Anyone catch that he is a graduate of the School of Architecture? Not exactly trained for this endeavor.

Good grief, man! No need to Photoshop that image, they could have easily done that in a weekend with a few volunteers and some paint from Sears. Pressure wash her and paint it black, not a big problem.

"Wait a second!", you say? "Doing a proper paint job is a lot more work and takes a lot longer?" You're correct, but it doesn't say they stripped her down to bare metal and did it right. It only says they cleaned up the engine, and it wouldn't be the first "rebuild in a can" job ever done...

To answer a previous question, the locomotive is in rather stellar condition. No knowledge as to particulars such as the firebox sheets but the bulk of the machine yields nothing other than positive indications.

Cheers, Jason

Well gee, the way some people are talking here, you would think that the would be restorers have ingnored their chance, let the locomotive rot, and therefore have no right to complain about using up what's left of the locomotive in a modern steam experiment.

They're looking for donors for this project?

~sniff sniff~ I smell a Ponzi scheme

I suspect that "Occam's Razor" applies here. Essentially it says that the simplest answer is often the correct one.

In this case, I don't think it's a scam or Ponzi scheme. The world is full of newly minted college grads who think they can re-invent the wheel. Occasionally, one of them actually does. Usually, they find out that whatever that nutty old professor was nattering on about in economics class, physics class, math clase or whatever class they skated through and didn't follow closely actually does matter in the real world, and great ideas are no match for the cold hard facts of science, economics, politics and the like.

In this case, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and say I think they have full intentions of doing this.

I'd also say that if I was a betting man, I'd want some extremely high odds before I wagered on that success. Biofuel with the same energy as coal? Well, maybe on a pound for pound basis, with 10 tons of coal being the same as several cars of their fancy charcoal briquettes.

But sorry, no, I think the laws of physics and thermodynamics still apply.

Also, as others have stated, I think it's another "green washing" with fake accounting.
Kind of like "Zero Emission" cars that ignore the power plant in Arizona belching coal smoke. Just because it's not coming out of the tailpipe doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Burning wood is carbon neutral? I'm going to need a lot more info before I swallow that one.

Bio-diesel had the same claims, and when scientists finally got involved and did the math, it was a different story, often using more fuel than it creates once you consider planting, harvest, fertlizer, transport etc, and only being "economical" because of farm subsidies.

A close parallel to this carbon neutral locomotive is the new movement for carbon neutral housing called “Net-Zero.” The basic objective is to build a house that creates all the energy it needs on-site by the use of renewable energy. So they build a house with fairly good insulation and energy efficient doors and windows. Then they set up solar panels and/or a windmill with the help of a generous government subsidy. The point is not to save money. The point is to live carbon neutral, and that comes at a higher price. But even with $50,000 worth of solar panels and a windmill, creating enough on-site energy can be a hard row to hoe. So they make up for the shortfall by burning wood in a stove.

Wood burning is considered to be carbon neutral because the CO2 in wood will be released in the relatively short time it takes for wood to decompose, or it will be released when the wood is burned. So, either way, the CO2 is not considered to be locked up or sequestered. Whereas, with fossil fuels like coal or oil, the CO2 is considered to be sequestered, so it will stay locked up if those fuels are not burned. That is the reasoning.

As to the locomotive, the torrefied biomass pellets are a manufactured item that requires a manufacturing plant and a supply of feedstock. I would like to see the cost analysis on that process. Is the plant extra costly because it too is carbon neutral?

A fuel cannot be carbon neutral if it contains fossil fuel, PERIOD. It can be considered a "green" fuel but NOT carbon neutral, fact is fact.

John

Friends,

Let keep the discussions in this thread focused on aspects related to railway preservation. No throwing stones. I am leaning toward thinking this thread is no longer productive and ready to lock it.

