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!
Darren (BLHS & CRRM Lifetime Member)
Delaware and Hudson Virtual Museum (DHVM), Railroad Adventures (RRAdventures)
My Blog
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.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.