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
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.
- Erik
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.
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.
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.
If you can tolerate their inverted bathtub streamlining.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
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...."
Tom - Welcome to trains.com!
Darren (BLHS & CRRM Lifetime Member)
Delaware and Hudson Virtual Museum (DHVM), Railroad Adventures (RRAdventures)
My Blog
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?)
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.
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.
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!
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."
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Oh yes, I see that it has not changed. It still says cab forward for the production design.
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.
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.
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 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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.