pass under.
I know that the $500,000 is quite high. BNSF wants $100,000 to $150,000 to move a locomotive from Wyoming to Minneapolis.
"I know it cost approx. $8,000 to bring in one of those heavy duty cranes to pick up a locomotive and to move it either onto a flat car or truck."
Way off base. A 250 ton hydraulic truck crane will cost about 500/hr. That is from the time it leaves until it returns. If the crane yard is across the street you might get it for that. Mobilization will be extra as there will be additional truckloads of counter weight and rigging. Oh yeah, rigging. Just the rigging to lift it without damage in one piece will cost about $50,000.
Plus one 250T crane can't do it you'll need 2.
i recently installed a turbine rotor that weighed 119,000 lbs. Freight from South Carolina to Arizona was over $50,000 and it wasn't even over width.
So what is the cost estimate to move the 4-6-4 and tender from Topeka to Minneapolis? Just give me the final cost. You can leave out any cost of re-assembly at the point of delivery.
1) COST TO MOVE BY RAIL:________________
2) COST TO MOVE BY TRUCK:________________
tdmidget "I know it cost approx. $8,000 to bring in one of those heavy duty cranes to pick up a locomotive and to move it either onto a flat car or truck." Way off base. A 250 ton hydraulic truck crane will cost about 500/hr. That is from the time it leaves until it returns. If the crane yard is across the street you might get it for that. Mobilization will be extra as there will be additional truckloads of counter weight and rigging. Oh yeah, rigging. Just the rigging to lift it without damage in one piece will cost about $50,000. Plus one 250T crane can't do it you'll need 2. i recently installed a turbine rotor that weighed 119,000 lbs. Freight from South Carolina to Arizona was over $50,000 and it wasn't even over width.
If rigging is going to cost $50,000 then we are all in the wrong business. 500 dollars a hour is $4,000 for a 8 hour day. I gave a quote at $8,000 which would buy two 8 hour days which is more than enough time to load a steam locomotive onto a rail car or truck.
According to this website you can rent a 300 ton crane for a little over $1,000 dollars a day http://www.bigge.com/crane-rental/crane-rental-rates.html
A turbine rotor is a delicate piece of machinery which could take months to build, is expensively insured, and requires special attention, both to pick up and to install. I am sure if it weighs 119,000 pounds then it would have cost in the several millions to purchase. Moving a multi million dollar piece of brand new machinery is a world of difference than a used piece of machinery such as a steam locomotive.
Derelict steam locomotives sitting in parks are practicably worthless. Many cities sell them for as little as $1.00 with the stipulation that you don't cut them up for scrap. Other cities have given them to anyone who wants to restore them. Even a operational, restored, 4-8-4 such as the Milwaukee 261 only sold for $225,000. Premiums for insurance to move this locomotive will be low.
If it was truly going to cost over $100,000 then I think anyone with basic math would simply buy a truck and a trailer and hire a driver. You can buy used semi trucks for $15,000 on up.
You have first overlooked that it will take 2 250T cranes to load it in one piece. The rental is is door to door. It starts when it leaves the yard and ends when it returns. Of course 2 days is enough to load it. It is not enough to cover transport and assembly and disassembly and transport back to the renter's yard. This is how it works. Is there even a crane in Topeka capable of this job? How about 2?
To transport by road will require at least 4, maybe 5 trucks. The boiler is one load, the frame/ wheel assy another, the tender at least one other( probably 2 loads) and the cab and other smaller parts another. The freight rates are wide open. Trailers that cost over w200,00 lbs rent for what ever they can get. $ of them are a real big deal. And you want them all there within 8 hours.
Moving by rail is pretty much off the table. Hi wide, over weight are not in the tariffs. BNSF may not be steam hostile but it AIN"T gonna move on it's own wheels. It will need at least 3 railcars to make the move. No real savings over highway unless you can talk BNSF into a charity move.
Do all that in 2 days/ good luck!
"If it was truly going to cost over $100,000 then I think anyone with basic math would simply buy a truck and a trailer and hire a driver. You can buy used semi trucks for $15,000 on up."
Per the driver the trailer that brought the rotor cost over 200, 000 bucks. Lots of luck finding something for that Loco for 15 Gs'
This is why many restoration jobs fail. There is a total disconnect with reality on what things cost these days.
O5 HopefulI know that the $500,000 is quite high. BNSF wants $100,000 to $150,000 to move a locomotive from Wyoming to Minneapolis.
What does that Wyoming locomotive weigh? What type of locomotive is it? What will it cost to load and unload it from the flatcar?
The problem with nickel steel boilers largely was one of handling of the steel plates at manufacturing , the method of riveting and welding applied and in service it was water testament that had an influence . A comparable thing had happened on DR with 290 psi boilers of carbon steel for three cylinder Pacifics , 41 Mikados , 45 2-10-2 and some of the 50 class Decapods : while for instance boilers of locos built at Maffei were pretty bad , some 41 class 2-8-2 engines built by Schwartzkopff held out pretty well and were no worse is developing cracks than regular plain steel boilers of standard 228 psi . This is why neither DB nor DR in East-Germany reboilered all of their remaining 41 class engines ; the last 41 with original carbon steel boilers being retired on DB in 1968 , actually two years after the reboilered 03.10 class Pacifics were retired ( the class originally had carbon steel boilers although of 228 psi and had been fully reboilered in about 1953 - 55 ) . On DR-East , some 50 class Decapod with carbon steel boilers lasted at least as long as engines of the same class rebuilt with new boilers , one of them even running occasionally today as a preserved engine .
Firelock , your remark about technology having moved on and offering a couple of advantages applicable to classic steam is absolutely correct . As I mentioned before I would estimate the power potential of a decently - not radically - modernized 3563 to be in the 6000 ihp range - decently meaning to apply improvements sure to perform and not offending visual character of the locomotive , in contrast to attempt a sort of revamping beyond recognition , such as has been done pretty recklessly with poor 52 8055 , looking awful enough in this wild mixture of ( some ) modern and antique technics that disharmonize 'loud enough' , the loco having lost her identity as a 52.80 class member while not having attained another typical identity other than that of a one-off non-52 ex-52 .
However , in principle , any steam locomotive of the classic reciprocating engine concept , even a vastly modernized one , is a low efficiency engine and one of inherently low tractive effort for a given total service mass .
In this context : mentioned 12 to 20 % thermic efficiency would be an ambitious goal if it was meant as maximum value : 12 % have been attained as optimum working point efficiency heat content of fuel to power at wheel rim by André Chapelon in 4-6-2 , 4-8-0 and 2-8-2 type Paris-Orleans series 231.700 , 24.700 and SNCF series 141.P as can be read in according test reports and railroad technical literature of the time where results were published giving original indicator graphs and other details . 12 % as a service average would be quite another story and pretty hard to attain as it would demand at least the higher one of the mentioned values , 20 % optimum working point efficiency . This would be jjuusst attainable applying all measures including compounding with re-superheating plus two-stage preheating , possibly air-preheating . It could be done only with top-range combustion cleanliness , quite certainly not with any to the mentioned low cost low grade fuels such as indifferent sorts of coal - as used throughout by US RR in the age of steam - less so with bagasse . Simply because the combustion efficiency is not high and logically this drags down engine efficiency . Mind , that Porta's GPCS does not increase combustion efficiency as such , it only helps to trim down some of the steam locomotive's typical losses in combustion , such as loss of unburnt particles . The mentioned 52-8055 rebuilt has no significantly higher overall engine efficiency than a 52.80 in good mechanical condition , run on good , suited quality of black coal with suiting lower calorific value , content of volatiles and ashes - only , 'it' can be run with a clean exhaust due to light oil ( 'diesel quality' ) and it does not have to have grate cleaned . Because of new roller-rods and larger balancing masses in drive wheels 'it' runs smoother than before , which is an improvement , and was officially given a service speed of 60 mph instead of 50 - promoted as a great progress , although if you come to think of it , many of these Decapods were made to run 60 mph plus x during their regular working times on DR and Austrian railways , roller-rods or not , when used in passenger service in the 1950s to 1960s .
By these aspects of efficiency and performance alone - not to speak of prohibitive costs of revamping infrastructure , as mentioned by some in this discussion - IMHO it would be absolutely beyond any serious consideration to propose a return of steam on a commercial basis . This would be like prosing to solve energy questions of today's aviation by returning to piston engine propeller planes like a Super Connie 'modernized' with piston engines tuned to present day high performance standards ( about twice the power then ) and consuming 'bio' oil , in other words consuming our food plants . I'd like to see a power-boosted hi-performance Super-Hyper Connie take off - yet as a darling of classic plane lovers only . With Mickey Mouse attemps like that we will never come to solve the challenging questions of our time ! Why , with oil becoming ever more scarce as inevitably it must with limited resources and limited capacity of atmosphere , too , mind it , American railroads sooner or late will have to realize the diesel locomotive has become outdated , too , and has to be replaced - those who realize according measures and modernizations first will benefit from it and will be among the winners .
So , the big lonely 4-6-4 could provide a good basis for an engine improved in performance and environmental protection ( a big word - we would be happy if it wouldn't pollute as much as it did in the old days , leave alone to 'protect' !) meant for steam tours for the benefit of running steam for the fans . It would not provide a prototype for any sort of a commercial return of steam and it would not be edifying even to try for it .
The times they are a-changing , one folk singer muttered in one of his admired songs - only , he never dreamed how profoundly they were eventually about change ! We shall call ourselves blessed to be in a position even to discuss rebuilding a steam locomotive of the 1940s ..
Herewith $0.02 worth (actually nearer $2.00) of thoughts about the proposed restoration of ATSF 3463, based on the project website, from a UK fan.
