It looks like the lawyers will shoot down this whole project before it gets started, even though it looks like it would fall flat on its own merits.
Even without the shroud, I don’t expect this locomotive to be recognizable as the original ATSF 4-6-4. The group that will do the conversion has said as much. If you read all their news releases, it is apparent that they intend to change many features of the locomotive. I wonder if they will convert it into a cab-forward design in order to sell the idea as a replacement for current diesel locomotives.
On another note, there is a developing story that questions the ownership of this locomotive, and whether The Great Overland Station group in Topeka had the legal title to it and the right to give the locomotive to the Minneapolis group.
I agree with Mr. Jim. Leave the shroud off, at least until all the "bugs" are out of the engine and it's running as it should.
THEN if they want to put a "Dreyfuss" shroud on I say GO FOR IT!
There's been a lot od doubts expressed concerning this project. My own concern is about the proposed shroud. The 3463 is a remarkably handsome locomotive just as it now sits. Any shroud is likely to be an aesthetic disaster. In addition a shroud on a locomotive is a big pain in the posterior for the mechanical staff when they have to do servicing and repair work. My suggestion would be to forget the shroud or at least leave it off until you break the engine in and deal with the inevitable teething troubles and technical glitches. Believe me, you'll be glad you did!
I'm glad we are agreeing Bucyrus. These "green" energy schemes are being imposed by force and subsidy (another form of force) because they are not practical and economically feasable. Our nation is already at serious economic disadvantage and higher energy costs will only make it worse.
tdmidget,
I agree with all of your points. This one is particularly succinct:
“Yeah, they are the same ones who want you to recycle paper to "save" trees.”
Which way is it with trees? Are they a scarce resource that needs to be saved, even by such outlandish measures as using less toilet paper? Or are they a renewable energy resource?
One thing that people need to understand about this proposal is that it is not about finding a cheaper, better way of doing something. It is not about market economics. It is about eliminating the use of fossil fuels, and that objective comes at a cost. The cost of green steam will be higher despite what the CSR website claims. Many people do not believe there is a good reason to eliminate the use of fossil fuels, so they will not want to spend more to meet that objective.
Therefore, the only way for this to come to fruition is to be imposed by regulation under the assumption that it is for the greater good of society to eliminate the use of fossil fuels.
We're dealing with enviro retards here. This will be just like corn ethanol, requiring more energy to "torrify" wood than it yields.
There are swaths of America that have never recovered for the cutting of every tree to supply minscule 4-4-0s 130 years ago. These people have never given any thought to how much wood would be required to duplicate the output of even 1 modern diesel electric locomotive. Yeah, they are the same ones who want you to recycle paper to "save" trees.
They say this will open the door to steam boilers and power plants generating 5 to 5,000 kilowatts., here's a 5 kilowatt power plant:
http://www.grainger.com/Grainger/DAYTON-Portable-Diesel-Generator-2ZRR2
So to replace that you want a boiler and steam turbine? Hah!!! There is no market for a 5 MW power plant except the very largest standby systems. A steam system will not work for standby power.
This is another Solyndra type scheme that it a farce to anyone with a brain. If these ideas had merit,
they would be profitable. If they were profitable they would be no shortage of entrprenuers and companies going after those profits. Any scheme that needs your tax dollars is a loser for sure.
You want to know what "torrified" Biomass is ? Go to your grocery and buy a bag of charcoal. That's all it is. Now extrapolate the price of that charcoal to 4000 hp and see if it is practical.
If someone wants to invent the Perfect(ly) Modern Steam Locomotive (a goal similar to writing the Great American Novel), how about building it sub-scale, say, in one of the scales popular with the live steam people?
You might even get some high-skill volunteers to build large parts of it? Maybe those live steamers or Milwaukee Zoo-scale locos are not the real thing and that there are certain scaling laws on boilers, etc.. But I think you could learn a lot at much less expense by building a sub-scale prototype.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Well, I've read through the CSRail website, and it sounds interesting, VERY interesting. The thing I would question is the need for a 130 mile-per-hour steam locomotive. The idea to me at least is to provide reliable FAST rail transportation as opposed to ultra high-speed transportation, a good solution NOW against a PERFECT solution later.
At any rate a mass application of fast steam would require a rebuilding of the whole steam industry from scratch, and I just can't see it happening, as much as I'd love to see it.
Anyway, I wish them the best of luck. It'll be cool to see, no doubt about it!
Bucyrus said, in part:
"... linked in Thread;
http://www.csrail.org/index.php/the-train
"...If you click on the active links associated with the terms, “quicker” and “cheaper,” they open to further evidence that they intend to replace current diesel-electric locomotives with modern steam locomotives burning torrefied biomass fuel..."
