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.
[quote user="Juniatha"]
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of atmosphere , too , mind it , American railroads sooner or late will have to realize the diesel locomotive has become outdated , too , and has to be replaced - those who realize according measures and modernizations first will benefit from it and will be among the winners .
/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.
- Erik
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.
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.
Somehow I foresee that long before 100MPH those cute little pellets will be sucked right out the stack.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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 .
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 ..
Regards
Juniatha
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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:________________
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.
$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
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.
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?
O5 Hopeful - Welcome to trains.com!
Darren (BLHS & CRRM Lifetime Member)
Delaware and Hudson Virtual Museum (DHVM), Railroad Adventures (RRAdventures)
My Blog
To ontheBNSF: Thanx for the Swiss update!
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.
In what kind of shape?
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
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 .
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.
CZ
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.
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
Railroad to Freedom
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.
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.
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?
tdmidget Absolutely no credibility to some one who who say "any who".
Absolutely no credibility to some one who who say "any who".
The way I choose to speak does not effect my credibility.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.