I think Nigel's report still begs the question. The final result is a Waumbeck with a feedwater heater and fancy exhaust, but still no lagging on the cylinders. How about an arch in the firebox?

There are some fundamental weaknesses in these engines. The cylinder forces are not adequately held by the frames. In operation, the cylinders wobble/vibrate noticeably side to side across the cross section of the locomotive. That is why they use flexible hose connections to the cylinders. Frame cracks are a frequent repair item.

I wonder how open the MWC would be to allowing a privately-owned locomotive to operate special excursions on their tracks. They might not be interested in pursuing the concept of more efficient steam locomotive any further, but if the locomotives are available, it seems like the opportunity is there for somebody else to buy one and hire Nigel to continue his promising work on these things. That is of course, if anyone had the inclination (no pun intended) and the cubic dollars necessary to pull it off...

Maybe they should have offered trackage rights as a package with #3 on eBay.

If it works with out lagging and usses more coal then its alright (not).

There are brick arches

The is no springing on the locos and the frames have to flex to keep the wheels on the rails.

The boiler is not fixed to the frames and just rests there on rubber blocks. The rubber hoses are to allow for the movement between the frames and boiler.

"Uses more coal" is the whole problem. More coal means more smoke, which is part of the eco-motivation for diesel. Likewise, the high fuel consumption is not desirable if expensive bio-fuel is preferred. Either way, reducing fuel consumption would appear to be a major objective in assuring future use of steam. Lagging/insulation would appear to be a low technology method of pursuing these goals, especially in a cold climate like Mt. Washington.

The flexing I refer to is not up and down or even twisting, but side to side. You could see it on Jacob's Ladder. Looking back at the engine, the cylinder assemblies were actually swinging back and forth across the axis of the boiler. I could see the flexing of the steam pipes. The frames are not stiff enough to hold the cylinder assemblies in a fixed position against the driving forces. These engines just beat themselves to death.

Actually, as I look at the photos, the engine could be widened considerably by building an "outside frame". This would allow a stronger frame, and possibly a larger boiler and firebox. A larger firebox would allow less forced firing and more efficiency. Look how narrow the typical engine is compared to the coaches.

Anyone notice the profile of the new diesels blocks the view out of the windows when descending? Seems if anything this was an opportunity to lower the profile and improve the rear view when descending.

Ask your local restauranteur if he still pays to have it hauled away. My guess is "Yes".

There was always a destination for the stuff. It went to a renderer who turned it into other industrial products mostly along the lines of waxes and animal feed enhancers. (it's what makes dog-chow greasy and shiny. Yummeee!) But still, it's really low-value stuff, thus the fee for hauling it away.

I've seriously considered a conversion to this waste fuel. Compared to an "ideal" automotive fuel like petrodiesel, I have found four basic problems with it.
#1 acidity. This can corrode delicate diesel fuel injectors made for petrodiesel.
#2 water content. Also a corrosion problem fuel injectors.
#3 particulate content, plugging up the fuel injectors.
#4 viscosity. You have to heat the tank for it to flow in all weather.

Are any of these serious problems for a steam locomotive that's been designed for this fuel? I would say "no". You will need to filter it, still... but not nearly as much as you do for automotive use...

After reading the linked article I am going to have to think the answer is no. It appears that once was waste is now gold.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/30/us/30grease.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=fryer%20oil&st=cse

Roger

Gold to the guy who has several thousand gallons in the truck... not gold to the restaurateur who only has a hundred or so gallons in the bin out back. The cost of collection still eats up most of the value. Note several people in the article were quoted as saying that they sell their grease for "a small monthly fee".