I won't argue about the reconfiguration of the former ATSF locomotive, BUT It surely seems that the (re-?) development of Steam Locomotive technology would bring to the fore the same rationalles that caused its demise.
The need for specific Labor Skill Technologies that used to exist at points around the ailroad's systems to maintain the Seam Locomotives, plus their rapid disappearance in the face of the Diesel Locomotive technology.
Steam is all about the infrastructure of specialized mechanical labor forces to maintain the Steam Locomotives; while Diesel Locomotives require specialized labor skills, but nowhere near in the numbers that were required in the days of steam engines.
The reintroduction of a Steam Locomotive technology seems to be a re-invention of the wheel, after a better one was developed and in widespread use. My point seems to be if there needs to be a new steam technology, use it to power electrical power plants, where there seems to be a more crying need for it.
I followed that thread on RPN Forum where Dave made the post you have quoted above. My first observation is that if the intent is to develop a new torrefied biomass fuel for application to power generation for large scale and for small scale such as powering individual homes, then why not just go ahead with that development?
This idea of creating a modern steam locomotive as a “rolling billboard” strikes me as an incredible distraction to the core purpose. Instead of producing a modern locomotive, why not just develop and build a small-scale power generation unit and promote it? The billboard does not need to roll. The new fuel and its stationary power generation can easily be promoted through mass communication and direct demonstration. There is plenty of product development and engineering that will have to go into the stationary power application, which is what Dave says is their core purpose. So why not start there?
A steam locomotive is not a symbol of modern development even if it is a modern steam locomotive. So, even if it is a rolling billboard, does that billboard send the correct message?
For the fantastic sum of money it will require to redesign and convert the AT&SF locomotive, they could be well on their way to accomplishing what Dave says is their core purpose.
However-- I do not believe that Dave is correct about what he says is their main purpose. If you look at this page of the CSR website, it sounds like they indeed are intent on developing a modern steam locomotive, and not just a rolling billboard for power generation. For instance, they say they are confident that they can create a higher-speed passenger rail locomotive that is cleaner, quicker, and cheaper than any locomotive on the market today. Look at this page:
If you click on the active links associated with the terms, “quicker” and “cheaper,” they open to further evidence that they intend to replace current diesel-electric locomotives with modern steam locomotives burning torrefied biomass fuel.
There is a post from someone named "Dave" at the Railway Preservation forums on this subject who seems to personally know one of the people involved in the project. I am going to quote several portions of his post here, which allay the preservation fears many have had, and explain the point of the project in greater detail:
"Based on what I have been told, and knowing either by reputation or by direct contact and experience many of the parties, this is a dead-serious way of developing a new, potentially carbon-neutral external combustion technology suitable for use as a power generator (much along the lines of some of the Cyclone Engine proposed uses) and the high speed steam locomotive demonstrating it is a rolling billboard (with benefits). A prototype for the generator will be installed to provide HEP from the locomotive. I'm personally aware of the preservationist credentials of many of those involved. I asked some specific questions, and I have been advised that the locomotive will first be moved (intact if possible, without wheels if necessary) from its outdoor location into a private shop, where it will remain essentially intact until funding required for the operating overhaul is completely raised - no plan to turn it into a bunch of rusting parts scattered around the country. Many groups calling themselves museums can't say the same. Should the funding not be forthcoming, it wil revert to a display locomotive but indoors. The work is planned to be reversable, but will have some visual impact during the demonstration operation. Much of the combustion system alteration will be within the envelope of the existing boiler; however, the steam pipes will be replaced with larger diameter, and a streamlined shroud will be installed as the most obvious. A strategy has already been worked out for high speed and normal track speed operation including a period of test operation with the inclusion of recording instruments to accurately measure the operating characteristics of the locomotive. This not only quantifies the characteristics of the new fuel, but provides a basis for comparison with the historic data gathered by the Santa Fe decades ago in testing. Some very highly qualified and very respected operating people will be joining the program provided it gets as far as operation."
So, if the project falls through the locomotive is preserved in a better condition than where I can see it through my office window rotting away down there by the creek here in Topeka. If it succeeds, then it might look something like the "Blue Goose." And, the main point of the project is to demonstrate the new biocoal fuel, for which the locomotive will be a "rolling billboard" that the public can easily understand and connect with. I don't see anything here to object to, and I work in historic preservation.