The good news. It’s terrific that something is being done to rescue ATSF 4-6-4 3463 from rusting away. It is the sole surviving US 4-6-4 from the late 1930s, the pinnacle of US design development, Baldwin’s latest and best high speed 4-6-4. The cosmetic restoration is done. Marvellous! Since not a single NYC Hudson survived from this period, nor any of the MILW Hudsons, (which have as good a claim to the World Hall of Fame as any steam locomotive I know of), if there is to be a streamlined shroud, I suggest there should be three, a Blue Goose from the ATSF Historical Society, a Dreyfuss from the NYCHS and an F7 one from the MILWHS. Only about 0.01% of the population would know that that 5450 and 103 thus created weren’t the real Alco thing, and less than half of those would care, so with any reasonable rounding up there would be 100% satisfaction. Four locos for the price of one. Can’t wait. I recognise that this would be a departure from historic practice, in which fans of a particular railroad restore in their own locality. Whether interest in steam locomotives in the US nowadays transcends the fan base of old companies I do not know, but in essence what the 3463 group is proposing is a non-partisan effort. Not sure this concept will fly in the US, but if it’s the only way to enjoy the sight of a latter day US Hudson working, I’m all for it.
The people behind it. Lots of good folks with relevant skills, it seems.
The financial plan. Details of sponsors are given, but it’s not clear they have the multimillions needed . There is a link to the University of Minnesota, which may get State or federal aid to study the proposed fuel, torrified biomass.
The environmental case. The basic pitch is that by burning torrified biomass, a bit like coke, you could create the world’s first ‘carbon neutral’ steam locomotive. 3463 is to be used as a test bed before a ‘proper’ 21st Century locomotive is designed. The oil burning 3460s were designed for easy conversion back to coal firing, good news. However, ‘carbon neutral’ is perhaps a bit ambitious - you sure need a lot of carbon to produce 363 tons of steel, build facilities to maintain it, produce and deliver its fuel and keep the army needed to operate and maintain it alive.
Further, as has been pointed out here, the idea that farmed wood could become a ubiquitous fuel of the future, including in a locomotive boiler, is a complete environmental and economic nonsense. Most stuff on the internet about torrified biomass is written by enthusiasts. This seems a reasonably balanced view:
http://www.all-energy.co.uk/UserFiles/File/2007PaulMitchell.pdf
From this, it seems that the idea is in fact to make better use of waste from wood processes, rather than farming trees to produce coke. How much waste wood there is to burn, and where it’s best to burn it are unanswered questions. Not in the boiler of a reciprocating steam locomotive, I would have thought. (In my view farming biomass for fuel is scandalous. Supplies of e.g. phosphate fertiliser are not limitless, and phosphate is essential for life. I feel it in my bones. But try telling the Senators who have got ethanol production in their States that). So, maybe there is a Federal or State gravy train that can be tapped into, and by sequestering someone else’s money, 3463 might steam again, as we would all like to see. Surely you want this project to succeed rather than someone else’s, as Machiavelli might have said?
The Marketing Case. US passenger rail hangs on by a thread. There is no non-electrified railroad that that has or plans 125mph speeds, so the market for a 125mph locomotive is not clear. Few US railroads want 80 year old steam locomotives anywhere near their tracks. No community would want a fire throwing behemoth polluting their atmosphere on a regular basis. Not a strong case.
The economic case. As has been pointed out here, the reciprocating steam locomotive died for very good economic reasons, many not related to its thermal efficiency and only by spending a large fortune can they be kept running. This is true the world over, and even given free, carbon free fuel, nothing would change in my view if that fuel could be burnt elsewhere. Surely there are always better things to do with energy sources? You can boil water with about 80% efficiency, but even the best reciprocating engines waste 80% of the heat in the steam, and precious little of this can be usefully recycled, thus maximum 16% efficiency referred to cylinder output, less at the drawbar. What about a future in which oil or natural gas is phenomenally expensive? A lot of other things will have changed by then, but I’m going to bet rail transportation will not be going back to solid fuel reciprocating steam. I will not be putting my pension fund towards supporting the proposition.
The improved efficiency case. It is implied that modernisation would lead to a significant improvement in efficiency. I believe this is optimistic thinking too. Looking at the specifics on the website:
· Conversion to GPCS firebox. GPCS has not proved a viable option so far, but with a big stretch of the imagination, this could deal with the number 2 loss of efficiency in a steam locomotive at high steam rates, the loss of unburned fuel. These losses depend on a) the quality of coal b) the specific rate of evaporation (lbs steam/sqft grate/hr) and c) the degradation of coal in the mechanical stoker screw. For good quality hand fired coal, unburned losses are pretty low at less than 600 lbs/sqft/hr. So GPCS only ‘works’ above this rate. Now US steam passenger locomotives were generally not steamed at more than 600lbs/sqft/hr. This was sufficient to produce 70000lbs/hr steam to the cylinders on a feedwater heated 100 sqft grate type, the best part of 5000 cylinder horsepower with steam age superheat and exhausts. In fact, no more than 4000HP was needed to time schedules. I do not know, but suspect that the reason for the low specific evaporation rates was to minimise boiler maintenance costs. Conclusion if so: higher working steam rates at which GPCS might provide a significant benefit would require a complete redesign of the boiler. Further, and more importantly, the mechanistic reason for the loss of unburned fuel is not well understood. With coal, it is related to the production of fine char, and the smaller the coal feed particles, especially from stoker feed, the higher the losses. My suspicion is that the two key factors are the surface area of the coal and the rate at which that surface is burning. The faster the burn and the higher the surface area, the more char is produced per unit of heat produced. However, this applies to burning coal! (a different mechanism applies to unburned losses in an oil fired boiler). Will torrified biomass produce the same char flow as coal? Could it be worse? Does torrified biomass produce char at all? Does anyone know? The design of steam locomotives requires that very large amounts of heat are produced in a very small space, under high draught, and this provides some unique challenges, which need to be understood for burning torrified biomass before anyone starts worrying about GPCS.
· Application of modern boiler water treatment system. Can’t argue with this, but this is about maintenance, not efficiency
· Increased superheat temperature. The effect of improvements such as this on engine efficiency can now be estimated accurately by a computational fluid dynamics (CFD) package. We know from the ATSF test report on 3461 that the inlet steam could reach 750-800oF, but was more often 650-700oF. This is because superheat increases with specific evaporation rate, and as noted above, this was relatively low in the US. How much efficiency could be gained by going to 750-800oF at normal rates? About 3%.
· Reduce pressure drop in steam circuit. There are two drops to consider, between the regulator and the steam chest, and from the steam chest to the cylinders. Looking at the ATSF data, boiler pressures on test were around 290 psi, and the indicator cards show that steam chest pressures were generally about 260 psi at high steam rates, say a 30psi loss. There was a constant loss of ca 12psi between the superheater inlet and the valve chest, but pressure drop between the throttle and superheater inlet increased from 4 to 18psi as steam rate increased, indicating a restriction in flow through the throttle. If this total pressure drop could be reduced by 20psi, what would be the gain in efficiency from being able to use shorter cut offs this would allow? CFD says about 2%. On the second question, the ATSF data show that both on their 4-6-4, but more particularly on their 4-8-4, maximum cylinder pressure was some way below steam chest pressure, it’s difficult to get 30000+lbs steam/hr into a single cylinder! For this reason, lead on US locomotives was quite long, 0.3125” on the 4-6-4, 0.25” on the 4-8-4. So, pressure held up better in the 4-6-4, a good thing for efficiency but the longer lead is marginally worse for efficiency. How does it all work out? Well, it’s very finely balanced and CFD says it doesn’t matter much, so steam age engineer’s gut reaction that low initial cylinder pressure was a bad thing is not really correct.
· Improve adjust valve settings. The 3460s had relatively short steam lap (1.125”) and this means that steam flow at a given cut off is less than it might be, so to achieve a target power, cut off has to be lengthened, reducing efficiency. If the valve events of the J3 were adopted (1.625” lead) CFD says efficiency at speed would improve by about 2%, and if the device used on the ATSF 4-8-4s to increase their steam lap to 2.125”, the benefit could be as much as 3%. What happens if you increase valve size? Well, steam flows faster, so you can work in more efficient shorter cut offs, but CFD says there’s little efficiency gain because the larger valves allow steam to escape faster at the end of the expansion; smaller valves mean the steam escapes more slowly, and it does more useful work in the ‘toe’ of the indicator diagram.
· Improve backpressure. This only works if there’s a serious backpressure problem. There wasn’t on the 3460 class at the steam rates at which they were normally worked, but backpressure was about 10psi at their highest rate of working. What happens if you halve this? A gain of about 4% in efficiency.
· Summary of engine efficiency improvements. Below are the actual estimates from CFD of the effect of the above changes working at constant steam rate, based on an illustrative CFD calculation for 44% cut off at 64 mph which reproduces pretty faithfully what the ATSF actually found for 3461. ‘As is’ condition has 260psi steam chest pressure, 13” valves, 1.125” steam lap, 4 *3.5” nozzles, and 695oF inlet. ‘Full package’ includes all the improvement options. The combined benefit package adds up to an efficiency improvement of but 11%! How come Chapelon was able to claim so much more? The answer is on the final row. If you take the ‘full package’ at the same operating condition as ‘as is’ you see there is a spectacular 25% increase in power. But steam has gone up by 20%. Only the increase in superheat and reduction in backpressure directly improve efficiency; the other approaches require reduction in cut off. In his Compounds, the higher steam flow options helped, because restricted steam flow into the HP cylinders can limit power (this does not apply to simples working at speed which are boiler limited).
Engine 3463
Cut-off
Speed
St.cons
IHP
Back Pressure
Efficiency %
Upgrade efficiency:
as is
Condition
%
Mph
lb/hr
Psi
As is
43.9
64
59633
4022
10.99
12.7
280 psi steam chest
41.3
59559
4097
10.81
13
1.02
15" valves
42.2
59583
4040
10.94
12.8
1.00
1.625" steam lap
40.8
59587
4096
10.86
12.9
4*4" nozzles
43.1
59593
4152
6.3
13.1
1.03
750F inlet
45.2
59613
4153
11.75
Full package
37.4
59557
4473
6.55
13.9
1.11
71556
5060
10.03
· Streamlining. This does offer significant advantages at speeds of 70+ mph. Not any old streamlining however. Looking at how modern traction has evolved, I would think the MILW design might have had some useful aerodynamic purpose.
