Just so you know where I'm coming from, I don't like it either when World War Two fighter aircraft are heavily modified for the "Unlimited" category of air racing either, but I also realize that since I don't own the airplanes or pay for their upkeep I've got no right to tell the owners what they should or shouldn't do with them, even if that involves modifying them almost beyond recognition and getting themselves killed in them. Been known to happen.
As I said, I'm just leery of the idea.
I'm still trying to understand how CSR might still acquire ownership of the locomotive. I did not know that they are, or might be, continuing the legal battle to gain ownership. I had assumed that the only way they would obtain ownership at this point is to purchase the engine from the City of Topeka.
EuclidThe locomotive will be so modified by that point that it will have long ceased being the historical artifact. But don't worry. CSR assures us that their modifications will be reversible.
How many times have we heard these schemes about engines? Usually fizzle out pretty fast.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
Euclid I would not worry about losing the historical artifact by trying to set the speed record. The locomotive will be so modified by that point that it will have long ceased being the historical artifact. But don't worry. CSR assures us that their modifications will be reversible.
I would not worry about losing the historical artifact by trying to set the speed record. The locomotive will be so modified by that point that it will have long ceased being the historical artifact. But don't worry. CSR assures us that their modifications will be reversible.
Actually externally it won't be that modified from original design and almost anyone would know if they had bothered to look at the specs on CSR's website, it used to show in detail all the modifications necessary for their project and most of the modifications were internal, with minimal external changes to the engine so that it would easily be able to be returned to pre-testing condition(I'll bet in better shape then before though).
GERALD L MCFARLANE JR Euclid I would not worry about losing the historical artifact by trying to set the speed record. The locomotive will be so modified by that point that it will have long ceased being the historical artifact. But don't worry. CSR assures us that their modifications will be reversible. Actually externally it won't be that modified from original design and almost anyone would know if they had bothered to look at the specs on CSR's website, it used to show in detail all the modifications necessary for their project and most of the modifications were internal, with minimal external changes to the engine so that it would easily be able to be returned to pre-testing condition(I'll bet in better shape then before though).
Can you post a link that design information? I have not checked recently, but when this proposal first came out, it sounded like they were modifying almost everything about the locomotive. Although what I saw on their site only listed the various systems that would be modified, but did not show the actual modifications in engineering drawings. I will see if I can find the list of systems to be modified.
EuclidCan you post a link that design information? I have not checked recently, but when this proposal first came out, it sounded like they were modifying almost everything about the locomotive.
Part of this was a bit of what might charitably have been called freewheeling rhetoric from Davidson Ward. Part of this, also, might be my own fault for interpolating things that would need to be done to the locomotive for it to reach the target speed, on an actual track with an actual train, with anything near acceptable safety.
Although what I saw on their site only listed the various systems that would be modified, but did not show the actual modifications in engineering drawings.
To my knowledge there are comparatively few actual 'detail drawings' released, and I would not expect to see extensive physical design, let alone 'freezes' in the designs for the physical systems, before Shaun and his team have gone much more exhaustively into what is required, including multiphysics modeling and simulations.
My opinion is that there will need to be fairly extensive design revision, berhaps several rounds, before the engine gets to a form capable of sustaining the desired speed. And that no small part of the trouble will involve the speed increase from the low 120s up to 130.
I will see if I can find the list of systems to be modified.
This has gone forward and backward a few times, both in discussions and in the somewhat skimpy 'collateral' on the CSR and SRI sites. (There may be more on Facebook, but I don't care.)
In practice, the big initial issue is that the valves and passages are grossly inadequate. Expect whole new chests and 'all that implies' to be required. None of this is at all novel; PRR patented all you'd need to know before 1950, and techniques of keyhole welding have been vastly improved since.
Front end design needs revision; fuel changes, front-end ash separation, tolerance for extreme-speed drafting and gas pattern through the chamber and tubes/flues. Won't be anything remotely like what is there now; I'd assume the 'historic fabric' to be removed by taking the whole smokebox and its pipes off in one piece and preserving them.
