Yes, a lot of development work has been done since the Red Devil. Porta alone wrote at least a couple of detailed technical papers on improving the GPCS based on information he gleaned from reading Wardale's book.

I understand those points. And I understand that operating an historic locomotive will require more concessions to modernity than a static displayed locomotive. So it is really just a matter of degrees, and it is up to each individual to decide what they are attracted to. There are people who are attracted to historic steam, but hate diesels. I have an interest in both, but I have a more specialized feeling about historic steam because it represents a larger context that will never return.

In the case of the ATSF engine, I believe that what is planned goes way beyond what would be the typical concessions to modern practice associated with operating an historic steam locomotive. I expect the redesigned ATSF engine to be unrecognizable as the original locomotive of today. That crosses over to an area where, to me, it might as well be a diesel, or a modern jet, or a light rail transit train. The defense that it is reversible seems hollow. Anything is reversible. The real question goes to the likelihood of whether or not it will be reversed. I do not believe it will ever be reversed back to today’s configuration.

You may be correct, Ron.

My impression is different, but I'm basing it on two conversations with a very involved individual known to me as a preservationist as well as engineer. Sure, he may be feeding me a party line, or conditions and plans may change......anything is possible.

Still, based on the sensibility of what I have been told and the credibility of those who told me, I'm convinced that should the project not be funded, or economic conditions change such that it is irrelevant in the future, it will be reversed and preserved.

What is the basis for your beliefs?

dave

And this from the person who was advocating electrification over separate locomotives as minimizing the 'amount of resources' necessary?

I suppose if you left the capital cost of building the electrification, and the trunk connections from grid power to its substations, and all the maintenance costs (I note with amusement how often downed trees put the Northeast Corridor electrification out of service) you might have some weight behind that argument. But I wouldn't look for that to happen in this life!

If the Government is buying, and you have both a level of traffic that justifies the investment and considerations like the need to operate in an air-quality district (as in LA) or go through long tunnels to underground terminals in cities that mandate all-electric operation (NY) then we do see some extensions of electrified service. But I doubt very much that 'efficiency', especially some measure of thermodynamic efficiency per developed hp, has much if anything to do with the capital decisions.

I could quote an analogy someone mentioned, about how calculators used to cost $300 but now are infinitely more powerful and reliable for under $10. What that someone forgot to mention is that an infrastructure of multibillion dollar silicon fabs had to be built before those low-cost devices could be produced... and the lifetime of a given process is often restricted by newer alternatives, making high sustained volume at small marginal cost an essential precondition.

A number of studies indicate that the cost of fuel represents a comparatively small part of the overall cost of providing and operating a passenger service (the numbers used to be in the range of about 5%). (Mandatory preservation content) - This was one of the justifications for developing 'modern steam' in Europe over the past couple of decades. Note that the relative unimportance of fuel savings leverages the "savings" from mere thermodynamic efficiency even more severely than above. (This in contradistinction from the operating savings achievable, say, through better insulation and standby electric 'water heating' that make it possible to keep a steam locomotive under full working pressure for about 23kWe indefinitely, say over a weekend when no service is running)

Keep in mind that I fully agree with the idea of using modern electrification (and by that I mean high AC single-phase trolley voltage with frequency synchronized to grid) even where it is only an adjunct to self-powered train haulage. All I am saying is that energy conservation is NOT a particularly good reason to go to the cost and expense of providing that electrification.

Meanwhile, people have been introducing the general topic of 'pelletized wood' in confusion with torrefied fuel. They are generally separate, and a Google search on pelletization will rapidly deconvolve the two. One point about "modern" torrefaction is that, unlike charcoal production, the volatiles are intended to be used for some (or all) of the required process heat in steady-state production, which is one reason Hugh's figures show such a disparity. A more significant difference is that the volatile content (as well as the combustion rate) of torrefied fuel is likely to be relatively low, like anthracite, which will have important implications for effective firing design...

I would dearly love to answer the commuter-engine design question, or some of the other locomotive optimization questions, but as Tom points out this is a preservation board, not a rail technology or steam technology group. E-mail me off list if these are subjects that interest anyone here.

RME

It is not about you, but the locomotive. It's foster parents cannot take care of it anymore and it has been offered to a new caretaker who has promised no less than a better home and an opportunity to grow.

This will be a re-occurring theme as organizations without the mission statement and financial backing to maintain this type of equipment dispose of it, and the general choice will be for anyone to take it or it will be scrapped. Frankly, any proposal which does not include "scrap" of the entire vehicle should be considered a victory for "preservation." I am sure 99% of those who will see it will not recognize the differences of the modified locomotive because they have no reference of it or even steam locomotives for that matter. If you want something modern people would be nostalgic about, pick a first gen I -Phone (now on its 5th gen in 5 years.)

Who said it was about me? All I am doing is offering my opinion. And I am curious about the position of the owners who gave it away. I understand your foster parent analogy, but do you have any facts about this explanation? I am curious as to how the locomotive that was put on display came to be unwanted. Assuming that it was originally welcomed as a donation for display, how did keeping it painted turn into an unacceptable burden?

