In response to Bob Davis' question concering casting capabilities, I do believe there may be several large foundries like Maynard in the United States with the ability to cast and heat treat a locomotive bed casting. Also consider that locomotives made with this type of frame ranged from 0-6-0's all the way up to the largest locomotives ever built. So, there would be a large range in the size of a pour for the castings. Also, castings have become even more technical and complicated since the time of General Steel Castings Co. (the BLW subsidiary). In addition, I am sure there are several foundries in eastern Europe, along with China that retain the ability to produce locomotive bed castings. They would be very expensive, due to the specialized nature and size of the patterns which would need to be made.
This is why I would advocate for constructing a locomotive using a built-up casing instead. The quantity of castings is greater, but the size of the castings is more manageable, and does not require a complicated single pattern.
Several years ago, when Tornado was first built, Trains magazine ran a feature article which included a reader poll of which locomotive they would like to see as a new-build here in the U.S. I recall locomotives like the U.P. Big Boy being in the top 5. Now, I don't mean to deride any of the readers of that great publication, but why would you build another of one of the largest, and best represented locomotives in preservation? That would be idiocy. If one were to recreate a truly modern steam locomotive, my personal vote would be for the Milwaukee Road F7, which was among the best locomotives and fastest ever built, and none were preserved!
However, I digress: building a new "superpower"-type locomotive would be interesting, but a new-build of a locomotive from c 1895-1915 would be more appropriate, practical, and help to fill a void in preservation which now exists.

Although I agree with Jeff's comment about U.S. society becoming increasingly self-centered, I do believe the railroad industry as a whole needs to make good with its neighbors.
Years ago, it is likely, aside from the change it legal culture, litigation and anti-railroad sentiment were less prevalent because everyone made there money in some way as a result of the railroads influence. That influence is less clear in today's economy.
That being said, I think steam locomotives operating on main lines would do a great deal to promote their public image, rather than tarnish it.
Concerning foamers, yeah there are a lot of idiots willing to do stupid things to get photographs, and they should be reprimanded and convicted when they break the law. These fools put us all at risk for loosing something we love.
In my opinion, the smaller centralized nature of the U.K. does not really do a great deal to contribute to the ease of preservation.
For example the total U.K. population is just over 62 million while the U.S. population is 310.25 million. To further break it down, lets just consider states which were the territory of one major rail system, the New Haven, which you could consider the equivalent of British Railways. The New Haven served Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and New York, which I will omit because the vast majority of the state was not served by the New Haven. The total population excluding New York is 11,165,084. Comparatively the population of England is approximately 51.5 million. Size-wise these three states add up to 17312 square miles, while England is over 5 times the size at 130,395 square kilometers. Concerning density, by averaging the 3 states densities you arrive at 842 persons per square mile. By adding the NY metropolitan area, which New Haven also served the average density is 1340.75 people per square mile, as opposed to England's 1,023 per square mile.
Meanwhile the latest new-build locomotive constructed in England is a replica narrow gauge locomotive which, of course, never operated on British Railways. Furthermore it is a replica of a locomotive built for the Lynton and Barnstaple railway which was under 19 miles long in Devon.
Read about it here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/article-1311877/New-steam-train-Lyd-enter-service-Ffestiniog-Welsh-Highland-Railways-2011.html
My goal in posting these comments is not to illustrate how well things are going over in the U.K. but rather to illustrate that we are just as capable of building a locomotive here!

Of course we are - and it's never been easier given the huge advances in production technology since 1950. This subject has been covered on some previous threads. Something generic and small - 65-80 ton range - seemed the preferred for tourist railroad use, rather than another mainline hangar queen seeking someplace to go. I championed the modular expandable concept - add courses and axles and grate length and larger cylinder liners to achieve the optimum locomotive with economies of interchangeable parts for several different models.

dave

I don't see much cause for constructing new locomotives when there are so many of them presently sitting disassembled at museums all over the country with no reasonable expectation that there will ever be funding or labor for their restoration or operation.