Tom Gears
Moderator

I got a phone call a few hours ago from one of the principals in the project - an old friend I didn't know was involved - and we burned up the last 45 mins of cel battery in our conversation and got cut off. I learned a lot about the people involved and their intentions. Based on what I have been told, and knowing either by reputation or by direct contact and experience many of the parties, this is a dead-serious way of developing a new, potentially carbon-neutral external combustion technology suitable for use as a power generator (much along the lines of some of the Cyclone Engine proposed uses) and the high speed steam locomotive demonstrating it is a rolling billboard (with benefits). A prototype for the generator will be installed to provide HEP from the locomotive.

I'm personally aware of the preservationist credentials of many of those involved. I asked some specific questions, and I have been advised that the locomotive will first be moved (intact if possible, without wheels if necessary) from its outdoor location into a private shop, where it will remain essentially intact until funding required for the operating overhaul is completely raised - no plan to turn it into a bunch of rusting parts scattered around the country. Many groups calling themselves museums can't say the same. Should the funding not be forthcoming, it wil revert to a display locomotive but indoors.

The work is planned to be reversable, but will have some visual impact during the demonstration operation. Much of the combustion system alteration will be within the envelope of the existing boiler; however, the steam pipes will be replaced with larger diameter, and a streamlined shroud will be installed as the most obvious.

A strategy has already been worked out for high speed and normal track speed operation including a period of test operation with the inclusion of recording instruments to accurately measure the operating characteristics of the locomotive. This not only quantifies the characteristics of the new fuel, but provides a basis for comparison with the historic data gathered by the Santa Fe decades ago in testing.

Some very highly qualified and very respected operating people will be joining the program provided it gets as far as operation.

I requested more concrete and complete information about the plan be officially released as soon as they think it is appropriate since much of what I have been told will answer most of the legitimate inquiries (and much of the other crap) posted in this thread. They are being discrete purposely, and will reveal more when it is in their best interest to do so. It doesn't matter; it is their engine and their program and nothing anybody on this board has to say about it matters a bit. It will be their courtesy to the rest of us when they share more.

To sum up: lots of high quality thinking and planning by very qualified involved parties for the purpose of developing a carbon neutral fuel for power generation, and using a highly visible modern steam locomotive as a means of making a lot of people aware of it. The steam locomotive is secondary to the primary purpose of the project. Plans for the preservation of the locomotive included either if the project happens or not. Assuming I have not been misinformed, I see nothing here to be lost and the chance of a lot to be gained. I look forward to learning a lot more about it as it progresses.

No fiscal or other interest, just intellectual interest between me and them. Usual disclaimers.

dave

Preservation planned, no matter what happens? And from a creditable source? Whew, that's a relief!

And now, a bit of opinion and a touch of speculation, while I still can. . .

It sounds like we are looking at some later-era steam thinking, with things like gas-producer technology, and that "green fuel."

Others have commented on electrification. Their comments would normally be quite valid, certainly for mainline service, but I can imagine a lot of secondary mileage that might not justify that expense. That is where this development could come into play.

Having said that, it might be suggested this is not the locomotive to use for such services. It's a large, heavy passenger locomotive, with a high axle load; the speeds that are being looked at are well beyond normal operations, though pretty current for higher-speed operations, of which our own Northeast Corridor would serve as an example (even commuter trains on today's NEC hit 100 mph on occasion). This is not to be confused with true high-speed rail, which would involve new track to get the geometry for such really high speeds; in fact, one thing I noticed about this effort is that the promoters called it a "higher speed" effort, which suggests they are at least being careful with terminology.

Having said this, why this particular locomotive? My guess is that it is a combination of opportunity, right price (free "bones"), and a dash of publicity (speed record). The rebuilt locomotive is not intended to be the end product; it is more like a prototype, or even a "test mule," and possibly not even for railroad purposes.

And now, a bit of crystal ball gazing: If this new technology were to be applied to rail service, the appropriate application would be for operations that don't justify electrification. I see two possible paths for this.

One would be for secondary or branch service with light traffic levels. This would be a revival of the proposed 600-member Canadian Pacific G-5 class--new engines that were based on older designs, but modernized for secondary operations. As noted elsewhere, this program was cut short at only 102 engines by the diesel invasion.

