I'm certain the enthusiastic response has to be heartening for the project, however by venturing so many opinions about what has to be done, this reminds me a bit of "Jeopardy". What is an answer for a problem not yet determined?
A crack team of locomotive savvy (track record) people need to review every piece of #1361, then determine where the funding will be spent, then offer the arm-chair experts an opportunity to tell them what to do, while going about their business in the most efficient manner.

Regarding staybolts, I've been advised that staybolts must be tracked all the way back to the origin of the steel, who and how they were manufactured. No short cuts on staybolts or you wind up regretting the work in which you've invested cash and time, at a later and more sufferable date.

and they need to keep things out in the open...especially if they are seeking donations

AFAIK, the Tornado team has not selected a boiler manufacturer for their current project, P2 The Prince of Wales. It will be interesting to see who they go with, given the experiences they have had. - Rob

Having been to the last several PTC Conferences (now called SafeRail - and even spoken at one) and been in innumerable discussions at Short-line Association meetings, the one thing I'm certain about with PTC is that I am not an expert on the subject.

One of the many issues with with implementing PTC was that the mandated new technology required wireless and satellite communication rather than something as mundane as a pickup bar. We also need to remember that PTC is a system concept and not a defined thing or group of things which you can order from a vendor, install on a locomotive and then go anywhere PTC is in effect. Having said that it seems to me that if the steam locomotive were equipped with the necessary hardware for brake application and power knockdown, along with a GPS device, the communications equipment for the particular system the locomotive was operating over could be located almost anywhere -as long as it was connected to the hardware on the locomotive. As a backup the portable module could be connected directly to the train air (and ECB if appropriate) and programmed to believe it was X-many feet forward at the front of the train. The issue would then be FRA and railroad acceptance rather than hardware.

I suspect the folks at Fort Wayne are way out ahead of me on this and could shed some light.

M.E. Allen aka The Crossing Guy

They are still doing business with Meiningen. Just in february they sent two air pumps for an overhaul.

Mike

If a Positive Train Control train is backing up with the PTC locomotive on the former front of the train, the electronics have to know that there are so many feet of train ahead of them so they can slow and stop the train at the proper places. A non equipped steam engine on the front of a train will be the same situation.

Meiningen doesn't make bad boilers - they famously had trouble with one in particular, the story which was never publicly explained. Many of their locomotives ran for decades or are still in service - but I'd certainly want to make sure the specifications were very detailed and quality control inspections happened frequently no matter who I might hire to build me a new boiler. As I recall, Nevada State had a new boiler built in the USA only to discover it wouldn't fit onto the locomotive even though it was made to specification.

Let's be careful....... we are fortunate to have many potential sources out there worth talking to.

Isn't there an outfit in St Louis that is currently building THREE new locomotive boilers including the one for the C&NW 1385 and the T-1? Pretty sure that a home grown boiler build would suffice here as long as the Belpaire firebox is engineered to meet part 230. And if the engineering won't work, then build a radially stayed boiler and make it LOOK like a Belpaire.

In addition, one can predict that roller bearings on the axles could be the difference between a pretty locomotive on a plinth in a museum and an operating excursion locomotive out on the main line.

Rightly or wrongly, plain bearings have become the oddball exception that takes high level approval for mainline operation across USA railroads, and which as we have seen is an automatic "No" for thousands of miles of track.

Folks in charge seem to be forecasting where the present trends are heading and how they will impact operations during the life cycle of a 1472 day Inspection.

Now is the time to do it.

Brian

Belpaire boilers are common in many places and are not difficult to design relative to any other - the PRR boilers suffered (as I understand it) from a design that left no margin for loss on the roof sheet which could most easily be remedied by going to a thicker plate. Also, full penetration welded seams are more efficient than riveted which gives modern practice yet another benefit. Let's not create problems that don't exist when there will be plenty enough that are real to be discovered.

I do not wish to jinx it, but I would like to mention that we have gone for five pages of discussion on the 1361 without devolving into an utter crapshow. Thank you for keeping this a civilized, intelligent and thoughtful conversation.

The announcement mentioned that the driving axles would be converted to roller bearings. How about the leading and trailing trucks. Have they already been converted to roller bearings? If not, wouldn't these trucks need to be converted as well. I would imagine the ban on plain bearings would apply regardless whether the wheelset was powered or not.

Thousands of diesels run around on plain bearings every day. They are inboard of the wheels, and support the traction motors. Don't tell anyone, or these locomotives won't be able to be interchanged or run-through any more.

Aren't crankshaft bearings and piston rod bearings also friction bearings? Shhh....

I'm with my esteemed colleague from the Strasburg Railroad on the roller bearing conversion. If no tooling exists to produce these bearings or the boxes, you're looking at huge dollars just for that and that's assuming you can get Timken interested in a special production run of 6 bearings and 3 housings. The Southern Pacific Spring Pad Lubrication system is tried and proven. This system is further enhanced by the Armstrong Oilers which has proven to work extremely well on our two Southern locomotives at mainline speeds.

If they do pursue the roller bearings, can we go further and add rotary cam poppet valves to it?

Does anyone know who's done the engineering on this effort? I thought I saw a reference that an engineering study had determined that a new boiler was the way to go. I'm curious how that decision was made.

Kudos to Messrs. Levin and Moorman for taking this effort on.

G. Mark

If interested in seeing the current condition of the boiler and other components for the 1361, take a look at these 83 photos that I took a couple of years ago.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/33523379@N03/albums/72157675020325136