· The rest talked about. Sundry improvements to reliability, no game changers, and as with any design changes it might prove they are more difficult than it seems, or more trouble than they are worth.
· Conclusion. Even if you spend millions of dollars in addition to the basic restoration costs to improve power and efficiency, you’re not going to get anything that’s dramatically better than 3463 as was, certainly nothing that would change the underlying economics of steam.
Improved boiler output? As noted above the oil burning 3460s were not tested at very high specific evaporation rates. There are many reasons why this might be, some related to the use of oil as a fuel, but what is clear is that solid fuel grates, whilst also not steamed much above 600lbs/sqft/hr in daily service, could be steamed at 1000+lbs/sqft/hr for show off stunts (Niagara and T1 tests, Chapelon 4-8-0, Mallard to mention some). Now these efforts were generally made with very high calorific value coal, 13500-15000Bthu/lb. Torrified biomass is about 11000Bthu/lb, and it may well be that the ‘stunt’ limit of a boiler fired with this material would be less. I am going to suppose that the ‘stunt’ limit for 3463 would be about 85000lbs/hr with torrified biomass.
Could 3463 ever reach 130 mph, even with the above upgrades? The short answer is no. The only 125+mph rated track is in the northeast corridor. A non starter. The only track with 120mph steam pedigree in the US is from Crestline west on the PRR- another non-starter - and after Caledonia near Milwaukee. So let’s suppose that nice Mr Hunter Harrison would cough up the $$$$ to rebuild the MILW from Rondout to Milwaukee. Let’s not stretch Mr Harrison’s generosity too much, and only ask him to rebuild/resignal/superelevate the line to 100mph standards as far as Sturtevant, 125 mph beyond there- back to the 1940s, for beyond Sturtevant, a MILW Hudson averaged 120mph for 5 miles I believe. Now reaching 130mph is about a) mechanical robustness, and a reciprocating steam locomotive is a pretty daft contraption to try to achieve high speed with, but I’d back 3463 for a one off attempt and b) HP. The Santa Fe rated the 3460s at 4350HP, but as noted above, this was at pretty modest steam rates for the size of the boiler. If you thrashed an upgraded 3463 to a boiler limit of 85000lbs/hr, you could get about 6000IHP at 130 mph. Completely unknown territory from a mechanical perspective, but the boiler at least would be up for this. So we run 3463 out to Sturtevant with the Afternoon Hiawatha consist, cruising at 100mph. This requires only 3000-3800IHP, completely in its comfort zone. (I would have the MILW shroud on). The good old days return, and there’s not a dry eye at the trackside. At Sturtevant we go for it, giving it a full 6000IHP, the change of grade kicks in, and what do we get at the foot of the 0.67%? About 125mph. What do need to get 130mph? Over 7000IHP. This is just simple mechanics. 130mph is a fantasy. The only option I can suggest is that one sweet-talks that nice Mr Rose into using the Santa Fe west from Kingman. Just by releasing the brakes at the top of the downgrade, 3463 and the Afternoon Hiawatha would be doing about 130mph by Topock simply from the effect of gravity. There is however a bit of a curve after Yucca, so it might be best to apply a bit of steam to get to 130mph before there. In fact, a mere 2000HP would get you well into the 140s. Whether you could then stop is a different question.
Overall conclusion. The good news is someone cares enough to get the restoration process started, and they have a good set of skills. They don’t appear to have the funds needed for the project. They are selling the idea on an environmental platform, possibly to get Government funding, and to tap the wider world’s pockets there is a claim, spurious in my view, that 3463 could reach 130mph. There is no doubting my mind that some improvements to the efficiency and power of 3463 could be made, but it is exceedingly unlikely to change the economics of the reciprocating steam locomotive. I can’t imagine if torrified biomass did become a viable fuel that you would want to burn it in a locomotive boiler. In any case, work needs to be done to find out how useful this is in a locomotive boiler. 3463 modified to burn coal is a place to start, though there are easier, less costly ones. Send a few tons of the stuff over here, for example. These do not seem sound starting points if the project is to be funded by disinterested or profit orientated third parties.
Personally, I’d be more than happy just to see 3463 running as was. If I may be undiplomatic, it is scandalous you guys let it get into such a state in the first place. If anyone really cared about US steam history it would have been up and working a long time ago. Sure, that might have cost a few million dollars, but as anyone knows the only thing you need to look after a steam locomotive is a small fortune, and to get that, you have to start with a big one, and have abundant free time and relevant skills. Plenty of folk over here in the UK have come to terms with that, and that’s why you’re never more than 50 miles from a working steam line in England and Wales. Dreams cost time and money.
If the people on the project have the finance, and the business, engineering and people skills to make this happen, they deserve every bit of support. If they want to tinker with 3463 to get some improvements in efficiency and reliability, and put a solid fuel grate in, if that’s their entry price, I’m ok with that too. But the project will only succeed if it’s based on rational premises, or there is someone or some group with a large, irrational cheque book. That's why Tornado exists. Time to get you cheque books out, steam fans, I think.
I don’t see this as a locomotive restoration. And they are not selling the idea on an environmental platform as you surmise. They are selling the idea of carbon neutral energy. If anything, the locomotive is just a platform to sell that idea. They have told us that they see the rebuilt #3463 as a rolling billboard to sell torrefied biocoal to the world market. There is no question about whether that is the best fuel for a modern locomotive. That has got to be the fuel because the fuel is the whole point of what they are doing.
They have also told us that the rebuilt #3463 will bear only the most fundamental resemblance to the historic configuration.
I have read several different website and new release items on this 3463 project, and am struck by just how big the proposal is. In fact, I think they tend to discredit themselves by the “conquer-the-world” scope of their proposal.
This is the scope:
1) Develop and perfect the torrefied biocoal product.
2) Develop and prefect the commercial production process for the biocoal product, including biomass agriculture and fuel pellet manufacturing.
3) Develop the engineering and design for a modern carbon neutral steam locomotive prototype.
4) Rebuild #3463 to become the prototype carbon neutral locomotive.
5) Test the prototype locomotive including the setting of a 130 mph speed record.
6) Run the locomotive to promote the use of biocoal.
7) Continue locomotive development to achieve an engineered design for a production locomotive to replace diesel-electric locomotives for commercial railroad use worldwide.
8) Develop the engineered design for torrefied biocoal generating plants for worldwide application in a variety of scales ranging from single household application to full size municipal plants.
Bucyrus What does that Wyoming locomotive weigh? What type of locomotive is it? What will it cost to load and unload it from the flatcar?
It's a Northern and it would pulled in a dedicated train not on a flat car.
Somehow I foresee that long before 100MPH those cute little pellets will be sucked right out the stack.
Maybe. But those pellets are to be highly compressed during manufacturing, so they will be as dense as coal. And then there is the gas producer firebox, and lempor exhaust. I am not sure how those features will affect the tendancy to lift the fuel out of the fuel bed.
Well, it sounds like we are getting a little closer to an estimate of the cost to move #3463, including disassembly, rigging, loading, transportation from Topeka to Minneapolis, re-rigging, and unloading (not including reassembly).
Thomas 9011,
I think you are underestimating the cost. How much time will it take to unbolt the smokebox from the cylinder saddle? Or would you simply cut the smokebox bottom to separate from the saddle? How long will it take to unfasten that boiler from the frame? What about separating the tender from its trucks? Will these separations require lifting support during the removal of fasteners? If so, that might require jacks and blocking as a cheaper option than holding with crane during the slow process of unfastening.
Crane service will be needed at both ends. Even excluding re-assembly, the most reasonable way to execute the unloading is to set the boiler back onto the frame, and set the tender back onto its trucks. How long will it take to perform the delicate task of setting these items into proper position, ready for reassembly?
How many smaller items will be removed from the boiler and frame assemblies in order to equalize the weight distribution between the 3-4 truck loads to Minneapolis? How long will that take? That will require a small crane to lift the items for separation.
I have heard that the engine weighs 200 tons. Maybe somebody can confirm the dry weight of engine and tender. If 200 tons is correct, 3 trucks would have to carry about 67 tons each. I would just guess that a haul of that weight is going to need a lot of special care, permits, flagging, escort, etc.
So what is all that going to cost? I’m looking for a number.
[quote user="Juniatha"]
/quote]
A nice pithy analogy....
If the goal is to produce a steam locomotive that operates at both high efficiency and high speed, then the experience with Pennsy's S-2 suggests that a steam turbine would be the way to go. This would most likely need some sort of gearbox to keep steam consumption at low speeds from getting out of hand.
As for a hot rod Connie, Lockheed apparently tried fitting turbo-prop engines to a Connie, but ran into problems with tail flutter. Since fixing the triple tail would have been too much work, Lockheed started from scratch and designed the Electra as the follow on. Unfortunately, they didn't pay sufficient attention to the interactions between the engines and wings... FWIW, the DC-7C was a bit faster than the corresponding L-1649 Connie, though much less distinctive looking. Both had a 4 year period flying routes too long for jets and both were retired soon after as the maintenance on the Wright turbo-compounds was much higher than the P&W R-2800's used on the DC-6's.
A new piston engine airliners would most likely use diesel engines as the SFC would be around 0.3lb/hp-hr (vs 0.4 lb/hp-hr for the turbo-compounds) and be able to run on Jet-A fuel. The 115/145 Avgas used by the propliners hasn't been available for a few decades. Then again, an electric short haul airliner isn't out of the question - similarly, battery locomotives may replace many applications for diesels.
Well, I guess if nobody can provide a cost estimate for moving #3463 from Topeka to Minneapolis, I’ll just go with my original ballpark estimate of $500,000.
Raising and spending the money for the move will be the first significant expenditure. Until that happens, I have no faith in the grand proposal. As I mentioned, the ownership of this locomotive is in question. So, even if the money to move it is available, doing so is risky if the title to ownership is in doubt. You would not want to spend the money to move the engine to Minneapolis, and then end up having to return it to Topeka.
