Dr. D, you are The Bard of Steam and this is your Globe Theater! Your posts are always so enjoyable - thank you so much for contributing them! And t'would indeed be a midsummer night's dream to see a T1 hurtling by in all it's vaporous splendor, whether it be at the ides of March or any other moment in our celestial navigation about Apollo's orb!
Wizlish Buslist And although they will deny it every $ that goes to the silly T1 project is money that doesen't go to getting a Q 4-8-4 or better yet a 4-6-4 operational. That's why I think the T1 project is bad for the steam restoration effort. How about you get an 0-5 or S-4 project set up, organized, financed and supported, at least to the level of participation that the T1 Trust has achieved? Then, perhaps, you will have some standing to comment on practical use of available steam restoration dollars for that purpose.
Buslist And although they will deny it every $ that goes to the silly T1 project is money that doesen't go to getting a Q 4-8-4 or better yet a 4-6-4 operational. That's why I think the T1 project is bad for the steam restoration effort.
And although they will deny it every $ that goes to the silly T1 project is money that doesen't go to getting a Q 4-8-4 or better yet a 4-6-4 operational. That's why I think the T1 project is bad for the steam restoration effort.
How about you get an 0-5 or S-4 project set up, organized, financed and supported, at least to the level of participation that the T1 Trust has achieved?
Then, perhaps, you will have some standing to comment on practical use of available steam restoration dollars for that purpose.
you can contribute to the 3007 fund at the IRM store. It's already up and taking contributions, including mine Thank You!
Buslistyou can contribute to the 3007 fund at the IRM store. It's already up and taking contributions, including mine Thank You!
You'd better provide an explicit URL -- the IRM store on the Web is clueless about the existence of a "3007 fund". I hope that's not the best you can do substantiating an actual plan to restore and then operate a Burlington Hudson. There's been plenty of foam, including this video from 2010 which also purported the idea that IRM was going to restore 3007 to operation:
Alas, the link to the 'organized restoration', whatever it might have been then, is no longer available, and I really didn't have the heart to go to the Wayback Machine to see what it consisted of. (At least the organ music is good, even if the video poster didn't think so!)
I don't have nearly the interest in something like 1630 (which IRM actually does say they plan to 'restore to operation') -- and until further notice I'll be spending my available dollars on something modern and interesting and in an advanced stage of being professionally done, like 3713 or 2926, or that has actual, demonstrated organizational support, like MEC 470. But those efforts have little if any particular 'crossover' of interest or support with the T1 group, at least at their current levels of operation; and in any case the T1 group transcended the 'send in your $25 for the blue-sky fund' level of activity a very long time ago (even if some of their 'official' publicity approaches still seem a bit wacky at times).
I repeat: when you can demonstrate the same level of activity for the 3007 project that the T1 organization is currently engaged in, come back and we can start to discuss what you think might be 'silly'.
Ok I have never seen her - BIG ALICE THE GOON!
Thats right - Ron Ziel had her picture in Twilight of Steam way back in 1966 - there in the rail yard was the last thoroughbred Burlington "hudson."
Once glistening in stainless steel streamlining - fluted to look like a "Zephyr" - replete with roller bearing side rods - there she was - BIG ALICE THE GOON! I studied the black and white picture hoping to see her myself in the Gailsburg Yard yet, but she was gone.
Burlington Railroad was caught up in the light weight stainless steel passenger craze - Zephyr's they called them - California Zephyrs - fast diesel powered and light weight. Wonderful and new designs foreign to the operating department which was still set on steam locomotion - they caught the fancy of the press. Diesel Powered stainless steel Zephyr's in stainless steel. The last one could be seen for years at the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago. Diesel Zephyrs!
BIG ALICE THE GOON - they called her - Burlington Railroad named her AEOLUS - GREEK GOD OF THE WIND - shop workers called her BIG ALICE! She was built for the Burlington as standard "hudson" passenger power - big western power in 1930. When the streamlining diesel craze hit CB&Q 3002 was chosen out of the 12 "hudson" locomotives for special treatment in stainless steel. CB&Q 4000 aka CB&Q 3002.
She was a Burlington 4-6-4 hudson - taller than those of the New York Central but just as much to be desired for fast passenger work - reported to run on one load of coal from Chicago to Denver and capable of 112 mph - good speed for a "hudson." Burlington streamlined two of them for replacement California Zephyr power and surprisingly built a third engine brand new in the company shops. The first was CB&Q 4000 aka CB&Q 3002 - the second was new built CB&Q 4001 - and the third was CB&Q 4002 aka CB&Q 3009.
BIG ALICE THE GOON - CB&Q 4000 - is still with us - gone is the stainless steel streamlining but could they ever hide those "high heel slippers." There she sits in a La Crosse, Wisconson Park replete in her Boxpolk center drive wheel with light weight roller bearing side rods from the days of really fast passenger work.
One of three remaining American high speed passenger "hudson" locomotives left CB&Q 4000 - really built for high speed running - AEOLUS - aka - BIG ALICE! - stored outside - Gone are her headlight, number boards, MARS light - lost to pickers or preserved from vandals?
