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.
Why look for another locomotive instead of using #3463? They are going to replace at least 75% of used locomotive anyway.
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..
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.
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.
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
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
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
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
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.
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.
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.
Bucyrus So what is the latest word on moving the engine to Minneapolis? What are they waiting for?
So what is the latest word on moving the engine to Minneapolis?
What are they waiting for?
Money
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?
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.
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.
[quote user="creepycrank"]
[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. ...
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.
[/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.
[/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.
.
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?
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. ...
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.
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.
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 . ...
.. 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 . ...
How about calling oil and coal "fossil bio-fuel".
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.
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 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
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 =
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...
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
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!
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.