Which steamlocomotive would you like to see being built new again and why?
I’d choose Milwaukee Road’s Class A and F-7. Just because their beauty and speed.
Would you be able to that today, does the plans for them still exist??
All the best my friends,
Jan
Glasgow/Scotland
I’d like to see a cab forward if for no other reason than the novelty of it.
Paul
Trains magazine once reported that NYC’s Niagara class 4-8-4 was tested against the diesels of its day, and was slightly more efficient under certain conditions. It would be interesting to see how one would stack up today, or if one could be technically updated, yet still look like a Niagara…
It wouldn’t be built “again”, but I’d like to see Ross Rowland’s ACE 3000 built and tested, and some development work done on it. Very interesting concept, with powdered coal as the fuel, forklift-removable ash, and condensing technology for the waste steam (at least that’s how I remember it).
Personally I wouls love to see either a BIG BOY or a CHALLENGER built just for there sheer size. but you will never see anything like that built in the USA again because all our manufacturing has been moved to china and mexico.
any of the cnj camelbacks…
I would like to see any steam loco being built today. The classes with 8 driving wheels (2 8 4, 4 8 2, 4 8 4, 2 8 2) were some of the better locos. But the Challengers and Big Boys were pretty neat.
I just love the old steam locos and try to see them “in steam” any chance I get.
Stay Safe and remember Look, Listen, and Live.
Remember the troops.
How about a 4-6-4 like a hudson for tourist line work. Natural gas or propane fired,5 cylinders ,3 driving at front and 2 at the rear axle.No firebox, gas burners in flues, firebox space used for two rear cylinders.Five cylinders would give very even torque to drivers and permit early shutoff for economy. Poppet valves computer controlled. Engine would be relatively polution free.
I’d like to see just about any of them be built again. How about one of the Pennsy’s Atlantics? They had that great prewar “vibe” to them that I like!
I’d like to see the Pennsy T1 rebuilt. Never got to see one.
the Ultimate Steam page has an article discussing design concepts for a multi- stage steam turbine locomotive rated at 15,000 hp! I’d love to see that…it’ll never happen though, especially as the proposal calls for a nuclear reactor to heat the boiler!
Better than new would be for every RR museum to bring one dead Loco back to life.
JUST ONE ? How about more. How about all of them. Both steam and diesel. [:)] Works for me. [:D] [:)] And then when the railroads have a power shortage . . . hummmmmmmm. What color and spice there would be. ALCO fans would be dancing in the streets. [:)]
The Union Pacific Big Boy would be my first choice but any steam locomotive would be good too. I think it would be very interesting to see a replica of the Tom Thumb too.
Willy
I think one of the smaller (non articulated) designs of famous heritage. NYC Hudsons, Pennsy M1’s, or Nickle Plate Berkshires would be amazing to see working again.
I think the idea was a new steamer that wasn’t saved, due to mismanagement, what have you. Cab-forward, Big Boys still exist. The MILW saved 2 S-3 class 4-8-4s and one 4-6-0, the type that ran the last steam powered revenue mile in 1957. That means none of the wonderful S1, S2, or any F series 4-6-2 or 4-6-4 were saved. Or how about Soo N-20 4-8-2s or O-20 4-8-4s? C&NW H class 4-8-4s, as rebuilt? These days, with the mainlines so busy, it might be better to have a lighter engine to run on a lightly used branch, instead of just sitting.
If it could be just one, and that one would be a historic reproduction, I’d have to vote for the NYC J1e (5345 being the next available number).
I wouldn’t object to adding ‘modern’ thermodynamic improvements, better suspension and damping, etc. to the locomotive to improve its performance and reliability.
This locomotive would be admirably suited to many operating areas – not too big and not too small, and with tight enough clearance to go places bigger engines couldn’t.
If I were going to build new, I’d build a Withuhn-conjugated-duplex 4-8-4. NOT the ACE 3000, which was way too underpowered for its complexity, and would have overdriven its condenser in many actual railroad situations. Like the ACE, this would be a 180-degree-opposed 4-4-4-4 with inside rods between the pairs of main drivers. The Franklin type B (right down to cylinder and port dimensions!) on the TCRR’s legacy 2-8-0 could be cloned nicely to fit.
I do assume that any ‘new-again steam’ would be used for ‘enthusiast service’ and not for freight railroading. I have been assured by more than one person in Virginia that the insurance situation is not insoluble, and that good business models for steam operation do exist.
Some of you may be aware of the work of the A1 Trust in the UK, which is building, from new, a post-war design of Pacific. Apart from the usual financial requirements, the major hurdles the project faces are: 1) changed and more exacting legislation, 2) relearning skills for design, manufacture and assembly and 3) scarce manufacturing resources able to cope with ‘yesterday’s’ technology. This last is the critical one, as building large pressure vessels (or boilers to you) suitable for the stresses of railway operation have been almost extinct in Europe for 40-50 years. The boiler is the largest component on the loco, and the financial commitment to a single supplier without any fall-back exposes the project to risk. The Trust is being very cautious about selecting the supplier and making this commitment. For more info on the A1 Trust, go to www.a1steam.com.
The 3rd Generation steam, as proposed by Porta, Wardale et al would be cutting edge and subject possibly to even greater risk. But it may be possible to adapt other technologies (ship and power stations) to new methods of steam generation. Wardale’s work in SA showed what could be done, and the Swiss have built smaller locos that outperform diesels on a number of fronts. This avenue shouldn’t be neglected, if only to keep a second string to the internal combustion engine. But all new technology and machinery is initially expensive and runs considerable business risks.
So this is why Heritage Railways in the UK prefer to restore and maintain existing locos - the boiler is there already! Of course they have a limited lifespan but with care in use and maintenance they can last a surprisingly long time. I don’t know what locos are available for returning to steam in the US and Canada, but my personal preference is for Berkshires, Hudsons and Northerns. The sight of a GNR S2 pounding away across plains would be quite tear-jerking! Isn’t there one stuffed and mounted somewhere in the North-west?
Build new generation steam as Wardale is proposing. Let’s go forward, not backward.
I am told that the only firm still capable of building a locomotive boiler is a US Navy shipyard (I forget which), which actually did some of this work for restoration projects, but ceased due to a law which prohibited government facilities from competing with the private sector.
I am also told that there are very few welders qualified to weld locomotive boilers.