Hey, how about a biomass-fueled Lockheed Constellation? No big deal, convert the conventional recip engines to steam (sure, it can be done!) , put a good sized boiler in the fuselage, a couple of bins for the biomass fuel, and a couple of husky guys that can shovel like maniacs.
OK, it won't work, I know, but it WOULD be cool!
And I'm glad to see Juniatha's back with a vengeance! Steam topics ain't the same without her!
Uhm , Firelock , this would make the fuselage into a fuelage , I presume .
And , don't forget : shall we have condensers onboard ( spread out in the wings - hot wings not prone to be plagues with icing problems - *g* ) or add up to the already abounding condensing trails ? If you'd opt for trails , after all the 'conspiracy people' are in desperate need for some news , too , don't they , it would make a great sight for flying into a sunset above the Caribean sea ...
At least we don't need starter motors - that should make up for the mass of -uhm- one extra machinist ( just to avoid the outdate-odored word of fireman ) , maybe ?
= J =
.. and one more word on so called carbon-oxid-neutral 'Bio-Fuel'
1. ) Oil *IS* Bio-Fuel , it represents the end-product of decayed forests of the times of the dinosaurs - to think of that should make it clear enough that we a consuming earth's resources at 'super-sonic speed' in comparison to it's having been buit up . Still , seen in a larger context , oil *IS* carbon-oxid-neutral if you look at it the 'right' way - again which should make clear enough the absurdity and short-sightedness not to use more direct wording of the whole proposition .
2.) There is no such thing as 'waste wood debris' . Wood debris other than old cars , washing machines , computers and you name it , is not a 'waste' material but in natural circulation of material under energization by sun has a value and a purpose : it is needed to produce new soil by processes of defying and with the help of micro organisms , from bacteria to insects . Natural forests have ground covered with decaying plants and only that is what allows them to regenerate and keep up the cycle for millions of years or until the climate conditions change beyond a certain trigger value . Mankind , calling themselves homo sapiens , the wise one , are unwise enough not just to break the circle but also to call their foolishness 'carbon-oxid-neutral' . What engines from cars to locomotives exhaust to atmosphere does not do anything to the benefit of our basic supports of life on earth and therefor it is simply cynical to call any of those 'environmental-friendly' - what we try to do presently is to reduce the degree of environmental-agressiveness' - that's all .
Full stop - let's go back to steam
Juniatha Uhm , Firelock , this would make the fuselage into a fuelage , I presume . And , don't forget : shall we have condensers onboard ( spread out in the wings - hot wings not prone to be plagues with icing problems - *g* ) or add up to the already abounding condensing trails ? If you'd opt for trails , after all the 'conspiracy people' are in desperate need for some news , too , don't they , it would make a great sight for flying into a sunset above the Caribean sea ... At least we don't need starter motors - that should make up for the mass of -uhm- one extra machinist ( just to avoid the outdate-odored word of fireman ) , maybe ? Regards = J =
Hey, condensers in the wings! I never thought of that! You see, that's the difference between a qualified engineer and a psycho like me. What's stumping me now is where do we put the whistle? Now it's not a problem if the fuel takes up most of the "fuel-es-sage", all we do it get some old C-82 "Flying Boxcars" and couple them on behind the Connie. Ah, the mind reels...
Oh, I mentioned earlier coal could be considered the original "biomass" fuel as well. Barring that, how's about some "Soylent Green"? I'll go quietly...
I have done some research comparing the Reading 2100 to the ATSF 3463. I am comparing both steam locomotives because the Reading 2100 is very similar to the 3463. The Reading 2100 was also transported by rail completely intact on a flat car from Ontario, Canada all the way to Tacoma, Washington.
The weight of the Reading 2100 is 441,300 lbs.
The weight of the ATSF 3463 is 412,330 lbs.
So actually the Reading 2100 is heavier then the ATSF 3463. The ATSF 3463 is no heavier than a common C44-9.
I will give my two cents regarding the shipping. The last thing in the world I would do is ship this by truck. I would also strongly go against removing the locomotive piece by piece. I have spent years working on locomotives and most of my life working on heavy equipment. You will probably have to heat every one of those bolts up with a torch or cut them off to remove them. Those larger bolts are going to need hydraulic wrenches to remove them. You are also going to need people who have a heavy background in this type of work.
I can see this process getting extremely expensive as you are basically doing a good portion of the overhaul which is removal and disassembly. It would require probably at least 30 personnel total and take several weeks. We all know the more people who are involved the more complicated things get.
The smart choice and most cost effective choice is to ship it by rail. If the Reading 2100 can be shipped by rail across 3/4 of America on a flat car I don't see why the 3463 can't be also. The cars transporting the locomotive and tender are simple 8 axle cars. According to this website http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/rsList.aspx?id=QTTX&cid=3 there is a ample supply of these type of cars with high capacities.
If you are going to ship it on a flat car you don't even need any cranes. If you have a few hundred feet of track available you can build a grade along with track going up to the flatcar. I have seen this used many times by many railroads. I personally saw the Rainier 2-6-6-2T loaded this way. A flat car isn't even 6 feet high.
Using a crane I still estimate it would cost $8,000 to get it loaded and then another $17,000 to transport it by rail. From other posts on this very website concerning how much it cost to move goods by rail....
http://cs.trains.com/TRCCS/forums/t/187338.aspx
I agree except on the cost of the cranes. It will take 2 250T hydraulic cranes to load it. At 5-6 hundred/ hr door to door there is no way you will come out under 50G even if the cranes are in the same town.
If disassembly for trucking was required I could separate the boiler and frame in 2 weeks with 8-10 millwrights. We do this heavy work in power plants all the time. We recently removed a generator rotor at Palo Verde (492,000 lbs) in 3 days and 10 hours.. If you do it that way it will require at least 4 trucks, 3 overweight hauling about 80 T each. ! each for the boiler, frame, and tender plus 1 for the cab and probably the tender trucks. It will take a couple of days to load them IF they are ready to lift as the trucks can pull up. Big bucks and the same on the other end to unload.
In short, I can see it done on the Topeka end for $50G plus about 150G trucking. Unload another 50 grand.
For that you could have had a new boiler probably. Add a new frame and running gear and you might have something. You would have more than an 80 year old piece of history that should have been restored instead of destroyed.
I see three possible purposes for the locomotive:
1) Maintain it as a static display in Topeka. Landscape the site in a way that complements the display. Build a an architecturally pleasing canopy structure over the locomotive.
2) Rebuild it to to run in its historical configuration.
3) Execute the plan by Coalition For Sustainable Rail.
Item #1 is reasonable. Contrary to the popular story, the locomotive is not rusting away to nothing. In fact, it was undergoing thorough cosmetic restoration, but the work was suspended due to organizational issues.
Item #2 is unlikely due to the cost and the difficulty of acquiring rolling stock and a place to run the engine.
Item #3 is a pipe dream. And it will result in the demise of the locomotive as an historical artifact.
A lot of people who are not thinking this through and / or are only seeing a portion of the plan, believe that Item #3 amounts to saving a locomotive from the fate of rusting away to destruction.
Juniatha .. and one more word on so called carbon-oxid-neutral 'Bio-Fuel' 1. ) Oil *IS* Bio-Fuel , it represents the end-product of decayed forests of the times of the dinosaurs - to think of that should make it clear enough that we a consuming earth's resources at 'super-sonic speed' in comparison to it's having been buit up . ...
1. ) Oil *IS* Bio-Fuel , it represents the end-product of decayed forests of the times of the dinosaurs - to think of that should make it clear enough that we a consuming earth's resources at 'super-sonic speed' in comparison to it's having been buit up . ...
How about calling oil and coal "fossil bio-fuel".
Its coal that is formed from decaying forests, oil is a waste product from diatoms (a form of algae) and is being produced all the time. Exxon Mobil is investing heavily to genetical produce diatoms that will only produce gasoline or diesel fuel or jet A. I don't know what they will do for asphalt but as it stands now they can get a form of light crude oil from it that will require further processing. Years ago the University of Rhode Island's research vessel spent about 6 months at Walvis Bay off the coast of South Africa investigating where this process is going on naturally.
As far as "bio-coal" is concerned it sounds like wood pellets like what my neighbor uses in his wood stove as supplemental heating.
Why does everyone want to put it on a flatbed or trailer? It can be pulled as is just take the rods off. CB&Q Hudson 3007 was moved from Iowa and a 2-10-2 was moved from Texas. They went to the Illinois Railway Museum.
creepycrank Its coal that is formed from decaying forests, oil is a waste product from diatoms (a form of algae) and is being produced all the time. ...
Its coal that is formed from decaying forests, oil is a waste product from diatoms (a form of algae) and is being produced all the time. ...
While there have been shown to be associations between oil and fossil diatoms in sedimentary rock; to say oil is their waste product that is presently being produced is quite a leap. Please supply a reference.
WHAT? As soon as the rods are off an incredible imbalance is created. It can only move about 10 MPH with the rods on. Do you think taking them off will be a improvement?. Moving on it's own wheels is entirely up to the carrier. They don't want to do it from the git-go and you want to complicate it?
[quote user="MidlandMike"]
creepycrank: Its coal that is formed from decaying forests, oil is a waste product from diatoms (a form of algae) and is being produced all the time. ...
[/quote
Try this http://www.exxonmobil.com/corporate/files/news_pub_algae_factsheet.pdf
The horses mouth. The part about the U of RI I got from the ships engineer not a scientist and it was 25 years ago. Exxon-Mobil announced this program 2 years ago. If you google "synthetic fuel" you get all sorts of interesting stuff and you might also try the Dept. of Energy.
tdmidget WHAT? As soon as the rods are off an incredible imbalance is created. It can only move about 10 MPH with the rods on. Do you think taking them off will be a improvement?. Moving on it's own wheels is entirely up to the carrier. They don't want to do it from the git-go and you want to complicate it?