"I am curious as to how the locomotive that was put on display came to be unwanted. Assuming that it was originally welcomed as a donation for display, how did keeping it painted turn into an unacceptable burden?"--Ron Travis

How does anything wind up being neglected and an eyesore? Not just park exhibit locomotives, but old tanks, preserved aircraft, covered bridges, mansions at the center of the estate that became the park, preserved steamships, preserved battlecruisers of pre-Dreadnaught vintage, or railroad tugs? (Some of these things have been on this forum for the parallel lessons they have.)

As I see it, we do not have the passion for history some other cultures have (most notably the French, the British, and the Japanese). Again, this is not limited to railroad history, although rail history seems to be the one thing neglected the most. What's the cause? Dumbing down in schools? Budget cuts in education leading to said dumbing down? An excessive obsession with money in and of itself, as opposed to what you use it for? A preoccupation with being "modern, cool, with-it, groovy? (Ha, I probably date myself with those word choices!)

A combination of all this and more?

I concur, it's a serious problem. Many of us may recall the saying, "a nation without a past is a lost nation, and a people without a past is a people without a soul." That was Sir Seretse Khama, the first president of the then-new nation of Botswana, speaking at a graduation ceremony there in 1970. He was speaking about how his African nation, and others, needed to recall their own history, not to look at it as a blank time before the Europeans came, yet I can't help but look at ourselves today, and think of what we have forgotten, or even never learned, what was important to some of us who came earlier.

http://www.thuto.org/ubh/bw/skquote1.htm

Can we say we have the same soul of the past?

Speaking for myself, one of the things I appreciate about history in general, and our railroads in particular, is that they are "cool" in their own right, and they can teach lessons to those of us yet to come. I've mentioned things in this forum that, truthfully, would not normally be part of a discussion of heritage railroads (i.e., "peak oil"), yet if we didn't keep some sort of passenger service, and if we didn't also preserve the old stuff, who would know that rail service could be part of the solution to living in what appears to be an approaching post-oil world? How much of a debt do we owe to the trolley museums we have, who kept the sights and sounds and feel of a local electric railway alive in places that wouldn't have a subway or transit line, and in doing so, may have inspired some town planner to review the idea of the electric street railway, the suburban trolley line, and perhaps someday, the interurban? How much do we owe the steam train people, who showed excursionists how different the land looks from a train? I recall that lesson myself with the 2101 on a New River excursion in 1977 (and I've been spoiled for big steam and heavyweights ever since!) How many may have ridden such an excursion, and been amazed at the speed a 4-8-4 or 2-8-4 can muster, observed how wonderful the experience was (and that not all of it had to do with the power), enjoyed the company of the people we met on the train, and at the end of the day, wondered, "Why did we let this go?"

http://progressivepolicy.org/how-americ ... -rail-race

And once again, how much have we forgotten?

I think that's part of what happened in Topeka.

And I think that railway preservation, especially in the more professional forms it has taken over the last 10 years or so, is part of how we can bring back our soul.

I just hope we have the time. . .and hope I'm not too far off topic!

Yes, I understand the general scenario that can lead to a displayed locomotive being given away or scrapped. But each of these specific cases has its own story of how it came about. And by no means is this the inevitable fate of all displayed locomotives. Usually it is a relatively rare case of some type of distress. So, I am just wondering what the specific story is about the ATSF 4-6-4.

Well, figure it takes $30K to abate one, about $5-20K to paint it every 5-7 yrs, and almost all of them need a jacket, cab sides, windows, dummy appliances, etc. which I can attest to is a lot of work on UP 4023. They often need to be moved; then you need to shelter the investment, buy insurance for people climbing the fence and jumping off of it, etc. All for a dead hulk that no one except 1% of the people even know what it because it doesn't do its job anymore.

It is a general story, and the same for ships, except those are immersed in a corrosive environment instead of just exposed to one.

I do not know the specifics of this locomotive, but the generalities are pretty apparent from its appearance.

I understand your points, and perhaps that is generally the story with the ATSF engine.

I also believe that coal combustion is acquiring a black eye in our society, and nothing symbolizes the coal burning age more than an old steam locomotive. So not only do a lot of people no longer recognize them for what they are, but also, many others who do recognize them, hold them in contempt. So, in that way, it is ironic that the locomotive has been chosen to reverse that legacy by the extreme feat of becoming carbon neutral.

But a steam locomotive is such an ingrained symbol of the coal burning age, that expunging that image is going to be tough even if is carbon neutral. In that sense, I have to wonder about the wisdom of using a steam locomotive as a rolling billboard for carbon neutral external combustion power. Is the symbol going to step on the modern message?

In order to prevent that coal fired symbol from conflicting with the modern purpose, that ATSF locomotive is going to have to be shrouded and painted in a hyper modern paint scheme. Streamlined shrouding has always had a tendency to be controversial. I wonder what this one will look like.

Check out the opening sequence of the film ELEPHANT MAN. Look at pictures of Pittsburgh and Birmingham in 1945. This is what people object to when negatively contemplating coal. Now, look at Thomas the Tank Engine.........or go to Strasburg. Come down south and check out the horror on the faces of the crowds lining the tracks when 630 passes by......why, people bring out their children and grandparents and all just to express their indignation! But why are they smiling and cheering to do so?

