Sorry. It's fixed. The quotes just lined up funny.

Some objective thoughts from the peanut gallery:

William L. (Bill) Withuhn, Curator Emeritus of the Smithsonian Institute is on the project as an advisor. I don't know him personally but I would venture to say if it were going to be an ugly hack job that totally ruins this locomotive I am sure he would not be part of it.

I see a point to their idea of bio fuel but I would argue that we can't grow trees fast enough to truly support manufacturing wood based bio-fuel for powering our nation's railways. I know they are only talking about this being for passenger locomotives so maybe that can work in theory.

On paper, I believe that economies can be demonstrated vs. diesel. But with that being said there're going to need a boatload of HEP generator cars if this really works. This will probably take a huge bit out of the economics of the whole project.

A design with the ability to utilize today's best technology could work. But I have to say in my 30+ years of work with boilers and power plants I am convinced that any new modern locomotive will need a firebox without staybolts and side sheets. My best vision is an O type water tube boiler, possibly in a Garratt type configuration.

You're going to need one heck of a salesman to sell steam powered passenger trains to the host freight railroads.

Fuel and water handling facilities would require a lot of capital expense and need to be built on host railroad property. See help wanted ad for salesman above.

I am not sure if the link posted above on torrefaction is by the same people who are building the experimental locomotive. But if I understood what they were doing, I think I could provide an understandable overview in about one paragraph. Instead, that linked blog goes on and on with soaring rhetoric and wordiness, and yet nothing that gives me any idea of what the process is about.

What is the stock that goes into making those pellets? What does it cost to produce the stock and make the pellets. How carbon neutral is that process?

In the mission statement for the locomotive, it says this:

“CSR's modern steam locomotive will also exhibit significantly better horsepower output at higher speeds than the current diesel-electric locomotives that pull the majority of passenger trains in the United States.”

The whole spiel just seems so platitudinous and lacking substance.

My general opinion about this carbon-neutral, sustainability, net-zero, movement is that it is way into symbolism over substance, and is not to be troubled by the laws of physics. I hate to see the engine butchered in the process. Those who say it is better to have a live, breathing steamer rather than a rotting hulk are, I believe, exaggerating the difference, and might not be too pleased with the result of this sustainable carbon neutral Hudson.

I agree with Ron Travis on this, I mean the website tells more about the effects of this new fuel would do and talks less about the engine it will be testing on. Basicly less fuel talk and more Locomotive restoration progress please. I would rathier see a living breathing steam locomotive that is restored back to operating condition as a coal or oil burner that makes it operate under the same untakings of a normal steam locomotive of the past would operate. I would rathier have this group build an engine from scratch of their own disign (make it look futuristic I dont care) but dont touch a historical steam locomotive that you plan on operating a way that it was not built to steam on. Its nothing but asking for the worse case to happen. Thats whyt I want this engine to be restored as a normal steam locomotive that operates like every other steam engine that is now operating from the past today.

Maybe it could pull the Yellow Ribbon Express.

Maybe they could paint it bright blue with a smiley face on the smokebox... said only half tongue-in-cheek given the mixed blessing Thomas is in generating interest in steam locomotives from tomorrow's railfans.

[quote="softwerkslex"]I am baffled at how some of the respected names listed as "Technical Advisors" are willing to associate themselves with this project.

Don't kid yourself. Within the industry, not all of them are as respected as they would like to believe.

I am reminded of a steam powered automobile project at a large university a couple decades ago. It was the pet project of an engineering professor and attracted some funding and grant money, but when he left it fell out of favor and was discarded, taking some beautiful small steam launch engines to scrap.

PC

I submitted the press release and a link to this thread to a technical adviser to a Washington, DC "think tank" this afternoon.

His terse response to the press release: "Whatever these idiots are smoking is a controlled substance, and probably illegal."

The problem he and I have is the purported BTU output of the fuel in question.

You ever run an 0-4-0 or 0-6-0 at high speeds? I feel like it wouldn't work out too well. I am of the train (haha, punny) of thought that feels this is a bad use of a nice, historic engine-why not just start fresh? However, as a program that could theoretically be groundbreaking and revolutionary in the world of American steam, they have my full support. I just wish it wasn't involving Frankenstein-ing this old gal.

You know, they are right, this thing would of been left to rot in place otherwise. Kinda silly to get worked up about it now!

What really concerns me, is I think these guys are lieing. Either to themselves or to us. The whole website is filled with buzzwords and crapola. I'm not sure any of this math they did made it off the bar napkin. At best this thing is a cute showcase for their buffalo chip fuel. Notice it says "to be developed". In the end I bet all the fancy upgrades will probably be the old standbys of steam, a lempor exhaust and some roller bearing rods and some other fancy crap. Or it gets torn to bits. In the end there will be some excuse why it didn't perform as 'expected'. And why the hell did they do a cosmetic restoration before it got moved? It has to be torn down to bits to be put back in service but they give it a fancy paint job first? Either they don't have a clue what is needed, or they are pullin the wool over our eyes. None of this makes any sense.

Robert

I am hung up on something other than the preservation issue. I read through all of these posts and assumed the person in charge of the project to be Robert Fransen because of the mention of a steam minded mechanical engineer.

Insted, I finally read the website and see this "G. Rob Mangels | Director of Project Management". Would it not make just a bit more sense to have a project manager whom has actually completed a steam locomotive restoration project? Rob has not completed a single one, started several prior to being removed as project manager but that's it.

The point is this, this project to even have a chance at breaking the speed record NEEDS a seasoned/experienced steam locomotive consultant. Scott Lindsay, Robert Fransen, Gary Bensman would all be acceptable choices as they have the credentials.

This isn't a "beginners" project folks, it needs someone qualified for the job!

Accurately yours, John

What if this is just an elaborate ruse so that Withuhn and Co. can restore a locomotive to operation using government money? We all know how much the current administration is placing all its hopes on alternative fuels, and also know that they place no value on such nonsense as practicality and economic feasibility. So write up a good enough proposal, convince enough people in the right places and magically the research money flows in. Make enough modifications to test this new hockey puck fuel, but otherwise a Hudson is restored!

I just don't understand why, like many others have said on this thread, they are restoring an old locomotive to test this theory. I'm fearing that they'll run into some unknown problem, like many restoration projects do, they won't have the money to complete it, and this engine goes down the tube. It would be so much cheaper for them to have a completely new engine built, and that way, they would be able to build the engine with their changes in mind, rather than modifying a historic piece.

“CSR's modern steam locomotive will also exhibit significantly better horsepower output at higher speeds than the current diesel-electric locomotives that pull the majority of passenger trains in the United States.”

The whole spiel just seems so platitudinous and lacking substance.


Actually its recycled. That line of thought was repeated by Baldwin in the 1930's and most notoriously on April 25, 1935 by VP Robert Binkerd in his "Muzzle Not the Ox That Treadeth Out the Corn" speech to the New York Railroad Club.

The converse of "high speed" horsepower is that its unavailable at low speeds.

Power is not the problem. Beyond the economics, a lack of electric traction and MU capability and dynamic brakes makes this a pipe dream.