Actually, the Tornado's boiler was made in Meiningen, Germany. I was there a few years ago during thier open house that occurs every September. What a place! Everything to do with steam was being done there. They were in the process of building a new locomotive for the Mollibahn in North Germany and were working on various standard and narrow gauge locomotives. Model train stuff was everywhere, who knew that TT scale was so popular? Memorabilia, builder's plates, numbers, uniforms and so on. And, you could walk through the whole place with a beer in your hand. A real glass of beer and not in a paper cup. Cab rides were offered to anyone who wanted one. Nothing was fenced off, not even the running tracks, all they had were two guys with safety vests warning people to stay back duing a movement. And, when it was all over everyone went to the station to watch four steam powered excursion trains be switched and loaded. I have got to get back there.
It might be even more fun and a better investment to revive the Pennsy's concept plan for an "R" class conventional 4-8-4 as described in a back issue of the Keystone some years back. There has often been talk that the Pennsy would have been much better off building a fleet of these rather than the T-1s. In fact, since we're thinking in the financial stratosphere, why not build both and settle the argument once and for all!
I think the British railfans building a copy of the Toranado class 4-6-2 Pacific has stimulated much interest in similar projects. If you read the details of this project is was the toy of some relatively weathy individuals who sorta just got into the project over a period of years.
This British Pacific would be on par with an American NYC J1e Hudson 4-6-4 as originally constructed with built up frame. Similar USRA Pacifics of Erie RR, Southern RR, many of which are still around and just need restoration.
The Dreyfus Hudson was a late 1930s construction which had a cast steel frame. Machining tolerance was held tight so that roller bearing construction could be used on all axles and side rods - the cylinders were cast into the frame as were the mounting for the air compressors on the front of the locomotive. This took a milling and machining of substancial capacity.
American steam locomotives also used accssories which the British steam locomotive did not owing to the overall size. It is well knowen that Pennsy hand fired their passenger 4-6-2 Pacifics late into the 1930s. I am not sure the British ever adopted the locomotive firebox stoker to any degree. These were produced in America by Hanna, Locomotive Stoker Company and others. All were somewhat complicated constructions in their own right. As were Worthington, Coffin, and Eleco feed water heating systems. Each of these had many models with corresponding feed water pumps, tanks etc. To say nothing of the regular suppliers of boiler check valves, injectors, super heater headers, throttles, cab gauges, firebox doors, power reverse mechanisms etc. etc. etc. Also such American items as Valve Pilot Indicator and its console, tender water scoop, coal pusher, and this does not stop with the American tradition of rear truck steam booster engine.
Seems the British Toranado 4-6-2 reproduction started with the easy to manufacture parts "as a whim" and then got serious about the project having to commit to boiler courses - frame and cylinder castings.
A couple of more observations here. The British steam locomotive was no where near as massive as the American steam locomotive. It was a relatively simple and effective engine! The Brits used flat steel plates for their locomotive frames with bolted or rivited cross construction. Where as late American practice as I noted was large steal castings then machined as one construction.
The British reproduction new boiler courses were rolled in Eastern Europe - Poland being the only place they could find that could still handle rolling steel sections of that size.
I have often thought it would be easier to go to China with an American blueprint and have the existing Chinese machine shops foundries etc. cast and assemble most of a reproduction American locomotive and then scrounge the parts from spares needed to finish it.
The Chinese, however, have never even considered making as sophisitcated a steam locomoitive as a NYC Niagara or Pennsy TI - this is way beyond any of the technology China or the British ever attempted.
Further, whats the point of going through all this unless you are going to do a Pennsy T1 or NYC Niagara - they are the only engines worth the trouble.
Would be easier go get up an armed milita - go to Elkhart, Indiana - get the mayor at gunpoint and get the original NYC 3001 restored to opperating condition. Than to go to China an build a NYC Niagara! COME ON!
Next time you look at some massive American steam locomotive like ATSF 4-6-4 3463 late model Hudson involved in a custody fight, or think of Ross Rollands C&O 614 just sitting there. Think of the potential of these engines that need restoration at a fraction of the cost. The Pennsy 4-6-2 is half restored and just sitting there and its the original engine waiting for some interest. Think of the cost of reproducing the ATSF 2-10-4 or the GN 4-8-4 - when you look at these engines be glad they were saved!
Dr. D
Well, it was the first I saw of it. In the same magazine they talk about at least 3 new-builds, all of types that have been completely scrapped. As much as I am a long-time Pennsy fan, I'd still rather see a new NYC Dreyfuss Hudson.
All that is needed is a tender full of gold bricks.
We have a number of threads on this project already, both here and on the Classic Trains forum.
Yes, we can build it.
I learned about this from the latest "Heritage Railway" magazine, a British publication. If the Brits can build new, so can we!
www.t1trust.com
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.