Some food for thought;
If we can construct brand new locomotives that resemble old designs (Tornado, Lyd, David Lloyd George, Leviathan, etc.), then maybe 3463 will at least resemble its old self when and if this project succeeds. Now, back to the bunker for me!

Thats what I am hoping for daylight4449 if thats their mission. If thats the case then I might give them more credit for this project. I hope.

Biomass firing is not new. We know how to do it. No worries there.

Traditional Stephensonian steam is anything but low maintenance - now matter what you burn to fuel the evaporator.

Converting biomass to kinetic energy in another more efficient machine would obviously be much more efficient and low maintenance, so....

I'm lead to the conclusion that there's as much about publicity as there is about engineering (if not more) in this project. Which doesn't mean it's bad....just maybe not as useful as a benchmark as to possible efficiency as some other (less sexy) choices might be.

Anybody know how much energy is required to convert biomass to biocoal?

Let's do ourselves a favor and FORGET about operation and trackage rights and other blather and simply focus on the thermodynamic and engineering aspects of the proposal.

dave

Like button!


That takes the wind right out of the sails of the #3463 fan club...(meaning ADM4 and friends)

There must also be some desire from part of this group to get their hooks into this locomotive. If they were really serious about proving the feasibility of a new external combustion fuel, rehabbing a 70 year-old display piece seems a poor place to start. Before you can light a fire you’re going to drop an awful lot of money just getting it to the point of running. And without a stationary type condenser etc. its unlikely 3463’s boiler could exceed 20% thermal efficiency. What are the best diesels doing now? 45%?
I worked for a University for 28 years and this seems to be at least in part about drilling for money. First you get a goofy idea that nobody else in academia has thought of. Then you write a funding proposal that will allow you to engage yourself and you grad students, for as long as possible, in some fun activity. In the end you write a flowery book about what great thing you discovered, and then move on to being dean.

It’s too bad they scrapped Jawn Henry, that would be much more fun.

See your next issue of TRAINS.

Continued from previous list:

10) Does relevant and verifiable test bed or dynamometer data exist for AT&SF 3463 and/or another Santa Fe 4-6-4 of its class, and if so is this data being used to extrapolate results for conversion and/or being used for planned comparison after conversion/modification?

A lot of interesting comments

This loco, built in 1937 was retired in 1953.... almost 60 years ago. The majority of those who could relate to this loco in service....are DEAD.

Particularly, in the past 5 years where has "everyone" on the nay side been as this loco committed itself back to the earth?

At least the CSRail folks have cleaned the thing up.

See here http://www.csrail.org/index.php/the-plan/news

As one of the founding members of the group stated to me this morning....."keep an eye on the web page"

I would also think as they have carried the news story today. Mr. Wrinn will get his interview.

TH

This seems to provide a partial answer to ADM's question #2:

http://www.csrail.org/index.php/the-fuel

too busy to care....untill someone gets hold of it who wants to actually use it for what it was intended for....like I don't know, maybe pulling some trains?





I don't know Trevor....I think it was the Aliens. Remember that all this "group" has is a website with no credibility, no funding, and no plans. So must have been the Aliens. Broke non-existant groups can't do cosmetic and stabilization work like that because it costs money that the nay sayers say that this non-existant or credable group doesn't have......





There are a lot of partial answers in there.....if someone would only bother to read before the nay say session starts.

All I can say is I hope this group decides to change their minds and instead restore this engine back to operating condition the original way a steam locomotive works. I just cant see how would this college choose such a big engine like this one. Its like why cant they use a smaller engine as a test subject for their plan, its like they could had also choosen a UP Big Boy if they wanted but they choose this engine. Does anybody know why did they pick this engine. Does it have the needs to do this project, if thats the reason why they choose this instead of a smaller steam engine?

They really should be building a steam engine from the ground-up, not messing up a historical artifact IMO. Leave the historic steam engines alone I say!

<SIGH>

BIG PICTURE please, people.......

I have yet to see anybody with a basic understanding of the engineering and technological aspects of this promote a positive response. None of the rest matter, and are like using the taste of peanut butter to compare to the lubrication aspects of silicone spray. Completely immaterial.

Anybody who wants to know why they aren't simply restoring it as was - it is because that isn't what their program's mission is. Whether or not you agree is as meaningless as angels dancing on pinheads, so please leave your pinheaded feelings out of it.

Anybody having the plan and resources to have approached the owners of this locomotive with a legitimate offer had decades to do it and didn't so who cares about that any more? If you do, please keep it to yourself. It isn't, and never was a part of the program being considered in this thread. That ship sailed while you were out taking pictures.

I'm waiting for real technical information to help me better appreciate their efforts in a meaningful and realistic way, and wish them well in creating a splash of some sort which, by making steam locomotives more visible, may be of some side benefit to us all.

dave

I understand your opion Dave but I still dont understand on why this engine? How could they not think that they are distroying the only remaining ATSF 3460 class engine to survive the scraper torch, only to be dismantled to be rebuild into a completly new engine that will make it work totally unlike its historical operations in the past when it was in reglar operations on the ATSF before it was retired. Its like puting a NASCAR engine from today and puting it inside of a old Ford Model T.

But I do like the idea that this engine is being restored to operating condition, I am highly excited for that when ATSF #3463 comes back into operation. If I am right, I do believe that she will become the first American Built Hudson Type steam engine to return to operating condition. It was that I heard they plan on operating this engine up to 130 miles per hour is what's got me worried. Imagine if that engine was traveling at that speed while double heading an excursion trip with ATSF #3751. What could had to #3751 at those speeds, plus their is also the threat of derailments that could be also problems (like what happened on the NS in that Swamp Accident with N&W #611) and so on.

Some links that seem appropriate to their "torrefaction" technology, and a couple that are more than a little confusing:

http://www.raw-torrefactiontechnology.blogspot.com/
http://www.ecotechenergygroup.com/index.php/alternative-energy

And here's a link to the NRRI website (which doesn't mention this project)

http://www.nrri.umn.edu/default/