The A1 Steam Locomotive Trust, the group that's building a new Peppercorn A-1 4-6-2 named "Tornado". lit a fire in the boiler yesterday for the first time in preparation for test steaming on Friday January 11, 2008.

http://www.a1steam.com/update.html

They still have some items to finish but it looks like they're finally in the home stretch and will be ready to operate this summer.

Maybe ONE of these days we'll do something this cool on this side of the pond...

...yes, a new milestone in preservation. Kudos to our comrads in the U.K.!

My vote for Hugh's cool project would be a New York Central Niagara.

Duplicate it, top dress with a triple lempor and see if you could push it beyond 5000 drawbar horsepower. The finishing touch would be to demonstrate scooping water at 80 MPH.

....in my dreams.

Regards,

Randy Musselman

Sweet!

Looks like they've spent a little more than $3mil USD. But they've got a place and a plan to operate. Can't wait for the Youtube videos..

Mark

They went over budget. No surprise nor
am I slagging them. I think they thought
3 years in the beginning. Probably 18 by
now.
They fully admit if they started today it
would cost a good deal more and many
original suppliers are gone. Boiler had
to come from abroad too.
A brit engine is quite different than
a later American one.
It has been a praiseworth effort but
to do it here, well, unlikely.
They are still 1.5 mil USD in the hole.

I believe the only significant difference in a "modern" U.S. locomotive would be the use of a cast bed frame. From all indications, the skill/technology to do this doesn't exist anywhere in the world today. OTOH, I'm sure an acceptable substitute would be an all-welded steel fabrication.

I think if I did have the money to build a new steamer here, I wouldn't try to reproduce a Niagara or a T-1 (or my personal favorite an ACL R-1). I'd build a modern, small 2-6-2 suitable for branchline tourist service. I base this on the article in Trains a couple of years back that said x-6-x engines were preferred by the vast majority of tourist lines here. Use welded construction wherever possible, incorporate all reasonable Porta/Wardale refinements, sealed roller bearings, etc.

A locomotive like this could be put to good use and would be a good candidate for mass production. It would reduce operation costs significantly and allow historical steamers to be conserved for occasional operation.

Most of us think in terms of what it would cost to build such a loco. Your suggestion for a smaller prototype is certainly more do-able than some pie in the sky dreams. But to do as you suggest would involve considerable design work and DOLLARS. That is before the first weld is made, you might reasonably expect to invest multiples of the $100K baseline cost.

Interestingly, two replicas that I know of are being produced in the USA, the Leviathan and the Lyon, more or less both in production. Yes much smaller, and much older originals, but being done nevertheless.

Bob Kutella

It would be interesting don't you think, to build that 2-6-2 with all the modern refinements, but keeping all the classic lines/looks of an original and operate it on a tourist line on a day to day basis to see what the cost difference would be in maintenance and fuel as opposed to something designed and built in, say 1920. I wonder if the savings would be substantial enough to justify the build cost.
I guess you would also have to factor in (somehow) the saving of historic "fabric" of the machine it substitutes for...
HHhmmm....Dave

As the perpretrator of the referenced article, maybe I should add a qualifier here.

What Jim Wrinn (editor) and I (author) were really trying to point out in that piece is that for steam to be economically sustainable, it has to be very well matched to the actual conditions of service. In tourist service this generally means frequent short turns with relatively light consists; call it 450 to 500 trailing tons. The ideal engine will be the smallest that can do the job WITHOUT excess wear and tear--i.e., that can handle the regular train while working at no more than, say, 80% of rated capacity. On most operations that will mean a modest sized engine of perhaps 25,000 to 30,000 pounds tractive effort.

So, don't put too much emphasis on the six-coupled part; that was something of a rhetorical gambit. The real point is the engine should be appropriate to the service required--no less (or you're working it to hard and maintence costs will soar), and not much more (or you're spending money in fuel and maintenance on a capability you do not need or use).

As a generic tourist engine a 2-6-2 might be good, but a light 2-8-2 might also be good. Many experienced operators say their ideal tourist loco is actually neither--it's a CP G-5 Pacific.

As for Lempor and Porta improvements, for many operators they may not make economic sense, as maintenance is a much more important driver of overall operating cost than is themodynamic efficiency. Total operating cost may be lowest simply by getting the smallest, simplest engine that will pull your train while operating at no more than 80% or 70% of rated capacity. Keep it simple, load it lightly, and stay ahead on maintenance--that's the ticket.

Erik,

Thanks for the clarifications on your article. I understand and totally agree with you on the maintenance aspects, that's why I said "reasonable" improvements. OTOH "appropriate" might be a better word.

I'm thinking if an effort to design and build such a locomotive was undertaken here, we'd need to pick a design that would be useful to the greatest number of tourist railways. A low axle load x-6-x would be good for ~30,000 pounds of tractive effort so I think it would be suitable for the vast majority of applications. The application of appropriate improvements would give such an engine horsepower comparable to a classic x-8-x (or more).

