I can't disagree Jeff, but the place it will be operated is at the Pueblo test track as is openly mentioned in their plans. The primary goal is to develop a fuel, not start a rail excursion progam....but I don't doubt that if they succeed, a place will be found for it to stretch it's legs while burning torrefied fuel that we can all enjoy - probably somewhere in the vicinity of the northern midwest where there's a lot of pulpwood no longer in much demand as the size of newspapers shrink along with their industry.

I've long been a proponent of the idea that you don't restore a locomotive if you don't have a reason to do so first - a legitimate business reason, not because it is going to provide you with personal gratification followed by watching it rust away for 1475 days cold until it becomes useless again. The building of the program is the challenge - because the rest is just mechanical work, and with a good program generating support in place, the resources for the mechanical stuff will be available.

I think I was more commenting on the lack of a grasp of the technicalities and focus on less meaningful mechanical details rather than big picture - because they have laid their big picture out pretty vividly in their publications. I agree they have tilted it a bit too much towards the foamy aspect rather than the fuel development aspect to appeal to this audience, which is backfiring as we eat each other rather than jump in as supporters, but it's there........if you are willing to recognise it.

dave

When I read their website, it sounds to me like their primary objective is to revolutionize railroad motive power with carbon neutral steam. And it sounds like a rather distant secondary objective is to promote the use of torrefied fuel for power generation in a variety of scales for the world market.

However, what has been said here is that the primary objective is the power generation application, and the intense project of rebuilding #3463 is just intended to create a “rolling billboard” for torrefied fuel.

That seems like a really roundabout way to achieve the intended goal. Why not just develop the fuel and promote it by applying it to its intended purpose of generating power? Why not have that be the “billboard” to promote their concept?

OK, so roughly 4 years later. Where does this project stand? What is the current status of the locomotive?

Bob,

Take a look at the other thread on this first page of the forum regarding #3463. The court action has been resolved, but I do not understand what is being said in this press release: http://csrail.org/newsroom/

I echo what someone said earlier in this thread, it would be a shame to butcher this locomotive for an unproven experiment. I'll bet the guy who described this plan as "wicked cool' has an old Mercedes-Benz diesel he converted to run on used vegetable oil he gets free from McDonalds and thinks it would be neat to try that on a steam locomotive.

Bear in mind that the other option is to let the locomotive rot to the point of becoming an eyesore at which time the city would take action to remedy the situation. Judging from photos taken at the time CSR became involved with the locomotive, it wasn't too far away from that point.

This is a Santa Fe Hudson type, right? Not too many of those left. Raise some money, buy it and donate it to someplace that will preserve it without trying to make a charcoal fired rotisserie out of it.

Dennis

Sounds simple enough yet why hasn't anyone done that before now? I don't suppose that IRM would be interested in another Hudson?

Not just a Hudson Dennis, but what was dubbed a Super Hudson.
I don't have specs handy, but they were an exceptional locomotive
when compared to others of that type.

The 3450 or 51 class of which one is extant, were more the norm for the type.

Not just any 'Super Hudson' but a design intended to be, for six-coupled locomotives, what the 3768 class was for 4-8-4s. Designed at the 'tag end' of the era when eight-coupled locomotives were assumed to be unsuitable for very-high-speed service, and featuring 84" drivers and relatively short stroke to facilitate that high speed.

Problem was that the steam passages were designed in a way that did not permit full use of the speed "potential" of 84" drivers, and as a result the maximum speed in service of the 3460 class was somewhere in the 102-105mph speed range. By comparison the later 4-8-4s, including the wartime 2900s, could easily run more quickly, and had Wagner bypass valves to make operation at very high speed more stable.

The high-speed situation was possibly similar to that of the C&NW E4 Hudsons, also with 84" drivers, which during AAR testing could not even reach 100mph with the test train. I believe there was a report in Trains Magazine in the early 1980s which indicates an uncomfirmed speed of circa 110mph on a Fast Mail train, but this might have been downgrade with a tailwind; DPM's claim that these locomotives were 'capable of 120mph' was simply science fiction.

Members of the Yahoo steam_tech group have conducted an analysis of the 3460 design with Bill Hall's Perform program and some other tools. These indicate, among other things, that the 3460 design may be capable of developing horsepower at cyclic speed corresponding to 130mph with comparatively simple valve refinements. Whether, even with a Batz lead truck, the locomotive would be stable at that speed on the Fast Loop is an entirely different question.

Conversion to solid fuel is a red herring, and a somewhat stupid one considering that the Ripley Hudsons were explicitly designed to permit conversion to solid fuel if desired. The torrefied "wood" in question is a high-carbon product (>90% C) with ash content comparable with clean-coal fluxing, and (if it follows existing European torrefaction practice) is intended for cofiring with what may be otherwise-unsuitable grades of coal.

My personal opinion, other than 'scientific', is that the locomotive deserves better than to be a jungle gym for Topeka kids, and that the design shortcomings 'as built' ought to be remediated, even for a short time, to demonstrate what the rest of the design was capable of. That does not involve publicity-stunt operation at 130mph, of course, but I would be highly interested to see what can be achieved with a late modern Americal locomotive at high speed (>115mph in increments) and what other modifications become necessary as speeds rise past 120mph.