Gone is CB&Q 4001 - one of the last new constructed "hudson" locomotives - class of 1940 - and also gone is CB&Q 4002 aka CB&Q 3009 class of 1930 - they died together - hand in hand - their tenders removed in 1960 and were pinned back to back like some diesel A-A hookup and hauled to Northwestern Steel and Wire in Sterling, Illinois where they were melted in the furnace and turned into fence wire!
Long live BIG ALICE - BIG ALICE THE GOON! - the last truely high speed Burlington steam locomotive - sister of the "BLUE GOOSE" Santa Fe 3463 - super power Santa Fe "hudson" currently in a custody fight in Topeka, Kansas - and sister to the last streamlined C&O 490 - "CHESSIE" "hudson" (rebuilt from a "pacific") with Boxpolk drive wheels and light weight roller bearing rods, Franklin poppet valve gear, stored indoors in the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Museum in Maryland. These are the last three Super Power American High Speed "hudson" Streamlined Steam Locomotives.
What about the other railroads - 4 Baltimore and Ohio none left, 10 Boston and Albany none left, 28 Milwaukee RR none left, 9 Chicago and Northwestern none left, 5 Lackawana none left, 6 Grand Trunk Western none left, 250 New York Central none left.
Let's see - did I get that right? - The Last Three American High Speed Streamlined Passenger Hudson Locomotives - Oh! lets not forget the other Santa Fe lighter "hudson" in California and that Nickel Plate "hudson," and those other Burlington sisters - the other surviving CB&Q "hudsons."
CB&Q 3001 - outside on display in Ottumwa, Iowa - this is in imaculate condition
CB&Q 3003 - nicely kept outside in Burlington, Iowa
CB&Q 3002 - aka CB&Q 4000 - BIG ALICE herself - in La Crosse, Wisconson
CB&Q 3006 - nicely kept outside in Galesburg, Illinois
CB&Q 3007 - moved three times and stored inside at Illinois Rail Museum
BURLINGTON must have preserved the most remaining "hudsons" 4 out of 12 built.
Gee, did New York Central really have over 250 of these locomotives - where are the 99 that should be preserved?
Doc
4000 is definitely a better candidate for operating restoration, imho -- and was given the Scott Lindsay treatment a decade ago.
It took some digging, but here is the website of the group that takes care of her -- note that the principals have their telephone and e-mail numbers proudly listed. A hint to the wise is sufficient if you want to set up to finance restoration to operations...
http://www.4000foundation.org/about-us.html
For those interested in the streamlining, there is this PDF link.
I do have to say that the Aeolus treatment is FAR more like the Crusader than 'sweater girl' 490 is! And personally I still think it is hard to reconcile that cab arrangement with anything streamlined or sleek; even with the shrouding applied: it gives something of the same 'cobbled together' vibe that the Milwaukee F6 has -- in both cases belying the very fine high-speed performance provided by the locomotives. Where were Loewy and Kuhler when they were needed?
Wizlish Buslist you can contribute to the 3007 fund at the IRM store. It's already up and taking contributions, including mine Thank You! You'd better provide an explicit URL -- the IRM store on the Web is clueless about the existence of a "3007 fund". I hope that's not the best you can do substantiating an actual plan to restore and then operate a Burlington Hudson. There's been plenty of foam, including this video from 2010 which also purported the idea that IRM was going to restore 3007 to operation: Alas, the link to the 'organized restoration', whatever it might have been then, is no longer available, and I really didn't have the heart to go to the Wayback Machine to see what it consisted of. (At least the organ music is good, even if the video poster didn't think so!) I don't have nearly the interest in something like 1630 (which IRM actually does say they plan to 'restore to operation') -- and until further notice I'll be spending my available dollars on something modern and interesting and in an advanced stage of being professionally done, like 3713 or 2926, or that has actual, demonstrated organizational support, like MEC 470. But those efforts have little if any particular 'crossover' of interest or support with the T1 group, at least at their current levels of operation; and in any case the T1 group transcended the 'send in your $25 for the blue-sky fund' level of activity a very long time ago (even if some of their 'official' publicity approaches still seem a bit wacky at times). I repeat: when you can demonstrate the same level of activity for the 3007 project that the T1 organization is currently engaged in, come back and we can start to discuss what you think might be 'silly'.
Buslist you can contribute to the 3007 fund at the IRM store. It's already up and taking contributions, including mine Thank You!
So let's see I'v contributed more than $15K to IRM projects, as well as helped arrange for 2 vehicles to be donated in the last few years and spent countless hours stripping paint and repainting a number of cars: your experience and contributions?
Of course the 1630 is out and running as well as the E5 and the Nebraska Zypher out on several main line trips. A good example of what well directed contributions can accomplish, not some in 2030 maybe project might accomplish.
I know that they have discussed testing the T1 with the head business guy at Pueblo and he has set them straight on the cost of testing and and an the cost of an instrumented wheel set, probably why their estimate is now pushing $20M. But as he pointed out to them the rules and requirements today are likely to be very different in 2030, their projected completion date.