Some personal thoughts on the biocoal fuel and the future of steam locomotives in daily use: whether you believe that CO2 is causing a major global problem or not, what will begin to be a major global problem in the near future is the basic fact that oil is a limited resource and will do nothing but get more expensive as we have to go to greater lengths to find and extract it. In the world of declining oil, the variable fuel inputs of a steam engine make it far more resilient than the limited liquid-fuel options of an internal combustion engine.
For the sake of having ideas for a cost-effective plan B for the transportation and energy systems on which our modern civilization depends, this project's alternative fuel/"green tech" goals have merit.
I guess natural gas should be used in a direct gas turbine rather than boiling water. YOu are right.
But even if it is coal burned to boil water, I still think today and electric transmission makes sense.
Anyone else keep thinking about how they put those special logs into the steam locomotive in back to the future 3? Every time one of those logs was put in there the boiler pressure went up hundreds of pounds.
...If I were the cynical type, I would say this sounds like a bunch of steam fans, with no actual railroad operating experience, trying to jump on the taxpayer grant funded "green energy" gravy train. Just so they can play with a Choo-Choo. A Solyndra type venture, just on wheels! LOL.
...Oh, wait a minute, I am a cynical type. I guess that what happens when you actually have worked in the industry since 1977, and have seen this trainwreck come screeching down the track before in the mid-1980's...
I will tell you one thing. It will take balls of steel to ride that big 4-8-4 doing 130 mph! That locomotive will be bouncing around like a jack rabbit at that speed.
One thing people must remember is that back when steam locomotives were in freight service they were running all the time pulling trains at near their limits. It took a lot of maintenance and manpower to keep them running. Steam locomotives like the 3751 and the 4449 only come out a few times a year and pull a dozen or so cars. This does not put a significant strain on the locomotive or does it require a lot of maintenance. That is why both the 3751 and the 4449 run their programs with really no funding, a minimal workforce, and a sparse repair facility.
I am a little more skeptical about this 3463 project after looking at the sponsors. Most of the sponsors were two bit no names. Add to the fact he is depending on donations. Good Lord! Sounds like a University student wants to restore a steam locomotive, run it to 130 and is using alternative energy as the pitch.
carnej1 ... there are also several gas turbine locomotives running in Russia on LNG....
... there are also several gas turbine locomotives running in Russia on LNG....
This would also eliminate the need for supply water or a condenser.
daveklepper I would like to put my two sence worth in on what a modern steam locomotive could be to use today's technoglogy and compete with diesels. First, I would use electric transmission, with ac motors, an alternators for motive power, like modern diesels, possibly using iderntacle equipment. I would use modern power-plant technology, possibly natural gas fired, since that seems to be the future low pollution nearly infinite resource fuel available in North America. There is a somewhat new development in power plant turbines. Use of partial circumference power. Imagine that at each quarter point around the circumference there is an exhaust port immediately followed by the injection port. The turbine can operate at full speed with only the two opposite quarters working, two on each side or top and bottom (keeping rotational balance) for half power or with all quarters working for full power at the same speed. From what I have read, efficiency can be high in both modes. So here is a 3750HP locomotive, with two turbines, one 3000, one 750HP, each also efficient at half power, same RPM, each with its own AC alternater. The smart electroncis for control, rectification, combination, and frequency control for driving the motors. Trottle positions: 0, idle, Run 1 375HP, 2 750. 3 1500. 4 1875 5 2250, 6 3000, 7 3375 8 3750 Sort of a mineature power plant on wheels, with high pressure boiler. and possibly, as others suggested, the reuse of old diesel frames and trucks.
I would like to put my two sence worth in on what a modern steam locomotive could be to use today's technoglogy and compete with diesels.
First, I would use electric transmission, with ac motors, an alternators for motive power, like modern diesels, possibly using iderntacle equipment.
I would use modern power-plant technology, possibly natural gas fired, since that seems to be the future low pollution nearly infinite resource fuel available in North America.
There is a somewhat new development in power plant turbines. Use of partial circumference power. Imagine that at each quarter point around the circumference there is an exhaust port immediately followed by the injection port. The turbine can operate at full speed with only the two opposite quarters working, two on each side or top and bottom (keeping rotational balance) for half power or with all quarters working for full power at the same speed. From what I have read, efficiency can be high in both modes.
So here is a 3750HP locomotive, with two turbines, one 3000, one 750HP, each also efficient at half power, same RPM, each with its own AC alternater. The smart electroncis for control, rectification, combination, and frequency control for driving the motors. Trottle positions:
0, idle, Run 1 375HP, 2 750. 3 1500. 4 1875 5 2250, 6 3000, 7 3375 8 3750
Sort of a mineature power plant on wheels, with high pressure boiler. and possibly, as others suggested, the reuse of old diesel frames and trucks.
