Fill me in Bob, what is this engine, who is building it and where?

At the risk of dredging up old arguments, I'll take issue with the above statement. A replica is by definition not "historic." This is especially true of the John Bull replica, where the original still exists.

Replicas are built for one of three reasons — to recreate an original item that no longer exists, to copy an item that is inaccessible (usually geographically), or to allow people to experience an original item without damaging that original. No matter how old a copy may be, it's still a copy and therefore has no intrinsic historic value.

This doesn't just apply to trains. Look at Williamsburg, VA. Most of the buildings there are either reconstructions or structures that have been moved from elsewhere. The purpose of that museum is to provide an overall experience; while the actual history of the buildings is often provided for the sake of honesty and completeness, the point of the place is the context, and the buildings are used. Without that context, there's no interest at all.

A replica locomotive sitting on a panel of track, no matter how old that replica may be, is just a lie. It's like a movie set that looks good from one angle, but when you walk around it there's no back wall.

Rod Crawford and I went to England a while back for the purpose of looking in on the A1 project (and to foam heavily and drink beer). Its principals graciously spent a day with us, and I came to appreciate the logic guiding that effort. While the original impetus for the A1 replica was sentimental enthusiasm to replicate a much-loved extinct design (along the lines of a PRR T-1 or NYC Hudson), the business case for the completion of the replica derived from how it would fit into modern British passenger railroading.

The A1 is one of the few roller-bearing classes of British locomotive, and had availability the surpassed anything else over there during the 1950's. Besides being a sentimental favorite among LNER fans, Peppercorn's design was simple, reliable, powerful and fast. The builders realized that if you wanted an engine that could haul mainline excursions in the 21st Century, this would be a hard design to beat. The goal of the project is to make the engine available to excursion promoters, who can schedule trains that operate in the 60-80 mph range. This will allow the excursions to fit into timetable slots as a medium-speed local train, something that the passenger railroad operators are used to dealing with. The A1 builders feel that the reliability of their engine will be a selling point compared with preserved originals. But its reliability derives from its design, not its age: the A1 was simply a more reliable design than its 1940's competitors.

Obviously we're in a different country here, where locals go 60 mph or more, as opposed to the through trains that go 125. But the point is that the replica was feasible because it could be made to fit into a sensible business plan, although financed primarily by sentimental contributions. It's difficult to imagine what the American equivalent would be.

When we were in Darlington, the organizers were pondering how to construct the boiler to fit into the regulatory hierarchy of the privatized British railway operators and the national regulatory scheme. They expected that the boiler would be built in former east Germany under European Union regulations that the British authorities would accept, and that is evidently what happened, and pretty quickly, too. I can't wait to go back to see the thing in one piece.

folks,

Replicas, reproductions whatever you want to call them just do not have the sex appeal that the real thing has.

The Brits are lucky that the Barry Scrap yard saved over 300 steam engines which gave the preservation community a core of frames and boilers to work with and still call the result an original XXX Class.

there has been a person trying to build a replica of an American Clipper Ship for 20 or more years now and he is just not getting any sponsors for the ever higher cost he needs to do the job.

We faced this problem with the $12 million re-build of the C.A. Thayer here in San Francisco. There is a vast amount of Douglas fir in her hull but she never ceased to exist as an entity and she will continue to exist in a lot better condition than before. She may even be out for a sail in very limited and special conditions.

i hope that some more of the park engines are at least moved indoors to give preservation a second chance at them.

And I hope that the forney elevated locomotive in Cuba gets to come home to the USA.

No, I do not see the need for a main line replica in the USA any time soon.

Ted Miles

Ah, but there is a new movement developing in the land, the simulated historic neighborhood crowd, who are now showing up on commuter rail systems with demands that stations and wayside structures be designed to look compatible with 1890s architecture, authenticity be damned. And they are running the cost of service expansions right through the roof. Maybe just a matter of time before they will demand steam locomotives to pull the trains?

These folks of course don't worry about all the utility poles, traffic lights, street signs, paved highways, and automobiles in the neighborhood, that weren't there during the desired time period they are trying to copy.

MX (Obviously Not My Real Name)

You have to wonder if some of these folks insisting on new old architecture are dedicated to recreating the past or if they have ulterior motives...not that i'm cynical or anything...

As has been pointed out, replica building would be the most feasible with smaller engines, yet the most allure is from the largest, most heroic locomotive icons, but even if the money and intent were available to replicate the top choice of a famous locomotive, the decision of which one to produce could very likely lead to gridlock. Even if one big locomotive could be chosen, it would be very hard to draw the line between using modern methods, materials, and processes versus standing on the principle of adhering to historical authenticity.

Depending on where this line is drawn, it might be very difficult in the end to explain what has been created, especially in the case of replicating the largest locomotive selections. Since such a replica would be expected to do real work, it would be very tempting to go all out to optimize performance issues such as fuel efficiency, low maintenance, crew comfort, maximum power, and low emissions. A quest for an historical replica could instead turn into a modern, technological, steam science project.

With these forces working against true replication of the largest engines, it seems like the effort might more reasonably be expended on smaller engines following a generic prototype. There would be less at stake to require maximizing performance, and less need to justify deviations from a beloved icon for purposes of using modern materials and methods. But this begins to leave the quest for replication behind, and turns into freelance, or custom construction.

