Something has accurred to me recently. It may not be feasible, but other here might be interested, and have something to say. Hear me out.

Lets say that you are a museum or tourist operation who wishes to show visitors/ volunteers what, if only for a bit, firing a locomotive CAN be like. I know, I know, how can you have virtual a fire, etc, how do you create a feeling like your really there.... here's where I have some ideas.

There are more than a couple of tenders, aux or not, that have survived while their matching locomotives have not. Lets say, hypothetically, a museum acquires a former tender, say a Vandy tender from the GTW, and decides to creat a virtual display with it. Say, for instance, someone with a CN #6400 or a GTW #6300-series loco allows said museum to copy or replicate everything of said locomotive from the cab back, including trailing truck (yes, draw bar, etc.)

If, say, the tender and cab/trailing truck were mounted to an exterior wall, say "Going into a tunnel" , and the side windows on the engineer and fireman sides were green screened, along with the windows looking out the front and down the boiler, could it be feasible to create a situation like riding in the cab? Is there some way, adding another step, that someone could "fire" the locomotive with a virtual stoker or fire, with the gauges activating, dropping, etc, with smoke changes out the windows that would have to be paid attention? Maybe even a motion sensor for grade changes/ track conditions? From the exterior, it would look like its tied into the tender --- get my drift?

My thought on using he GTW cabs (besides that I'm a HUGE GTW fan) is that the all-weather cabs could give you a better sense of reality, since you basically completely enclosed. In addition, footage taken down the cab of, say, #6325 could play on all sides, and maybe even in the fire box. I'm not saying its perfect, but do you think could it give the neophyte visitor/ volunteer a better sense of what it takes to fire a loco? I know, heat, sound, the sinking feeling you get when your pressure gauge starts dropping or your water glass goes blank, might not be as easy, but is it a real enough possibility that you could do it?

My crazy idea for the day......

TJ Gaffey

Steamtown has some fake backheads somewhat like you describe, but without a tender attached. My problem with this idea is not against the plan itself, but of allocation of scarce resources that could be used to upgrade the condition of an actual GTW engine like the 5632, 5030 or one of the 0-8-0s. But with that done, and the locomotive in a safer place, why couldn't some of these sound effects and other electronics be implanted into a complete, cosmetically restored locomotive? With air from a stationary compressor, you could ring the bell and work the brakes, firedoor, etc.. Then there's the idea of actually making it move back and forth from another power source, as the Franklin Institute does with the 60000. The latter power source might be a hydraulic piston (very limited movement, though), a GE 25-tonner, or a battery-powered diesel truck, etc.. The electronics could probably be upscaled versions of what the HO people already use, and I'll bet people would stand in line for cab rides, just as they have at the Franklin Institute since 1933. But first, lets stop these sad cadavers from rusting, getting underneath to polish and grease journals, cleaning out smokeboxes, fireboxes, ashpans and tenders, and getting them under decent shelter.

I don't think there is an easy way to simulate firing with just a static mock up. There are way too many variables- engineer, coal type, water type, condition of ash buildup in fire, fire thickness, placement of coal, draft, length of train, grade- to make a satisfactory simulation. I think either a computer sim or actually sitting in a fired up locomotive will show somebody what firing is really like.

From a technological standpoint, since the software already exists in modern simulators on the braking and right's of way, it might be easier to simulate an "engineer's scenario. Such an experience might successfully reach out to the video game game generation and gain us a few recruits. Speaking from experience gained in my mis-spent youth, I think a simulator of hand-firing a 2-8-2, 2-8-0, or 4-6-2 might be a hard sell. Give'em a taste of the glory in order to drag them into the grunt work of fund raising, rust chipping, and administrating.

