| Railway Preservation News https://www.rypn.org/forums/ |
|
| New locomotive thought https://www.rypn.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6432 |
Page 1 of 3 |
| Author: | Alan Levy [ Mon Jul 28, 2003 3:55 pm ] |
| Post subject: | New locomotive thought |
The thread below about a new K4 gave me a thought. Over in the UK they are building from scratch a new class A-4 4-6-2, the "Tornado" as none of that class survived. If we were to build a new locomotive here in the states what would it be? It's not my favorite, but I think an NYC Hudson would win. Any thoughts??? -Alan Levy AlanL759@aol.com |
|
| Author: | dave [ Mon Jul 28, 2003 4:10 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: New locomotive thought |
I think it depends on what you are building a locomotive to do. Something like a mid size 2-6-2 would be a good tourist line or museum engine, using the patterns and dies that made Jupiter and 119 you could build GENERAL and TEXAS replicas and recreate the Andrews Raid.........If we are investing in tooling and patterns, I would like to see more than one iteration built. Dave irondave@bellsouth.net |
|
| Author: | L Beckman [ Mon Jul 28, 2003 5:22 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: New locomotive thought/best for museums, etc.? |
> I think it depends on what you are building > a locomotive to do. Something like a mid > size 2-6-2 would be a good tourist line or > museum engine, using the patterns and dies > that made Jupiter and 119 you could build > GENERAL and TEXAS replicas and recreate the > Andrews Raid.........If we are investing in > tooling and patterns, I would like to see > more than one iteration built. > Dave Dave: You bring up a good point. IF the rail preservation movement (museums and tourist railroads) were to BUILD new steam to last for the next 100 years and to preserve the historic locomotives now preserved, what would be best? I agree with your suggestion of a 2-6-2 Prairie type. Why? Well, the six drivers would be adequate power for nearly all mustuem and tourist trains currently running. And leading and trailing wheels would best lead such an engine into curves. The modest size of such an engine, would also mean moderate costs to operate. Costs of a new engine (even a 2-6-2) would be astonomical however. UNLESS, a number of operations went into it together. Let's say ten museums/tourist operations would agree upon one style of locomotive. Hopefully, the total cost of the ten would bring the cost of each locomotive down appreciably. But what about the fact that we then have ten locomotives running on ten different operations all of which are the same? Well lets take a look at some possible designs candidates. The 2-6-2 Prairies that worked for the various "Granger" railroads (Chicago Great Western; Burlington; Milwaukee Road; Wabash; Soo Line; Northern Pacific, etc.) were all designed and built around the turn of the Century (the LAST century.) All of these locomotives experienced many changes over the years.) The 10 basic locomotive would be built to the same original design, but each of the receiving museums/tourist lines, could specify HOW they wanted the locomotive to appear. Of course this is all a pipedream. It will never happen. But if we are asking for what kind of steam locomotive would we WANT to see built, like you Dave, I believe a modest size 2-6-2 makes much more sense that a New York Central J-1 class 4-6-4 or a Pennsy T-1 4-4-4-4 or Burlington 4-8-2 or a Santa Fe 2-8-4 or a Erie K-4 Pacific or what have you, as much as I would like to see ANY of those engines built! Les Beckman (Hoosier Valley Railroad Museum/North Judson, Indiana) midlandblb@cs.com |
|
| Author: | Kevin [ Mon Jul 28, 2003 7:22 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: New locomotive thought/best for museums, etc.? |
> Dave: You bring up a good point. IF the rail > preservation movement (museums and tourist > railroads) were to BUILD new steam to last > for the next 100 years and to preserve the > historic locomotives now preserved, what > would be best? I agree with your suggestion > of a 2-6-2 Prairie type. Why? Well, the six > drivers would be adequate power for nearly > all mustuem and tourist trains currently > running. And leading and trailing wheels > would best lead such an engine into curves. > The modest size of such an engine, would > also mean moderate costs to operate. Costs > of a new engine (even a 2-6-2) would be > astonomical however. UNLESS, a number of > operations went into it together. Let's say > ten museums/tourist operations would agree > upon one style of locomotive. Hopefully, the > total cost of the ten would bring the cost > of each locomotive down appreciably. But > what about the fact that we then have ten > locomotives running on ten different > operations all of which are the same? Well > lets take a look at some possible designs > candidates. The 2-6-2 Prairies that worked > for the various "Granger" > railroads (Chicago Great Western; > Burlington; Milwaukee Road; Wabash; Soo > Line; Northern Pacific, etc.) were all > designed and built around the turn of the > Century (the LAST century.) All of these > locomotives experienced many changes over > the years.) The 10 basic locomotive would be > built to the same original design, but each > of the receiving museums/tourist lines, > could specify HOW they wanted the locomotive > to appear. > Of course this is all a pipedream. It will > never happen. But if we are asking for what > kind of steam locomotive would we WANT to > see built, like you Dave, I believe a modest > size 2-6-2 makes much more sense that a New > York Central J-1 class 4-6-4 or a Pennsy T-1 > 4-4-4-4 or Burlington 4-8-2 or a Santa Fe > 2-8-4 or a Erie K-4 Pacific or what have > you, as much as I would like to see ANY of > those engines built! > Les Beckman (Hoosier Valley Railroad > Museum/North Judson, Indiana) Les I would have to agree that a small or medium sized engine would make the most sense to reproduce. However I do not think that the 2-6-2 would be the idea choice. IMHO the most logical design would be that of the USRA. They were all near identical to start with but most railroads added their own little touches to make them distinctive. The wheel arrangements that come to mind when you think of a tourist/museum operation is the 4-6-2 or light 2-8-2. That would make the most sense nation wide for everyone to agree on as they would be equally suited pulling up a stiff grade or coasting along at water level. Now of course this is all a pipe dream but if you look back just 14 years ago 4 railroads did all come together and buy identical engines. The Chinese 2-8-2s are a good example that modern steam can be built as long as you have people that can come together to make it happen. Anything is possible so never say never. Kevin wok3002@aol.com |
