Hi,
A long time ago (mid-late 1970's I think) Model Railroader published some general plans for this proposed locomotive. It was later revised to use off-the-shelf cabs and hoods from something like a GP or SD unit.
Does anyone know where I might find either the original or revised plans? I know nothing has come of the design recently, but I was thinking of an HO scale model.
Thanks.
DOug

I don't know Doug. Seems to me there is enough room to work out the proposed technology on a large scale live steamer, but trying to miniaturize, for example, the GPCS in HO would require miniaturizing the fire first, and probably you would reach the point of impracticality about 7.5" gage or thereabouts. Wouldn't the sensors and control devices not be too large as well? Interesting concept, but might want to think bigger. Did you read the article on Hugh's pages about the live steamer who retrofit the Lempor exhaust?

dave

My records indicate the original plans were in June 1982 Model Railroader. These are the only ones I've seen.

My memory says it was the summer of '81 that the drawings appeared in MR. Someone else posted '82, so I could be wrong about that. A few years later, a photo of an HO model appeared in Trackside Photos, but I don't remember when that was.

The ACE's running gear would be extremely challenging to build in any scale, as you'd have to pretty much start from scratch -- no adapting existing models, as nothing's even close. IIRC there was a weird inside set of rods between the second and third drivers to improve the reciprocating balance (or so I assume -- Ross?). It was called a 4-8-2 type but looked more like a 4-4-4-2 with the rear engine facing backwards.

Even though I was just a kid at the time, I thought the design could have used a few tweaks. To my young, uneducated mind, the main disadvantage seemed to be that you had the power of only one loco in the space of two. Looking back and from the outside looking in, I'd probably have found space for a turbine driving traction motors on the pony, trailing and tender (I point-blank refuse to call it a "support unit") trucks so you'd get the starting TE of a diseasle and the high-speed power of a reciprocating steamer. For balancing, I'd have gone with three drive axles and linked the front two on one side and the rear two on the other instead of messing with those inside rods. I keep meaning to build a solenoid-powered model of an 0-3-0 monorail steamer to this design just for kicks to see if it would acutally work (see the Malawar Monorail in the Toytopia section of my website, http://www.scrmcurator.com).

I believe that the gentleman who was behind the project is a regular participant here. I would welcome some of his comments on the design.

GME

I wasn't think of a true steam fired locomotive, just the HO style facsimilies that most N and HO and O scale models are. I'd love to try a 15" gauge loco, but being a machinist isn't my ball of wax.

If I'd try a 7.5" gauge facsimile, I'd probably take 2 standard 0-4-0s and modify them into looking similar to the Ace 3000 with the superstructure but keep it old-fassioned steam in reality. Heck look at the Armored steamers Nazi Germany used in WWII.

As I recall, the inner linking of the 3rd and 4th drivers with rods also was to help balance and reduce the dynamic imbalances inherent in the traditional steamer construction.

Another comment, I understand and feel very comfortable with electronics. Maube make it look lke a steamer but drive it with electric motor(s). If I was feeling real wild, I'd make a boiler and have a stationary engine turning a generator to make electricity for the traction motos on the drivers ..... a steam-electric ?????!!!!!

Anyway, I am looking into what might have been-what might be on railroads with an HO scale model. Of course the PRR Q2 4-4-6-4 was a possible growth route for steam also.

Thanks.

Doug

Ross Rowland was involved in the ACE project back in the '80s. They did a really nice two part show on it on RFD-TV several years ago. Now when I tried to find results of that test, an internet search showed that somewhere in South America, they were still doing some testing late in the '90s.
A query I posted here a long time ago got a response that the test showed that steam just isn't very efficient. I seem to recall that the test showed efficiencies around 8-10%. Not good at all. But as you stated, Ross does post here so maybe he can supply better data than my memory can supply.

Later!
Mr. Ed

A scan of the plans from Model Railroader (used with permission) plus lots of other info on the ACE project can be found on my webpage at:

http://www.trainweb.org/tusp/ult.html

Thanks Hugh, That is a very interesting web site.
Doug

For those interested in the ACE3000 story I'd highly recommend Hugh Odoms excellent site linked in the above post.
The ACE team was led by the late Dante Porta and consisted of many of the worlds leading steam design engineers still alive at that time including several senior design men retired from Lima Locomotive and the Timken Co. The running gear was designed to minimize dynamic augment(pounding on the track bed) and was designed for an optimal running speed of 60mph,with a maximum speed of 80mph. In computer simulization tests the ACE3000 was gentler on the track structure than the then state of the art diesel-electrics.
Please check out the Trainweb site,it does a good job of telling the ACE story.
Ross Rowland

Is there any progress being made, or any cohesion to the remaining group members?

Thanks,
Adam

The development of the steam locomotive (ACE type and more traditional) never stopped.

To discover more you can look at Hugh's site at http://www.trainweb.org/tusp/index.html

And my own at http://www.martynbane.co.uk/

And as an example of what is going on right now check out the Mount Washington Cog and/or the Grand Canyon Railway not to mention the work detailed in this thread: http://rypn.sunserver.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=21152


Happy reading! It's a HUGE subject......

Marty is correct in that the quest to come up with a commercially viable solid fueled steam loco. has never ceased and in my opinion will eventually succeed as the raw economics of the tremendous cost per btu advantage that coal enjoys vs. oil will compel it. When we had the BN as a partner in the ACE project THEY did an exhaustive cost analysis of the ACE3000 vs. the then state of the art diesel/electrics using as a cost basis 80 cent/gallon #2 diesel fuel vs. $40/ton 12,000 btu eastern coal and when ALL the life cycle costs were included the ACE3000 gave the owner a return on investment 300% GREATER than the diesels!
You'd then ask why on earth didn't they go ahead with the other partner CSX and put up the $50 million to fund the building of the prototype? The principal reason is that on the eve of signing the agreement the world price of oil went from $32/barrel to $9/barrel and #2 diesel went from $1.25/gallon to 35cents/gallon and all urgency to create an alternative loco. vanished.
I tried in vain to argue the long term viewpoint but with all the decision makers bonuses being based on the price of thier common stock(and that price heavily influenced by projections of next quarters earnings), my arguments fell on deaf ears.
In USA terms the effort today will be substantially more challenging(despit the btu advantage having widened even more,now about 10:1 vs. 6:1 in 1985) due to the much tougher EPA regs. Not impossible but MUCH tougher!!
Someday solid fuel will return to the rr's. It's only a matter of when not if!
Ross Roweland

Hi,

I just found this about La Potra's proposed 2-10-2 on the Train Wire.

http://www.trains.com/trn/default.aspx?c=a&id=694

Who knows, steam may not yet be dead.

Doug

Doug,

Unfortunately, the article is not visible to those of us who aren't Trains subscribers.

BTW, the 2-10-2's are not proposed but existing locomotives. What is proposed is to reverse their partial "de-modernization" and eventually modify them to an even more advanced state.