That’s a great idea, one I wish would be done. I can’t count the number of airplane museums I’ve been to that have flight simulators folks play with. I fail to see why this can’t be done with a simple backhead/cab/tender front mockup. Build the darned thing out of wood with sheet metal covering. It’s the controls people are gonna pay attention to anyway. Have a computer screen showing how to do basic functions, such as injectors, water level, fuel (easier to call it an oil-fired engine, I’d think). I don’t think motion simulation would be that important, but a simple forward projection screen would be great for showing the view from the cab. You’d have to signal for all grade crossings or a vehicle would pull out in front of the engine at the last minute. Things like that. Operate by the signals or you’d have a cornfield meet… Drop the water over the crown sheet, and the screen tells both people that they’re now dead along with some of the passengers on the train. Then have the screen show them some photos of post-boiler explosion photos to drive the point home (maybe this might be a little harsh as it might scare people away form steam engines in the future?)…

There's more to teaching someone how to fire an engine than meets the eye. Safety items related to boiler operation and railroad operations are of paramount importance, and this can not be stressed enough. But at the same turn, you don't want to dicourage the younger generation off by using scare tatics either. The thing I always had trouble conveying was that somewhat ethereal connection you have with an engine, either while sitting at the throttle or firing. Those of us who run and fire engines know this feeling and everyone I've talked to about it can't quite describe it. I don't know if it's an aquired "skill" or it's just something we're born with as steam people, but there's that oneness you develop somehow with the machine in your charge. I've had times with a trainee where I let him struggle a bit within the bounds of safety, and let him go to a point where he' really sweating trying to figure the old girl out. The you say "here, let me see that scoop for a minute" and within a few minutes everything is just honky dory. I don't know how anyone can teach or explain this little neuance of our world of the bounceing footplate, but I'm sure it can't be done in a simulator. Any thoughts?

I whole heartedly agree. If by suggesting looking into this scenario I somehow suggested that I thought that teaching or learning the firing of a locomotive was unimportant, I'm sorry. My idea is to do exactly the opposite --- to show people WHY it is so important to correctly fire, and why its not something you can just learn overnight, and that it takes several years of skill and knowledge of many different variables and how they effect the locomotive to be a truly qualified fireman.



Point taken Bob, and maybe that would be the better way to go, but it isn't always feasible. I was thinking of quite a few museums out there that don't have the ability to get a 4-8-4, 4-6-2, and the like, in part becuase the parties that do have them aren't willing to transfer them, via purchase or otherwise. In at least 2 of the cases you mentioned (and not knowing if any civic-minded individuals from those citites read, I will leave the specifics out), the locos are owned by city groups who, even though it has been offered and pointed out to them that the best thing for long term preservation may be to move the locos elsewhere and under cover, you battle politics at every turn, and so they sit there and rust.

It was only a suggestion. Anything out there that can give the average person a volunteer even a HINT of what its like to be in an actual locomotive, especially in these times of high liability insurance premiums, is a plus in my book.

TJG

Everyone,

I don't know if it is still there, but back in 1979 at the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago, I remember that they had a cab mounted to the wall with a projector hooked up to it .

I thought that was kind of cool to look out the window at the projection down the track.

There is enough technology to make a simulator, but I don't know if it would cost more to build than the members it brings in.

I have the deepest respect for all of the vollunteers who help out these young kids to give them a taste of the "Old Days". We need to encourage our young people every way we can so that they can carry on after we are gone.

I am certainly thankful to all the help I received when I was learning to fire a locomotive. Each locomotive is different and it takes time to learn the quirks on each.

Take Care,

JD Johnson, Morehead and North Fork Railroad Historian

Having been fortunate enough to participate in a "engineer for the day" in the cab of a full-size, live steam 2-10-0 in Wales, I do not know how you would begin to simulate that experience. Especially the first time the firebox door is opened and the fireman/instructor says "throw the coal in that spot on the grate over there." Or he throws a plastic bag of trash in the firebox and it just vaporizes before your eyes.

Wesley

I think we’d all agree that flight simulators on computers and at most aviation museums are lacking a lot (most don’t have rudder controls for example and none simulate weather effects). Just because it simplifies things doesn’t mean the spirit of the experience can’t be captured. So few folks have any idea what it takes to run a locomotive. I feel that most museums and tourist RRs are missing a prime opportunity to show what an “art” there really is to firing a locomotive. Most people think the fireman is just an assistant to the engineer!

I think this reallywould be a simple thing to do. MS train Simulator already has computer simulations that teach both steam and deisel operations with in a reasonable relem of accuracy. Granted both aren't the real thing and even the novic railfan can pick that out. But the first time visitor to a railroad museum could learn them in about 15 minutes or so and that's the idea. If the Train Sim. graphics could be adapted to show the view out of each side of the locomotive at the same time with a veiw backwards of a 4 car passenger train, and little johnny gets the chance to take the it down the track maybe he'll remmember you when he gets his first car and is looking for something to do.
Or when that Class one engineer comes in and try's it out and says, wow these steam enginees are really neat I wish I had one, and you can hand him your voulenteering info....

