If there is one thing I've seen bear out in reality, it's that there is always someone out there with more money than brains. Never say never.

What makes you think they haven't?



Normally I would agree, but much of the project's purpose is to show that existing locomotive technology can be adapted/improved, instead of simply building brand new machines. Especially one as "antiquated" as a steam locomotive.

Additionally, this goes far beyond railroad locomotives. The technologies that are or will become a part of the project have far reaching implications when it comes to new fuel solutions around the world.

The steam locomotive is the industry's greatest public relations machine, why wouldn't they want to capitalize on that?

KL

If they actually exist, and have serious money and rationale behind them--or just enough money, that'll do--then I'll pay attention and start planning outings.

Sorry, but I remember all too well all the fanfare and spectacle (at least from the railfan perspective) with American Coal Enterprises, and the disappointment years later reading David Wardale's accounting of the exercise.

I usually just like to read and or ask questions. But, somebody in an earlier reply brought into question the existence of AT&SF Hudson 3464. I checked this website:

http://www.steamlocomotive.com/lists/se ... ountry=USA

and have found no reference to the existence of said locomotive. I believe Wes Barris's website to be one of the best, if not THE best, at keeping track of ALL steam locomotives in the United States. In other words, if it ain't on his website, it don't exist. And if it don't exist, then neither does the project itself. However, if anybody can prove the existence of 3464 otherwise, please let me know. I would love to be proved wrong.

One of the other posters mentioned that there appears to be a typo in the original post, as the engine in Topeka is actually 3463:

http://www.steamlocomotive.com/lists/se ... ountry=USA

Steve Hunter

Wow- I'm sorry I missed the first couple of days of this thread. I'll be very interested to see if this turns out to be true.

The main thing that occurs to me, if I wanted to attain their stated end goals, this is NOT how I would go about it.

The most comprehensive steam modernization/rebuild that's been done in recent history is the former German class 52 8055, a Kriegslok 2-10-0 that was heavily rebuilt by SLM in the late 1990's. The locomotive received new running gear, new roller bearing rods, improved valves, a Lempor exhaust system, extra insulation, a modern light oil firing arrangement and various other improvements. The locomotive is now owned by SLM successor company DLM and is operated on excursion trains in Switzerland.

The main lesson they apparently learned from this project was that if they had it to do over again, it would be easier and less expensive to build a new locomotive from scratch. There are many mechanical and thermodynamic compromises that have to be made in improving an existing locomotive which could be avoided in a new locomotive. ~70 year old steel may have used up a substantial portion of its fatigue life and this is often discovered only after the locomotive re-enters service.

If this group is serious about raising the bar compared to previous steam, it's better to start with a blank slate.

I think the saying goes, "Raise up the whistle and replace everything underneath it."

How would I react?

If the project actually got off the ground, I would cheer them on with the loudest possible voice! I would try to find out how to help in any possible way.

I would not throw tacks in front of their tires or be one of the hens to cluck the project into oblivion by saying how it CAN'T be done.

A very wise man once said that there is no such thing as bad advertising and this could be seen as advertising for steam engines in general. This could be a chance to present a steam engine to the great general masses. Consider the coattail effect a successful test could reflect on all steam engines.

I would also opine that the sources for research dollars are very rarely, if ever, direct sources for preservation dollars. They come from places of widely divergent focus. That being said, preservation dollars come largely from awareness. If this research heightens awareness of steam in general, it will ease the path for preservation resources.

By cheerleading, you can risk possibly winning. By naysaying, you can continually reaffirm the reasons to loose.

My opinion & worth what you've paid for it. mld

I don't have any issue with this project personally. My issue lies with their plan to use an existing locomotive that is the only surviving example of its class to try it out on.

