Your suggestion has been noted, and, may be implemented, pending a PUBLIC apology from the individual who "inspired" it.

Jeff,

While the individual who inspired said post did not need to say what he said, would you please remove the post? I like seeing the one changing G (though it is fast); 16 is a little much for those of us that are just scrolling through the thread.

Respectfully submitted,

Perhaps it was a bit much.

I've edited, and changed tactics, going for a more precise targeting method.

Thank you, Jeff.

I apologize if my tone was a bit harsh this morning. I get tired of people like Mr. Rowland lending credence to the idea that questioning a proposal with holes in it is not a valid thing to do, especially when asked to support the proposal.

While I certainly applaud and respect the things Mr. Rowland has done in the past, I am often befuddled as to why he, of all people, has not realized that things no longer work that way any more.

I do wish someone would approach NJ Transit with a proposal for a series of steam excursions, using a fit and capable steamer..... and then report back with what reason(s) they were given for being rejected....

Can we please keep this thread from revolving around Ross, and get it back on the T1 project?

Where are the primary organizational and planning holes perceived to be? (Ignore the financing issues for the moment; the model is changing and will not remain as callow as it now may seem...)

And if you don't think the project is ready for your financial support -- for heaven's sake, don't send anything! Send it to Doug Bailey, instead, who needs it. I was chuckling a bit about the idea that a $1000 contribution was 'serious money' on a $10M+ project... until I realized that to most people it IS serious money. And deserves serious collateral, and serious stewardship if sent, too. I don't propose to throw out a bunch of words in Internet discussions about the methodology and tools being used -- but if anyone here has questions, they can ask.

The point is that you over there may not have the number of average supporters any more (if you ever had) compared to, say, the Brits. This came into my mind when you mentioned the 1000 $, which would mean an average of 10.000 people being ready and able to give that amount. Are there 10.000 engaged steam enthusiasts left in the USA at all?

I believe the motor of this project can only be strong enthusiasm - the "way cool" thing which makes wealthy men buy Lamborghinis. Those who want "historical correctnes" and fight about colour schemes in internet discussions are mainly not those who even buy the paint. The T1 will be "unhistorical" anyway, as Tornado is, but Tornado is "way cool" and draws crowds.

Mike

I think Mike is entirely right - there is not the organized support of 'heritage' steam here in the United States that there is in Britain, nor is there any systemic liking for the heritage railways on which steam operates.

In my opinion, this is a key difference between the T1 project and 'other large steam restorations'. One of the Trust's fundraising people pointed out that almost everyone he asked finds the T1 design 'wicked cool' (his words), and this is not just as a restored steam locomotive, but as something with deeper attractiveness to elements of culture more directly shared by large groups of Americans. Personally, I suspect sources other than small-scale donations will make up the great bulk of the funding that actually develops. And I do agree that the 'way cool' design is the primary factor that will drive most of the enthusiasm that is observed.

Meanwhile, I have been advocating that the 'correct' model to follow is far less the one used by the 'A1 Trust' than the one used when restoring Duke of Gloucester (which was essentially very close to a restoration from scratch). The idea is to leverage low-cost opportunities where possible, rather than just get a bunch of money and spend it wherever the plan sez you need it. I think the Trust has also learned from the various iterations of the ACE attempts.

It will certainly help to know that the bugs will be out of any design, and tested in both mechanical simulation and multiphysics (and in lab-scale experimentation where appropriate) before a production design is frozen. So it's a long way to the point that a big chunk of the $10 million, or the funding for the support systems and equipment, is actually needed.

Agree with Overmod and 484Mike. In addition (caveats to follow)-would the TI Trust and the other initiative to restore the Santa Fe 4-6-4, set new speed records, etc have ultimately been better served by joining forces?

Caveats: timeframe may be different, coal vs. biomass, existing loke vs. new construction, strategic goals, etc.

Can you enlighten me a bit about how they did that?

Do you mean the too many cooks who spoil the broth?