I'm absolutely thinking this engine would be "classic steam" in appearance.

On the subject of appropriate improvements, it doesn't cost a dime more to maintain a well-designed Lempor exhaust system, streamlined steam passages, or amply sized valve chests, than "standard" items on a ~1920 steamer. Incorporating Porta's work on water treatment and lubrication should greatly reduce maintenance in those areas. Some potential additions, such as feedwater heaters, combustion air pre-heating, etc., would need to be based on the needs of the railroad. Of course, the same design philosophies used to minimize the maintenance of the basic steam engine could be applied to the design of accessories to minimize their maintenance.

The new rack steamers designed and built by SLM (now DLM) in the 1990's for railways in Austria and Switzerland give a good idea of what could be done with a clean sheet new steam design.

Ah, but as appropriate as a 2-6-2/2-8-2 might be for the purposes of replication, there's one BIG factor left unanswered:

Remember that you're soliciting funds from donors/rail enthusiasts for the project. The A1 Project had the mantra "the price of a pint a week". To garner this support, you need a "wow" factor.

Just as an example, no Pennsy fan is going to get behind the idea of replicating a PRR F1 class 2-6-0. Say "T1", however, and watch the ruckus.

NYC 4-6-0? Booooo-ring. Niagara/Mohawk/Hudson? Drools all around.

Rock Island 2-8-0? Did they have one? Zzzzzz. Rock Island R67 4-8-4? Even I'm interested.

It just happens that the LNER/BR A1 was a perfect convergence between missing class, mainline capability, and spectacle for the fans. Britain has had other replica project proposals over the years; most have languished or are on timetables that make the A1 Project look like an express--I would say in part because they were "practical" locos that lacked the sexy appeal of the A1 (the GWR Saint, the BR Clan Pacific, etc.)

Alexander,

Excellent comments! I guess my thought for this theoretical locomotive is it would be something that would be commercially produced for a profit. I'm sure DLM could turn one out now if there were a few willing customers.

If you're looking to build a new steamer using a funding base similar to the A-1, I agree; you need something a lot more exciting than a low-drivered 2-6-2.

The problem goes back to "To Whom are you trying to appeal?" Yes, if you're trying to raise money from historical foundations allied with a specific railroad, something like an Atlantic from the PRR or Milwaukee would be a big attraction. But, if you are operating a historical operation whose major customer base is other than the diehard railfan, and are there enough of them to support an operation, any "typical" locomotive will attract customers. Perhaps I'm prejudiced because I had the opportunity to operate her for a few minutes in 1958, but I've always thought that Bonhomie, Hattiesburg & Southern 250, a 2-6-2, was close to an ideal "tourist" railway locomotive. If it weren't for the vestibule cab, the CP postwar commuter Pacifics would make a great reproduction locomotive as well.

Heck, has anyone got the blueprints for the C&IM Americans??

I know for a fact that a certain person (I was long ago sworn to secrecy on the name, seriously) went all the way to China with the blueprints for an "extinct" large locomotive type to get an exact quote and timeframe estimate. He had the money to build one and dreamed of running it on the original rails the originals rode on. He was quoted I think at just around $40 mil, but they said they'd keep the molds and forms. He was ticked when they suggested that "anyone" could later come along and snag another locomotive for a fraction of what he'd pay for the first one as the machine work would be done, cutting down costs for further engines. I think they said this to suggest he have them make more than one, but it had the reverse effect. He told them to stick it and that ended the dream. He wasn't even that big a name in the RR world, just wanted a locomotive that doesn't exist anymore that he rode behind as a very small child…

If indeed some organization did undertake to build a modern steam loco of modest proportions in the USA, it would have to be a commercial undertaking. That's because the various tourist lines and operating museums do not live by fan support alone. The museum with which I am associated figures that fans constitute maybe 1% of our total attendance and income. They're always welcome of course, but it's the general public that pays the bills at the end of the day.

Sure, admire what the A1 group has accomplished, but keep your feet on the ground. You're never going to see a newly built NYC 6000 or PRR T1 or anything even remotely close to that size. If any new steam is ever produced here, it would have to be a commercial enterprise that would build multiple engines to some common design in order to keep the cost within what customers could afford. That alone excludes virtually every museum, and I suspect, most tourist lines too. Perhaps this hobby has too many dreamers and not enough accountants.

Yes, I was thinking along the lines of a locomotive that could be commercially produced and be competitive(costwise) with, say the price of a total rebuild of a completely worn out original,taking into account the time involved in said rebuild coupled with thoughts of revenue lost during afore mentioned rebuild. As we all know there are several large operational locomotives trying to find places to operate, so adding to that list doesn't seem wise.
My thoughts were of a locomotive for an operation like North Freedom or Essex size, and also one that would cost millions to produce rather than millions and millions...