The other would be for heavy mineral traffic on a route with only one or two trains per day. Such a line would be built to a high standard, and could take a heavy axle load. Speed might be secondary on something like this, so you wouldn't see anything like a high-wheeled N&W A or a Big Boy; more likely, it would be a very modernized counterpart--note that I said a counterpart, not a replica--of something like a 2-10-2 or a Norfolk & Western Y-6b. There might even be developments in multiple-unit controls, possibly even a form of dynamic braking; D&RGW used something called a Le Chatelier Water Brake, and in Switzerland a number of steam engines used and continue to use a Riggenbach variation.

http://ngdiscussion.net/phorum/read.php?1,7295

http://ngdiscussion.net/phorum/read.php ... 4#msg-7304

http://ngdiscussion.net/phorum/read.php ... 8#msg-7308

Both possible courses would be the reason for diesel counterparts we know as the GP-38 and GP-38-2, and the use of GP-40s with road slugs today.

Which reminds me: New locomotives for secondary services were rare animals. Most roads didn't want to spend too much money on such machines, and most such secondary services ran with downgraded mainline power. The Canadian Pacific G-5 program and the proposed larger order of the Chesapeake & Ohio's H-6 class (the engines that were actually delivered turned out to be Baldwin's last steam locomotives for a domestic road and the last by a commercial builder) were the notable exceptions to this.

Which in turn reminds me of something else: If I recall correctly, Will Woodard of Lima once proposed a standardized locomotive for branchline and secondary operations. This lightweight machine was to be, of all things, a 4-6-4 (!) with 69-inch drivers and a booster, along with all the usual appliances like feedwater heaters of a modern locomotive. It was to have been billed as a replacement for the usual "menagerie" of older engines on branchlines and in other lighter services. Obviously, none were built, but I can't help but think that such a machine might resemble either a larger CP G-5 or a smaller NKP 4-6-4.

Another possible variation that actually did get built were the lightweight and handsome 2-8-4s that Baldwin assembled for the original Norfolk Southern.

All in all, some fascinating speculation is possible, with a touch of the past as this could be one of those rare examples of progress forward being made as a reverse move--kind of like the operation of Cass Scenic between the switchbacks. (Hey! Now I'm a philosopher!)

The question remains, as always, where will the money come from?

Anyway, to all here, I'll quote Hugh Odom, and wish everybody "Happy Steaming!"

Now, if only I could talk those guys out of the streamlined shroud. . .yes, I know the locomotives were built to be streamlined, and sister 3460 was as the "Blue Goose," but the other engines looked better. . .

"I will now retreat to the safety of my storm cellar."--Jim Vaitkunas, on the related "How Would You React?" thread

Jim, have you got room down there for one more?

As a 501c3 associated with a major university they probably have an educational function included in their mission statement. So maybe they will soon be out there teaching the public about the technology and the planned features of the rebuilt locomotive.

So how many of the organizations represented among the participants on this forum plan on inviting them to do a presentation on this project and technology? Seems like that would be a good way to find out what is going on.

PC

OK, one last time:

This isn't about developing a new locomotive. it is about developing a new fuel.

I suppose as a side benefit there may be a market in "captive" service where new locomotives using this combustion system could find gainful employment - commuter rail or such - but whether or not a new biocoal fired steam locomotive of Stephensonian or steam-electric or whatevfer hybrid design every gets built isn't what this project is about.

Watch the show and enjoy the ride.

The source of the funding is their problem, not anybody's here.

dave

The World's Fastest Steam Locomotive is a far sexier vehicle for your project to develop biomass coal than a mundane power plant.

But wood is not considered to be fossil fuel. It does give off CO2 when burned, but that is considerd to be inconsequential because it will give off the same amount of CO2 if it just rotted on the forest floor. And when the wood grew, it absorbed the same amount of CO2 that it releases upon burning or decompostion. That is the reasoning behind the assumption of carbon neutrality of wood burning.

I think this has been one of the most interesting threads that I have ever seen. Perhaps the moderators could explain why they believe it is pushing the limits here, so we know how the guidelines apply to this discussion.