The construction and debut of 4-4-0 Leviathan is a refreshing and exciting event for those of us who are fond of steam. Add to that the project to build a new 2-6-0 (Lyon), and I wonder: is there a new twist on the oft-repeated topic of "if only someone (fill in the blanks) would build a copy of...".

Let me explain. When steam fans wax nostalgic about having a mythical someone (with equally mythical deep pockets) build a brand new NYC Hudson or Pennsy T1 Duplex, some of the responses I recall hearing are: the U.S. no longer has the infrastructure to do cast frames; parts are no longer available; modern steel for locomotive boiler use has both its fans and detractors, etc.

So now we have someone who built a 4-4-0 in his own shops, and a new 2-6-0 is being built.

So then....practically speaking, what are the limits, sizewise, as to what kind of new steam locomotive could be built in the U.S.? I'm not interested in what is the optimum size to be running these days (such as discussed in Erik Ledbetter's excellent article in Trains magazine a while back) like a 2-6-2 or so; but what, realistically, is the biggest standard gauge steam locomotive that could be reasonably built in the U.S. today?

No, I haven't won the lottery, just curious as to what the more knowledgeable folks here might have to say.

I think the biggest problem with reproducing a more modern locomotive is not just the cubic dollars per volume involved, but the castings. The frames on most modern locomotives were a single large casting, sometimes with the cylinders, saddle, and other parts cast integral with the frame as well. The disc type wheels were also a single casting.

General Steel was the one many builders would turn to for such castings, but they are no longer with us. Few firms nowdays have the skill to make such a large casting without voids and other casting defects. Instead, they do what the 19th century locomotive builders did, and build up parts out of smaller and simplier individual pieces bolted or riveted together.

There is also the matter of more complicated accessories such as feedwater heating systems with their pumps, turbo generators, and cross-compound air brakes. Some of these parts could be robbed from static locomotives; but we are talking a completely new locomotive here.

Finally, at some point, one would "wheel" the locomotive, or set the nearly completed locomotive on it's wheels. In the old days, that would be done with a huge overhead crane; those may be harder to find nowdays. Of course, there may be another method of erecting a locomotive that doesn't call for such heavy lifts.

.

I love how this topic gets so much attention someone brings it up. I'm glad they do because this is probably where the idea will be hatched in someone's mind, who will get with a few other guys, and before you know it, there will be another new steam engine project on the drawing boards.

Not to be critical of any previously posted comments over the years, but we could build a copy of absolutely any locomotive we desire. All the technology is there. Period. We've seen full size cylinders recently cast for an SP 2-8-2 and countless new all-welded boilers have been built (see Texas State RR, SR 401 at Monticello to name a few). If you haven't seen the online documentation of the rebuilding of the Austin Steam Train Assocation's SP 2-8-2 No.786 then you're really missing out on some interesting modern machining at work. They are performing extensive boiler and running gear work, not to mention the new cylinders.

Castings are still being made to this day of much complexity. I've done a lot of online research for various live steam projects and the craft is very much alive and well today albeit it with newer, faster technology. One piece cylinders/frames could be a real task today, but there are plenty of nice medium sized designs that were built with separate one or two-piece cylinders, heavy plate or cast frames with frame spreaders, etc.

The bottom line is always "How will it be paid for?" and "What size/type engine would have the quickest ROI for the group who builds it?". A Pacific or Hudson, in my book, is not too big an engine to build and operate on regional carriers who are receptive. A Mike would have drivers big enough to get over the road at 50 to 60 MPH if necessary and be very comfortable running at 25 to 40 on excursions. They would not be too heavy for most bridges which is probably the single biggest physical real life issue to deal with once you've conquered finding interested host railroads, insurance, operating crews, trainset, etc. With the infrequency of wyes and turntables, the reality is that this engine will spend 1/3 to 1/2 its life quite possibly running in reverse. Andy Mueller's engines had to do that on the Hamburg line over and over and every time JJJ ran a trip on the Panhandle that was the case as well. Same thing at Steamtown. So, this engine should have a trailing truck.

That's all I have to say for now. Now let's get some fresh ideas flowing!

Rob Gardner

I don't know where this idea comes from that the US has lost the ability to manufacture large machines. The ability is still here, it is just located in fewer locations than previously. I have personally worked on molds for grey and ductile iron castings upwards of 100 tons, have seen 10,000 ton forging presses, and machined parts on mills that you could drive your car on the its table. We have not lost any technical ability in this country. If it was done here once it can be done here again.

The question is, can you afford to pay the price to get it done?