I didn't mean all the rods. Just the connecting rods. They moved 3007 at approximately 30 mph except around sharp curves.
.
[quote user="creepycrank"]
[/quote]
Thanks for the reference link. This Exxon-Mobil project is trying to create bio-fuel. To quote them:
• If successful, bio-oils from photosynthetic algae could be used to manufacture a full range of fuels including gasoline, diesel fuel and jet fuel that meet the same specifications as today’s products.
They are not there yet but they are working on it. I just wanted to clear up any misconception that people might have gotten (at least I got) from the original post that seemed to suggest that oil brought up from oil wells was the same thing as this projected bio-fuel. I hope they are successful, but I am not counting on it for anything more than a partial supplemental oil supply.
O5 Hopeful tdmidget: WHAT? As soon as the rods are off an incredible imbalance is created. It can only move about 10 MPH with the rods on. Do you think taking them off will be a improvement?. Moving on it's own wheels is entirely up to the carrier. They don't want to do it from the git-go and you want to complicate it? I didn't mean all the rods. Just the connecting rods. They moved 3007 at approximately 30 mph except around sharp curves.
tdmidget: WHAT? As soon as the rods are off an incredible imbalance is created. It can only move about 10 MPH with the rods on. Do you think taking them off will be a improvement?. Moving on it's own wheels is entirely up to the carrier. They don't want to do it from the git-go and you want to complicate it?
That has always been the preferred method of moving these huge steam locomotives if they can connect to a main line track. They moved Great Northern 2507 that way in 2003. Here is a video link showing the move
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPb3yzLYit4&feature=results_main&playnext=1&list=PLDBDB7F850525A87C
It's a little more complicated when you have to move it by rail because the air brake system has to be in working order. Usually the tender has friction bearings which has to be replaced with roller bearing which is no big deal. Flange height due to worn wheels could cause problems.
That is by far the best and cheapest method. I know that BNSF is very supporting regarding these moves and nearly always does them for free. I know they moved the Great northern 2507 for free. They are also moving the entire collection of the museum of the American railroad in Dallas, Texas for free. That move (which is happening pretty soon) includes a Big boy, Centennial, GG1, and a whole host of other locomotives including other steam engines.
So what is the latest word on moving the engine to Minneapolis?
What are they waiting for?
Bucyrus So what is the latest word on moving the engine to Minneapolis? What are they waiting for?
Money
Paul,
Do you know that they are waiting for funding, or are you just speculating? If they are waiting for funding, is the whole project simply on hold until it is fully funded? I thought they had stated that some funding had already been secured.
My guess is that the engine will never leave Topeka, but that is just a hunch.
Let's hope so. This thing is a pipe dream. They don't have enough money even if all funding comes through. They will get it torn down, scattered everywhere and announce that it is not feasible . A historic artifact will be lost and where the money went, who knows?
IF they were knowledgeable in this field and IF they were serious they would start from scratch with everything purpose built and and have a reasonable budget to do it. This "Give us a few million and we'll turn this thing into the savior of the planet" is ridiculous.
The engineering and design for that locomotive project is perhaps larger than the metalwork. I would have thought they would have started engineering and design already, since they claimed to have some funding in place. If they had started that work, they might have something to show us by now.
But just on the very surface, they did offer some engineering perspective when they compared steam to diesel in their claim that steam will out accelerate diesel. If that misperception is any indication of their expertise, I would say they are not up to the task.
But the big question is what happens to the locomotive when it does not leave Topeka? If the city, county, and Great Overland Station were convinced that the engine is a dangerous eyesore, what are they going to do when the deal to get rid of it falls through?
I wonder if GOS stipulated a deadline to move the engine.
Bucyrus: I live in Topeka and have a family connection to the 3463. To answer a couple questions I have read here :
1. 3463 does in fact still have her nickel steel boiler as she was set for display before she could have it replaced.
2. Yes there is supposedly a deadline for moving its November of 2012.
3. She will be pulled on rail sections to a spur track and then to the Santa Fe shops and then disconnected from her tender, Loaded on flat cars and taken to Minn.
Also what I don't understand is the 3463 was a OIL fired locomotive not coal nor has she ever burned coal that means even in the minor detail that the tender is useless also. I truly believe that this is just a tragic case of big dreams from little people of which a valuable and historic piece of history will be lost to a torch.
Could you possibly point me in the direction of the group of folks trying to save her here so as I may become one of them.
Thanks
Jerry
It strikes me that if they really are serious about this project it would make more sense to acquire a newer locomotive i.e one built in China. There are still QJ class 2-10-2s for sale (not cheap though) as well as a couple of different classes of 2-8-2. these were built in the seventies and eighties..
carnej1 It strikes me that if they really are serious about this project it would make more sense to acquire a newer locomotive i.e one built in China. There are still QJ class 2-10-2s for sale (not cheap though) as well as a couple of different classes of 2-8-2. these were built in the seventies and eighties.. Good thought, the 2-82's would be too small for the high speed pass. service they are proposing. If they are going to make a new boiler and changes in the running and valve gear, why not start from the ground up? Wouldn't it be easer to build it the way it needs to be rather than fudge it together to fit with what you have? Not a design engineer, but it makes sense to me. And you wouldn't be destroying history for maybe nothing. Tim
There is nothing inherently wrong with the frame and drive/gear, just the way they are powered. One could argue that a reciprocating gear is not the way to go, but if lightweight modern composites and balancing and bearings are used, the problems can be largely overcome for high-speed operation...I'm pretty sure. Cost...now that's another matter altogether.
If they design a new drive mechanism, say a turbine, that will be in need of some serious coinage.
Crandell
Rikers Yard If they are going to make a new boiler and changes in the running and valve gear, why not start from the ground up? Wouldn't it be easer to build it the way it needs to be rather than fudge it together to fit with what you have? Not a design engineer, but it makes sense to me. And you wouldn't be destroying history for maybe nothing. Tim
It makes sense to me too. From reading their various news releases, this is what I gather they intend to do:
Design and build a new boiler and steam delivery circuit. I suspect that might require a new throttle assembly, superheater, and at least some modification to the cylinder assembly.
Design and build a gas producer firebox for the boiler. This would require a different grate system, steam cooling jets under the grate, and secondary combustion air inlets that penetrate both walls of the firebox, and let air in above the fire.
Design and produce new drivers, rods, and counterbalancing design.
Superinsulate the boiler, cylinders, and all steam piping.
Design and build a new exhaust nozzel system.
Possible modification of lead and trailing trucks, tender trucks, bearings, and all suspension systems including springs, equalizers, etc.
Design and build an entirely new fuel delivery system.
Design and build an automatic firing system that enables one-man operation. This would probably include completely new montioring and control system for fuel and water delivery.
Design and build a streamlining shroud for the locomotive.
They have estimated $3-million for this work.
carnej1 It strikes me that if they really are serious about this project it would make more sense to acquire a newer locomotive i.e one built in China. There are still QJ class 2-10-2s for sale (not cheap though) as well as a couple of different classes of 2-8-2. these were built in the seventies and eighties..
Also, the Chinese used 4-6-2 Pacific types for passenger service. Whether any are left at this point isn't known to me, but if someone wanted a place to start for a high-speed locomotive experiment a Chinese Pacific might be a good choice.
Why look for another locomotive instead of using #3463? They are going to replace at least 75% of used locomotive anyway.
info on the move from CSR:
Thank you for your interest in Locomotive 3463. CSR is currently planning of moving the locomotive in the spring of 2013. More details will become public in the beginning of the new year. With luck you may be able to see her fired once again!
Thanks again,
Jacob A. Cogger
Director of Communications
The thing that bothers me most is the last sentence, Not even their director of communications believes in them.
I am sorry this offended. Please feel free to let us all know the CSR stand point on this. Again I am sorry.
Bucyrus Rikers Yard If they are going to make a new boiler and changes in the running and valve gear, why not start from the ground up? Wouldn't it be easer to build it the way it needs to be rather than fudge it together to fit with what you have? Not a design engineer, but it makes sense to me. And you wouldn't be destroying history for maybe nothing. Tim It makes sense to me too. From reading their various news releases, this is what I gather they intend to do: Design and build a new boiler and steam delivery circuit. I suspect that might require a new throttle assembly, superheater, and at least some modification to the cylinder assembly. Design and build a gas producer firebox for the boiler. This would require a different grate system, steam cooling jets under the grate, and secondary combustion air inlets that penetrate both walls of the firebox, and let air in above the fire. Design and produce new drivers, rods, and counterbalancing design. Superinsulate the boiler, cylinders, and all steam piping. Design and build a new exhaust nozzel system. Possible modification of lead and trailing trucks, tender trucks, bearings, and all suspension systems including springs, equalizers, etc. Design and build an entirely new fuel delivery system. Design and build an automatic firing system that enables one-man operation. This would probably include completely new montioring and control system for fuel and water delivery. Design and build a streamlining shroud for the locomotive. They have estimated $3-million for this work.
LOL on their estimate of $3 million for all that engineering work.
GE has invested $600 million on the latest GEVO version.
These guys have no idea what it takes to get a new locomotive design operational in this country.
Hi everybody
Reading the list of new construction it occurred to me it missed one point : " design new frames or engine bed " which would be the one left to complete circle for a fully new construction . Following this , next question might be : why use a 4-6-4 wheel arrangement and then again why dismantle a historic locomotive ? To be sure - a fully new built steam locomotive of classic concept - i e reciprocating direct drive engine - can offer a great opportunity for advancements , provided it will be well designed on profound knowledge and planned with an accurate aim and will not be charged with overly ambitious expectations .
Speeding classic steam - it had been questioned if any RR would lend track to make an attempt . Just the point of attempting 130 mph - demanding about 'metric diameter speed' or over 530 rpm ! - may leave you with some questions . If the rpm could be managed - it could be done , then high axle load remains prohibitive with that speed - let alone the combination of axles in a rigid frame plus high load !
