Well If they didnt want 3985 im sure they wouldnt want 844 either.

I was out at the UP shop in the last month, just before they went to Denver with the 844. I got to talk with the shop crew and a gag order is in no way in place.

The old exhast nozzels were set out and being cleaned up to go back in the 3985 if the run to the DNC resulted in heavy smoke like the test runs. The shop crew was openly disgusted with the results of trying to "modernize" the 3985. And the term "failed attempt" was used over and over.

John,

How does one educate your target audience in you "green" ways if you stay silent on the issue here. If I am incorrect say so, but this list contains a very large number of members of shop and management personel from groups who have steam being run and/or restored. It also contains employees and owners of companies that like you are doing the contract work.

If you are so proud of your work and the advancements you have made, then let's hear about it. Sell it to us. But don't hand us a pile of BS and call it silence by the request of UP (but say that its not a gag order).

John,

I understand that you will not comment on this topic, and I don’t expect you to. But I have a comment or two that I would like to have considered by anyone who is interested. I wrote most of this response prior to reading today’s post by JG290, so I will post it even though that post seems to offer direct information that might answer some of my conclusions on this. Perhaps more will develop in the wake of JG290’s post.

You mentioned that the lack of public information is not the result of UP issuing a gag order. But then you say that out of respect to the request of UP, you refuse comment. The two explanations seem to be in conflict, but this is the conclusion I arrive at: The UP has requested that the results of the modifications not be made public, but you do not characterize the request as a gag order.

You say that the reason the UP has withheld the results is to eliminate speculation which you cite as running rampant. However, it seems to me that it is precisely the withholding of the much-anticipated results that is the driving force behind the rampant speculation. And it follows that releasing the results would end the speculation.

Not only does the withholding of the results drive speculation about what the results were, but it also drives speculation about why the results are being withheld. It leaves me speculating that the most plausible explanation for why the results are being withheld is that the results were deemed unsatisfactory.

This project was made public at the onset. It was framed as an experiment, so it is natural that outside observers would like to know the results, and would expect to learn them as soon as they materialized. I think that’s more or less what we were offered at the beginning of the project. If perhaps the results were not yet known or needed more review, I would think that UP would offer that as the reason for not releasing them at this time.

But as far as I can tell the results are now known and simply being withheld indefinitely with no explanation. Yet there was no upfront stipulation that this would be the case. So UP’s position today comes as an apparent turnaround, and its defensive nature seems to attract the very speculation that you say UP does not want.

I guess I'll be the skunk at the picnic here and throw my two cents worth in.

This experiment was a business decision, between the Union Pacific and a private contractor and unless I'm mistaken, those two entities are the only ones who really have a need to know the results. I've watched this thread feeding upon itself and growing, but the simple fact is that if John or the Steam Shop of the UP wanted all the details known, they would release the information. On line speculation just leads to heated discussions and rumors.

Of course, I don't agree with the "Public's Right To Know" that the media preaches while disclosing things they should keep to themselves.

I guess what I'm saying is that there's a whole lot more serious issues to worry about than if the 3985 is making too much smoke.

As Dennis Miller would say, "That's just my opinion, I may be wrong".

Don W

Don,

I agree with you completely. I don’t care whether I ever learn the outcome of the conversion, and if I did care, I certainly realize that neither UP nor WRC has any obligation to make the results public. I was only commenting about the reasons behind the speculation about the results of the conversion and speculating about the reason for not making those results public.

For the sake of discussion, let us assume the experiment has failed in application to 3985. I'm not saying it did, not being of the elect i don't know, but assuming it did not peform as expected in this particular application when it has proven its worth on other locomotives, it doesn't seem unreasonable that until WRC has determined where in the design and execution the deficiency lies, they might not choose to speculate about that themselves. Should this be the case, a statement of this situation would put an end to a lot of the speculation by the rest of us that aren't directly involved.

Perhaps we could consider the retrofit done at Grand Canyon if we are permitted to discuss it?

dave

Dear Dave,

You state the following;
"I'm not saying it did, not being of the elect i don't know, but assuming it did not peform as expected in this particular application when it has proven its worth on other locomotives, it doesn't seem unreasonable that until WRC has determined where in the design and execution the deficiency lies, they might not choose to speculate about that themselves".

If every investigation was handled in this way then there would not be the march of technology we see today. At the academic level papers are proposed, researched written and defended. While there may not be a thesis before us I think a meeting of the thesis committee could be called to order by the amount of material out there. Speculation is a natural human trait and preventing it does not spur thought or individual growth.

Robby

And this would be a bad thing? The world was a nicer place before cel phones.........and loocmotive parts would be much lighter if Isaac Newton hadn't invented gravity.

This isn't academic, its practical, which is much more important. Speculation from ignorance isn't worth much, although it is a natural human trait. Not spreading ignorance is a fine thing from my POV, it is in adequate supply already. Once real information is available, I'd hope it will be shared so we can all benefit from its discussion.

dave

Dear Dave,

Newton did not discover gravity he only described it. He did develop calculus. I have seen academic research used for practical applications every day on our highways and even our national security labs. There is enough data if one looks at the design of a locomotive and how a draft system works. We make enough mistakes as humans and often can not see our own oversights and that is why there is pier review in the academic world. IF WRC does not want to go down that road fine but were not talking something here that is no more than industry speculation of the actions and results of one of the fellow professionals. I have seen this in many industries to measure to performance of supposid progress.

Robby

Robby does have a point. Why should society expect you to only announce you successes? If the Porte ideas are so great for our industries then why is it that we aren't all getting all the information to try and help one another make it work? Yes WRC tried something new, why not tell us that it didn't work and describe what was done. Or is one to assume that WRC is the only people that "understend" Porte's papers?