Rods and bearings will be all new; so, probably, will the crankpins and fits. I expect the fits in the drivers to be bored and reamed oversize, and bushings machined and installed in these to restore the existing rods. We will see what gets changed with the valve gear attach points and controls; this is one of the things I expect to be altered multiple times with no advance 'warning'. I doubt there will be any visible change in the driver castings even with full high-speed dynamic balance right down to anticipated (and then 'actual' when determined) piston-thrust effects.
At this speed it might be necessary to go to very low or even zero overbalance to reduce vertical augment. Expect much better compliance between the trailing truck and the locomotive frame, perhaps with active elements; I strongly suspect the leading truck will have to be changed out and its pivot and equalization arrangements changed, even though the existing design is a very good Batz design. There is ample precedent for an inside-bearing truck on a true high-speed locomotive; the Milwaukee As, which Alfred Bruce of Alco said would track at 128mph, had one arguably not as well designed as the Batz truck. But I'd be happier with outside frames, a very wide outside secondary suspension, and modern roller and thrust bearings.
Firebox area according to CSR's present thinking won't need much modification; they were diligent enough to discover that the Ripley Hudson specification was made to be compatible with solid-fuel firing and I believe they so state.
Assume a considerable amount of molded-to-fit add-on streamlining, which will come off when the record attempts are over. It will likely NOT AT ALL resemble that Blue Goose/Mae West thing ... exciting though it might have been to the adolescent.
They show only minimal alteration to the tender (for the 'obvious' bunker profile changes). I suspect a different tender will be used, on different (and much more high-speed-stable) truck arrangements. It will be difficult to 'tour' many places with this locomotive, even moving on its own wheels, so there might be some limits on where it can go for 'publicity touring'.
I have no idea how they plan to address the instrumented-wheelset issue, but most of the instrumentation and control modalities have become almost easy to implement with one of the standard control buses, so this might actually be less of a problem than currently assumed. It will not run fast, anywhere, until the instrumentation is fully provided and reasonably tested.
That sounds fairly extensive. Here is my general interpretation of the modifications anticipated, which I posted in a thread a couple years ago here. It is based on what I read on their website at the time. It is somewhat speculative as to the details of the areas said to require change, but I want to include those changes as possible. I conclude with a comment questioning the cost-effectiveness of redesigning #3463 rather than starting from scratch:
The Minneapolis group who have been given the AT&SF 4-6-4 as a test bed 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.
The stated mission, coupled with its implications, suggests that the #3463 will be very extensively modified. My interpretation is that it will require new piping, jacketing, cylinders, valves, drivers, rods, and exhaust nozzle. Perhaps it will require new bearings of an improved design on all axles of the engine and tender as well. Jacketing of the boiler, steam pipes, and cylinders will be superinsulated. A streamlined shroud will be added.
It may require a whole new boiler, but if not, it will at least require conversion to a gas producer firebox, which is said to be part of the plan. This will require a different grate system plus the installation of many overfire secondary air inlets. Each of these amounts to creating a small air tunnel piercing both walls of the firebox through the pressure vessel. A GP firebox also needs a nozzle grid of steam distribution under the firebox to cool the fire.
They intend to redesign the steam circuit, so this may require a new design for the throttle and the superheater. Valves and valve passages are part of the steam circuit, but it is not clear what will be done to those details.
It will require a new firing system for the pellets, and possibly a new feed water system. This will be an automatic firing system controlled by the engineer. I am guessing that there will be a lot of computerization applied to the controls, firing, and combustion process. Overall, it seems likely that there will be extensive revision to the entire array of backhead controls.
Also included will be a newly designed and built HEP generator for electrical power for a passenger train. This will be powered by either a steam reciprocating engine or a turbine, and probably be mounted on the tender. Such units may run around 500 horsepower, and this power has to come from the locomotive boiler.
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. When you spend this incredible amount of money on the new stuff, why on earth would you want even the slightest bit of compromise forced upon it by working around the remnants of the antique locomotive? I find it most difficult 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.