Headline from TRAINS Newswire of July 9th,2015
Restoring an existing (and proven) steamer should be a lot cheaper and easier than building and running a brand new T-1 with all its bugs.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
BuslistSo let's see I've contributed more than $15K to IRM projects,
Then you should have no trouble providing that URL to the organized 3007 campaign you claimed was going on, and that you had donated to, should you? Anything else, while perhaps laudable, is not germane to the discussion here.
Since you are so well connected at IRM, can you tell us how much has been earmarked specifically for this restoration so far?
Docter.... You forgot the nickel plate road 4-6-4 in the transportation museum of saint Louis.
For those of you scratching their heads...
The original "Big Alice, the Goon" was a character from the Popeye the Sailor comic strip (called Thimble Theatre) during the 1930's. It wasn't much of a stretch for those no-nonsense blue collar railroad guys to turn a pretentious name like "Aeolus" into "Big Alice."
With two daughters attending college in La Crosse, I've had the good fortune to see the magnificent steed 4000 quite often. The Burlington Zephyrs to the Twin Cities really had to move to compete with the Hiawathas. The proportions of this unit says to the observer "Climb in, get set and hang on, 'cause we're goin' somewhere fast!"
http://steamlocomotive.com/hudson/cbq4000-weber.jpg
Dr D "...Don't get me wrong I am glad to have the Pennsylvania steam collection of 4-6-2's and the 4-8-2's - but they lack all the GLORY that Pennsylvaina Railroad came to. What are they compared to the mighty 4-4-6-4. A rigid chasis freight engine that produced more than 8000 horsepower! More than any other steam locomotive ever built! More than UP 4014, more NW 1218, more than C&O 2-6-6-6 - more than any steam locomotive!..."
"...Don't get me wrong I am glad to have the Pennsylvania steam collection of 4-6-2's and the 4-8-2's - but they lack all the GLORY that Pennsylvaina Railroad came to. What are they compared to the mighty 4-4-6-4. A rigid chasis freight engine that produced more than 8000 horsepower! More than any other steam locomotive ever built! More than UP 4014, more NW 1218, more than C&O 2-6-6-6 - more than any steam locomotive!..."
the idea of restoring a T-1 while exciting, just seems a bit much. Yes it was a gorgeous design, Raymond Loewy where are you now that we really need you? To restore a problematic design from the ground up, 20 mil seems not unreasonable in this day and age. My thought is who are you going to get to run it and where? Experienced Pennsy hogheads had problems running them, would be a shame to have someone tear one up just after being built simply because there wasn't anyone around with the knowledge to run her... I doubt there is anyone alive today who ever ran a T-1.
guetem 1,
You really have to get the "new age" mindset here - "were in charge now and we can do whatever we want!"
This is not a "restoration of a T-1," that would be taking some part of and original locomotive and putting it back together - were talking about a "REPRODUCTION of a T-1."
Who would do such a thing? Create a 1940's high technology 250 ton steel locomotive and tender?
WE CAN DO IT FOR THE GLORY - or WE CAN DO IT FOR THE FUN! - cause its never gonna get used for anything else! - NEW AGE RIGHT ON! here!
You got to remember that the BRITISH started this whole thing! There they were, the idle rich sitting around drinking tea - What is a steam engine anyway, but a teakettle on wheels! - Its why the Britts invented the thing in England anyway - James Watt 1770's!
Here these BRITTISH railfans were sitting around drinking tea and lamenting the loss of all of LNER Peppercorn class A1 "pacific" locomotives, the last being scrapped in 1966. While they were lamenting this situation the idea came in 1990 to set up a trust and begin to build an new LNER Peppercorn engine - then number it consecutive to the previous engines - and include modern design features that the LNER railroad would likely have considered using!
The LNER engine began in bits and pieces, and the "big money came out" when the boiler needed to be built. No such boilers had been constructed in England or America in many years. A world wide search for a company that could roll the shell turned up a surviving rolling mill in Germany! The engine ran in 2008 and they named it - because the BRITISH always name stuff like engines - they named it TORANADO. No historic engines of LNER railroad had that name - it was named after a WW II fighter plane design.
Meanwhile - in America - the Americans are sitting around having a "brewski" saying - DID YOU SEE THAT! - DID YOU SEE THAT? - WHAT THOSE LIMMY BRITTS ARE DOING? - DID YOU SEE THAT? THEY JUST BUILT A NEW STEAM ENGINE FROM SCRATCH - not going to run it for any practical purpose they just got tired of not having a LNER Peppercorn class "pacific" and decided to make one! Now there is a brand new shiny new LNER Peppercorn class "pacific" that just passed government certification chuffing around merry old England!
DID YOU SEE THAT?
The gauntlet was thrown about who now had the biggest "kahuna's" - The Limey's got one over on us - they actually got off their ass and did something about all the scrapping of historic steam locomotives and decided to just make a new one!
Meanwhile in the states - the hankerchiefs were being rung out over the loss of ALL THE NYC "HUDSONS" - and ALL THE PENNSY T-1s - and someone said - DID YOU SEE THAT - WHAT THOSE LIMEY'S DID!