The place to pick-up at with classical (Stephensonian) steam for commercial freight use is with Chapelon or Porta's latest designs- depending upon the engineer's beliefs regarding driver size, % of drivers to other axles, valves and valve gear, etc. Any modern solid fuel combustion system in industry is at least a gassifier. Incentives to install these in wood-fired cogens peaked in the 80's, but coal technologies are into fluidized beds or pulverized firing which is really where it needs to be for contemporary emission requirements. The EPA will not exempt new commercial freight use locomotives which basically negates the Stephensonian design because the boiler is pushed too hard for high steam rates and would require after-treatment for NOx and particulate.

There is no valid thermodynamic argument against compounding, and any locomotive without it has no chance of achieving even "steam era" efficiency - on this Chapelon & Porta agree. Wardale preferred simple locomotives, and the SAR Class 26 already proves what can be done with that, along with 52 8055. In essence, there is no advancement possible within the confines of the existing ATSF locomotive design. It will only be possible to at best repeat the success of past if the past is regarded, which apparently it is not, or this locomotive would have not been chosen. That said, if someone is just looking for a "horse" to showboat and capture the speed record, maybe this is a good choice.

In an era where the emphasis on development is in technologies where thermodynamic efficiency is striving for 40% or greater, with excellent combustion, in a packaged modular design that can be applied to all kinds of vehicles, I see no logical explanation for a Rankine Cycle system with an efficiency of less than 10% which must be dedicated to an entire vehicle and consists of a multitude of large, custom made and fitted parts that only a few shops in the world can create or repair.

The only explanation could be a speed record project, hidden in disguise as a scientific project, in order to get investors ignorant of science and history to invest in it.

I agree with John R's comments. The knowledge regarding steam locomotive design is essentially lost so things are missed in design and repair where the symptom is boiler problems.

My reaction is it's hard to believe this isn't a hoax ---

There are three academic type issues here --

1) is external combustion (as opposed to internal combustion) energy efficient enough to be feasible

2) has the study started with (or even included) some simulation work using products such as simulink / Mathlab

3) and more specifically, what's being done to reduce the weight of the engine

It gets worse from there.

Bob H

If this is an attempt to blow big money to see what sorts of things could be done, well okay. If it's a serious attempt creating a new generation of steam, not a chance.

How would steam meet Tier 4 or whatever pollution requirements would apply? Out-do the latest from GE or EMD for efficiency and maintenance costs? Come on.

Steve

Where was David Wardale's article published? I don't recall if I read that or not. I seem to remember something in Railfan.



Statements like that one can be difficult to follow through on. They also alienate many people who've been burned too many times before.

I recall the last product that was going to "change the world" and "have an impact on cities around the globe". To listen to the PR, the thing was going to save the world and cure cancer.

What was it? The Segway, a fancy scooter. Seen one lately? Yeah, neither have I, except on rare occasions.

So be careful of the whole "we're going to revolutionize the world" lest folks think your steam loco is powered by cold fusion.

An entire chapter in his book "The Red Devil and Other Tales of Steam."

In much more detail than we ever got in the magazine articles, Wardale detailed how, in his estimation, the purported "test runs" with "614-T" on the C&O in January 1985 ended up being little more than a public-relations stunt combined with an excuse to run the steamer on freight. Runs that were purportedly made with test equipment attached hither and yon on 614 yielded little more than video footage, according to Wardale. Inevitably, this always comes down to a "he said, he said" dispute between Wardale and Rowland, but I have seen subsequent (copies of) articles from European magazines where Wardale has basically refuted claims of American Coal Enterprises regarding their project.

This could, of course, easily be refuted by documentation of data collected by ACE engineers on these runs, provided by those who were there. I have not been fortunate enough to see any summary report or synopsis of same.

The opposite of global vision is tunnel vision, and tunnel vision would marginalize this as a "railroad science project" if the originators of the project meant for it to be an excuse to "play train" as Mr. Wardale seems to believe the 614-T tests ultimately became.

Many of the digital luxuries we enjoy today came from being developed within projects that were larger, wilder, and sometimes rife with utter disappointments, but that never ruled out the individual advances made in each respective technology, even if the parts were ultimately stronger or more successful than the whole.

KL