Here are links to a project to build a new small locomotive using interesting methods and materials, particularly the boiler. The second link can be accessed through the first one under “Steam Engine- 2006 Progress”

http://www.ncngrrmuseum.org/pb/wp_5031e ... 0457501643

http://www.ncngrrmuseum.org/pb/wp_6d26f ... 1696216244

RTK

I can't go into details, but I know as fact that the Chinese were addressed with building an extinct type of locomotive and this project was backed by someone who thought they had more than enough money to make it happen. But when the quote came back, the cost was staggering. Even with plans, the completed locomotive was quoted in the tens-of-million-dollars range due to tooling and design and molding work that would need to be done. The cost would go down per unit if more were made, just like any product, but that wasn't an option and the project died right there. Accordingly, I laugh whenever I heard the argument of "Just hand the plans of a (inset rare non-running steam engine here) to the Chinese and have them build one!" It just isn't that simple. If it had been, there would have been an earth-shattering development in steam preservation a few years back.

Hi, I've been a lurker for some time but am a first time poster. I understand it would be hard to guess what it would cost to replicate a locomotive, but is their anyone here in the preservation world who could give a "ballpark" of what it might cost to replicate, or at least build an engine that looks like The General or another early 4-4-0? As it is today The General is an oil burner and I believe even had an air pump installed by L&N, when they restored her in the early 60's. I suppose any replicated engine would have the same modern conviences that L&N put on The General.

GENERAL was at the head end of an ammunition train stalled in the jammed Atlanta yards as Sherman approached. The confederates blew up the train - GENERAL included - as the exited towards the south. It was substantially rebuilt (obviously) to go back into service on the W&A during reconstruction, then who knows how many more times before the L&N rebuilt whatever fabric there was behind the nameplate again in 1960-61. I think of it as a new locomotive built in 1960 with some used parts, not even sure the nameplate dates back to 1855.

Replication towards what end? Museums would prefer to interpret legitimate historic fabric, but could replicate to fill in holes in an interpretive collection, or, preserve and interpret the historic materials and techniques used in a previous era by doing everything the "old way" in constructing a replica. Creating wrought iron boilerplate using 1860 tools and recipes would be interesting.

Tourist railroads are more likely to build replicas of specific types of locomotives to get reliable durable power the "right size" for the work they expect them to produce. With due respect to Matt, I disagree about a lack of integrity inherent in replication - provided replicas are not represented as anything other than replicas. They are useful tools that can be used to protect historic fabric while providing our visitors real life experience of an interpretive (and/or entertaining) nature.

A few years ago, we had a bit of a thread about a "modular design" tourist railroad generic steamer made with modern materials and techniques. Perhaps we can revisit it sometime in the future.

dave

I've posted on this at least a couple of times before, and an archives search will turn up more details, so this is a summary...as an example.

About 20 years ago, I was the head of a group of people in Atlanta interested in building replicas of the GENERAL and TEXAS. At the time the National Park Service JUPITER and 119 replicas at Promontory Summit, UT were still relatively new, and we approached O'Connor Engineering (builder of the JUPITER and 119) about building the GENERAL and TEXAS replicas. They were quite interested, and we met with one of their engineers at Kennesaw to look at the GENERAL so he would have a good idea of what we wanted to accomplish. Soon after, we received a quote which in round numbers was right at $1 Million per locomotive, including the necessary engineering, shop drawings, etc. I suppose in today's dollars it would take well over twice that amount to do. Alhough it never got far enough to matter, we were considering using patterns for wheels, domes and such from the JUPITER and 119 to complete the GENERAL and TEXAS, since the 119 was a Rogers Locomotive Co. product like the GENERAL. These would not have been exact replicas...they would have had the outward appearance and exact dimensions of the originals, but we planned on trying to use roller bearings where possible, and they certainly would have been liquid fuel fired rather than wood as original or coal. We were interested in having locomotives that were easily maintained, easy to run and easy to transport (all relatively speaking, of course). Perhaps this was influenced by my time working at Six Flags Over Georgia on the engines there, which were relatively easy to work on and operate. We never finalized the appearance of the GENERAL...3-dome as originally built or 2-dome as it exists today...or of the TEXAS...small drivers as it has now or larger diameter as originally built. There were many details of the same nature that would have to have been made before the engineering work could begin.

As a current example of park locomotives, see this link.

http://www.severn-lambuk.com/rail_intro.htm

Severn-Lamb produces a 36-inch gauge locomotive in live steam that is in the neighborhood of $1 Million.

.

Greetings:
p51 is quite correct. The economies of Chinese steam locomotives lie in standardized desisigns, mass production and standardized repairs/rebuilding on a mileage (rather than wear) basis. Anything not in production is nearly as expensive as in the West.
Wages are low, but in heavy industry especially, housing, medical costs, education, pensions, etc. are provided by the employer and therefor figured into the cost of doing business.
Also, in my experience, the factories, the labor force and the entire industrial mind set is geared to making multiples, not "one offs".
J.David

I like that Texan park locomotive with the diesel-hydraulic drive! Wonder if they could build it as a diesel-electric?

MX

Dave and Stephen: Thanks for the information. As far as to what end the locomotive would be constructed and used, I was thinking about a modern steam locomotive built using modern technology that merely looked liked what the General does now or 150 years ago. Easy to operate, low mantience, very reliable, etc... The history buff in me would just love to see an engine that LOOKS that old pulling a few wooden coaches over the line TVRM uses especially during the Chickamauga re-enactments. That reminds me.... I should probably buy some more lottery tickets.