Soul searching took place among the American rail fraternity - If they can do it we can too - whats it gonna be - NYC "Niagara?" NYC "Hudson?" Milwaukee F7 "Hudson?" Pennsy T-1 Duplex drive? The decision was made that since the BRITTS have been rubbing our nose in the land speed record of 125.88 mph set by the MALLARD - we needed to claim the title with the Pennsy T-1 which obviously was the real holder of the record! TO DO THE UNTHINKABLE!
THATS RIGHT - REPRODUCE A PENNSY DUPLEX T-1 4-4-4-4 - FOR THE FUN AND FOR THE GLORY!
Problem is most British steam locomotives are of the size and complexity of an American USRA World War I "pacific." Reproducing a Pennsy T-1 is a massive complex 250 ton monster engineering project way beyond what the LNER TORONADO was!
Yah why start off with something easy like a NYC "Hudson" - lets go for the really big money and DO the Pennsy T-1 Duplex drive!
Were not talking Walschaerts valve gear here - were talking Franklin poppet valve steam distribution system of which there are no examples to copy except whats left on one small US military engine. LNER Toronado had a slab steel frame bolted up and fairly simple in construction. The Pennsy T-1 used a massive steel frame with two sets of cylinders cast complete - a 100 foot long steel casting machined on a massive milling machine! Yah! Tolerances so tight that all roller bearing were used in construction - were talking tolerances in bearings of .002 inch at the most! Wow? sauce for the goose! Were talking a boiler designed for 300 PSI over 100 inches in diameter - from mud ring to stay bolts - Can they do the Belpare firebox too? complete grates, ash bin and shakers - We'll get the Germans to do it! - At least I hope they can! Has anyone done a Belpaire square firebox in recent history?
And lets not forget all those ordinary "add on's" - complete firebox stoker system - large size please - cast steel engine trucks - do them while your doing the massive frame - two sets of compound compressors - two sets of power reverse cylinders and mechanism - Worthington feed water heater - large - complete set of superheaters header and multi stage thottle - couple of injectors - complete set of cab gauges and controls - oh and by the way are we going to redesign this with computor integrated controls? - engine feed water pump - and don't forget we need that massive 100 ton steel tender replete with cast steel frame and cast steel four axle trucks - do them while your doing the engine frame and trucks and don't forget all the brake rigging - T-1 was one of the only engines to use clasp brakes - need extra hangers cast in the frame - don't forget the 4 flue engine smokestack - large size sand dome with air operated valves - complete set of safety valves - Raymond Lowey quality streamlining cab - engine and tender steel jacketing - turbo generator for electricity - two? extra for heavy electrical upgrades - two Nathan lubricators one for each engine set - BOGGLES THE MIND!
oh yah! - I forgot - Pennsy didn't equalize the engine axles to the trucks - might be why they "slipped" the drivers so bad all the time - guess were gonna redesign the whole engine for truck equalization - be sure you get that right when you cast the frame cause were gonna need extra everything engineered in here.
YAH - I DON'T HAVE ENOUGH DRAMA IN MY LIFE - LETS REPRODUCE THE PENNSY DUPLEX T-1 SO IT CAN SIT AROUND AND RUN A FEW FAN TRIPS. IT CAN GO ALONG WITH THE SEVERAL ESTATES I HAVE AROUND THE WORLD AND THE THREE OR FOUR CORPORATE JETS I KEEP AT HAND FOR A TRIP ANYWHERE ANY TIME IF NEED ONE! ALSO BRITTS GOTTA KNOW WHO HAS THE BIGGEST SET!
WHATS AN OLD STEEL STEAM ENGINE COMPARED TO A TRIP TO MARS ANYWAY! CAN'T BE THAT TOUGH!
DOC
Gee Doctor D, don't hold back now, tell us what you REALLY think!
Just kidding buddy! Love your posts and your passion!
I'll tell you what though, a reborn T1 would probably be put to more practical use than the hardware needed for a flight to Mars.
Where does he get some of this stuff?
Dr DWere not talking Walschaerts valve gear here - were talking Franklin poppet valve steam distribution system of which there are no examples to copy except whats left on one small US military engine.
Ahem ... C&O 490, anyone?
And in case you can't do math, the 'small US military engine' has important dimensions right where one engine of a duplex would have them...
The Pennsy T-1 used a massive steel frame with two sets of cylinders cast complete - a 100 foot long steel casting machined on a massive milling machine! Yah! Tolerances so tight that all roller bearing were used in construction - were talking tolerances in bearings of .002 inch at the most! Wow? sause for the goose!
It's 'sauce'. Just like it's "Limey" .. but I digress.
There is adequate technical material (and sources) in the T1 Trust's resources to address alternatives to a cast-steel bed (hint: better term than 'frame' in this context) for a single replica locomotive. For example, the technology exists to join lost-foam castings to produce essentially the same structure, without the need for GSC's expertise in using multiple timed pours of steel with different metallurgical characteristics for different parts of the frame -- if in fact that is what they did at all; Scott Trostel said there were only two or so pours for the whole schmear.
Technology to make a fabricated frame of equal or better stiffness has existed for many years, for example in the shipbuilding industry. But that's another discussion.