PC

Well, yes PC, you have made an excellent point. There are many locomotives around the country in dire need of attention. I really think the preservation community needs to address the issue. For example, when a town or even a museum is mismanaging their assets, they need to be held accountable by the preservation community. Without question, locomotives need to be protected under some sort of cover. It should be the first priority.
It seems unlikely in this day that every steam locomotive in the U.S. will ever be restored to operation. However, there I have been following some very interesting restorations lately and am very impressed with the work being done. A new boiler and comprehensive motion work, along with a new tender tank on Southern 401 at Monticello is a great example.
I would like to visit these folks and complement them on a through and excellent job. Along with the other locomotive restorations progressing around the country. From news I have heard it seems that my old friends at the Oyster Bay Railroad Museum are starting to get seriously underway on their ex. LIRR #35. Restoration efforts, even in the face of a slow economy seem to be gaining momentum.
Now is the perfect time for all of you readers to get together and preserve an engine that you know is in need of attention. Ask questions on this forum, find ways to make something out of nothing, etc. There is always a way to complete a project. Sometime, however it take a great deal of ingenuity and a bit of effort.
However, building a new steam locomotive could provide excellent experience to train new generations skills which may be otherwise lost. In addition, it could generate significant interest in steam railroading in general. I generally like to think that most people are sympathetic to the operation of steam locomotives because they are amazing pieces of machinery, and relate well to the romantic image of railroads that they have. In my opinion a new-build locomotive would have people coming out of the woodwork from all facets: engineering, railroads, metalworking, mechanics, history buffs, etc.

Erik,
I think you are right. I see the atempt being made in the maritime side to do social history rather than technology.

Most people would be much more interested in a steam engine be it in a ship or on rails than the story of say the Brotherhoods who worked to make them safer and easier for the crews to work on or in them.

i appear to have a minority opinion on this social history has many stories to tell; but I did not start working in the field of Industrial Archaeology because of the need to tell about say "Women in Railroading" i got into it to visit a main Line 4-8-4 that wieghs in at 3/4 of a million pounds or a 90 mile and hour high speed Interurban.

Going back to the British Isles; they have both a series of local volunteer run railroad (way) museums as well as the National Railway Museum in York. I am planning to visit it next summer. In this country we have the regional museums and just a handful of professional staffed museums. That is most likely as far as we can take it.

in the UK the is a national certification that can be acquired for a steam locomotive which allowed it to run on any main line in the ocuntry. Can you imagine trying to set something like that here? There is just too much independence between the major corporations to do anything like let a privately owned antique steam locomotive onto their rails.

Ted Miles

Something which no one has mentioned here is that steam lasted 10 years longer in regular service in Great Britain than in the USA. So there are still plenty of folks over there with critical memory. Same goes for Australia, which had steam in regular service into 1970, at least.

Yes, the general higher level of interest in things railroad in Europe has a lot to do with the higher amount of preservation there. I think the second major factor in the number of operating larger (relatively) locomotives over there is the fact that their railroad infrastructure is either largely owned outright by governmental agencies or heavily regulated in the public interest. They just don't have to put up with often sudden and unexpected detrimental changes that our private Class I's make to operating rules and conditions - like the recent decision from a major Eastern carrier that they will IMMEDIATELY no longer handle any equipment without AP (open) roller bearings. I'd like to know the implications for any single-level Amtrak cars operating on that carrier - I believe that all of their single-level cars have inboard bearings that don't show any visible bearing movement from the outside?

Interesting comments above, about the value of goodwill from really knowledgeable employees, vs. someone who is, shall we say, nervous about, well, who knows?

In regard to new large castings, I seem to recall that a technique that was being used some years ago, perhaps still is, was to make the pattern out of styrofoam. This was a consumable pattern, burned away by the moltem metal as it was poured. The advantage was supposed to be that the styrofoam was easier to work with than the traditional wood, didn't require withdrawal from the sand mold around it (which meant you didn't have to worry about draft angles), and of course was intended for limited or one-time castings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost-foam_casting

Can anybody shed any more light on this?

The wikipedia article seems to indicate that the process has been used for parts as large as automotive engine blocks. I think it would be a quantum leap to 40' long engine beds. A couple of potential problems that come to mind are keeping a foam fabrication of that size straight while the sand is rammed around it, and the fact that openings like cylinder bores would still need cores, because there is no way to ensure that the sand inside the bore is rammed to suitable stability and strength. Remember, if the sand collapses as the supporting foam vaporizes, the result is going to be one spectacular hunk of scrap metal. I also can see problems with gas blows from all the volatiles coming off the foam that would not have been present in the traditional casting process.

