This is an invitation to look at the situation of steam locomotive running in our present time . Obviously , the steam locomotives preserved by very creditable efforts of individuals and clubs have come of age and will go on ageing - ‘As time goes by’ - I’m sure you know this line http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q93zQdqd-Ys
So , what are the perspectives ? Are we going to see these engines been run until they are worn out , in spite of all renewing of material which – theoretically – could go all around , full circle , until the last handle or lever has been replaced by a new replica ?
After all , how much longer will ‘old’ ( sorry – classic ! ) steam locomotives be adaptable to modern railways , to train speeds , mainline occupation and many more parameters that must be met if such a vintage engine is to travel on today’s railway lines ?
Or – can we get to a point where new steam locomotives will be built – explicitly to run steam specials or extra trains – or maybe , even commercial trains which then might also be freight trains ?
If so :
What would be your favorite proposal for new steam to be built ?
( first consideration : for excursion / travel passenger train service - possible application to special freight service - NOT in combin
What I’d like to see happen is a continual rebuilding and improvement of the existing locomotives, including substantial rebuilding where and as needed. There’s an old joke about ‘grandfather’s hammer – two new heads, five new handles, but just as good as the day it was made’ that applies to locomotives in a sense. Take NYC 5344, the Hudson most deserving of preservation in my opinion. Very little of the original engine that rolled out of Schenectady remained by the end. That would be the same with most of the truly significant locomotives … eventually, perhaps, the boiler plate will have thinned, or the frame casting “crystallized” or some other very expensive part will need replacing, but where there is money there can be a rebuilding of anything necessary.
The most significant reason why ‘historic’ locomotives have had to be taken out of service is insurance cost. I think the second most significant reason is failure of an organization to support repairs and operation wholeheartedly. (A substantial amount of money appears to have been thrown at K4 1361, and while I don’t propose to open up that can of worms again, money alone was not the reason why things have happened the way they have).
I take it the scope of this question is leaving out the 3463 project (which has its own threads anyway).
Best ‘bang for the buck’ would probably be to build some version of the 5AT, since all the hard design work has been done, and some very good thinking has gone into where and for what this locomotive could be operated. I’d expect it to be light-oil (diesel) fired, for the same reasons as for 8055, and probably have some kind of biodiesel tie-in to make the relatively low thermodynamic efficiency. Second best would probably be to revive the Turbomotive 2 project, as both the turbine engineerin
That’s a fun question on so many levels, Juniatha. (As usual.) I’d like to see some of the most modern steam from the 1940s-1960s configured to meet 21st century operating standards. Or someone willing to take another look at a design that didn’t quite meet expectations. The Duke of Gloucester group accomplished wonders when they reworked a relatively small percentage of the original design’s components.
One reply mentioned the New York Central’s Niagara, which certainly deserves consideration as one of the most accomplished North American steam locomotive designs. The big three N&W designs would be fun to see again.
Your proposal doesn’t mention money, so I’m figuring a weekly play in each of the major lotteries of the world must be envisioned. Or we can look at your idea another way. Instead of going big, what if some enterprising team went much smaller and came up with a classic steam design derived from locomotives used in, say, commuter service. The railway could have several locomotives of the same design (e.g., a double-ended tank like a 2-6-2T or 4-6-4T), but with the details carefully worked out for most efficient operation.
And what about aesthetics? “Elephant ears”? Tall drivers? Tidy boiler or one with piping running everywhere? Should all the locomotives in the stud look the same or should some adopt profiles last seen in several different railroads or even countries?
Finally, I’d really like to see a truly clean-burning coal-fired design, or maybe we could get McDonald’s to sponsor one fueled used french-fry oil.
With very limited funds available, I see more hope in keeping what we have running, replacing parts as they where out, even going for a new boiler when necessary, starting from scratch . Talk to the people who do the work, at Strasburg, at the UP, and I think they will agree. How long has 844 been running? Cannot it continue for at least 50 years more, and why not 100? The return of the N&W J seems pretty assured.
My hope is that eventually all the big 6 or big 7 will realize the promotionaly power of steam, realizing that short of running their own top quality passenger trains again and getting people to use them, steam may be their best PR tool in reaching the non-freight-shipping-and-receiving public.
This does not preclude sensible modernizaton, and this can be done in all cases without destorying esthetics.
If new, I would like to see someone take on the challenge of constructing a locomotive that picks up where the experimenting with turbine locomotives left off. The PRR S2 had some promise when it came specifically to the turbine, its problems developed with an inadequate boiler supporting the “motoring” of the turbine. They were closing in on the problems but dropped the project due to that diesel thing showing up. The 6-8-6 wheel arraingment may reconsidered be with todays technologies prompting a new thinking of weight and balancing of the overall locomotive.
The N&W “Jawn Henry” also showed some promise, but its overall appearance looked more like a cheese box than a traditional steamer. So the new one, I propose, should take on the look of the S2 with modern day smarts about turbine technology. It too, but not to the extent of the S2, had some starting and low speed issued, but credit to the N&W thinking they didn’t shut the door on her as quickly as the PRR did with the S2.