Seems like a mighty complicated machine if the fuel is going to be Natural Gas. There are a number of LNG and CNG fueled locomotives operating around the world, most have diesel powerplants converted to burn gas (either spark initiated like the engines used in the MK1200G or dual fuel where a small "pilot charge" of diesel is injected along with the NG). there are also several gas turbine locomotives running in Russia on LNG....
There have been several of recent proposals to build new biomass powered steam engines so this is one more for the list...
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
This proposal is about wedding a special fuel with an ultra-modern steam locomotive. In a way, I would postulate that this is far more ambitious than the ACE-3000 project was. That locomotive was intended to burn coal. The SRI locomotive will burn a highly specialized manufactured fuel pellet that might be described as ultra dense charcoal.
The first question these pellets raise is this: Using the most efficient biomass feedstock possible, how many acres would it take to produce enough on a sustainable basis to power all rail transport in the U.S.? Or to ask it in another way, what percentage of the U.S. land mass would be required to produce the trees, switch grass, or whatever biomass was the most productive? Would 1/3 of the U.S. land mass be enough? Surely these developers have calculated the answer to this question.
I am sure there will be enough trees and logging waste to produce enough pellets to demonstrate the SRI prototype locomotive, but the prototype is intended to usher in widespread use of this torrefied wood pellet technology. So, it raises the question of how to produce the feedstock. There are many ways to make synthetic fuel, and you always hear claims such as the ability to power our cars on algae for example. But how much algae, and how much cost to produce it?
So, I believe the issue of producing the torrefied pellets has not been resolved to a practical level. The developers of the process speak of a crudely made, prototype boiler for burning the pellets. Crudely made? A crudely made prototype suggests that the focus is on the theory, and not on the practical execution. Will the prototype SRI locomotive be crudely made as well? If not, it will surely require an enormous amount of engineering and design.
This locomotive will have a lot of new technology including a new exhaust nozzle system, a gas producer firebox, and superinsulated piping. Will it have a high pressure, watertube boiler, or will they stay with a firetube boiler? Will it have fluidized bed combustion, or is that not combinable with a gas producer firebox? How much computer technology will go into the control systems? I am guessing that a lot will.
A proper engineering and design phase for this project might cost as much or more than the machine shop work, materials, and assembly. I would think that if you had ten engineers and cad designers working on the development, it might take them at least five years. So the free locomotive that they have acquired as a basic foundation is just a token in the total scope of work and cost of the project.
The real key to convincing me whether this is serious will be to watch what they do next. They should carefully measure and cad model the entire ATSF locomotive as a starting basis for their design. Then they should begin the long process of engineering and development for the new locomotive. When that development work is complete, they would finally begin disassembly of the ATSF locomotive, begin the fabrication of the new parts, and the modification of existing parts. That is the proper, professional course of action.
But I wonder if they will instead immediately begin tearing down the ATSF locomotive and start making modifications on the fly without any logical sequence, doing some design work concomitantly. I will be watching to see if that is their approach. That is the amateur way of product development. It is often referred to as “Cut and try.”
Mntrain - Welcome to trains.com!
Darren (BLHS & CRRM Lifetime Member)
Delaware and Hudson Virtual Museum (DHVM), Railroad Adventures (RRAdventures)
My Blog
I do agree with you Bucyrus on starting from a clean sheet. Look what was done in the UK with the Tornado. New everything with a welded frame to boot. As you suggested, the amount of modifications is going to leave what, just the frame, cylinders, pony wheels, cab and tender original?
Ross Rowland’s proposed steam design from the 90’s(?), the ACE 3000 would be a recommended starting point their to expand on their design goal. Maybe go back to Porta's first project engine Argentina and work up the design from there (I believe the Argentina my even still exist.)
If anything, I hope they are reading these post and would welcome guidance and education on the history of steam from the vast knowledge found here. Has anyone suggest to them a reproduction of a Pennsy S2, John Henry (N&W steam turbine), or maybe a NYC J3 Hudson might bring a few green dollars in fan support?
mudchicken Poor 3463 is gonna get butchered as a plaything for a gaggle of envirogeeks playing with other peoples money. What did it do to deserve this? Maybe BNSF ought to claim breach of donation agreement and reclaim the big fella.
Poor 3463 is gonna get butchered as a plaything for a gaggle of envirogeeks playing with other peoples money. What did it do to deserve this? Maybe BNSF ought to claim breach of donation agreement and reclaim the big fella.
Yes, absolutely. I think you have summed this up very well.