We're talking a boiler designed for 300 PSI over 100 inches in diameter - from mud ring to stay bolts - Can they do the Belpaire firebox too? complete grates, ash bin and shakers
Ask Dave Griner yourself. Or insult him by saying he can't.
When you get done with that, go on and insult John Rimmasch by saying he can't fabricate it.
We'll get the Germans to do it! - At least I hope they can!
While making fun of Meiningen and their 'East German' take on build quality control is probably justifiable, there's nothing there that a good American 'site engineer' wouldn't have prevented. And no, there isn't much of a problem presented by the size of this boiler, if you consider that buslist's beloved S-4 has only about 5 fewer sq.ft. grate area. Belpaire fabrication was said to be less involved than wagon-top, and from what I have seen of the mathematical layout and rolling methods that is true.
... Worthington feed water heater - large ...
And you get this from where? The Hancock turbo-inspirator might be a weird thing, and there's plenty of opinion that it wasn't a particularly reliable piece of equipment for bottom-line railroad service, and there actually IS some discussion in the T1 design community to see if a Worthington SA can be made to fit, or an Elesco ES for that matter. But I have to wonder how much you know about the T1 detail design if you say what you did.
and don't forget we need that massive 100 ton steel tender replete with cast steel frame and cast steel four axle trucks - do them while you're doing the engine frame and trucks
Why do them at all? T1 tender trucks survive today. (I might add that those trucks are largely invisible under the tender skirt, so 'historical accuracy' there might be less important, but I leave that up to the T1 people to decide...) I doubt there is any point in replicating a cast-bed tender that isn't a pedestal tender; welding and sealant coatings have advanced well beyond the point they can create a fabricated structure that will seal a truck-borne tender's water bottom.
and don't forget all the brake rigging ...
Are you saying there is something difficult about making brake rigging? (T1 will probably add some components to the foundation to implement prompt anti-slip/slide on the drivers, and that, too, is 'budgeted' as far as I know)
don't forget the 4 flue engine smokestack ...
Rats, I think I already had. All the T1s I've seen only have two. Can you provide a diagram that shows four?
Now, you missed a golden opportunity by pointing out that the Kiesel star nozzles are relatively precise cast pieces, requiring a pretty good alloy mix for wear resistance.
<snipped> ...oh yah! - I forgot - Pennsy didn't equalize the engine axles to the trucks - might be why they "slipped" the drivers so bad all the time - guess were gonna redesign the whole engine for truck equalization ...[/quote]
Not sure what part of your anatomy this came from, but the redesign of the equalization (into two groups 'split' around the rear cylinders) was accomplished before the production T1s were built (notice no long center equalizer beam?) and a number of fine adjustments, including fine-tuning the snubbing, were reflected in the frame-drawing notations by 1947. (That does not include any proposals in the 1948 optimization design that were not implemented due to the T1s being removed from first-line service.)
There may still be problems with the spring rigging and spring rates at high speed. Those will be fully addressed with mathematical modeling long before any actual fabrication of the frame is started, as I believe is common knowledge most everywhere by now. (Before you start in on a diatribe about the cost of setting up and then running computer models in any of the 'usual' systems like ADAMS ... they know already and are making arrangements.)
YAH - I DON'T HAVE ENOUGH DRAMA IN MY LIFE - LETS REPRODUCE THE PENNSY DUPLEX T-1 SO IT CAN SIT AROUND AND RUN A FEW FAN TRIPS ... ALSO BRITS GOTTA KNOW WHO HAS THE BIGGEST SET!
There's considerably more than that to it -- and to the promotional opportunities involved with it -- but you are entitled to your opinion, as I am entitled to mine, 'silly' as it may be. But, just out of curiosity, when (not if) there are logical follow-ons from the T1 fabrication effort -- when we have a running J1e Hudson or Niagara, or when 3007 is finished, what will it do other than 'SIT AROUND AND RUN A FEW FAN TRIPS'?
Wislish,
Settle down there big guy - I'm on your side! I stand in awe of you engineering types that can handle all this technology like it was "no problem!"
You can leave the emotional revelation of the ROMANCE to a few PUNDITS like me! UNLIKE YOUR ENGINEERING STUDIES ROMANCE MOVES FROM INNOCENCE TO TERROR! SO DON'T BE SCARED OF THE WALK! Boxing gloves are not necessary!
I am still in awe of your piece on the horsepower of the C&O "Allegheny." There is no bigger fan of the Pennsy Duplex than I am - but why not celebrate the magnitude of the undertaking from the layman's perspective!
Im funding the t1 project thru amazon operation smile & i made all my family & friends do the same
Its not millions but the rate my GF shops on amazon it will be done by next year lol
But i will help where i can , i want to see it built & run :)
Dr DUNLIKE YOUR ENGINEERING STUDIES ROMANCE MOVES FROM INNOCENCE TO TERROR!
Ahhhhhh, but sometimes the engineering does, too.
