I believe you are mischaracterizing my reaction to this proposal. Our opinions may not matter, but who is to say whether they do or not? This is a very complex proposal that raises hundreds of questions and offers no answers to them. I believe each person is likely read into it almost anything they want.

I don’t see any problem with discussing it or seeking answers to the questions, even if I had no stake in it. And actually, looking at the big picture of this proposal, I would say that we all most certainly do have a stake in it. We may even end up paying for it.

Now hold it a moment. This discussion just stepped over the line... with the 'kicker' coming from one of the *last* people I would have expected to sink that low.

Ron Travis and Dave have essentially 'agreed to disagree' -- Ron thinks that historic preservation's essence is in the historical configuration, and dave's in the existence of forward-looking working steam. Both those points of view are valuable; both have merit; it is difficult or impossible to reconcile them in just "one" future for 3463. Gentlemen may differ, just as engineers or doctors do, without losing civility.

But to accuse virtually the entire modern-steam community of collusion in some giant Solyndra-like scheme to separate American taxpayers from huge chunks of cash, with nothing at the end to show for it, goes beyond any possible definition of 'civil' debate or discussion. If it were directed at me by name, for example, I would consider it grounds for slander. And I do not use either that word, or the idea behind it, lightly.

I can understand that some of the wording in the press release is exaggerated. As is some of the rhetoric concerning the 'Concept 130' locomotive and its capability. I sympathize with, and defend in principle the right to express, ideas very different from my own preferences regarding restoration of steam power to operable status (rather than leaving locomotives 'stuffed and mounted', or worse, neglected to rot.) While I think it is sad that there are people who comment about preserving 3463 without, for example, recognizing what kind of fuel it burned or how well-built it might have been, I do not think they are fools for expressing their opinion... or because their opinion may differ from mine.

But accusations of misconduct of the kind I have just read are another thing entirely, and I am sorry to see them appear in what I had thought was one of the pre-eminent forums concerning steam-locomotive restoration.


RME

Except there is a definition for "Preservation," and I would kinda hope that people on a Preservation forum would have some shared idea of what that is.

From the Secretary of the Interior:

Preservation is defined as the act or process of applying measures necessary to sustain the existing form, integrity, and materials of an historic property. Work, including preliminary measures to protect and stabilize the property, generally focuses upon the ongoing maintenance and repair of historic materials and features rather than extensive replacement and new construction. New exterior additions are not within the scope of this treatment; however, the limited and sensitive upgrading of mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems and other code-required work to make properties functional is appropriate within a preservation project.

Just because something continues to exist is some form does not mean it has been "preserved." I understand why this topic has generated as much discussion as it has, but I am shocked that on this board, so many are eager to see a rare historic artifact go under the knife. I get the sense that more here are turned on by the technology of railroading than its history, and historic preservation is about preserving things from the past. As they were.

As to the alleged good intentions of the participants and arguments that amount to, "well, it was being neglected, so why not?" These do not assuage my concerns that as far has historic preservation is concerned, the engine may as well be getting scrapped.

R.

Regarding your comment I highlighted in blue:

Who is accusing virtually the entire modern-steam community of collusion in some giant Solyndra-like scheme to separate American taxpayers from huge chunks of cash, with nothing at the end to show for it? Nobody has made that accusation or any part of it.

All I said is that we all have a stake in this, and may end up paying for it. The carbon neutral objective is being advanced as a collective obligation for the greater good of society. It comes at a price. It is widely expecetd to be imposed by regulation. That is what I mean when I say we all have a stake in it, and that we may even end up paying for it. This prototype locomotive could play a role in increasing the cost of transportation for everybody. I certainly never said that the proposal would turn into a boondoggle and waste public money with no result. You are reading that into what I said.

However, the objective of Solyndra was indeed fundamentally the same as the objective of this carbon-neutral locomotive. So there is an analogy to Solyndra in terms of a probability of public funding. That is also part of what I meant when I said we may even end up paying for it.

"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."

Frankly I don't see them commenting or getting involved to any extent. I know a couple of them who sure wouldn't step foot into this thread.
I'll be 72 this year and doubt that I would ever be around to see this "gather steam" so to speak.
I have my own views on it, but am tired of reading this thread and wish it would go away. It's going nowhere.
I'd be a hell of a lot more interested in what the Strasburg is doing in their shop now or some news on a real restoration.
I'm outta here.

We are into some 15 pages of discussion started by a press release... in 15 pages only Dave has brought new information to the table... I have spoken to a "member" of the team, and while he was not able to talk, He confirmed much of what Dave reported.

