"This is not about a more cost effective approach to transportation."--Ron Travis

I wouldn't completely discount that. Remember, there is a little problem called "peak oil," and eventually, even "peak coal" to deal with. Note that "peak" anything doesn't mean you're about to totally run out of whatever it is--in fact, you likely never will--but it does mean there might not be enough to satisfy demand at what had been considered an economical price. (Just think about what you're paying for gasoline to chase your favorite excursion locomotive.) And some of the products of what we call "fossil fuels," such as certain plastics and chemicals, can be quite valuable in their own right.

There is another point to consider, mostly with oil at this time, and that is that oil is a global commodity, in a global market, bought and sold by global entities. Almost every drop of oil that is extracted goes into that commodity market, and is bought out of it. Add in the other people who want it, and you have a bidding war. Basically, we are bidding against the Chinese, the Indians, and everybody else for that oil, even if the oil was produced here and never leaves the country. That in itself is an argument to get off the stuff, at least for me; sooner or later, you have to go to war for something like that, and in this case, it wouldn't be some little desert place, but another large country with real weapons and a real military.

Let's admit it, we do waste a great deal in this country; learning to do with less wouldn't hurt.

At this point, this discussion reminds me of a story, about a man who was in the "junk toy" business (i.e., Cracker Jack items). The fellow who told me this said said it was true, and that this "toy man" unfortunately reminded him of the phrase, "ugly American."

This fellow in the toy business was visiting a factory in China some years back. The owner of the factory wanted to show off the plant, including the lounge for the employees. This lounge had a color television in it, something hard to come by in China at the time. The American was supposedly unimpressed, and his Chinese host asked him about this.

"Well, color televisions are pretty common in America," said the toy man.

"Do you have color television at home?" asked the factory owner.

"Why, yes, I have four, in fact."

"Four televisions! Where would you have four televisions?" said the factory owner.

"Well," said the toy man, "one is in the living room, that's where we watch TV when we have company. There's another in the bedroom, which my wife and I watch in the evening. She has a set in the kitchen, sometimes she likes to watch when she's working in there. And we have an old set out in the garage."

This was too much for the Chinese factory owner.

"Four televisions! Americans nuts!! Yankees, crazy!! Car no watch television!"

Looking at how we live today, and comparing it with the steam era of the 1940s, can we say that Chinese fellow is wrong?

Back to the locomotive that started this whole discussion, does anyone know the history of this class of engines?

I found the 1937 erection drawing for the 3460 class in the book "100 Years of Steam Locomotives" and I also found a specification card from 1945 on-line at:

http://www.kansasmemory.org/item/221763

(Sorry- I don't remember which page I found the 3460's on!)

Interestingly, the locomotives were apparently rebuilt in 1945 with shorter flues (~19 feet versus 21 feet when new), a short combustion chamber (versus no combustion chamber when new), and some really complicated looking thermic syphons with inlets at the bottom of the throat sheet and side sheets (versus a couple of conventional thermic syphons when new). It'd be very interesting to know how these modifications worked out.

My vision of an improved boiler /combustion system for this project are as follows: 1) a combustion chamber of no less than 5ft in length 2) A steam drum/mud drum watertube firebox arrangement specifically utilizing transverse arch tubes with no more than 8" spacing between pairs 3) Gas producer combustion system (believe this is already the plan)

Shall be interesting to see what they come up with.

Cheers, Jason

First, glad to see RyPN back on line after that incident with the lightning.

The pages for the ATSF diagrams that Mr. Odom mentioned are Nos. 237, 238, and 239.

Restreamlining this 4-6-4? I have to say, this is one engine that looked better without it, but that's just an opinion:

http://www.dieselpunks.org/profiles/blo ... -rare-bird

Don't confuse "cost effective" with "efficient", they're not the same thing.

My comments were about efficiency, ie using the least possible amount of resources. If you ship the Berkshire Briquettes, it takes fuel to do it. It takes energy to make them as well. Maybe the plant should simply burn the bio-mass in the most efficient way possible, and ship that as power?

This isn't about building an efficient steam loco, it's about saving the planet with the hockey pucks. Shouldn't that be done in whatever way gets the most energy and lowest carbon footprint?

Friends,

Please let's keep this thread focused on preservation aspects. We are not the "future of high speed rail", "fuel efficiency", or "building stuff in China" message board.