Or is it fascination and enjoyment and nostalgia, even for things not experienced in personal lifetimes? Never did see unhappy faces at a run by, or water stop, except on foamers who had the horror of an actual person appear in a photo. So, maybe we should be worrying about banning people instead of coal?

Check out BLUE GOOSE for an idea of what this class did look like streamlined. And, please share the specifications for the paint job since when I last talked to people in the project they didn't even know what it was going to be yet.

I don't know why you are working so hard on keeping yourself unhappy about a project that doesn't personally impact you, stands to bring steam locomotives into a broader positive exposure to the general public, and has a backup preservation plan in place if it fails to attract adequate capitalization. I think you may be fighting your own emotionally charged perceptions here.....a battle in which there can be no victor.

There is no enemy or bad guy. You or I may like or dislike the plan, either for reasons that are real or imaginary, but neither of us is a stakeholder in it, and our opinions don't matter a bit.

I'm giving up on talking about anything related to this except what information I have gleaned from legitimate sources in a position to know, most of which i have already posted. Paper tigers......how many pages wasted so far? You want to be unhappy, you're on your own.

dave

I would recommend re-reading issue 63 of L&RP.

Not yet.

The quite legitimate fear that many of us may be harboring (I know I sure am) is the potential--mind you, the potential-- that this project could end up backfiring in a way that damages the entire rail preservation avocation by association.

The best outcome I can foresee from this proposal is that there's a "new," successful, high-speed steam locomotive prowling our rails, the U.S. version of the A1 Tornado locomotive, and that a new, PR-friendly, coal-replacement fuel can be made available to places like Mt. Washington, the Grand Canyon RR, Strasburg, and any other place with possible environmental concerns or perceptions of same. Now, to believe this outcome is possible, I would have to have the unbridled optimism that pervades each and every "consultant's study" that tells politicians what they want to hear about their proposed sports stadium, arena, convention center, hotel project, etc. and the increased revenues they'll bring to the city's coffers. Hey, man, it COULD happen!

The worst-case scenario (and I must concede that I'm exaggerating for impact here)? This loco is sitting in front of the next Solyndra building, with investigative reporters from Nightline, 20/20/ Dateline NBC, 60 Minutes, etc., sticking microphones in front of certain faces while standing in front of a pile of AT&SF Hudson parts and saying "Seriously.... what made you think that anyone would take seriously a proposition to run a steam locomotive at 130 miles per hour in 2014? What was your market? And what was $27 million in grant money actually spent on?"

Many of us here were around for the Steamtown-in-Scranton debacle. We saw reporters ultimately making politicians squirm uncomfortably as they were grilled about the promises and reality of Steamtown in Scranton, both before and after Federal/NPS involvement. And we saw the image repeated endlessly to the public: "YOUR tax monies wasted on a bunch of broken-down old steamers, half of which aren't even American!"

And, as a result, the entire old-steam-locomotives and rail preservation field takes a hit in credibility, mostly undeserved.

Given the long-term history of cases of technological research driven by politics and academia rather than simple economics and capitalism, I view the odds of the latter outcome with 3463 and Company as being greater than the "optimistic" outcome. And that, and that alone, is my only reason for cynicism, caution, and pessimism.

LIKE BUTTON!!!!!!!!!

I find it strange that you don't see any of the experianced steam people on here poo pooing this project like it is something coming out of the book of revelations.....maybe the #3463 project is not as apocalyptic as some would have us believe?

Professionals in this field are not going to pre-emptively bite the proverbial hand that could feed them very, very well.

They're most likely sitting back, waiting for more specific and detailed information. Most critically, of course, "We have $XX,XXX,XXX in the account now, and here's what we're budgeting for A, B, C...."

Take, for example, a major steam shop like [mumble-mumble]. They may be waiting to hear "Okay, we need a re-engineered steam delivery system; here are our requirements and relevant dimensions, bids must be submitted by November 30th." Ka-Ching....

On the other hand, there could be (not likely, but...) a situation of "Huh? You want to do what?!? How?? With what?? Can we see your math and diagrams, please?.......... Uhhhh, well, yes, we could do that..... [geez, what are these guys smoking?]"

We've already seen that places like [mumble-mumble] already deal with non-disclosure agreements with regards to such things as movie-production work. I would expect no less, and indeed far more, "secrecy" surrounding a potentially "ground-breaking" industrial proposal potentially worth billions of dollars in the long term. There have been lots of times, railroad preservation and otherwise, where I've been told not to photograph certain "projects" while behind the scenes, and/or been told with a wink and nudge "I'm not allowed to tell you that those are new [parts] for [Project-We-Can't-Talk-About-But-You-Can-Obviously-Tell-What-Loco-That-Is-Out-There-Under-Wraps], okay?"

I stand virtually NO chance of getting income from this proposal. We can't say the same for the likes of Linn Moedinger, Bill Withuhn, Ross Rowland, Kelly Anderson, Dave Conrad, Steve Lee, etc.