Earlier I had commented on how schemes of allegedly 'carbon-oxide neutral' burning of 'bio-fuel' are not really caron-oxide neutral , if you just consider one very simple fact : all those plantations are being raised where there had alredy been plants growing - there is no extra area of plant growth ! Yet , in contrast to natural forest these are plants to be harvested when hardly grown - so they never get to the phase of life when producing most oxigen ! Quite in contrast to natuaral woods : the natural forests holds high densities of tall grown plants , in full bloom of producing oxigen . You could as well call combustion of a certain quantity of natural oil or coal 'carbon-oxide neutral' if you declare a certain area of natural forest reserved to compensate for it . Some calculations on amount of energy consumption will quickly show there isn't enough area of land on earth to compensate for all the carbon-oxide producing combustion processes of transport and industry of today to be based on 'bio-fuel' ! It can't or else in those hundreds of millions of years before the 'industrial revolution' there would not have been balance between plants producing and animals consuming oxigen - it should have been a world with an extremely oxigene saturated atmosphere ! It wasn't : plants produced pretty well exactly as much as animals consumed ...
A classic concept reciprocating steam loco *could* well become the best working and the best looking example of the fleet - yet should never be expected anything near beating electric traction - technically , economically , environmentally or the like for sure . If I was offered a chance to realize one design of mine , I'd choose ... .. But that's another story .
About the only specification that this project is going to retain from the original design, is the distance between the rails. I think that this is an new educational theory that the student learns more from their mistakes rather than learning how to do it right the first time. After all that's what was already done anyway.
Juniatha Hi everybody Reading the list of new construction it occurred to me it missed one point : " design new frames or engine bed " which would be the one left to complete circle for a fully new construction .
Reading the list of new construction it occurred to me it missed one point : " design new frames or engine bed " which would be the one left to complete circle for a fully new construction .
I have heard this kind of work described as "jacking up the whistle and building a new engine under it."
Bucyrus Juniatha Hi everybody Reading the list of new construction it occurred to me it missed one point :" design new frames or engine bed "which would be the one left to complete circle for a fully new construction . I have heard this kind of work described as "jacking up the whistle and building a new engine under it."
Juniatha Hi everybody Reading the list of new construction it occurred to me it missed one point :" design new frames or engine bed "which would be the one left to complete circle for a fully new construction .
Reading the list of new construction it occurred to me it missed one point :" design new frames or engine bed "which would be the one left to complete circle for a fully new construction .
Another version: "The locomotive design and construction will be free, but restoring the same whistle to it will be $12M.
A quick update from Topeka. I spoke with a couple people from the Friends of 3463 and it appears there are a lot of grey areas to the ownership. They are planning a public meeting soon here in Topeka for an attempt to save the 3463. From what I heard I think it is very possible this will end soon.
jpetrel A quick update from Topeka. I spoke with a couple people from the Friends of 3463 and it appears there are a lot of grey areas to the ownership. They are planning a public meeting soon here in Topeka for an attempt to save the 3463. From what I heard I think it is very possible this will end soon.
Bump. I have a great deal to say about this project, but won't post unless there is continued interest.
The 'ongoing' commercial high-speed passenger locomotives would almost certainly not be reciprocating. The Project 130 with rebuilt 3463 is, as was indicated with wrongly pejorative language a few posts back, a publicity exercise: even were the engine extensively rebuilt it would still be clearly identifiable as a Steam Locomotive.
Principal reason to use 3463 is the 84" drivers, comparatively short stroke, and (despite the great potential problems with streamlining the large frontal area) the large convection section. A very, very, very large amount of development money would be needed to replicate the frame, drivers, and so forth in new material, to say nothing of potential trouble that might ensue (Meiningen, anybody? ;-})
Any material removed from the locomotive will be preserved under cover -- the only potential exception being ordinarily-scrapped replaceable components such as boiler tubes. Dimensions will be taken and confirmed before any systems on the locomotive are modified, and wherever possible the new construction will be adapted to fit the existing structure (instead of the other way round). Funding for the move to Minneapolis, including reserve for contingencies, will be BANKED before any work on the move is started; likewise, a reserve amount equal to what would be required to 'de-modify' 3463 to historic appearance will also be established before any work begins. You've already read that after the 'project' is complete, a part of the plan is that 3463 will receive permanent sheltered storage -- "inside" was the specific word used. I won't give any Topeka-based preservation much consideration until they have ante'd up enough for a similar guarantee.
Assume that the engine and trailing trucks won't be used 'in kind' (and will be preserved intact as a result). Likewise, the valves and passages as built are woefully inadequate for any sort of high speed -- their normal 'fastest' on ATSF was at best supposed to be in the low 100s before choking set in, considerably lower, imho, than what the 3776 and even heavier 2900s would reach. "Easiest" way to address this might be to double up the piston valves a la Wardale. Look for both firebox and chamber size (probably length) to be increased, perhaps substantially, but again this would be comparatively easy to make reversible.
Don't expect the streamlining to look like the Blue Goose. It will have to be considerably more radical. (On the other hand, none of it couldn't be more-or-less easily removed afterward...)
The 'arguments' about where the record would be attempted seem to be largely puerile or self-evident. I know of nowhere outside portions of the Northeast Corridor where this sort of speed would even be possible... and the idea of running reciprocating steam, no matter HOW well balanced, on that trackage at that speed would be completely irresponsible. Testing would be done on the Pueblo high-speed loop (and a waiver for 130mph operation secured based on tech examination). I can see the jokes now about 'Indy-car' optimization in the direction the locomotive is curving...
RME
Streamlining
With the talk of high-speed rail, it seems to me people are missing a very big point. If you're selling rail travel of any sort it's not so much speed you should be selling as much as reliability, i.e. WILL the train leave when it's supposed to leave, WILL it arrive when it's supposed to arrive, "on the advertised" as they used to say.
Therefore, a good reliable 75 miles an hour is a lot more realistic than say a hoped-for 100 to 150 miles an hour, especially on roads that aren't really built for it, or would need extensive rebuilding to make those high speeds safe and practical.
Anyone who's in a rush and has to be somewhere "yesterday" is going to fly, irregardless of the airport headaches and hassles, and that's not going to change. People who aren't in a rush, THERE'S your rail passenger pool. And they'll buy the tickets if they know the train's going to do what it's expected to do. If it can't, if it's got to play "dodge 'em" with freight trains all the way, if it MIGHT get there within two to three hours of the schedule, that's not good enough. No-ones going to ride. They'll fly or they'll drive. That's all there is to it.
My personal opinion is that this grandiose plan is a pipe dream. The locomotive will never leave Topeka. There are legal ownership questions that cast doubt on the legitimacy of giving the locomotive to the CSR group.
If they plan to move the locomotive from Topeka to Minneapolis, they had better budget the necessary funds to return it to Topeka just in case it is determined that they don't own it.
Firelock76 With the talk of high-speed rail, it seems to me people are missing a very big point. If you're selling rail travel of any sort it's not so much speed you should be selling as much as reliability, i.e. WILL the train leave when it's supposed to leave, WILL it arrive when it's supposed to arrive, "on the advertised" as they used to say.
This is true for a fairly wide range of service, and has certainly turned out to be true for almost every form of rail freight service (remember the Super C? the Apollos? the Genesis units tested by UPS?) but I don't think it's exactly true as a 'blanket' statement for passenger. It is definitely 'so' for long-distance trains, and I'll return to that point in a bit. But there are clearly places where high speed and high schedule reliability are BOTH important.
a good reliable 75 miles an hour...
Humor me and say "79 miles an hour"...
...is a lot more realistic than say a hoped-for 100 to 150 miles an hour, especially on roads that aren't really built for it, or would need extensive rebuilding to make those high speeds safe and practical.
Let's predicate this by noting that in almost all places, the 'sweet spot' for sensible maximum speed is not the 186mph/300kph of European systems. Nor, I suspect, is there any particular route (outside parts of the Northeast Corridor) where an investment in passenger-only mains capable of that speed would be economically justified... and while it's arguable that equipment built for the higher speed may be practically implemented on routes where only part of the track is built to, say, LGV standards, I don't think we're quite ready to pay the full cost of all that when the time comes to actually address investors or taxpayers. IMHO, the design speed is perfectly adequate for most American services at 110mph, and there are at least two track structures under research that can accommodate heavy axle load while maintaining appropriate track geometry to permit that speed (admittedly not 'both with the same train', but passenger coexisting with stack and mineral trains).
A number of corridors have been identified as supporting operation with that maximum speed, up to about 400 miles. This has been discussed over and over in Trains Magazine -- and I hope it will be again, over and over. THAT is your target for American high-speed rail, in my opinion.
Anyone who's in a rush and has to be somewhere "yesterday" is going to fly, irregardless of the airport headaches and hassles, and that's not going to change.
Security and access considerations alone make flying for distances under about 250 miles less competitive with light rail, and that includes flying under the 'new' FAA feeder airport system (where you'll eventually have over 4,000 regional turbine-engine-capable airports that will serve as primary access to the 'general network' of passenger flight). Both the logistics and, in different ways, the economics were worked out in Europe long before our current security blitz. (And, I might add, your reliability and avoidance-of-unnecessary-delay issues were worked out with the TEE system...)
Note that this specifically applies to trips where you need to be somewhere promptly -- on time, and I'll address that very valid point of yours in a moment -- but you don't want the hassle of driving or parking the car. A cognate point is that 'commuter' service into many locations is greatly facilitated... and the overall attractiveness of using that mode greatly increased... when higher speed with reasonable timekeeping is available.
A little point about high speed is that in many cases a higher 'dash capacity' will be necessary to achieve even moderate average speed, particularly if there are delays or known slow orders in part of the trip. This is not necessarily the same thing as high acceleration (which is needed for commuter trains), BUT if a lack of acceleration, as in the early stages with an AEM-7, begins to affect overall segment time, you'll need a higher peak speed somewhere to compensate.
People who aren't in a rush, THERE'S your rail passenger pool....