Thanks,

Tom Gears
Moderator

The only preservation aspect I can see with this topic is the decision to not preserve the ATSF locomotive. And I have just one question in that regard: Why on earth would the owner of that locomotive simply give it away?

It's been a total derelict since we were in Topeka in 1996 with 1522. A group had been working on it, but seemed to have just gone away and it looked ike crap. From the photos I've seen, it looks even worse now. I probably had become a liability and an eyesore to the city. Lots of these situations around the country.
At the risk of being the skunk at the picnic, I would rather have seen her get a good cosmetic restoration/stabilization and remain where she is. Frankly I see no good coming from this, but am open to whatever. I don't have a dog in the hunt. Just watching.

A. It will be preserved.
B. They didn't want it.

dave

There are several preservation-related items under this topic:

- does modernization of a steam locomotive necessarily preclude its "preservation"?

- what aspects of this modernization could be applied to "preserved" operating steam locomotives to reduce operating costs & increase power without irreversably altering their historical fabric ?

- is bio-coal viable as a fuel source for operating coal-fired steamers?

- is developing & maintaining the expertise to design & fabricate steam locomotive improvements a viable part of the preservation movement?

As to preservation, I think this can get into semantics. If you take that historically original antique locomotive and modernize it, it is accurate to say that the locomotive still exists (although in a modernized condition). So if the locomotive still exists, it can be said to have been preserved.

I consider preservation to mean preserved in its original state, with only very small concessions for practical purposes if necessary. So I would certainly not consider the ATSF engine, modernized as is being planned, to be preserved. However, once it has been modernized, that new engine will be preserved as long as they don’t change it again.

I guess it gets down to the classic example of jacking up the whistle and building a new locomotive under it. At what point is the locomotive new, as opposed to being original?

And I remember all the hell that was raised when we replaced the 6ET brake with 26L on 1522...............

Ron, I agree with you on the terminology, and the definition of "preservation" comes up fairly often when we're talking about maintaining 70+ year old steam locomotives in running condition. Another point is this locomotive has already been substantially modified by the ATSF from its as-built condition.

As far as the upcoming modifications, I do doubt that they'll do anything to this locomotive that will be non-reversible. If they get into that level of "modifications", it'd be simpler to build a new locomotive. For instance, if radical boiler modifications are envisioned, it'd probably be simpler to remove the existing boiler, set it aside, and build a new boiler from scratch. This would be relatively (that's a big term) easy to reverse in the future.

The chief engineer of the project is Shaun McMahon, who worked with Nigel Day in the UK, Phil Girdlestone in the UK and South Africa and later with Ing. L. D. Porta in Argentina. Given Shaun's background, I strongly suspect we'll see modifications similar to what David Wardale did with SAR 4-8-4 #3450 (the Red Devil) back in the 1980's. I'm sure ATSF 3463 will still look like a Stephensonian steam locomotive after the modifications.

Reverseability is a key consideration. I think I made that point in a previous posting......

Was 4501 lost when she was painted green? What about all the second water glasses and other additions / alterations made to keep our current stock of operating old iron on the rails? New tires? New lubricants?

Yes, there will be more than obligatory and cosmetic changes made, but nothing that can't be put back again to at least as original a condition as 630, for example according to what I've been let in on.

Red Devil is now obsolete, I'm sure it will be more advanced. Interesting.

dave

I would direct the reader to Mr. Porta's own words:

"Modernization of museum locomotives

The function of museums may be extended not only to preservation, but also to a live preservation of the various railway vehicles, i.e. they should not be shown as static exhibits (i.e. dead) but in motion: this already happens in certain countries. In the case of steam locomotives, a number of problems may arise, ranging from hot boxes to the most frequent ones: indifferent steaming, boiler scaling and foaming. The appropriate technology to solve these problems is nowadays available.

What should be the state selected for preservation? The last one? Has that process ended? A steam locomotive is more than the cold hardware: it is a live being; all the alterations introduced along its life are the proof of this. In fact, it is a modernization process..."

Fundamental Principles of Steam Locomotive Modernization and Their Application to Museum And Tourist Railway Locomotives
Ing. Livio D. Porta, Consulting Engineer

Read the entire paper and others at:
http://www.martynbane.co.uk/