https://patentimages.storage.googleapis ... 5957-1.png

https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/pages/US2235957-1.png

A good choice for a modern new-build would be one based the B&O's class W1. It was designed but never completely built. The W was to have four engines which were designed and patented by William J. Besler. His design would have solved many of the problems associated with rod locomotives such as the "nosing" back and forth from augmented thrust from the pistons, and track pounding from uneven counterbalancing. The independent engines would have made the locomotive more flexible around curves because there was no rigid side rods binding the drivers.
A great thing about the Besler design is that it can be used for any wheel arrangement from an 0-4-0 up to would be needed for either tourist or mainline service, say a 2-8-2, 4-8-4, or whatever. The engine was designed for constant torque from a standing start up to as fast as it could go.
I've done a lot of research on Bill Besler and his lifelong search for ultimate steam. His accomplishments are many including patents for a steam powered aircraft, automobiles, marine craft, military craft and various supporting appliance parts for steam. All of which he built and operated!
The B&O built a test engine of the Besler design in 1938 (One of three different, but similar designs I know of. See the link above for one of the alternates ). The railroad was already buying the diesel by then, and the steam project was halted. Whether it would have prolonged steam for much longer, who knows, but it's design was meant to be modern, economical, and powerful.
A modern variation would be an incredible machine.

Brian Hebert

How about reverse-reverse engineering the SY? After all, wasn't the SY a copy of something like an Alco design from about 1918? Of course, do all the upgrades; new frame designed for rollers, top boiler check, whatever the latest drafting scheme is (Lempor?), cross compound compressor, mechanical lubricators, stoker, superheat as an option, etc. Rollers on the tender and lead and trailing truck, a "squared up" tender (extended vision coal bunker as an option) and an American cab. Look into some good Salem air filtration, perhaps with some coalescing filters for oil removal, so the air can be some variant of 26, like 26-FNL. Did I miss anything?

Now, shrink the frame and boiler a bit, and you can have a 2-6-2; I believe the Chinese have done this trick already. Or, stretch things out to a light 2-10-2 for lighter track. Gotta use those standardized parts somewhere.

My guess, though, is that we'll see a new GG-1 before we see a new T-1... (ducking for cover-)

An additional and later thought on coaches; someone should come up with some sort of simple and inexpensive to build "standard" open window coach design, suitable for tourist lines and at speeds up to 30 or 35. Four axle, rollers, simple brakes (ABDW?), no A/C, maybe solar cells, batteries and LED lighting, aluminum sash windows (Adlake?), walkover seats, retention toilets, maybe a coal stove for heat, if needed? (I grew up with CNJs, Readings, Stillwells, and Lackawanna Boonton cars; the open platforms would be an issue with the latter, though). Another good choice would be the PRR P-54, or even the LIRR Ping-Pong, although on something better than the 'pregnant roller skate' trucks. I've seen too many 'sordid cabeesties' and McDonald's seating equipped RPOs lately. And riding behind ANY steam in a sealed window A/C equipped car just isn't right.

Guys - a tender can help lead a locomotive in a backing move, but it doesn't have to. Some trailing trucks can, but not all do as well. It depends on the design. There are many reasons for flange wear, but generally speaking a long rigid wheelbase will wear most at the flanges at either end of the wheelbase.....and if one end has no truck to help pull it towards the center, in either direction it will be permitted to hunt further laterally, and will wear fastest. In a 6 coupled rigid wheelbase, leaving the center wheels blind can help a lot. It would be interesting to see how the wear is different between a 4-4-0 and an 0-4-4 Forney in terms of the impact of the direction of travel.

Obviously, when considering what locomotive suits your line, you have to look at the particulars of the curvature, track condition, and weight of rail and subgrade. Then consider what you have to pull, and how often. Lightly loading a locomotive can prevent heavy mechanical wear unless it is so large the rigid wheelbase leads to flange wear, but no matter what you are still going to need to do compliance in 15 years. Working a smaller locomotive harder will wear it faster, but perhaps not in the flanges as much as in other parts possibly. You may find if you are running a line with corners instead of curves that your limiting factor is the corners, not the load.

Suit the locomotive to the railroad and the train it will pull.

dave

The things we could do with a crazy billionaire. Each year another restoration, and long term projects like a new T1, J3a, etc. And sufficient stake in major carriers that his/her "suggestion" to allow these things to run is taken very seriously.

Oh Huguette, too bad you died before I'd even heard of you. (Not a billionaire but rich enough to finance several of these.) But I did walk through your dad's private rail car on which surely you traveled as a girl.