No, that's your BEV pool. And, less sarcastically, your automobile pool. If you'd said 'people who aren't in a rush and don't want to be in a traffic jam' that might be closer. But we're getting off the 'high speed' aspect here, and getting into the 'how do I get from where I live to the train, and more importantly, how do I get around when I get where I'm going' sort of questions. Rental cars at the end of a train ride aren't something I see advertised much. There are reasons for that completely outside traffic density...
And we're getting effective self-driving cars soon, and in many respect that'll make being in traffic jams, or driving previously-tedious distances, little different from riding a typical train. You'll be able to get 'work' done with the suite of equipment in your own car, with much better assurance of security. And of course it's private, and more familiar to you... and you can easily carpool or take family along with little additional cost.
There are two things missing from the discussion, and they can roughly be subsumed into "20th Century Limited" and "California Zephyr" characteristics. If the EFFECTIVE trip time is no greater for air travel than for train travel... particularly if your ability to actually do something at the destination is enhanced by some characteristic of train travel... then it's still effectively competitive. And this is precisely what could be achieved in at least some traffic lanes by high-speed sleeper travel.
The killing part being inability to recover all the stranded cost inherent in the equipment and service for sleeper travel... but why not outsource some of the capital buildout, and the support, to something like Motel 6 or Holiday Inn Express, since the overall cost of providing services is comparable to that in a fixed hotel location... I could go on, but I think you can run the numbers if you want. Might even have 'competition' between hospitality providers on a room-by-room, customer-by-customer basis when making up particular rooms, with different price points...)
California Zephyr; cruise trains in general... less emphasis on Getting There than on the ride. And this ties into your previous point about 'JIT delivery' -- you run the train gently, or at least not savagely, with just enough speed to get between 'scenic' parts of the trip, and even dawdle at the prettiest spots. Nobody makes any pretense about immense transcontinental speed, but... if you want to recover reasonable ground-transportation average speed, you run faster to compensate for the places where you were running slowly. So for your 'average' 75mph, or for 'average' freight delay, you might well need some high-speed dash capability, both in the equipment and in the civil engineering. (This begging the question somewhat about why long-distance trains don't see more 'conference' traffic... events where you're expected to attend multiple sessions over a couple of days, while the spouse and kids watch scenery... for which pure speed might be no more significant than it is for dinner trains...)
And they'll buy the tickets if they know the train's going to do what it's expected to do. If it can't, if it's got to play "dodge 'em" with freight trains all the way, if it MIGHT get there within two to three hours of the schedule, that's not good enough. No-ones going to ride. They'll fly or they'll drive.
As indeed they presently do. One way to address the problem might be to work out dispatch and schedules so the passenger train has a good chance of being on time, which might be somewhat less of an issue if 110mph-capable track also permits higher fleet speed and hence better net track capacity for those windows where passenger trains will be operating. I do not think this is an insurmountable difficulty for the particular corridors where high-speed service is currently being considered. Long-distance trains: that's where your point is most valid. Leave enough slack in the schedule to tolerate traffic delays, provided they are known and time-delimited delays. But be sure you can run somewhat over average speed to make up any 'slip' in the scheduling...
That's all there is to it.
Well no, there's more, quite a bit more, having to do with welfare economics, various kinds of externalities, and so forth. But we can take those up individually, and discuss the extent to which they might depend upon, perhaps even benefit from, higher-speed equipment and infrastructure.
Where are the discussions of the current 'state of play' regarding ownership? Or statements by or for the groups in Topeka that are concerned? This isn't some issue of preservation where museums have to keep financial details or access details under their hats until agreement is reached!
Where is a hard source of knowledge on the 'legal ownership' questions -- I haven't even seen this on RyPN, where I'd expect it to be more relevant and meaningful than on a general forum.
And more importantly, where are the non-grandiose, non-pipe-dream plans for what is going to be done when the locomotive stays in Topeka? Going back to benign neglect is a worthless option. I haven't heard anything from the group that was 'supposed' to be trying to 'restore' the locomotive before the CSR/SRI people got into the picture -- c'mon, boys, give us a shout about the exact details, schedule, and financing you have to do that work, including the reserve and organization to keep the locomotive preserved afterward.
Hello Overmod I am glad you have taken interest in this issue. The group that originally was doing the restoration is the group that is attempting to give it away. As for the hard source of knowledge of ownership there is paperwork held by The friends of 3463 that establishes ownership and I am sure that there are probably legal reasons that they have not released this info yet.
As for schedules those will be released when they become available. The benign neglect you speak of was the result of any attempt to do any work on the locomotive being blocked by the group that thought they owned it. In the next few months alot will become clear about this group and what the goals are. I am deliberately leaving names out of this post as I don't believe that a need exists to smear any groups at this time. When the Locomotive stays in Topeka I can tell you there are plans for it's preservation and the man power to carry them out.
I'm glad to hear all this.
Up to now, all I've been able to hear is the discussion on RyPN and Trainorders, which has been somewhat lacking in hard, determinate fact. The general consensus seemed to be that the entity that gave CSR/SRI the locomotive was the Great Overland Station or whatever it was called, and the group that was trying to do restoration had been (perhaps repeatedly) frustrated in some way by the admin people there. Is there a definitive timeline of these entities, or somewhere I can access the original deed of trust or whatever that ATSF used in giving the locomotive to Topeka?
Seemed pretty clear to me that the 'original intent' was to give it to the children of Topeka, and the city administration was going to be the entity that ensured it was available to the children of Topeka (who else would it be?). The question I had was how Great Overland Station thought it had rights or title to the locomotive. Did the City give it to them? Did the City just quietly let them take it over to avoid problems with attractive nuisance or whatever? (I note that the official GOS site now says "Topeka's 3463" page is 'under construction'...) I for one would be interested to see whether adverse-possession law might apply in this case.
Is there a case number assigned to this, and some record of where it's being argued or who counsel is?
To Overmod: WOW! I was wondering if anyone noticed what I had to say.
Overmod: You are correct that it was the great overland station and the restoration group was in fact Topeka Railroad days which became The great overland station when UP gave them the station. at which time GOS told the restoration crew to stop all work on the Locomotive and that lead to the shabby look of the Locomotive. When another crew approached GOS about fixing it they were told no. The Locomotive was held by a private company not any government entity. Thats about all I am willing to discuss at this time I do know that the Friends of 3463 have people looking into the legality of the whole thing.
Just a quick note to something you said before, The entire deal between GOS and CSR WAS under the table and not spoken about until the deal was done so it is my opinion that the GOS knew they had no clear ownership of the Locomotive.
Please feel free to contact me via E-mail @ jpetrel1@cox.net if you are interested in the Friends of 3463
jpetrel... The entire deal between GOS and CSR WAS under the table and not spoken about until the deal was done so it is my opinion that the GOS knew they had no clear ownership of the Locomotive.
Yes, going back and reviewing some details, I noted something I thought was peculiar. In some of the writeups, the date of "acquision" by CSR/SRI was given as 'November 2011'. No mention of this was made until the formal announcement in May.
Be interesting to know why there was such a delay... or how the business stayed off the steam and preservation "radar" so long. Surely there were negotiations or discussions leading up to November, too. While I recognize that a certain degree of stealth is in order when doing business acquisitions, I find it odd that negotiations over a somewhat deteriorated passenger locomotive were kept quiet so long.
There were two or three very comprehensive threads on #3463 on RPN. But they were ultimately locked because some members entered the discussion and insulted the participants for “beating a dead horse.”
Overmod jpetrel...",,, The entire deal between GOS and CSR WAS under the table and not spoken about until the deal was done so it is my opinion that the GOS knew they had no clear ownership of the Locomotive. Yes, going back and reviewing some details, I noted something I thought was peculiar. In some of the writeups, the date of "acquision" by CSR/SRI was given as 'November 2011'. No mention of this was made until the formal announcement in May..." Be interesting to know why there was such a delay... or how the business stayed off the steam and preservation "radar" so long. Surely there were negotiations or discussions leading up to November, too. While I recognize that a certain degree of stealth is in order when doing business acquisitions, I find it odd that negotiations over a somewhat deteriorated passenger locomotive were kept quiet so long.
jpetrel...",,, The entire deal between GOS and CSR WAS under the table and not spoken about until the deal was done so it is my opinion that the GOS knew they had no clear ownership of the Locomotive.
Yes, going back and reviewing some details, I noted something I thought was peculiar. In some of the writeups, the date of "acquision" by CSR/SRI was given as 'November 2011'. No mention of this was made until the formal announcement in May..."
I am a little hesitant to jump into this Thread at this time. I don't want to see it locked by the 'Model Railroaders' seeming willingness to lock threads. I have followed this Thread since it was posted in May of last year. Apparently the Project was conceived in 2007 (/) by the Academics in Minnesota (UofM). They have yet to nail down anything solid financially, Their figures seem to be about as far reaching as an afternoon discussion in the Teacher's Lounge
As the AT&SFRR was thinning out its stable of Steam Engines in the 1950's and 60's. Hey managed to 'seed them around Kansas. I know of four right off the top. Coffeyville,Chanute,Wellington. They have each got one of the lighter ( Branchline?) steamers. Wichita was given a big 'Northern' 4-8-4 #3768 ( was assigned to passenger train service between LaJunta,Co. and California).
It was given to the Great Plains Transportation Museum. It was donated in 1960's. They do seem to keep it painted. The 3768 was originally donated and placed at Friend's University. It was moved to its current location where it is displayed over a large overpass and major city street. I have been told that in many cases the AT&SF gave (sold?) the locomotives to an interested community for a$1.00 ) There was a Bill of Sale to show that transaction. I would guess it was done similarly, in Topeka(?). ( Also the location of major Railroad Shops Facility).
I would suspect that subsequent changes in the "Custody" of the Locomotive would have clouded the 'ownership and an attendant loss of the original Bill of Sale(?). Which events have lead to the problems with ATSF 3463 and possible clouded ownership. It may have been done by a Community entity whose budget was responsible for upkeep, and a controling organization who say the chance to get rid of a problem for their maintenance budget(?). Hence a somewhat 'shady appearing' sale to the Uof M Project 301. Which deal is still wallowing around and remains incomplete. #3463 is still a resident in Topeka.