I suppose, however, that if one had the money to do two or three pours to obtain one good frame, workable solutions can be found to all these problems.

Thank you all for your opinions on this, its been great to see how you feel about what can be done regarding new-build steam and related technology. I value all of your opinions. I'm still relatively new to preservation, however I am dedicated to ensuring that the preservation movement has a bright future.
I recall that when the WW&F Ry. was constructing the modified frame casting for their #9 (an 0-4-4) which joined the locomotive frame to the rear frame, they used a Styrofoam pattern. I agree with Dennis' assertion that a drawback of the lost Styrofoam pattern its weakness, leading to improper dimensions. I don't remember if this was an issue with the #9.
Also, Dave, I am fascinated by your modular concept. It would really be something to see how it would play out. I have often wondered why more locomotives were not built using that concept.
Concerning the withdrawal of U.S. steam approximately 10 years before steam in the U.K., I think that is all the more reason to get started on a project now while someone in the U.S. still has a critical memory of building, repairing, and operating steam in regular service. Its a matter of preserving that heritage.
I do believe a goal related to mainline operations would be to pursue some sort of all encompassing regulation or waiver which would allow steam operations. I leave this to the hands of those with far more experience than me regarding law, logistics, and operations.

I would like to add some thoughts to this conversation. I have been a follower of rail preservation in North America, the UK and Australia for many years and notice a large difference in all 3. First I will say I have never travelled outside of Australia so I am reliant on news filtering down under, but I actively pursue it.

Firstly, the UK preservation scene is dominated by museum railways/ tourist lines like the other regions mentioned. Those lines have a collection of locos and associated rolling stock which they restore and operate- all by a group of generally local enthusiasts. So far, no difference. What is truly different is that many locos (or carriages and other rail equipment, to a lesser degree) is often owned by an outside preservation group. And in many cases, this means a group set up to preserve a particular loco type. There are dozens of specialist groups. For example, the Class 40 Preservation Society, the Deltic preservation society- the list goes on. That means that although perhaps only say 10 percent of enthusiasts on a particular railway or museum may be passionate about a loco, they can join in with other like-minded individuals and form a group and save that loco type. And in many cases they save more than one and often keep them on different railways, just to spread them around. Correct me if I am wrong but I don't believe that happens anywhere else. The closest thing we have in Australia would be the Lachlan Alco Group, a group set up to preserve Alco diesels, but I don't think it has occured in the USA or Canada. The following is just an example but if 5 enthusiasts in Illinois wanted to preserve GE dash 7 locos, unless they were wealthy it would not happen. But if they got together with 5 other people from each state then perhaps 250 odd people could fund raise enough to acquire a couple of examples to keep the breed alive. The other thing that this form of preservation does is decreases the likelihood of those locos sitting on rusting sidings and disappearing into the undergrowth. Because the custodians of them care about them, even if nobody else seems to.

There is one other difference and that seems that MOSTLY preservation in the USA and Australia relies on donations of locos and rolling stock. And if that donation doesn't come- Oh well we missed out seems to be the attitude. Not so with the English. There are probably countless reasons, but they just seem to achieve there goals. It is interesting that there are only a couple of diesel types which have become extinct in England, compare that to other areas and the virtues of this form of specialist preservation becomes obvious.

OK, I'll stop with the rambling and hope that one day this line of thought may save one loco type from Extinction................

Thanks u25b for bringing that up. It would be great to hear from someone in the uk that is involved in one of those groups.

I've been involved in a few loco schemes, though my principal activity over the years has been laying track. Independant UK loco groups come in all shapes and sizes depending on whoever sets them up. They can be individuals, companies or registered charities as appropriate.

Some are pure locomotive preservation, in that somebody simply wants the particular locomotive, and if they get it they need a home. Others are more railway based, in that they want a loco of a particular type for use on their favorite railway. And there are hybrids between the two.

Back in the old days of British Rail, the state was the monopoly user, so when the stock was sold, the competition was generally between us and the scrap merchant. If you wanted to buy something, you got on the disposals list, worked out the scrap value and added a bit for luck. It was a question of supply and demand. Once upon a time, say 20 years ago, you could buy a fully operational coach for around £800 when the price was low. Not any more!

Tim