See, at this stage of the operation the T1 Trust is assembling and reviewing the drawings, finding out sources and building partnerships, getting people up to speed on running CAD and physics simulations ... that sort of stuff. If I were doing it, there would be things I'd do differently, but the crux of the matter as I see it is that two things have to be nailed down before we get to the romance proper: the thing has to be buildable, and the thing has to run and be reliable when it is built. Personally, I have no doubt that the problems can be overcome ... and that laymen can be given an explanation for each step that's planned to be taken ... precisely so that more concentration can be placed on the romantic sizzle.
Personally I think a great deal of the emphasis on speed records as part of the romance is a bit misplaced -- like taking your Chrysler 300F up to 140 mph for a few miles to show that it will do it. Likewise I think that making up full casting patterns for drivers now (I don't think they're actually going to cast them now, but I don't know) is getting ahead of the game ... but it remains to be seen what pieces are the 'sexy' ones to attract donors and participants, and how publicity involving those can be parlayed into greater enthusiasm for the 'vision' of the T1. Laymen don't care about 'nerd' thermodynamic equipment; they may not care if the engine runs stronger or longer on a given tenderful of coal and water; they probably won't care about the organized system of support vehicles and services. But by and large I think many people will recognize wicked cool and that is something at the heart of what the Trust will have to be selling by the time good new participation in these directed funding campaigns takes place reliably.
The analogy to Wardenclyffe is a good one. There, too, a supposed technical failure has become a focus of great interest. While the T1 has no famous person associated with it who is or can become a 'cult figure' or command the interest that Tesla does, the machine can come to speak for itself in a sense.
When I was little, Lionel introduced the idea of the 'Torpedo', with a story behind it involving testing of the most advanced locomotive in the world. Of course, they picked the wrong prototype (3768 instead of 6100) but they did get considerable interest going. The idea does remain that the iconic "art moderne" design of the T1 makes it, potentially, a much more interesting thing than the usual big steam locomotive...and does open up many potentially profitable uses for the locomotive (and its 'brand') after construction.
Let's get this off the T1, though, and back onto topic which was getting a big Burlington locomotive running. I really, really want to see if an operational restoration of 4000 can be made, as that's head and shoulders the best engineered of the many s-4s, and at least some of the work is done ... did Scott Lindsay keep any notes regarding condition of the operating parts? Barring that, I still have my card information ready to donate to an organized 3007 restoration at IRM. I encourage y'all to have yours ready, too.
Fine retort all around -
I always loved the Lionel 682 Pennsy steam turbine - such grace for a toy steam engine with 2046 streamline Pennsy tender - but I would have prefered a reciprocating drive loco! Looked just wonderful with a string of small 3800 boxcars in shades of maroon, orange, burnt orange, and tan - capped by the tinplate pre-war red Pennsy caboose. My youth still haunts me with the smoking freight running down the three rail tinplate track - yah you have to go there to understand it!
I did contact the friends of CB&Q 4000 asking them about the missing locomotive collectables, headlight, numberboards, MARS light, but have not recieved any reply from them. I also queried if they ever considered operation of BIG ALICE?
Some groups like this are very content just to have a steam engine in a park and really have little or no interest in ever operating such an engine. The Pomona California group for example was glad to see UP 4014 go back into service rather than remain on static display forever.
I wonder if La Crosse would trade BIG ALICE for say CB&Q 3007 which would put it in front of a group capable of restoration of the locomotive.
Really to restore an operational steam engine you really need to do what Union Pacific did - LOCATE THE BEST ENGINE POSSIBLE FOR RESTORATION - this saves trying to "beat a dead horse!" engine that is really worn out. Its nice that CB&Q saved so many "hudson" locomotives that there really is a choice to select one!
In your T-1 comments I have been wondering just how much techinical information exists on the Franklin Steam Distribution system? Do full blueprints exist for this? I realize that one fully operational unit exists in the form of C&O 490 in the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Museum. Do you know how available this locomotive is for disassembly and evaluation? Obviously the US Military 2-8-0 or whats left of it seems to be available for inspection. I have always wondered what the differences was in the systems - if I remember the Ft. Eustes engine it had a universal joint drive shaft for the valve gear running off the main drive wheel. The C&O 490 like the Pennsy T-1 used only the cross head combination lever to drive the valve mechanism.
As usual am always enjoying your input!
I am now wholly disgusted with this excuse for Forum software and its continued predilection for destroying long post drafts, without warning or apparent sense. (What idiot writes software that deletes posts if you press the right shift key more than once in a row, or that defaults if you inadvertently press the 'enter' key?)
I suggest you start another thread for all the T1 stuff, as I don't want to hijack the CB&Q thread (at least, not very far: I want to concentrate for the moment on S-4 Hudsons, not the four surviving 4-8-4s)
It occurs to me, only partly tongue-in-cheek, that the "fruit" so far from the T1 Trust efforts has an interesting implication for Burlington fans.
First, the Trust has developed the capability to design, forge, and finish modern versions of the Timken lightweight rods, and to spec replacement bearings to go into 'legacy' eye sizes. So it becomes possible to fit lightweight rods a la 4000 onto a restoration of, say, 3007. That solves much of the administrivia and other things that would need to be overcome in, say, a locomotive exchange between the outfit in La Crosse and IRM as you were discussing.