Beyond that little bit of additional information we are mostly arguing about what might happen and what their plans might be...

While I am not locking the thread, I would strongly suggest that you consider if any additional posting would contribute new information (as in base on facts, not conjecture) or a new point of view (one not found in the previous 15 pages of postings)

Your mostly friendly moderator,
Randy

I suggest that folks interested in this issue take a look at the column by Fred Frailey in the July issue of Trains magazine. Frailey is a highly-respected journalist and long-time contributor to Trains, and he's got a really good BS filter. He's a bit skeptical, but he's willing to see what happens.

Everyone has their reasons for being skeptical about this. The concept of the project is solid in utilizing the breaking of the speed record for the purpose of publicity for the new bio product.
I want to know, any investors or donors should want to know how it is the university became involved with and greenlighted this project without anyone involved who as actually managed or directed a project of similar magnitude. FACT is that none of the involved have the background for taking on a project such as this even if you forget about trying to do 130mph. Being "involved" in the periphery with major restorations does not somehow impart the ability to do them as is evident in failed smaller restorations.

The most experienced person involved is the guy from Argentina having done very invasive work on smaller locomotives. Key word is "SMALLER", an individual with a proven and established track record for this size and speed of equipment must, in the perception of reality, be involved in order for there to be an unobstructed path to success.

Am I incorrect? Is this a novice level project?

John

John,

Certainly this isn't a novice level project but I honestly don't think it's rocket science either. The basic locomotive is already engineered, and should be capable of damned close to 130 MPH already. I base that statement on the fact that there is pretty good documentation that contemporary ALCO 84 inch drivered 4-6-4's on the Milwaukee Road routinely hit 120 MPH. As a quick comparison, (providing my back of the envelope calculations are correct) an N&W J was turning 528 RPM at 110 MPH; this locomotive will only be turning 520 RPM at 130 MPH. I don't see achieving the speed as being a big problem.

As far as Shaun's experience with small locomotives, the kinds of operations required to rebuild and/or modify a steamer are pretty much the same whether you're talking about an 18 inch gauge 2-6-2T or a standard gauge 4-6-4. I'm sure a lot of the pieces will be bigger than what he's used to, but hopefully he'll have access to experienced steam people here who can advise him when needed.

Since the university is involved, they should have some pretty experienced and talented engineers to provide support for the detailed design of whatever improvements they fit to the locomotive.

Hugh

In converting the locomotive to have gas producer firebox, how will the overfire air be brought into the firebox? Will that require a number of new penetrations in the inner and outer sheets of the firebox with connecting tubes to bring air into the firebox? Or would it be possible to install a manifold that could bring the air in from one point source and then distribute it above the fire?

Agreed. This is becoming too much of a "foamer thread" rather than a meaningful discussion. Wait until these folks have both a comprehensive plan and the financial backing to make it happen before you start discussing this in earnest; until that happens, this is just another proposal just like the ACE 3000 Project and isn't going anywhere until those conditions are met.

Earlier in this discussion I contacted a friend who is associated with the project, and he assured me that they will have a public information presentation available in the near future. So consider inviting them to your organization and let them tell you about what they are doing. It seems like a very interesting topic to learn about.

PC

Ron,

Most of the GPCS's that have been fitted have used tubes through the inner and outer firebox sheets. They're often placed in the firebox sides, sometimes at the top rear (through the crown sheet) and most recently (on some of Porta's last project locomotives in Brazil) through the throat sheet.

IIRC, some smaller locomotives in the UK have been fitted with the GPCS with no firebox penetrations using nozzles built into the fire door or with variations of what you suggest so that no new firebox penetrations are required. I know of one live steamer in South Africa who brought secondary air tubes up through the grates; he found this worked well.

For the preservation side, it's not difficult to reverse the modifications required for a GPCS. Generally each GPCS air tube replaces a staybolt and a few surrounding inches of metal. The tubes can be removed, a new circular section of metal welded in, and a new staybolt installed.

Point taken, but I think this project fits into the Secretary's rubric under "adaptive reuse," not preservation. And in fairness to the project organizers, I don't see them billing themselves as a preservation project--the p word came up more in later kibbitzing.

The locomotive art is continually evolving. We think of preservation as suspending that evolution in a locomotive, and preserving that state of suspension. But the term, preservation came up in this thread by some contending that preservation can apply to the evolutionary process itself. It would be the preservation of constant change. You could call it the preservation of non-preservation.