New steam turbine technology will need a fresh look at alternative fuels (get real, coal in this governmental thinking is out) could bring about some posibilites. The turbine concept was an infant when abandonded and I think should be given a fresh look.
I don’t know that the boiler capacitiy was the issue. I understand the S-2 could handle the Broadway’s schedule pretty well.
I understood the problems to be low speed and low power inefficiency and ash damage to turbine blades.
I think these proglems can be overcome.
It was a good looking locomotive. The reason for the six-wheel trucks was wartime limitations on the use of lightweight steel. Otherwise, it would been a 4-8-4. With proportionatly more weight on drivers, it would have been a better locomotive.
Is the new steam locomotive for passenger service and the experience of riding behind a steam locomotive? Or is the new steam locomotive something on the lines of the ACE 3000, that is, a kind of Diesel fuel replacement in times of high energy prices?
If one is to build new for the passenger market, there was that British steam engine that was a completely new build of an existing design, and then there is the 5AT, a clean-sheet-of-paper-design that ran out of money before being built. I like the innovation in the 5AT, but the light-oil firing, probably the low-cost solution given the expense of small deliveries of coal, I don’t know, that sounds like “cheating.” You might as well have a Diesel “B unit” disguised as the tender to a “for show” steamer that just makes its own wheels turn. If there was an affordable way to use solid fuel (compressed switch grass pellets!) . . .
If this is an ACE3000 kind of thing, I like the idea of Porta’s Generation 0 (Superpower), Generation 1 (best ideas from Chapelon, etc), Generation 2 (turbines, condensers). I get the sense that there is a lot of improvement to be made to the Stephenson type locomotive before you get to far ahead of yourself trying too many advanced concepts all at once. Porta wanted the ACE3000 project, which was testing a Gen 0, to build the Gen 1 first, but their never-built design was definitely Gen 2 and probably “a bridge too far” given the limited engineering funds.
Boiler capacity, and draft induction, were never a problem. Staybolting, and some of the internal material proportioning, was.
ASH damage to steam turbine blades?
That’s the BCR coal turbine you’re thinking of. Which is a very, very different thing from the S2.
There was plenty of power at low speed, it was just that the slip inherent in a reaction turbine (with an impulse Curtis first stage, which even requires some slip to work at low shaft speed) meant high mass flow. The sudden high mass flow of steam, and then the great increase in induced draft from All That Mass Exiting All Those Stacks, were the issue that led to the popping staybolts.
Welded boiler would probably not have helped the problem, and welded hollow staybolting a la Leader wouldn’t have worked properly in a firebox and chamber that size, with that level of thermal (and to a lesser extent, pressure) cycling.
The ‘right’ solution, as it was on the V1, was to put a transmission between the turbine and the drive, which would allow the turbine to work at optimal rpm regardless of road speed (and not incidentally allowed full-power reverse with one interposed gear up near the pinion). A better approach in my opinion would be to use two symmetrical power turbines either side of the pinion, with HP admission close in, and the very large required exhaust plena and ducts outside.
Paul: the ACE 3000 is verging on the ‘box’ that Juniatha wants to avoid. It needs to have about double the indicated power to be a practical ‘modern diesel’ alternative, ope
I like the idea of a standardized modern 2-8-2. Roller bearings on all axles, welded boiler, 2 cylinder, piston valves and how about a gas producer firebox/ Lempor exhaust combo to cut down on abrasives drawn through the flues and to ensure more complete burning of fuel? For fuel, I’m thinking a biomass/coal mix.
While we’re at it, let’s take this boiler package and adapt it to a 4-6-2 frame for higher speed applications, ala PRR K4s/ L1s. One step further, perhaps a 2-10-0, low drivered version for heavier graded, low speed applications.
Locobasede’s idea for a commuter tank locomotive is quite intriguing, also. A modest sized 2-6-2T, in the 90 ton range, perhaps 60" drivers. Perfect for short turn around commuter service, maybe taking a turn on a light local freight during off peak hours. Sign me up for a couple. I’ll put it on Visa.
If the object is a passenger engine for excursions, fan trips, and who knows, so manner of regular service where a steam locomotive is part of the appeal, yes, by all means avoid the dreaded Diesel-like box.
If the object is that of the ACE 3000, i.e., burning coal to make the train go, who cares?
The other thing is that boxes or no boxes, prior experience may give some insight into the pros and cons of various approaches. That is why I have little patience with the blanket dismissal “it was unsuccessful.” Unsuccessful at what and for what reason? Could the thing be made successful with modern technological advances?
With respect to condensing, to get the “thermodynamic cycle” advantage of rejecting heat at a lower temperature than 212 deg F, condenser cooling probably needs some kind of water supply, and railroad applications tended to be “dry cooling tower” condensers because getting rid of the requirement to fill water is the whole point of condensers in the mobile applications.
But still, there was that GE/UP steam turbine electric, 2000 (or was it 2500) HP in each of two (rather largish) locomotive units. And oil fired (Bunker C oil, I believe, as with the UP gas turbines and most of the older oil-fired steam, at least back in the day a “waste product” of refining
I am a card-carrying developer of diesel-like coal-fired locomotives, and have been for quite some time. The point is that Juniatha has specifically asked that these sorts of thing NOT be discussed in this thread.