It would seem that the people at the GOC have been flim-flamed ? The victims of a bunch of Academic Bird-Seed Salesmen ( who hatched what sounded like a real idea, but short on funding and the ability to carry their project to completion.
The shame of it is, that #3463 will be the center-piece of a public custody battle, A now unwanted step-child,and big eye-wrenching problem. The politicians will get tired of the drama, and if no one steps in to save it. # 3463 will become a child of the scraper, and then not a problem for GOC. And the Academics will sit in their Teacher's Lounge lamenting that they had a really good "Green Idea" and those rubes in Kansas screwed them. Any of the monies collected for the project 301 will disappear like at Late Spring snowfall.
so any news on this project ??
Hi Sam Glad to see your interest in this Project.I will attempt to set the record straight with all your statements.
The #3463 was specifically selected by A.T.S.F for display here in Topeka.
It was Donated to a private corporation. The ownership issue was clouded by the fact that entities assumed they possessed it . In fact the original corp. never relinquished ownership at anytime.
This as I have said will be over soon and 3463 will remain in Topeka and several people will have egg on their faces when this is done. Rest assured #3463 WILL be taken care of in the future by volunteers who care and love this locomotive.
Also None of the government entities have asked that anything be done with #3463 as it has been fenced and no one can get to it so it's not a "Child Scraper" or an "Eye Wrenching Problem" .
jpetrel Hi Sam Glad to see your interest in this Project.I will attempt to set the record straight with all your statements. The #3463 was specifically selected by A.T.S.F for display here in Topeka. It was Donated to a private corporation. The ownership issue was clouded by the fact that entities assumed they possessed it . In fact the original corp. never relinquished ownership at anytime. This as I have said will be over soon and 3463 will remain in Topeka and several people will have egg on their faces when this is done. Rest assured #3463 WILL be taken care of in the future by volunteers who care and love this locomotive. Also None of the government entities have asked that anything be done with #3463 as it has been fenced and no one can get to it so it's not a "Child Scraper" or an "Eye Wrenching Problem" . Thanks Jerry
Jerry;
I really appreciate your response! As I understand your statements...3463 was "loaned" for exhibit. It was strictly an issue of temporary custody, and not a change of ownership(?) So that in itself is an unexpected turn of events. Usually, my experiences in the past with these donated locomotives. is as I had previously stated: a local political entity is approached and asked if they would like a donation of equipment ( a locomotive that was familiar to that sp[ecific area.) to be displayed, most times in a park or along side a railroad related structure (ie: A station that is to be a local museum, or public building). In order to satisfy leagal ramifications, it will be 'sold' for a token amount ($ 1. dollar(?) After a while the local interst wanes and the ravages of open public display take over and deterioration sets in). Topeka is known for its long ties to the AT&SF RR, its facilities that were so important to the operation of the railroad, building lcomotives, etc. Have the "Shops' there had any role in the continuing maintenance of the 3463? It would seem logical that they might have unofficially keep an eye on such a local display.
We had a donation of a Frisco 2-8-2 Mikado(#1351) was put in the City's Fairgrounds Park in the 1950's, IIRC in the 1980's it was moved out under the care of a local private museum and then it was moved out to a neighboring community and set up with a parked display and some of the cars were used as a restaurant. Apparently spotty success, and the 'Dinner Train was pieced off' and now it sits along side the NS Main line as a static display ( painted a flat kinda apple green and sporting an N&W Caboose (labeled for Southern Rwy). Most of the time, TIME and The Weather becomes the enemy of these old Railroad Displays". I hope the 3463 fares better.
Hi Sam: The 3463 was donated to a private corp. not loaned there was an exchange of a bill of sale only as a public display of the change of ownership. the up keep was the responsibility of the private corp. In the 80's the county wanted to move it so they had to do the asbestos removal before they could do that. in the 90's Topeka Railroad Days tried to do a restoration on and it only was half completed which made the Great Overland Station believe they could claim it as their own. Sad fact is the original corp was never approached and asked for any permissions and never gave the ownership to anyone else. There for it could not have been sold or Donated to anyone without the permission of the Corporation.
jpetrel Hi Sam: The 3463 was donated to a private corp. not loaned there was an exchange of a bill of sale only as a public display of the change of ownership. the up keep was the responsibility of the private corp. In the 80's the county wanted to move it so they had to do the asbestos removal before they could do that. in the 90's Topeka Railroad Days tried to do a restoration on and it only was half completed which made the Great Overland Station believe they could claim it as their own. Sad fact is the original corp was never approached and asked for any permissions and never gave the ownership to anyone else. There for it could not have been sold or Donated to anyone without the permission of the Corporation. Jerry
I really wish I could say yes, but alas this will probably go to court and be decided there. It doesn't strike me that they will just walk away from this project without trying to save face.
This is business that people don't know who owns the thing so it has to sit there and rust instead of being put under steam, even if the people in Minnesota want to modify the design, is a shame.
Professor Joseph Campbell once explained to interviewer Bill Moyers that dragons in Chinese folklore bring luck whereas in Western stories they represent greed. That is, dragons like to hoard treasure just for the sake of having it set there. There be dragons, I say.
Sit there and Rust? Modify the design? Wow Paul sank any ships lately? What do you say lets go plow up the Gettysburg battle fields and build condos. Its just history right Paul?
Thats why people are fighting to keep it, History. My grandfather fired the #3463 while in the yards. Thats Family history. Other people involved had Family on the design teams and engineers that drove it Thats History. #3463 is the last of its kind NO more exist.
The people that are fighting to keep it have a plan in place, and I assure you it will not just sit there and rust as it has in the past because some people were more interested in the Overland Station and the money it could bring them rather than complete the locomotive that they promised they would.
You call it greed, we call it preservation of OUR history.
No offense Jerry but the locomotive looks like it is in pretty sorry shape. Obviously few people really give a hoot about this locomotive and even fewer are willing to put in effort into getting it look half way decent. I am a big fan of park locomotives and often go out of my way to see where they are located. Many of these park locomotives are in such bad shape that I wonder if they are even worth photographing.
It seems that in the last 5 or so years many cities are ridding these eye sore locomotives to anyone who wants them. When I lived in Washington I remember three park locomotives in three different cities that were sold for just 1 dollar a piece. All three were in miserable condition with parts and pieces laying on the ground next to them.
When the city counsel put a notice to sell the locomotives as surplus, boy didn't the old farts come out of the woodwork to protest. These guys had a plan, they were going to re-paint it, they were going to do things with it and open the cab to visitors. They were going to restore it and run it again. Yeah right! They had over 50 years to do something to it and they never even lifted a garden hose to spray the pigeon crap off it. For over 50 years NOTHING was done to any of those locomotives except watch the paint peel and rust.
As far as ownership issues are concerned, every park locomotive I have ever seen was owned by the city that it rests in. Even if it was sold to a individual or a organization the city can easily condemn the locomotive and take ownership of it. In nearly all these cases the original paper work (if any), and the people who sold or donated the locomotive either can't be located or are deceased. This eventually leads the locomotive to be labeled as abandon, returned to the city, and sold off as surplus.
I am all for this company who wants to remove this locomotive out of the park and get it running again. They have a plan and at least they are willing to put some time, energy and money into it. The other option of letting the locomotive rust to death in a location that no one seems to know about. I was in Topeka about two weeks ago and even the people working at the Overland station said they didn't know about the #3463. One old man said they did have a locomotive on display at the fairgrounds but it was moved years ago up to Minnesota. Another man said there was never any steam locomotives on display in Topeka. Good lord the people in Topeka are one beer shy of a six pack.
No offense taken.
I have learned that the internet has alot of folks that think they know what they are talking about and don't .
This will be over soon and everyone can return to speculating about the next great project but as for the #3463 she Will be taken care as she should have been in the past.
Thomas 9011As far as ownership issues are concerned, every park locomotive I have ever seen was owned by the city that it rests in. Even if it was sold to a individual or a organization the city can easily condemn the locomotive and take ownership of it. In nearly all these cases the original paper work (if any), and the people who sold or donated the locomotive either can't be located or are deceased. This eventually leads the locomotive to be labeled as abandon, returned to the city, and sold off as surplus. I am all for this company who wants to remove this locomotive out of the park and get it running again. They have a plan and at least they are willing to put some time, energy and money into it. The other option of letting the locomotive rust to death in a location that no one seems to know about. I was in Topeka about two weeks ago and even the people working at the Overland station said they didn't know about the #3463. One old man said they did have a locomotive on display at the fairgrounds but it was moved years ago up to Minnesota. Another man said there was never any steam locomotives on display in Topeka. Good lord the people in Topeka are one beer shy of a six pack.
I am all for this company who wants to remove this locomotive out of the park and get it running again. They have a plan and at least they are willing to put some time, energy and money into it. The other option of letting the locomotive rust to death in a location that no one seems to know about.
I was in Topeka about two weeks ago and even the people working at the Overland station said they didn't know about the #3463. One old man said they did have a locomotive on display at the fairgrounds but it was moved years ago up to Minnesota. Another man said there was never any steam locomotives on display in Topeka. Good lord the people in Topeka are one beer shy of a six pack.
I am not too surprised that the GOS people could not recall any locomotive. That’s a little humorous.
I think I understand your point that you prefer to rescue an old locomotive from the park and get it running again. But people are skeptical of the plan, and feel that the locomotive might just become so much world scrap iron if the plan goes awry. In my opinion, there is a lot of pie-in-the-sky about the proposal to use the #3463 for the new experimental steam locomotive. But they might have garnered the wherewithal to see the locomotive moved to Minneapolis, and then have it fall into oblivion or worse.
It is not fair to conclude that the only possible destiny for the locomotive is to be given a chance to run again—or—to rot in a public park. The other destiny is to give the locomotive the home in Topeka that it properly deserves.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.