The PRR was rightly proud of the procedures they devised to make the T1a (piston-valve conversion) - so proud they patented the method. This is made much more practical with certain modern welding techniques, and could be used with relative ease to put lost-foam-produced poppet-valve 'chests' on 3007 (or, alternatively, Wardale-style paired piston valve chests as proposed for the 5AT project). Since at least one S-4 was apparently capable of over 112 mph on test, a converted one would certainly be able to run up to where it would be possible to start measuring chassis instabilities ... and also start planning for how to ameliorate the problems. It would also greatly simplify maintenance 'out on the road' and reduce the operating water rate...
Put Cunninghams and Snyders on her, and you'll have something interesting...
Unlike 3463 as last survivor of the 3460 class, there are a number of other Burlington S-4s extant, so modifying one for performance is not 'unthinkable', particularly if the mods are largely 'period-correct' for what would might well have been done if dieselization of passenger service had not proceeded.so quickly and famously as it did on the Q...
JOSEPH the steam buff So this has been on my mind for a while. We know the during the 50,s that the c,b&q ran special steam excursions on their lines with 4-8-4 5632 2-8-2 4960 and 4963. We also know the extremely sad fate that happens to 5632. The 4-8-4,s the c,b&q had were absolutely stunning. 5632 was and is very big favorite. Even though I wasen,t born till 1993. So my question is this? I know off the top of my head that 4 sister locomotive survived. Her twin 5629 is one of them. What are the possibility of one of her sisters returning to steam? Which ones are in good shape to return? And who would be wanting to do it? I would love to see 5632 twin 5629 return. But I really want to see one just return. In a sense I wanna see a wrong fixed. That and see one of those beautiful engines run again. Is it possible. I say yes. Who knows.
So this has been on my mind for a while. We know the during the 50,s that the c,b&q ran special steam excursions on their lines with 4-8-4 5632 2-8-2 4960 and 4963. We also know the extremely sad fate that happens to 5632. The 4-8-4,s the c,b&q had were absolutely stunning. 5632 was and is very big favorite. Even though I wasen,t born till 1993. So my question is this? I know off the top of my head that 4 sister locomotive survived. Her twin 5629 is one of them. What are the possibility of one of her sisters returning to steam? Which ones are in good shape to return? And who would be wanting to do it? I would love to see 5632 twin 5629 return. But I really want to see one just return. In a sense I wanna see a wrong fixed. That and see one of those beautiful engines run again. Is it possible. I say yes. Who knows.
Anything can happen with money and dedication. It probably will not happen unless it is spearheaded by a person or group that could raise money and do the work. Look at the SF 2926 Northern getting close to running in a year or so. This was only a dream when it started many years ago but they never gave up. The 5929 being owned by the museum at Golden Colorado is very nice but probably not a candidate since there are several other CB&Q Northern locos that are in parks and some cities would welcome a group to take it off of their hands.
The IRM got a CB&Q Hudson that might be a candidate for rebuilding if the money was available. Money is probably the bigest obstacle to any steam returning to steam. The 611 returning to steam so quickly was aided by a very large generous donation by the NS in addition to money being raised.
Money plus time is the Key!!! Also, much dedication to the project by someone who can raise money and give confidence to the contributors that the project will actually start and finish.
My thought if you want to see it run, get out and get started on the project and find out if any of the CB&Q Northern type in the parks can be rebuilt.
CZ
Joseph the steam buff et al.,
I occurs to me that if you really are desirous of seeing a CB&Q steam engine run, CB&Q 4960 the fan trip 2-8-2 is operational at GRAND CANYON railroad.
I realize that the engine has been extensively modified out of its historical character but it is Burlington steam! I would be interested in your feelings about the modifications done in this fashion.
Modification of historic steam engines is a question that the future will address because it can be done and because it is sometimes just easier to work with changes that are not antique or historic in character.
Wislish talks about modification of a Burlington S-4 "Hudson" using design ideas from the South African Railways engines that were being rebuilt into the 1990's. So there exists here a divide between historians and historical locomotives and modern engineering of steam.
Union Pacific has converted its coal fired steam locomotives to burn oil - probably for convenience of operation. I have not heard of any particular upgrades on these locomotives except possibly MU capabilities with diesels and communication upgrades.
WizlishSince at least one S-4 was apparently capable of over 112 mph on test, a converted one would certainly be able to run up to where it would be possible to start measuring chassis instabilities ... and also start planning for how to ameliorate the problems. It would also greatly simplify maintenance 'out on the road' and reduce the operating water rate...
And just where do you suppose an S-4 (or any other restored steam locomotive) is going to be permitted to run at 79 mph, let alone 90+?
Dr DUnion Pacific has converted its coal fired steam locomotives to burn oil - probably for convenience of operation. I have not heard of any particular upgrades on these locomotives except possibly MU capabilities with diesels and communication upgrades.
Supposedly 3985 had an improved front end, possibly double Lempor or some similar thing -- it was not installed long, and was taken out before the engine last went out of service.
There were some silly 'improvements' on 844, like rerouting the blowdown so it came off the side of the engine at full boiler pressure. The steam crew is now dealing with the effects of one such 'change' to the boiler water treatment.
