Dave, as you know a steam locomotive is like grandfathers axe - you can change the blade seven times and the handle four times, but you resist in that it is still the same axe. ;-)

There are enough locomotives around to await a restoration, and as we all know in some cases modernizations of operating locomotives have already taken part. Converting a loco to roller bearings might not be the great extra to persuade donators.
So I doubt a new class of modern steam locomotives of smaller/medium size would be a success, as in the end the expense for a brand new locomotive would stand aganist the possibility of running a historical (modernized or not) locomotive with probably more investors willing to donate. I would see some perspective if there were a professional, non-regional company behind it, e.g. leasing the locos througout the country.

The charm of the T1 project - came it from a trustworthy person with an adequate website - is that this is a very special, fascinating locomotive, incomparable with anything preserved.

Mike

You may be missing Dave's point. You're only thinking about the one thing: mainline steam excursion service (of the $100/seat variety) with 20 coaches going 60 mph that requires a big Berkshire or Northern to pull it. We have a glut of those engines all dressed up with nowhere to go. The scarce commodities actually are a) willing Class I railroads, b) frickin COACHES*, and c) passengers willing to pay enough to make the enterprise worthwhile.

We are actually talking about a totally different type of service that perhaps you did not notice because it is more subtle, but more relevant.** That is tourist railways and railway museums which run short out-and-backs on their own railroad, every single weekend. They run 3-6 trips a day, go 2-8 miles, charge $20-ish with a museum tour, and run 5 coaches tops. What may have escaped your notice is that slowly, these operations have, one by one, stopped running steam. It's not called the "Steam Directory" anymore. And we're not surprised when the little guys quit, but Mid-Continent and IRM haven't seen steam in years. These are heavy hitters. Even Steamtown sends out excursions with diesels. This is an outright steam emergency. The right-size steamer is a light Pacific, and the usable life of that fleet has been used up, and remember they are generally a much older fleet than the 1940's Super Power engines you're talking about.

It's nearly as bad as the coach emergency which has kept so much of the Super-Power in the barn. Seriously if you only care about mainline steam excursions, the "project alternative" we need is a capital rebuild program on about 100 coaches. I say rebuild instead of new stock, to avoid the ADA requirements which are overkill for an excursion fleet.

So there you go. If the goal is to bring steam to the People, we need an army of right-sized tourist railway engines. If it's to save steam excursions, then coaches.


* coaches I've ridden on recent steam excursions make 1971 Amtrak look coordinated. We are really scraping the bottom of the barrel on Class I capable coaches that have any business being behind such a steamer, and I foresee a day when a typical consist is a HEP car and Amfleet.

** Anyone wish they had five dollars everytime a railfan said your tourist line should be scrapped because there not enough freight customers along the line, and only freight matters???

Robert and Dave "get it" while NKP doesn't.

The only quibble I have with Robert's statement is that I'd posit that a 4-6-2 is probably too large in reality for most tourist operations. If one insists, an updated Canadian Pacific light pacific would probably be a good starting point.

That day is already here, for the most part. On the 4449 trips for the 2011 NRHS convention, there were some private cars on the tail ends of the trips she ran, but most of the consist was pure Amtrak. Once you get clear of the few domes on the end of that consist (or the crew car at the other end), you wouldn't have a clue you weren't riding a normal Amtrak train as we were really moving on many parts of those runs...

Well, there's a lot I don't get, such as the tendency of groups of railfans to not stop themselves from thinking like railfans........and look at things from the perspective of what is needed and what can be sold, to decide what is actually important. I can see somebody who is fascinated with T1 engineering build his own in 15' gage to play with, but I can't see hundreds of thousands of dollars being crowdsourced to support his hobby.

For those who think the future of preserved steam in the US is mainline all day expensive survival trips.........we have plenty of locomotives available to pull them. More of them than are necessary to do so by a long margin. There's no need for more to serve that market right now. If I'm wrong please prove it. I won't even get into the subject of coaches........

Like Robert, I've watched the decline of small tourist and museum steam but from an insider's perspective. I know how much remaining life is present in many of the remaindered fleet and what it takes to either make them run again or to keep them running.......which is why fewer of them are maintained in service. Why invest in a new boiler if the frame is stress cracking and the cylinder castings are getting brittle? A new generation of locomotives built of common interchangeable parts and assemblies, taking full advantage of modern efficiencies and capabilities, that can be produced in a variety of different configurations could serve that need better than gradually replacing every part piecemeal that gets to be 125 years old or so, and more cost effectively in the long view. This keeps steam alive longer and more sustainably, and preserves the real historic iron from being lost in service.