The guys who build the P2 "Prince of Wales" have actually begun making "the first component" for the locomotive, which at least promotes the impression of activity. The T1 might gain momentum if it reaches that stage.

Mike

As this thread was supposed to be about thanking Wes Camp for his joining in the Pennsy T1 effort I've asked him to consider adding his thoughts to this thread despite his aversion to this site which he feels is over run with Monday morning quarterbacks ( we have a better name for them as you all know) and other unqualified "experts" on every subject, so I don't know if he'll honor my request or not.

I do hope he will as his years of hands on, in depth experience with mainline steam gives him a unique perspective on this ambitious under taking and a perspective that I'm sure we can all learn from.

Hope springs eternal.

Ross Rowland

There most decidedly does come a "tipping point" where momentum builds greatly, and the guys who write £5,000 and £50,000 cheques come out of the woodwork once they see demonstrable progress and commitments to future engineering work made.

Another aspect that should not be ignored is "challenge grants"--the practice typical in fundraising where someone offers to match donations in a set period or a particular goal dollar for dollar, or even two "matches" for each donation. A cousin to that is the conditional donation, where someone says "you meet goals X and Y and I'll underwrite Z". I think the A1 Project used a couple of those where there were standing offers to do, say, machining on cylinders or wheel work if they got to such and such point in the project--or maybe that was another group/loco project, I track so many.

I'm still troubled by the lack of any place to satisfactorily run this thing if/when built, but what I'm hearing so far has prompted me from "you gotta be kidding" to "hmmmmmmm.... [lean back in chair stroking chin]".
And, again, I'm not being negative for the sake of being negative; I'm asking the exact same cynical questions that big-money donors will be asking. If your answers aren't well-thought-out and well-practiced, you don't stand a chance with a project like this. And the guys with the bucks are going to see right through evasive attempts to return to what the T1 guys want to say rather than answering what was asked, just like they see through politicians doing the same thing. And I sure as hell can't go to the board of directors of an NRHS Chapter or my wife and convince them to let us donate money that will make a difference (as opposed to the cost of a lottery ticket) without the right answers. Trust me, I want to see this happen. I also want to see world peace, bipartisan cooperation in solving our world's financial problems, an end to cheap mass-produced swill beer, a birth control pill for men, and bagpipes that never go out of tune, but let's get real. (Wait, what the heck is in this tea this morning?)

At the present time, diesel-electric commuter locomotives built using a percentage of "off the shelf" already available components and having the engineering costs spread over a moderate (20 to 40 units) production run, are being bid at $7 to $8 million a copy. The project duration is typically 3 to 4 years, and the locomotive builders are figuring into that an annual cost escalation estimated in the range of 15% a year. The currently quoted 1% to 2% CPI is irrelevant in locomotive building, the "basket" of goods surveyed is nothing like locomotive equipment.

So does $10 million seem quite a bit "light" as a total cost for a one of a kind, single locomotive project? And if the "big" chunk of the money is not needed for several years, allowing the donations to sit in the bank at 2% or less return, the actual cost could still be running away at around 13% a year.

Using the 15% figure with compounding, a $10 million project will cost around $20 million five years from now.

PC

As it happens, there are two 'first components' being completed.

One is the iconic 'prow' of the locomotive (which turns out to be all-aluminum!)

The other is one of the lightweight main rods, being made as a test of modern metallurgical steel improvements and fabrication technology, and to ensure that any residual 'learning curve' in making lightweight alloy rods is handled both quickly and definitively. (The Trust expects this to be particularly valuable to several other restoration efforts, including the Project 130 improvements)

When I say that there is more to this than a cursory inspection of a Web site or public documentation... I'm not just blowing smoke.

Also for the record: Not only is the Trust aware of the issues that Mr. Cook is stating, his earlier post regarding the importance of including a 'multiplier' for increasing costs and general inflation has been referenced in the official planning documentation, and the idea will be explicitly 'built into' the feasibility plan and other material.