Is the CSR organization maintaining an active public outreach program? If part of their mission is to educate the public about steam locomotives and their alternate fuels, they could reach an interested portion of the public at minimal expense and effort by putting together a good clinic on the mechanics and function of steam locomotives with a segment on their alternate fuels development programs and campaigning it through the National Model Railroad Association. The NMRA has a larger membership than the NRHS or R&LHS, the members are generally a little younger, and there is considerable interest in the technical details of locomotives and railroad equipment. In addition, the NMRA has numerous regional meetings, is always looking for clinics and speakers for those meetings, and maintains a list of active speakers and programs that they make available to their regions. So that is one ready and available distribution network for their message.

PC

To all of you you need to understand that The Great Overland Station at this time does not own the engine, the City of Topeka holds the bill of sale from ATSF to them and there is not one document that says they gave it to the Station. This project has been dragging on for a long period of time and there has been no real progress made by CSR in developing a solid working model for their fuel concept. To help you understand the issue with the engine and the various groups you have to understand that this whole deal was done under the table and without any public input when it started. There was also money given to Great Overland Station to continue cosmetic work on the locomotive and to be used to help raise more money to relocate it to north Topeka. This money disappeared in such a way that raises more questions about the management of the station group.

CSR is a very hard organization to research and its goals are lofty but so far in the real world has not performed well in bringing those goals to reality. The engine is not in such bad shape that it cant be put back together and a solid cosmetic restoration done on it. It is in a park setting and yes it sits back from the road somewhat hidden but the land around it is mowed and has a nice bike/walking path beside it. You all need to suck it up and realize this is a park engine that needs to stay a park engine and stop pontiffacating about what woulda, couda, or shouda been done. If you look closly at CSR it is a well played scheme that was using grants to fund their pie in the sky concept. The idea of using this type of fuel is great but why would you take a 75+ year old locomotive and try to use it as your test bed? Boiler and burner technology is allread here to make the fuel a reasonable source for power. The rest is just engineering and manufacturing a test bed that meets modern needs not hacking up something from the past and trying to turn a sows ear into a silk purse.

As I understand it, the fate of #3463 will be decided by the City of Topeka and public sentiment with the following options:

1) Restore, maintain, and display #3456 in Topeka according to the original intention by the City and AT&SF.

2) Sell/donate #3463 to the group that has challenged the ownership of the locomotive, and wants to restore, maintain, and display the locomotive in Topeka.

3) Sell/donate #3463 to CSR for whatever purpose they contemplate.

4) Sell/donate #3463 to another entity for some other purpose.

5) Sell #3463 for scrap.

6) Hire a private contractor to securely store the locomotive until a final plan can be executed.

7) Do nothing and let the locomotive stand where it is today.

"As I understand it, the fate of #3463 will be decided by the City of Topeka and public sentiment with the following options:"

There is likely more to it than those options, if I read some of the language in the judge's decision correctly. All that was decided was that of the proofs of "ownership" provided to the Court the only one that was actually substantiated was the one from ATSF to (as I recall) 'the children of Topeka' and not the City.

A very clear provision in that document requires that the locomotive be kept in good condition. That has been egregiously breached over the years, and not just by the GOS foons kicking the dedicated preservationists off the job.

I am interested in seeing if there is actual standing for an adverse-possession suit under Kansas law, including the possibility of an adverse-possession suit by the City of Topeka to acquire a better title explicitly in its name. The decision did indicate that some forms of adverse possession would not apply, but I think (not as a lawyer in Kansas or otherwise) that the language left the door open for more direct proofs of adverse possession for the desired time. An issue I'd like to see decisions or precedents for is whether 'aggregate' adverse possession might allow for transfer or quieting of title if no single provable "possession" by an organization meets the standards.

Having said that (and having gotten the popcorn out in preparation to hear what CSR expects to recover from GOS or whoever for improper representation) I think the City of Topeka is as likely a fair 'arbiter' of what to do with the locomotive, subject to the clear requirement to keep it in good condition at all times, as any other party prior to CSR/SRI's involvement. What I am hoping is that the City would avoid two courses of action -- the first being to act the same way Amarillo has with respect to Madam Queen; the second being to put the engine up for sale to highest bidder without a hard preservation codicil.

I have been told by sources involved with the case that the court decided that the City of Topeka owns #3463, and not CSR, Great Overland Station, or the “Children” group that has been fighting to keep the engine in Topeka. CSR has been making it sound like they were the victor because the claim of ownership by “Children” was invalidated.

The “Children” group still wants to take over the ownership, restoration, and display of the locomotive in Topeka, so I would say that their position has been bolstered by the refutation of the ownership claim by CSR; just as CSR says about the refutation of the ownership claim by the “Children” group. Now it is up to the City to decide whether either of these two competing groups will get the locomotive.

I understand your point about the City breaching the terms of the sale of the locomotive to them by failing to maintain the locomotive. I am not sure why that has apparently been ignored by the court decision.