Steve

From the conversation being had, it would seem to me the best option for a new-build in the current shortline operating environment would be a 2-8-2, about 90 tons, plenty of power for the speed ranges involved and the length of trains operated,and giving a little bit of "surge" capacity if needed. Two current examples:

1. Texas State Railroad 400;

2. Number 5 in Oregon

I did a quick search to see if I had actually posted this previously, and could not find it (although I did find that variations on this topic have been discussed at least a couple of times before in the past five years here). A year or so ago I came up with general specs for a modern, light-duty tourist railroad steam locomotive that could travel the country within the clearance restrictions of most Class I's as part of either a regular freight train, or at worst a minimally-complex special move, but preferably not more demanding than moving, say a transformer (front of train, authorized accompanying rider on-board a trailing unit). Not being a very technical person, I'm limiting this to very general criteria based on what I've seen and experienced in my career. I also want to second those who have noted that there is a crying need for decent, Class I qualified (at least for deadhead moves), heavy-weight era design, standard open-window coaches.

What I propose is a modern 2-6-2 with around 54" drivers, and a slant-back tender that has a USRA "look" to it. Probably base it on common ALCo or Baldwin designs. We don't have to get fancy with the high-tech tweeks. Roller bearings all-around, Walschaerts valve gear, proven design super-heaters, and a good exhaust steam injector system will do, and help give it a "classic" look.

For most tourist railroad applications in the U. S., what would work best is a locomotive that can handle a fairly tight radius curve (at least in yard trackage), runs well (or at least decently) in either direction, can run efficiently all-day at 10-25 mph, but could also get up and go, up to 40 mph or so, and pull either a 10 car train on level track at speed, or 5-7 cars on say a 2% grade, and operate up to a two-hour roundtrip excursion non-stop. It would have to be able to ride a dedicated carrier flat car with minimal removal of components (say bell, stack, etc.), not exceeding the dimensions of a typical auto carrier (I believe Plate F). It should be loadable/unloadable without the need for a crane(s) in most circumstances (tender and some other components can ride on a separate flat car). Dry weight of the engine and it's carrier should not exceed standard maximum interchange weight of 143 tons - so we're talking about a locomotive that could weigh in the neighborhood of 90 tons. It should be able to burn some form of bio-fuel to keep down smoke and complaints from NIMBY's. If you look at what those who are knowledgeable about the business on here say their needs and limitations are, I don't think I'm that far off of what would work. I also think that within the businesses/railroads/museums that already exist in this country, we have most of the capability and talent needed to build it (Wasatch, Strasburg, TVRM, etc). So, all that's missing are the big two - money and will. This could be done by a consortium of potential tourist/museum railroad users. Please allow me time to duck before the barrage starts.

The only locomotive that fits all of your descriptions is the Baldwin 90 ton logging mike. It sounds so me like its the best fit candidate for reproduction in any way shape or form. A very robust, sturdy and powerful design coupled with its decent adhesion factor and tracking abilities. Good thing is that they can be modified for just about any operating situation easily and effectively.

I generally agree with EDM and Paul's suggestions. There was an article in Trains some years ago on the perfect tourist line steam locomotive, and there was almost universal agreement among operators that 6 drivers were ideal for most operations.

I think there are probably a lot of things that could be done better than "standard steam locomotive engineering practice" without getting into rocket science. "Proven" superheater designs work, but they don't work well for short, slow tourist trains. IIRC, Kelly posted that Strasburg sees no efficiency benefit from their superheated locomotives compared to their saturated ones, because they take too long to get up to temperature. We don't have to throw the whole system out, but I suspect there are fairly simple ways of dramatically improving this performance so that superheating does provide significant benefits for short line/tourist operation. SLM (now DLM) came up with a different configuration of superheaters for their new-construction rack engines built in the 1990's. They still use firetube superheaters, but do away with the heavy cast header and myriad of ground mechanical joints. That might be a good direction to go.

Another good simple idea for a new locomotive is mentioned in Wardale's book "the Red Devil" in regard to new locomotives that were proposed for China in the 1980's. This has nothing to do with efficiency, but with designing a locomotive that's suitable for light or heavy axle loads. Odds are a new locomotive built with mostly welded construction would be significantly lighter than a traditional similarly sized steam locomotive. Since a certain minimum weight must be provided to provide a sufficient factor of adhesion, the required weight can be provided by ballast. Porta and Wardale suggested that water ballasting would become mandatory on modern steam designs to provide sufficient weight. The advantage of this is it gives you a locomotive with adjustable weight. You design the locomotive boiler for a pressure that's commenserate with the "full" weight of the locomotive. If someone needs to use this engine on a railway with axle load restrictions, you empty the ballast tanks and reset the safety valves to a lower pressure to provide appropriate tractive effort. It's an easy way to have "light" and "heavy" versions of a single engine design. Ballast capacity could be provided in tanks set low in the locomotive frame, below the running boards, etc.

Hopefully a project like this would be MUCH less expensive than anything like a T-1. The life cycle cost (total cost of the locomotive including construction and operation over 10 or 15 years) might even be better than those for a major rebuild of a park locomotive.