I think the original claims about reciprocating locomotives superior to current Amtrak power have been 'walked back' more than a bit; I don't think there was ever much doubt that a modern 'steam locomotive' for high-speed passenger service would not be a 2-cylinder simple reciprocating locomotive, let alone something based on a 3460 class. On the other hand, it would be about as romantic to the general public as any contemporary locomotive -- might even be "styled" by the ineffable Cesar Vergara or studio talent for that 21st-Century spin on the obnoxious diesel=wannabe vibe that 'inspired' the ACE 3000.
The conversion of 3460 was pure romance, really; I suspect in part it was undertaken with a somewhat credulous belief that many of the contemporary stories about magical 84"-drivered locomotives reaching incredible speeds were true, and a lack of understanding of a number of requirements, such as wheelset instrumentation, that would be required for the attempt to be actually made on a physical track or test facility. What was certainly true was that the achievement of a legitimate 130mph from a legacy steam locomotive was likely to garner significant interest and appreciation from a large number of people in the general population, for a variety of reasons, which would (obviously to me) not likely be there for any 'modern' design. And being able to re-use large pre-existing components such as the cast frame, existing roller-bearing-equipped Baldwin disc drivers, boiler shell, etc. vastly reduced both the overall cost and the amount of new engineering required to produce a locomotive that would show what the potential of 1930s design could do.
I don't think it occurred to the CSR/SRI people that there was anyone in Topeka who particularly cared even about fixing 3463 up -- there was certainly pathetically little that the 'outside world' saw actually done to the locomotive through the period that we now know the wacky politics and cavalier ownership transfers were going on. I do know there was a fairly tremendous howl in the 'serious preservationist' community about cutting up the last Ripley Hudson, for a variety of reasons, and I think that was when the promises of complete cosmetic or operable restoration to original appearance, etc. were formally made.
Personally I do not think anything you quoted 'in blue' is particularly wrong, with the exception that even if all that is so it would still be 'cheaper' (at the time) to do adaptive re-use of the existing fabric as a 'renaissance' of Fabulous Lost Steam Technology than to do, say, an acceleration and follow-on to the T1 Trust project to get a much more likely high-speed design (probably similar to the '5551' that was being discussed for a while) in the anticipated timeframe. At this point the T1 group has done much more work, and realized so many of its objectives, that a 'clean sheet of paper' design is becoming a real alternative to the modification of 3463 if a salable modern reciprocating locomotive is the goal of the effort. As I said previously, I don't think it is, and all the work and possible uncertainties that CSR would face in doing that can still be bypassed in large part through 'adaptive reuse' of 3463.
If the boiler were to turn out to be better 'replicated' in modern alloys with welded shell construction (oh, how I wish one of those shells for 3460s had been preserved!) then the alternative of using one of the 'neglected' 2900s (which are almost demonstrably faster locomotives historically than 3460s) becomes much more attractive. The big issue then becomes that 130mph threshold -- something that conventional wisdom in the Thirties clearly thought, even on ATSF, would require duplex-drive power, and that almost certainly would need good poppet valves or equivalent to reach with any remote approximation of decent water rate. I do think an 80" drivered 8-coupled can be built that can reach that speed, but it's much more of a crapshoot involving much more technology and engineering than adapting an 84"-drivered design. (And no, I don't have any hesitation in saying a conjugated duplex can be made to reach that speed.)
I do think that technological objections are misplaced in this thread, which is about the legal issues associated with CSR/SRI even getting authority to control what happens with the locomotive. I think the best course is to wait out the decisions that are upcoming in that case, some of which I believe will not be long in forthcoming, and then see who actually steps up to the plate with the dollars and the enthusiasm to do something with 3463 other than the dog-in-the-manger ignorance that has typified so much of her life -- three times, in fact, the entire time she ran in service.
I wish I could get back the 79 Mustang Indy Pace Car, 302/4 speed that I sold in March of 1990. The buyers in Omaha Nebraska would be disappointed.
Modeling the "Fargo Area Rapid Transit" in O scale 3 rail.
RME,
I completely agree with your overall assessment of the #3463 revival in your last post above. You have explained it well.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.