|
| Author: | dave [ Tue Jul 29, 2003 7:54 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: New locomotive thought/best for museums, etc.? |
OK Kevin - how about we use the same boiler and cylinder saddle to create a light 4-6-2 and 2-8-2? Altering the frame and running gear would be necessary, but the valve gear could be identical if the main driver centers were spaced the same distance back from the cylinders. SLM was offering a 2-10-0 built with their vastly improved technology a decade ago, and agreed it could be produced as a 2-8-2 for Colorado narrow gage use by simply changing the rear part of the frame and suspension. Dave irondave@bellsouth.net |
|
| Author: | Matt Conrad [ Tue Jul 29, 2003 9:10 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: New locomotive thought |
> The thread below about a new K4 gave me a > thought. > Over in the UK they are building from > scratch a new class A-4 4-6-2, the > "Tornado" as none of that class > survived. > If we were to build a new locomotive here in > the states what would it be? It's not my > favorite, but I think an NYC Hudson would > win. > Any thoughts??? Given that everybody agrees this is a pipe dream, the discussion about a 2-6-2 seems a little silly to me. If we agree it's a pipe dream, why keep it practical? Go ahead and dream about mainline engines! My personal favorite is the PRR T-1, even though it was a slippery bear of an engine. Let's face it, the T-1 just looked SEXY! As to the pipe dream... is it really? What about the ten-wheeler Strasburg is building? What about the Promontory replicas? Are these not new steam engines? The fact is that new steamers DO get built periodically. The South Carolina Railroad Museum mconrad@compuzone.net |
|
| Author: | Phil Mulligan [ Tue Jul 29, 2003 9:47 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: New locomotive thought |
Means, motive and opportunity. Applying those I'd say if a new locomotive gets built it may well be a reproduction PRR D16sb. Electric City Trolley Museum Association |
|
| Author: | Mark S. Bassett [ Tue Jul 29, 2003 2:41 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Uintah 2-6-6-2 |
How about the Uintah 2-6-6-2? It could be built, the wooden boat crowd builds replicas all of the time. Mark Nevada Northern Railway Museum nnry1@mwpower.net |
|
| Author: | Ted Miles [ Wed Jul 30, 2003 10:44 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: New locomotive thought |
Alan, I think that it would depend on what part of the country you hail from. I am from New York, but I would go for something from the PRR Someone from down that way would want to do a Southern engine and some one else from out here in the West might want a Union Pacific product. I like the Narrow gauge so I could see doing a 4-4-0 from the D&RG of about 1880. As witness the A-1 Tornado it is taking years to build it. So think small; but not a model. and then you might have a place to run it after you win the lottery! ted_miles@nps.gov |
|
| Author: | G. Mark Ray - TVRM [ Thu Aug 28, 2003 7:05 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: New locomotive thought/best for museums, etc.? |
Oh, sounds like a concept from the Standard Railroad of the World.... Tennessee Valley Railroad Museum aw90@comcast.net |
|
| Author: | dave [ Thu Aug 28, 2003 7:55 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: New locomotive thought/best for museums, etc.? |
> Oh, sounds like a concept from the Standard > Railroad of the World.... All the rest were DeLuxe..... dave irondave@bellsouth.net |
|
| Author: | G. Jenista [ Fri Aug 29, 2003 9:38 am ] |
| Post subject: | New locomotive thought/best for museums, etc.? |
More feasible to me would be the importation of available foreign steam [China, Sweden, et al] and "Americanizing" it (including FRA 230 requirements). hi_plain@yahoo.com |
|
| Author: | Phil Mulligan [ Fri Aug 29, 2003 2:32 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: New locomotive thought/best for museums, etc.? |
Since we're speculating and since we're historians, how about the USRA light 2-8-2 and 4-6-2? In 1918 they addressed a similar challenge and the reply was so well designed it was replicated through the next decade. Electric City Trolley Museum Association |
|
| Author: | Steve Gilbert [ Fri Aug 29, 2003 6:11 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Since we're doing this . . . |
> If we were to build a new locomotive here in > the states what would it be? > -Alan Levy Since this topic is up and running again, have there been any recent advances in metallurgy that would apply to boiler tubes? Put simply: be able to withstand being consumed by the boiling of water. |
|
| Author: | Pkurilecz [ Fri Aug 29, 2003 6:24 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Since we're doing this . . . |
> Since this topic is up and running again, > have there been any recent advances in > metallurgy that would apply to boiler tubes? > Put simply: be able to withstand being > consumed by the boiling of water. Put simply: The main cause of wear on flues is due to oxidation on the fireside due to excess air and pitting on the water side due to poor water chemistry management. Despite what we think, flues are a wear item on boilers. Cheers; PKurilecz UK Heritage Railways |
|
| Page 1 of 3 | All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|