I for one do not buy into the new exhast systems, but most of that is because I have not seen any data to support the expenses. While I know Mt. Washington and the Canyon both are using lempor exhast and neither have complained, I don't call that a success nor does it convince me to go with it. Does anyone have any data showing the improvements of the installation of the Lempor exhast?

Jason,

If you are looking for data on the effectiveness of a properly designed Lempor exhaust system, I would first direct you to David Wardale's book, "The Red Devil". David is a trained mechanical engineer and included a large amount of data from the systematic tests against unmodified baseline locomotives that were performed in South Africa on two locomotives - a 4-8-2 and a 4-8-4 - both modified with Lempor systems.

While hard data maybe harder to find for other Lempor equipped locomotives, there are a surprising number of examples throughout the world and to my knowledge, all have demonstrated improved performance.

Therefore, I would not be so quick as to totally dismiss the Lempor based on this one case when weighed against the many other successful applications of it (Google Hugh Odom's Ultimate Steam website for some excellent background information and a list of modified locomotives)...especially since only those involved with the 3985 project really know all the details. While I agree that it would be very helpful if they did share so everyone can learn from what happened, it also is their perogative to share or not share, which I also support.

My two cents for what it is worth...

Wolf

It's at least good to see there is a lot of interest in this. While John said there's no "gag order", it's not unreasonable to guess somebody at the UP said "we'd rather you didn't talk about this" (for whatever reason- personal reasons, company policy, internal politics, etc., who knows?), and if he hopes to ever get any more work from the UP, then he'd better not talk about it. I'll take his word for it that if he could talk about it, he would.

The Lempor exhaust is certainly not "new" technology; Porta first developed it and applied it to a steam locomotive in Argentina in the 1950's. Many engines have been successfully retrofitted since that time. It's worth noting that the majority of these retrofits (especially in recent years) have been constrained to fit within existing exhaust stacks, usually for cosmetic reasons, which likely does not allow the exhaust to be of optimum proportions. Nevertheless, many successful Lempor applications fitted into existing stacks have been done in the UK and US.

A couple of points about the 3985 that haven't been mentioned: Note that not only was the exhaust system changed, but extensive changes were made to the firebox as well. No doubt this complicates any evaluation of the changes to the locomotive's performance. Any significant locomotive modification requires a "tuning up" period as well. Since they obviously haven't assigned a full crew with dynomometer car and sent the engine out for extensive mainline testing, I'd guess it's gonna take them a while to complete this.

I'm with Dave- I'd love to read some additional details on the mods to the Grand Canyon locomotives. These included Lempor exhausts, new oil burner arrangements and most recently the installation of Chinese Worthington-copy feedwater heaters. I've never read one bad thing about the modifications to these engines, and given the Grand Canyon's fairly arduous operations I'd say they must be working well since they modified one engine, tried it, and then modified a second.

Hugh made a very good point:

A couple of points about the 3985 that haven't been mentioned: Note that not only was the exhaust system changed, but extensive changes were made to the firebox as well. No doubt this complicates any evaluation of the changes to the locomotive's performance.

We know of at least 3 significant changes that were made to the engine; The lempor exhaust, a redraughting of the fire box and removal of the circulators.

As John pointed out in his recent item "Lempor Front Ends and more from WASATCH RR CONT"

*As a team we at WRC believe that you should never make too many changes at one time. When you do, it is difficult to tell which item is failing and which succeeding or if all fail or succeed together or which one had the most impact.

This maybe be a case where three very different modifications where lifted from prior unrelated projects were tossed together without the required integration. While each of them may have worked fine when applied individually, collectively they didn't play together. In situations like this it is often necessary to backout the changes and reapply them individually before the true cause of problems is known. That can be both costly and time consuming.

I have no doubt that sooner or later everything will be put to right, but with the deadline of the convention and and need for resources to prep 844 for the DNC, there just wasn't time.

All,

I have been in contact with several GCR employees since I left the RR in 2004. GCR is happy with the exhaust conversions. One thing several people have shared with me is 29 has taken to the changes more than 4960. One big issue is the exhaust nozzle is at the end of a flow route and if the steam is restricted before it gets to the nozzle then the effects of the exhaust system will be limited. Ironically in proportion to size it appears that 29 has less flow restrictions in its cylinder casting than 4960. The result is a better performance improvement in 29 than 4960.

Now let us look at the exhaust flow path on 3985. The locomotive due to the articulation has a longer path for the steam to reach the nozzle than any other locomotive out there could this unique pattern created unforeseen issues?

The water pumps at GCR were put on after the exhaust nozzle work. The firebox changes came at the same time as the front end changes. They did keep the water circulation devices in both locomotives to continue to enjoy the better performance of heat transferee to the boiler water.

In the end the 3985 scope of work does not match what GCR did. Comparing the two projects one may need to consider the different approaches to how things were apparently done.

Robby

Hugh Odom wrote "A couple of points about the 3985 that haven't been mentioned: Note that not only was the exhaust system changed, but extensive changes were made to the firebox as well."

Reason:

The oil burner as it stood before the work was done, was impinging on (burning) the sides of the firebox. A significant amount of the lower inner firebox had to be replaced.

It then follows that after the firebox was repaired, other work had to be done to avoid a repeat.

This evolved into:

Clues (taken from the Rimmasch dissertation)

"fuel saving, water saving and lubrication saving advancements" and "re-evaluate the fuels we use and the quantities in which we waste the same."

TH