One point I'd like to make, a "Tornado" is relatively light compared to a NYC "Hudson".

Look at the trends, the average tourist locomotive is getting smaller and smaller, the big ones are dying slow deaths. Most of their owners are not able to keep a maintenance budget in the bank account, so when they get hit with a big bill, the loco is out for a year or two or five while they raise money.

The UP spends $1 million a year (plus) to not even come close to making any money on tickets, thats over 20 million dollars in the last 20 years. I believe that there really is no market for steam on a long run or on big train basis, no matter what the locomotive is. The money to run the things just overpowers the gross intake of money. Even small scale steam in parks is mostly dead.

When the boilers start to finally go out on the current crop of steam haulers the industry will start another downward trend inthe quantity and size of the running locomotives again. The end is near in a lot of cases.

Please prove me wrong, please! I am all for you guys building and running steam trains. When you get some budget together, contact me and I'll find you copy sets of all the blueprints that you need to construct, run, and maintain your appurtenances and appliances, and I can also find complete locomotive blueprints sets too, so look me up!

A new Hudson would be at least a several million dollar project at today's prices, but the eventual cost could be far more than that when you look at the effect that inflation would have on the prices of material and labor over the life of the project. How many groups out there now are able to raise more than $100,000 a year in the current economic environment?

PC

The talkers suck a lot worse!

Dreamers are fine. The problem is what they do next. People are remarkably addicted to "feeling good". Given the stupendous amount of work involved, the cheapest way to get a hit of "feeling good" -- is to BOAST.

Nobody likes a braggart.

So you see the sequence we're tired of hearing:
1. Develop a cheap, easy foamer-bait idea.
2. Refuse to do any of the heavy lifting involved in developing the idea.
3. Announce to the Internet your great project.
4. Fap.

Think about it -- what distinguishes this from a troll? Motive alone.

I'm not saying your project isn't gonna happen. Some of the people who do this, actually get their project across the finish line. I'm saying one of the markers of success is more action and less talk. Think about what's common here -- the idea is common. Steamfap is common. What's rare, and preventing it from happening, is the leadership to pull it off. Fill in the rare bits.

The indicators of a more serious group is that you
a) Talk to all the other people who've gotten farther along, so you don't spin you wheels replicating their early work.
b) Do all the research you possibly can.
c) Keep the project on the down-low, you might ask general questions like "Who's capable of casting a frame of these dimensions? 123 x 45" "How do you certify a newly constructed reproduction boiler?" etc. - but only tell the true nature of the project to those who need to know, as there isn't really a reason to announce. You'll have marketing people soon enough; they'll know when to announce and how.

Hi, Stephen:

Do you have the CD of old drawings yet?

One vital step that doesn't cost much is to start getting all available part drawings converted into 3D CAD, as in today's manufacturing environment you will face nothing but headaches approaching vendors with old 2D drawings of complex parts.

You should be putting out the call for help on this- engineers, technologists, technicians, draftsmen- anybody, of all expertise levels. These guys, led by the most experienced among them, need to decide on the appropriate CAD package to use. I would strongly recommend powerful tools such as Pro Engineer or CATIA for a major job such as this.

You need to start putting together parts lists, sketchy as they may be at the start. From this, you can start identifying what parts can be purchased off the shelf, rather than fabricated.

No point making all the detailed parts for an assembly you intend to buy- simply model the exterior shape... no need for drawings to fabricate from, but have the vendor's drawings on file.

Any parts that will be fabricated need decent drawings created- again, use judgement... if there are odd shapes or considerable detail, shops won't want to quote on old drawings. Check all specifications, tolerances, and material callouts- these may well need to be updated to modern practice.

This is a huge part of the process, and it's the one that costs the least money! Just ensure that all work is distributed, checked, and approved by a competent engineer, preferably who is well versed in steam, or at least in heavy machinery design.

Being able to say the design is well underway, and being able to display professional drawings and renderings of 3D assemblies, will help to impress those who wish to help or donate.

And by the way, as soon as you are incorporated as a nonprofit, you might wish to contact the appropriate CAD software and computer hardware vendors for support.

Eventually, if you locate patternmakers willing to help, major part drawings can become foundry patterns... wood is reasonably inexpensive, and patterns show progress very nicely!

And, on your public places such as web sites, facebook page, etc, you need to present a professional image and keep the "foamer" image to an absolute minimum. Even at the beginning, show progress!

Best of luck, and hoping you can eventually succeed,

Steve Hunter

And the last thing that any one should do it to talk about a project too soon, and "turn off" the old heads or experienced people who you will need to help. I think that the above is very right, as the foaming community makes it very hard for this type of project here in the states....not saying that it can't be done, or won't be done, but let's take it in small digestible pieces that are much more comprehendible and believable. When one comes right out with I’m going to build a brand new NYC Hudson, with none of the (not saying you don’t have it) background work, in the public light, it’s kind of like someone saying they’re going to run a steam engine on an anti-steam railroad just because……
The biggest thing you guys can do for yourselfs is to get into a good steam program, soak up everything like a sponge, and don't act like spoiled foamers. Talking about how you're going to build a brand new Hudson wouldn't be advisable for the time being either......

Just sayin……

Loco112, I think while it is true that the j-3a is considerably larger than the Tornado, most American locomotives are conceived on a larger scale than English locomotives. That being said considering the amount it cost to build he Tornado, I believe that the 3 million estimate I saw someone suggest here is very conservative. That being said I still strongly advocate for the project wish those involved the best.

