The thread on the PRR T1 Steam Locomotive Trust has developed a lot of interest and comments. A replicated T1 4-4-4-4 can be built. No it can't. No place to run it. Yes, it will run if built. Better to build a (your suggestion here...............) than a Pennsy T1. If you build it, make improvements. No, it has to be the same as originally built. Great idea! Stupid idea! The monetary backing is lacking. No, there is initial financial backing out there. I must admit that the idea of a new PRR T1 being built is a fascinating idea, and I wish the project well. But I wonder if there might be more support if the idea was to build one of those engines proposed, that was never built. I think it was Lima that proposed a 2-8-6, or perhaps a 4-8-6, that was supposedly much better than the engines running at the time. Since this would be a completely new engine, the "I'd rather see a...." faction couldn't argue for "their" engine instead. Also, since the design would not be trying to outperform diesels, but simply a brand new locomotive to run future excursions with existing passenger equipment, no hard parameters would have to be met. Finally, since a new engine, no reason to keep it off of certain lines because of previous heritage.

Throwing it out there for what it's worth.

Les

Certainly would be interesting to build the 4-8-6 that Lima had proposed at the end of steam. Wonder if plans were ever drawn up, or if it never went beyond the proposal state. Certainly the idea of the 6 wheel trailing truck to support a huge firebox and combustion chamber was successful on the 2-6-6-6

since someone wants to build a new steam locomotive (Leviathon) why not throw some support to build the modern steam engine (ACE).

The problem with a fictional design (or one that was never built), you don't have a clue if the thing will run or not. For example, the Brits who built "Tornado" had an idea how the Peppercorn class should work.
But as for your notion that the "I'd rather see a...." faction couldn't argue for "their" engine instead, yeah, people would probably yell much louder that you should build what they want instead...

I still go with an EM-1. They were almost not built due to rejection of diesels by the War Production Board,one was preserved and then it got scrapped, they were built with late stage steam technology, pretty small for a 2-8-8-4 allowing them to roam more places, had no real bad habits and looked good. A known quantity with good power and newer construction sounds like a plan. But that's just me.

My consideration would be with the N&W Y7. But, and this would be my opinion-would it be considered easier just to support an existing steam engine's return to operation rather than going to the expense of nuilding a new one? I don't want to sound like I'm just using the opportunity to push for my favorite locomotive, but I would want to go with the plan that would be more feasible in the way of time, money and effort.
lois

None of the above. We have an ample supply of mainline power looking for a place to run to earn the next overhaul. Our museum and tourist line smaller power....well, that's what's wearing out. It has been a couple years at last since we talked about the expandable modular 4 to 6 coupled locomotive with interchangeable parts to replace worn out small lokies. I'd gear up for that kind of production - not for anything huge.

dave

Any type of modern steam is going to be EXPENSIVE. If we are wanting to explore theory and practice, as a project that would be a fraction of the cost building a Shark or an EM-1, or a NYC Hudson-would be to fix and restore that USATC S-160 that has the simplified Franklin poppet valves. If a private individual owns it, I bet he'd take what help he would get. It would place in operation a locomotive with late steam technology (poppet valves) that otherwise would be unobservable without operation, and there are examples to make operational/economic comparisons with.

For just the money it would take to adapt the original drawings and calculations done for a new construction Pennsy T1, you could put together a helluva emergency fund to help get the P&LE 2-10-4 out of its location when the inevitable happens, buy and install a roof sheet on an unmentionable K4, or do a whole lotta good on the Lonesome Mowhawk, if our focus is strictly the Northeast.

A lot of you forget that despite the fact the British liked to use more than two simple cylinders on their more modern express engines, they are much smaller and more simply constructed machines; cutting out a plate frame for a non equalized locomotive is a whole lot simpler and cheaper than the complex bar frame of US practice. A US steam locomotive is a whole 'nuther technology in the erecting hall.

A new build of a historic steam locomotive could be defined as a restoration which pays no respect whatsoever to historic fabric. So why not start with an existing engine, and say, OK we're going to scrap it and use it as a pattern for a new engine. New boiler? Of course. New frame? See what the magnaflux says. Etc.

How about a new build based on an Alco logging 2-8-2 or a Baldwin industrial/shortline 2-6-2. They have trailing trucks that can act as leading trucks, are small, can run almost on any tourist railroad and would be more useful.

Welded boilers, fabricated frames, interchangeable parts. Maybe even investigate some modern technology, such as Lempor exhaust, gas producer fireboxes, etc.

David, you have the idea.......bar frames cut from heavy plate by automated machines controlled by computers capable of laying out anything from one to 4 driving axles and adding a 2 or 4 wheeled truck to either end as necessary. One saddle, probably 2 different cylinder fabrication sizes with maybe 2 liners of different thickness that are fit into the cylinders. Drivers are the same diameter for any wheel arrangement - say about 46" or thereabouts. Boilers are lengthened or shortened by varying the number of courses and the length of the firebox, by preengineered stay pitch, and come in two diameters based on the cylinder fabrication diameter. One valve gear fits all. Use roller bearings on everything, force feed lubrication, make it as easy to maintain and as clean and efficient to fire as practical.

So, the small logging Mike is the top end, and the Columbia is the bottom end.

Different accessories can make it appear as an 1890 - 1940 era locomotive or anywhere in between.

dave

Dave's idea is intriguing. I thought that steam locomotive type driver roller bearings were no longer available from Timken. What about SKF? Didn't they provide them to the Tornado project?

To put a stam locomotive on a Class I line, there are several things needed. First the locomotive must meet all standards of the RR & govt. orgs. Next, it must have the power to pull a trainload of people sufficient to cover all or a significant portion of the costs of running and maintaining. Finally, the locomotive must be attractive so as to capture the publics notice, especially the media. The 611, 765 and UP Challenger meet those marks. The Big Boy certainly will. I'd suggest the T-1 would be an intant hit.

I suggest the general public doesn't know the difference or care. Any choo-choo is a steam train to them. This is as it should be.......they are as happy riding behind a Nickel Plate berkshire on the Southern Pacific as a SP heritage engine, as long as it sounds right...don't know or care about technological innovation, it is all nostalgic to them.....and they are the ones who comprise the train loads of paying passengers.

dave

Roller bearings suitable are available. The difficulty in retrofitting them is that the frames must be designed to allow for the cannon boxes that hold the rollers in rigid permanent relation to each other, which are of necessity larger than a plain box for the same axle diameter. I forsee no problem for bearings for engine trucks, rods or valve gear.

dave