This proposal seems incredibly long on platitudinous rhetoric and short on substance. The stated mission coupled with the implications suggest that this ATSF 4-6-4 will be very extensively modified. My interpretation is that it will require a new boiler, piping, jacketing, cylinders, valves, drivers, rods, and exhaust nozzle. I suspect it will require a new throttle and extensive revision to the backhead controls. It will require a new firing system for the pellets, and possibly a new feed water system. And with all this cutting, welding, machining, and re-designing, there will be bound to be limitations and compromises imposed by the fact that this is a remodel rather than starting with a clean sheet of paper. In fact, I find it hard to believe that it would not be cheaper to start with a clean sheet of paper than to hack up this antique locomotive and convert it.
Reply to some other comments about carbon neutral: Burning wood is considered to be carbon neutral whereas burning coal or oil, is not. Coal and oil are considered to have their CO2 sequestered. In other words, the CO2 is permanently locked up as long as you don’t burn them. The CO2 in wood is not considered to be sequestered because the wood will rot in a small number of years and release all of its CO2 just as it will if you burn it.
However, the objective of being carbon neutral assumes a belief that CO2 is destroying the planet, and not everyone believes that.
The torrefied biomass pellets that will be used to fire this carbon neutral locomotive must be manufactured in a plant. I would like to see a cost analysis for this process. However, since the objective is to be carbon neutral, I am not sure if there is an expectation that the fuel be less costly that coal or oil. Carbon neutral can be a objective that requires a higher cost. I wonder if they will use bamboo flooring in the cab.
Hey, ya know what? I just got home from an Italian restaurant and have a half-carafe of vino in me and I feel goooooooood! So as far as I'm concerned if the guys and gals working on 3463 have the money in hand and want to go for a steam speed record I say GO FOR IT! STEAM RULES! Steam was king when diesel was a pup and steam will be king when diesels time is up!
Mind you, I wish Juniatha would weigh in on this one! She's got the best steam brain on this Forum! And how!
Semper Fi! Carry on!
I looked at their web sight again and it seems that most of the people that was in on the designing of the ACE 3000 project are involved in this one. So maybe it might succesd where the ACE failed. All we need now is the Fed's to give the railroads a tax break or subscide to bring back the steam locomotive. Then watch how many re-builds take place
Seems like the skepticism about this 'Project' has a number of valid areas of concern.
In my mind, "funding" is a major hill to climb.
Seems as if any project involving the restoration of a steam locomotive, crashes first into the reality of never enough initial funding for completion of the project, it always exceeds the first estimates. I think the 'Tornado Project' in England came in somewhere around (US) million Dollars(?). Maybe, if that was in English Pounds(?) which would be considerably more,I think.
Burning 'Biomass' was a tried method prior to early 1900's. When locomotive fuel was cut, and stacked for locomotive fuel along the ROW from whatever the available wood species were. In the early engines, its' efficiency was questionable at best, but speed was not an option, not nearly as much as simply getting to the destination.
Coal burning where it was readily available was the next step to improve efficiency, but even then; the best locomotive fuel was the cheapest grades a railroad could buy, in buy. In anthracite areas, it was 'colm' and the coal used in SE Kansas by the MKT RR was a grade so low it had a lot of mud in it, mined in railroad owned mines. Creation of smoke was a noticeable by product of the burning of those grades. Would be very problematic in today's ecologically aware environment.
As mentioned by another Poster. You would have to wonder how much study has been done by the academics who are trying to reinvent a 'new' steam locomotive. AS was suggested Ross Rowland& his company's work would be the first place to start, ans well as to examine closely the ACE 3000 Project. My
When I heard about this project, I expected to see people overjoyed for this project to move ahead. But the first response was to tear down this idea.Will this project work out? Maybe,maybe not, but let some of us enjoy the thought of a modern upgraded steam locomotive and wait for more information before tearing the project apart .Even if this does not move ahead it may get railroad in the news in a positive light,this is a good thing.
CSSHEGEWISCH To me, the research angle seems more like a cover for an attempt to exceed Mallard's speed record for steam. Besides the damage to the track from dynamic augment, the damage to the running gear at that speed could be considerable. Mallard did not escape unscathed when it set the record.
To me, the research angle seems more like a cover for an attempt to exceed Mallard's speed record for steam. Besides the damage to the track from dynamic augment, the damage to the running gear at that speed could be considerable. Mallard did not escape unscathed when it set the record.
The 3463 has 84" drivers and that is probably the reason it was choosen for this task. Too bad it did not have the light weight roller bearing side rods like the 2900 series 4-8-4's. CZ
Remember this is 2011 not 1937 there has been great advances in making lighter/stonger metals that could be used for the rods and linkage that would greatly reduce the dyamic argument.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.