I'm going to second (eighteenth?) what the others have said so far.

No one wants to throw wet blankets over a proposal that could well bring about what a lot of people want to see. That being said, however, having been hanging around both British and American rail preservation for over thirty years, I need to highlight a few important points:

Anyone who points to the success of Britain's A1 Tornado Project needs to be aware of several important details that make a huge difference with an American proposal:
*Britain's railways, compared to North American railways, are practically Libertarian in their access for steam and diesel excursion operators. Meet the standards, pay to rent the coaches and route, and you can basically book an excursion anywhere the track and schedules allow. Build a new, fast main line steamer, and you have a place for it to go. Even if main line running were to go away next year, there are heritage railways for it to visit and run on, or in a worst case to sell it to. WE DON'T HAVE THAT HERE. I can't even think who would buy a Hudson in operable condition right now--the Grand Canyon RR is no longer steam-centric, and every other steam railway I can think of wants smaller, lighter power for good reason.
*The AI is the success story so far. There are several other such proposals, some of which have foundered for over a decade or more. Among the proposals are a plan to rebuild a GWR "Hall" carcass into a "Grange" class 4-6-0, a proposal to build from scratch a BR "Clan" class 6 4-6-2, a Great Eastern Railway Holden F5 Class 2-4-2T, and others.
One thing that set the A1 aside from the others was the upfront demand for money--they settled on the jingoistic but effective "The price of a pint a week" to see the project through. (When they started, it was about $1.50 a week; now it's more like $4.50!) Just like public television hooks folks with that "isn't it worth "$2 a week to enjoy quality television?" hook, this was effective in getting the seed money to start the project.
*The guys who started it gathered repeatedly around pints of ales at the pubs many times, and hashed together an awful lot of the initial legwork before going public--what drawings existed, what technical changes might have to be made, what could realistically be done where and by whom, who might help, etc. There were lots of calls and meet-ups, I understand, with folks at the National Railway Museum, various East England loco preservation groups, etc.
*They were willing to change their plans as needed. There was originally a proposal to build parts of the loco in Poland, where some of the production facilities were still capable of building big steam from scratch, but then went a round of nationalistic, cheat-beating pride that it would be built in Doncaster, northern England, where other A1's were built. Ultimately, the boiler was farmed out to Germany......

So let's review:
*You need a place for this beast to operate and recoup its existential expenses, never mind its operational expenses (ask the 3751 guys, or the 261 guys, or the Portland roundhouse crew, or...);
*You need a locomotive that can operate to and fro without beating up the tracks;
*you need either the number of a very good trucker or enough clearance from the railways to let it operate over their lines--say, from one Train Festival or NRHS Convention to another.
*you also have to somehow overcome the ethnocentrism of provincial railfans and the public, many of whom have been conditioned to think their home-town railroad was the greatest railroad in the world and every other one was not. Imagine, for example, the popular and railfan reaction to a NYC Hudson replica running over Horse Shoe Curve, or over Raton or Cajon Pass, or on the Florida East Coast, or through Houston or Atlanta.........

I've long wanted a proposition like this to work, but I also know all the reasons it won't in the North American railroad/railfan market/environment. You have a VERY steep grade ahead of you. That's not negativity, that's reciting brutally cold and hard fact.

http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPi ... ?id=807238

Something to think about. Not suggesting you disappoint a whole lotta Mexican railfans, but it would probably be cheaper. Some shrouding, new valve gear/crossheads, that tender from Steamtown, and no one would know the difference!

I love Dreamers, especailly Dreamers that evolve into Planners!

Planners create goals and work toward deadlines, and that can make the possible into reality.

Without goals and deadlines, your ideas are just dreams and wishs.

If I were going to think about building a hudson. I'd want to get this guy on board.

http://www.coroflot.com/public/image_fi ... id=2319783

And the finished product: http://www.coroflot.com/public/image_fi ... id=3714005

That's gorgeous work, but please be aware 3ds drawings are not usable as engineering models: they're 3D pretty pictures, gamer's models, not 3D CAD.

As pretty as these images are, they would be of no assistance in building a locomotive.

Steve Hunter

Well, that CG Hudson needs a LOT of work. Lot's of detail errors.

As Steve has mentioned, that is just a 3D image model that was constructed as such. Cad 3D models are constructed as though they were physical models of each part. As such, they contain every feature of the actual part. Then from those models, you can directly drive machine tools to make the part or patterns; or you can generate 2D orthographic engineering drawings which can be used to make parts by mentally interpreting the drawing information, as has been done traditionally. Either way, you need the 3D cad models to actually build the parts and assemblies.

And from the 3D models, you can also generate images and renderings like the one shown above. So the 3D images can be made either directly built, or as output from actual 3D models. But the task of just building a 3D image model is much smaller than the task of building the 3D cad models. One difference is that the cad models have to contain the engineering that is needed to make them actually work in application.

However, as a sales and promotion tool, the 3D images and renderings are very useful. They can visually represent the manufactured product in a way that makes it look its best. And those images can be produced without making the cad models. So I would say that the making of image models of the locomotive would be a very good way to promote its construction.

Hi Guys; Any new news on this project? Also, does anyone have a contact for the Hudson boys?
Thanks - David Notarius, London UK