I agree for training purposes that these nuances would be extremely hard to teach in a simulator; they're often difficult to convey using the real thing. There are so many variables that the same solution to a firing problem will not get the same results each time due to other variables that may be slightly different. One of the first things I teach my students is that you really can't schmooze a steam locomotive. All firemen at one time or another(myself included) have tried to "will" the steam pressure to rise, saying mentally " Come on, cooooommmmmee ooooonnnnn!!!!! after falling behind and hoping that your solution is the correct one. I try to convey that the locomtives will send you all kinds of hints and signals of what it neeeds to steam properly, and the firman's job is to read those hints and signals correctly to achieve the desired results. I wrote an article on some of these issues which is on the 261 website at: http://www.261.com/firing.html if anyone is interested.


For the museum experience, the things a simulator would fall short on would be the heat of the fiebox, the smells of this "living, breathing" creature that you are working with, and the issues of balance such as when you are trying to hit a certain spot with coal 10 feet into the firebox on the right, while maintaining your balance on the footplate going down some rough trackage at speed.

Ed Selinsky

I'm of two minds on this question. Part of me says-yes- anything reasonable we can come up with to encourage the uninitiated to come take a look at this "thing" called steam railroading(especially the youngsters) we should do as Lord knows we need all the new blood we can get. With todays technology there's little doubt that it could be done and probably at a price enough institutions could afford to make it worth doing.
Part of me says that no simulization can achieve the "feel" one needs to have to be any good at firing(or running for that matter)-some have it and some never will. With all the guest engineers I've had on my various locos. over the years you'd be amazed at how many "old-timers" I've had who had years of full time steam running who weren't worth a "tinkers-damn", and I'm sure were just as bad when they were on the road full time. You can tell in a very few minutes after a man sits down in the right hand seat if he has "it" or not. Some do-some don't!
One of the main objectives of the 1985 American Coal Enterprises month long program in W.Va. was to exposure the computer soft wear programers(writers) to exactlly what was entailed in firing a mainline steam loco. under all the variables that occur in the real world- so that they could write the program to permit the ACE3000 to perform reliably with a computer "fireman". Needless to say they learned a lot, and felt that their program would have successfully met all the variables. Maybe so-but I always like knowing I've got a "good 'ole boy" up there who knows how to keep her hot no matter what! Guess I'm just too old for all those computer tricks!
Ross Rowland

So you're saying that since someone who wants to know what it's like has to dedicate years just to find out?
Flight simulators are used all the time to convey how it's like to fly a plane before to a person who will never get a pilot's license. What's the difference here? I'm sure few would suggest that a flight simulator that doesn't move has to be more robbing of motion than a cab simulator, yet folks use them all the time. So I am to assume that those of you who fire steam engines are saying that people who just want a basic idea of what something is like have to do it for real or not at all?
Seems kinda selfish in way to me...

I reread my posting several times to see how it could be interpreted that way, but I'm having difficulty seeing it. I was expressing my opinion that it would be difficult to simulate those particular experiences in a simulator

Flight simulators are used all the time to convey how it's like to fly a plane before to a person who will never get a pilot's license. What's the difference here? I'm sure few would suggest that a flight simulator that doesn't move has to be more robbing of motion than a cab simulator, yet folks use them all the time.
I agree

So I am to assume that those of you who fire steam engines are saying that people who just want a basic idea of what something is like have to do it for real or not at all?

No you are not to assume that, at least from my comments. I was simply pointing out some parts of the experience that would be missing, just as you did in pointing out the differences between a flight simulator and the real thing. This is all part of the exchange of ideas in the preservation of our railroad history. and where do we want to allocate our resources. Our crews do what we can to share that experience with the resources that we have. Long hours are spent givings cab tours with explanations of the cab interiors and the roles of the engineer and fireman when the 261 is on display. Other museums run "Fireman or Engineer for an Hour" programs to get a basic idea of the firing or engineering experience.