The ACE 3000 is a special case in that it has reciprocating running gear. Just not enough of it to be competitive with diesels (we assume their fuel is “renewable” – either biodiesel or synthesized from natural gas, which puts a Bekenstein bound on what the system will cost).
For the ACE 3000, no, I don’t think so (for a number of reasons). You will note that even
My choice would be the N&W Y6b as regards to rebuilding a lost locomotive. Perhaps some tuning so the engine could run up to 63 mph (as I have heard reported with the Y6) and beyond if necessary. Roller bearing rods, maybe? Though we do have Y6a 2156, if we can get it out of St. Louis, and 1218 is not a lost cause either. Once 611 is established in service, there may be a movement to return 1218 (and possibly 2156) to operation. Lois
I have no idea IF the 1218 will run ‘Mainline’ again. I would say that the events of yesterday: 23 June 2013, concerning the 4018 and UP RR 's Heritage Steam Program, might even, very, well play a roll in that chain of events! [8D]
Those events, COULD, possibly add some weight to the argument FOR return of 1218 to an active status with NS’s Steam Heritage Fleet ( 21st Century Steam). [bow]Seeing 611 and 1218 coupler to coupler, on an excursion train would be fantastic!
The next couple of years promises to be a ‘red letter’ ones ; for the railfan community, and steam power on the mainlines. [2c]
There is not that much difference between the 2156 as preserved and a Y6b, since the firebox and chamber mods have been done. Personally, I think it is a shame all the Y6b locomotives were lost. On the other hand, in terms of preservation integrity I think 2156 should be kept a Y6a, just upgraded where necessary, quietly, to give Y6b maintenance integrity…
The engine would probably not have run over 60 mph with the stock compounding, even with the booster valve. In my opinion, though, there are a couple of techniques that can be used to get it to run that fast, and I have described them in some detail in earlier threads. Interestingly, very few of these mods make a serious diffference to either the appearance or the general construction of the locomotive. (The principle is to meter enough superheated steam into the IP receiver that the phase and duration of the LP piston thrust matches with that of the HP engine under variable running conditions…)
Roller-bearing rods are something of a waste on a Y6, BUT what you want is lightweight rods with the sleeve design that UP developed in the late '30s (it is detailed in Bruce’s book on the steam locomotive in America, discussion and ‘sketch 3’ on pp.218-220) and good positive lubrication. This will give you the balance advantages of lighter-weight rods without the high expense of roller bearings. (I would go to rolling-element bearings on all the joints in the valve gear, of course, but that is more for maintenance optimization than higher performance.)
Snyder preheater and Cunningham circulator will fit neatly on the engine, and I think belong there. This would be a good poster child to do experiments with modulated compression control, too. We should take this up in the N&W thread, though, rather than here exclusively.
For better assorting earlier posts and later answers may I ask everybody to post a consecutively running posting numberto the top of their posts - I have added them up so far now . For numbering you may choose any color and format you like , only the keep to it , so it is easier associated with your posts .
Then , if you quote please put the number of thatposting you quote in front of the quotation .
You will have to add these numbers to your own post and to the quoted text by hand , the forums software does not support this feature at the moment .
I don’t have much time, so look for more later. I would like to see a Milwaukee Road F7 4-6-4, built to a completely unmodified design, same color and all, just to see if it could break the steam speed record.
I had to think a bit on what I was going to say on this. Juniatha’s made some very good points. So, let me say this.
In the classic steam days when a locomotive was termed “worn out” I think what they really meant was “beyond economical repair”. Well, everyone who’s owned a car is familiar with THAT phrase! The beyond economical repair term really doesn’t apply to steam locomotives operating today. Bear with me here. Steam locomotives today have gone from being workhorses to showhorses, they’re kept alive not because of what they can do but because of what they are, historic artefacts. Therefore, as long as the skills and funding are there to keep them alive they’ll be kept alive, one way or another.
It’s the same with folks who restore classic cars as a hobby. Money is of secondary importance, they really don’t expect to make the money back they put into the vehicle, it’s the love of the thing that makes it worth while. Ever been to a car show and seen the spec sheets in front of the resorations? Ususally when you get to the “cost” part its says “You don’t want to know!” or “?”.
But going a bit further, new steam? If there’s new steam at all it will probably be replicas of 19th Century types like David Kloke’s building. They’re small and a very well equipped machine shop and manufacturing facility can turn them out. The future restorations may be on the order of what John and Barney Gramling are doing, bringing small and easily transportable 0-4-0 tank engines back to life.
But big steam, I just don’t know. As much as I’d like to see a new J1 Hudson, or a Niagara, or a Pennsy T1 I just can’t see it happening. Where could you build it? Who’s got the expertise nowadays to build one from scratch? Who’s got the machin
I’d love to see the 5AT Design built to US standards…I’m (to quote another Forum Member) a bit of a"Steam Dilettante" so I do not feel qualified to critique the design, I just think it’s (or was) an exciting project…