There wasn't much reason to mess with a good design in the Steve Lee era. Apparently things are different now, although I think changes will have to be made for valid 'quality' reasons, or at least be justified that way.
Hint to all: I was not entirely serious about 'improving' the S-4, just finding a way to justify the restoration cost when IRM probably wouldn't...
Dr D Joseph the steam buff et al., I occurs to me that if you really are desirous of seeing a CB&Q steam engine run, CB&Q 4960 the fan trip 2-8-2 is operational at GRAND CANYON railroad. I realize that the engine has been extensively modified out of its historical character but it is Burlington steam! I would be interested in your feelings about the modifications done in this fashion. Modification of historic steam engines is a question that the future will address because it can be done and because it is sometimes just easier to work with changes that are not antique or historic in character. Wislish talks about modification of a Burlington S-4 "Hudson" using design ideas from the South African Railways engines that were being rebuilt into the 1990's. So there exists here a divide between historians and historical locomotives and modern engineering of steam. Union Pacific has converted its coal fired steam locomotives to burn oil - probably for convenience of operation. I have not heard of any particular upgrades on these locomotives except possibly MU capabilities with diesels and communication upgrades. Doc
Good point Doc,
I got to see the 4960 on a special excursion in 1960 at Centralia Illinois. A few years ago, I got to see it again on two different visits to the Grand Canyon and I enjoyed it all three times. It almost looks like a USRA 2-8-2 converted to Oil fired. I read they are now using recycled oil when it runs on special occasions.
RR
kgbw49 Theoretically looking at a one time run to best Mallard, would a 78-inch drivered S-4 have more technical details to take care of than an 84-inch drivered unit like 3463? Again, I know it is not likely, but I am just curious to hear your thoughts. Thanks in advance!
Yes, the S-4 already starts 'down' from the Ripley Hudson not only in driver diameter, but stroke as well. This is critical in terms of machinery speed both in augment and in piston/crosshead lubrication at peak speed (under superheated-steam tnermal conditions).
Keep in mind that the S-4 was good for about 10 mph better top speed than the 3460 class, and even more over the C&NW Hudsons (which were also 84" drivered). This will tell you something fairly important: steam distribution is even more important than steam supply ... and steam supply is very, very important.
The added inches of driver diameter get to be critically important when talking about speeds in the "Mallard" (really DR class 05) range. Remember that both the European record locomotives were three-cylinder designs, with a much smaller frontal area, so every little bit helps. An S-4 without the Aeolus nose is pushing an awfully large square end into the wind, as is a non-Goose 3460. Streamlining of the 'right' kind (functional, wind-tunnel-tested streamlining like the Commodore Vanderbilt and not 'streamstyling' like the Dreyfus Hudsons) becomes important above... well, around 112 mph; by the time you get to 125 or better, it's essential for a number of reasons.
Look for a number of things, one significant one being chassis stability at high speed. Expect very low, if not zero, reciprocating overbalance in the main (as on N&W 611), but also relatively slight overbalance in the other drivers, with stiff lateral guiding of the right proportional effort being provided via the lead and trailing trucks (again, as on N&W 611). A precise system of steam distribution, either poppet valves or very large long-lap, long-travel valves, is a necessity, as is (in my opinion) reversible compression control with considerable steam-mass capacity (Okadees can be made to work, but they would have bad implications for the water rate, which will be troubled enough at 'normal' high speed). Of course you have the lightweight (Timken-style) rods, as close inboard as you can get them, even though they have truly awful buckling resistance if anything 'shocks' them in compression; interestingly enough, the use of roller rods might NOT be as good as modern lube in the UP floating-bushing style of main-rod bearing.
Snyder preheaters and Cunningham circulators just because it makes no sense to throw away that much heat when you need it most; note that neither of them impedes the exhaust as Franco-Crosti economization will. It might be possible to get 'economy' out of an exhaust-steam injector at high speed (as you will have proportionately higher back pressure at high speed, so higher effective gain in cylinder HP if you have some means of 'removing' some of the steam mass flow from the exhaust...)
Much better steam phase separation at the top of the boiler, over the crown and forward; and a really, really good system of steam separation going into the dry pipe at high mass flow. I suspect some sort of centrifugal separator may be necessary even with Porta-style antifoam in the boiler-water treatment, bearing in mind that the Elesco 'passive' centrifugal 'steam dryer' didn't do so well at high mass flow, and often needed to have the separated water dumped out through an external pipe rather than returned to the boiler as the manufacturer claimed ... look at the arrangement and you will chuckle at what actually happens in that part of the boiler during high steam generation!
I see no reason why a 78"-drivered locomotive with a strong main wheel could not be made to reach the 'magic speed range' of Mallard's record.
Yes, it would be easier for 3463 to be driven at that speed -- assuming a MUCH more effective arrangement of steam distribution, even that from one of the 2900s, were applied. A considerable number of ATSF 'aficionados' seem to think that while this design obviously had the boiler capacity and chassis for high speed, the valves and passages were no good for more than the low 100s (while the later classes of 4-8-4 were said to be good for at least about 10 mph over that, and had the Wagner drifting valves to make them safe at those speeds)
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.