That said, I'm presently involved in planning the restoration of a 50 ton prairie from the 1920s for operation, which I'd certainly rethink if the option for building a new one taking advantage of the economies of interchangable modular design and construction were now available.

dave

Robert -

Although I've often thought that a 2-6-2 Prairie of the type that ran on roads like the Soo, CGW, Milwaukee Road, Burlington, NP, Wabash, etc. would be a perfect locomotive to fit this need, a Pacific might fit the bill. The Illinois Central had 4-6-2's with 75-1/2" drivers which were later rebuilt for freight service with 61" drivers. A standardized new steamer could be built with buyers specifying which option. There were some roads that also rebuilt Atlantics with lower drivers for freight service! The problem of course is, where is the money for a brand new steamer to come from? Even if a number are built to cut individual unit costs, the price is almost certainly to be too high for that tourist railroad or railway museum to afford.

Les

Les, you still aren't getting it. All the roads you named were mainlines and all the locomotives you mentioned were 100 plus tons. Tourist roads need something about half that. We don't need NP, ATSF ect prairies, we need P and NW, Caddo and Choctaw, Bagdad Land and Lumber, D,Q and E prairies

Ah....what you need is the trusty, crusty USRA 0-8-0 ! Perfect for many uses, can cruise comfortably at 35 MPH, bi-directional, highly economical, can be used to support freight operations when the crowd isn't looking. Can be built in a "modernized" format...N&W S1a. Everybody loves the prototype. Plans still exist, one example still exists, at least. Would be great for tourist lines, short lines, industrial lines with a nostalgic bent. Power? Enough to give an Alco T series a run for it's money! This would fill the bill for the newly minted practical vest-pocket steamer. For the dyed in the wool SPF, the same thing can be achieved with a new copy of the H8/9/10 2-8-0. Sure, there's one at Strasburg, but it'll never run again, unless something else is pulling it! These are all useful designs and ideas, but I'll go with the big, high dollar, big ticket chooch for shear guts and glory! The B&O EM1 idea is not bad....let's start one as soon as we finish the PRR T !

No USRA 0-8-0s or big 0-6-0s, either. Not for operation over 98% of tourist/museum lines. Those things are rough on the track, and most places do not have the strong track structure and geometry to have those engines operating regularly above 10 mph. The lead truck helps damp out the side to side yaw of switchers and cuts down on track problems. There was a reason the Midland Terminal applied lead trucks to those Army surplus 0-6-0s after WW2.

When I worked on NH&I 0-6-0 #9, the side to side "waddle" was very apparent at speeds over 8-10 mph. I know it was doing bad things to the track and the engine itself.

A 55-65 ton 2-6-2 or a 70-75 ton 2-8-2 would be a good design for 95% of the places out there. Use 50-51" drivers, have a capability of 25 mph with 4-6 coaches (maybe a bit more) and not be "winded", say about 28-32,000 TE and a good 4+ factor of adhesion. I like Dave's idea of 4 or so basic designs, with many common assemblies and parts.

Howard P.

Add Howard to the list of people that "get it".

Plus, such a proposal really isn't that different from the "catalog" locomotives built by Baldwin and ALCO, which shared common design to achieve many different variations.

Some on this board often lament that "we" get no respect. Part of the problem is that railfans try to approach preservation as railfans. The various proposals to replicate T-1s, EM-1s or even USRA 0-8-0s shows this.

Also agree on the lack of quality mainline coaches. The one exception is the MILW 261 group, which puts a good deal of emphasis of having a nice train to go with the nice locomotive. Why isn't this copied elsewhere? Putting in a retention toilet isn't as sexy as playing steam choo choo. Railfans thinking like railfans.

Now I'm gonna suggest a PRR H6sb, updated to modern specs. Classic good looks and the ability (proven!) to negotiate non-existent track ! Huzzah !

About 90 tons. Still too heavy. Also, most operations could benefit from a trailing truck that acts as a leading truck for backup moves.

There's a very small logging mike at Eureka Springs we might consider. I've also seen some pics of early (1880s) Consolidations that were maybe 60 tons or so.

dave

At the slow speeds talked about in this scenario, wouldn't a tender be satisfactory to take the place of a trailing truck for backup moves, leading Mogul's, 4-6-0's, Consolidations, etc. into curves?

Les

Les,

This is a good question. Dave and others will know more, but in my experience the backing can lead to flange wear on the rear set of drivers. The tender, since it isn't part of the locomotive, doesn't dampen the side to side forces. Thin flanges on the rear two sets of drivers on the Frisco 2-10-0 at IRM are what originally sidelined this loco. I was told it was from years of backing up half the trip. But like you say, a lot potentially depends on the speed of the hypothetical operation.

The beauty of the Alco/Baldwin industrial design with at used identical leading and trailing trucks, it didn't matter which way you were going. Of course, improved lateral motion devices on the drivers may lessen the need for a trailing truck.