Now there's a throwback! To clarify: Keystone had no role in the final drawings, but supposedly did a set of their own after they bid on the NPS contract, claiming "inaccuracies" in Best's. The story I heard (per Keystone's former sales manager) was that the parks reps ended the conversation with Keystone convinced that the two old men wouldn't live through the end of the project.

Thank you Mr. Kelley, for the clarification. The "claiming inaccuracies" with O'Connor's drawings reminds me of a recollection Mr. O'Connor made during an interview for the Pentrex video about his life. He said that once the two engines were delivered to Promontory Summit to be assembled at the Golden Spike Historical Site, a NPS official came to him and said they could not be accepted as the locomotives were built to the wrong gauge. The official claimed that correct standard gauge was measured as 4' 8 1/2" centerline to centerline of the rails. O'Connor replied that, no, it was measured as 4' 8 1/2" inside edge to inside edge of top of the rails. The NPS official said no and the engines would have to be rebuilt, and that the Park Service had already begun to lay track to the other measurement. O'Connor replied that the official should go down to the Union Pacific tracks in Brigham City and check for themselves!

That reminds me of the 49-inch-gage Hecla & Torch Lake RR out of Calumet, MI. They built considerable track and purchased many ore cars before they purchased a locomotive. Then they specified the new locomotive based on their measurements of the gage of their track and ore cars. But they misunderstood how gage is measured, so their new locomotive arrived being one inch different than their track and rolling stock.

So the H&TL changed the gage of their track and rolling stock because it was too expensive to change the locomotive gage.

I called a buddy that works at the UP in the Steam shop. In the last year alone close to 5 million in new parts were ordered for the engines. They have no clue what all the new machine tools in the shop have cost or the labor costs are but yeah 4014 might be the most expensive overhauling in history.

My semi educated WAG is $ 20-25M including the movement costs from Ca. to Cheyenne.

They'll get 3 to 4 times that back in unpaid media coverage.

IMHO-Ross Rowland

I did a little poking around and found this http://ibls.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=Promontory_locomotives. It appears to be the complete set of O'Conner drawings for the locomotives.

I haven't looked at all of them (786 prints) but it is quite the resource for anyone interested in exactly how these are put together. It also gives a good idea of the enormous amount of work required before the any physical hardware was produced.

Roger

Yes, I ,too, did some searching and downloaded these. Incredible when you realize that all this was created with only some basic dimensions of the actual locomotives and interpreting the available photographs of the two locomotives and other ones from Schenectady and Rogers Locomotive Works. Very few off- the shelf parts such as injectors, gauges, etc.

The National Park Service was involved in a very similar project in the early 1960s when the decision was made to recreate the interior of Ford's Theater in Washington, DC to what it looked like the night of Lincoln's assassination. The US Government seized the building after and eventually bought it from the Ford brothers. It was gutted to a shell and used as an office building for decades. The architects and draftsman working for the NPS recreated the interior and exterior using only the photographs, taken by Matthew Brady the day after the assassination, and a few reference points on the interior of the walls.

I started to download the first set of drawings, just out of curiosity, and my computer choked and locked up in protest. What I saw, though, was an amazing amount of detail.

I did get as far as the general layout and ran the numbers. Unless I have the standard formula memorized incorrectly, with 62 inch drivers the Jupiter should have a tractive effort of 20,216 pounds. With the 57 inch drivers, 119 should produce 21,989 pounds of TE.

This puts them just about in the 44 ton GE range; and there are more than a few tourist lines that operate with 44 and 45 ton GEs. And who is to say that with a more modern boiler, capable of a slightly higher pressure, and with slightly larger cylinders, those numbers couldn't be increased?

This could be a very interesting, albeit expensive, exercise to build another one, but it looks like all the heavy engineering work has been done. And it's all public domain, which in itself is surprising.

And it should be noted that as of this summer the Jupiter and 119 have been operating for 40 years now at the Golden Spike Historic Site.

Greetings:
As a matter of fact, both "Leviathan" and "York 17" were built with ASME code all welded boilers capable of 200 PSI MAWP.

Boiler pressure, cylinder size and driving wheel diameter all go into the calculation that determines the tractive effort, but the "factor of adhesion" (weight on drivers divided by tractive effort) determines the hauling capacity of a steam locomotive. Most locomotive builders figured that a "factor of adhesion" of 4 (four) was optimal and designed locomotives accordingly.

I was hired by "Steam into History" to make modifications to the O'Connor design, lowering the boiler pressure was one of my recommendations, the other major one was specifying the use of "tapered" bolts (sometimes called "fitted" or "driven") in the assembly of the frame and cylinders.

By my calculation, "York" is fully capable of hauling one more car of the same sizes as the others up their grade without difficulty.

Be well,
J.David

I’d imagine this factored into the decision of modeling York after 119, especially regarding the drive wheel dimensions and the profile of SIH's route.

Though I do find it interesting how the design seems to contain elements of both locomotives. The bell, headlight, and bonnet stack appear to be direct copies from the Jupiter plans (although that seems to be the only components that were replicated).

Unless someone wins the lottery, or has VERY deep pockets, this is an academic discussion, but lets take this a step farther. The factor of adhesion issue, with a higher BP and larger cylinders, can be addressed by a heavier frame. And while designing that heavier frame, design it so that it, as well as the lead and tender trucks, can have roller bearings. The rollers on the tender trucks would be hidden by the journal box lids, of course.

As a modern adaptation of an 1860s engine, lets say one that lasted until 1900 or so, it would have to have air brakes and knuckle couplers. A pair of single phase compressors would be most appropriate; a cross compound would be way out of place. A small turbo generator could supply power for the headlight, gauge and water glass lights. A mechanical lubricator would be a nice touch.

Now, to (maybe) make some money, or at least offset some of the costs- Make the locomotive easily truckable, and tour with it, similar to what the Gramlings do; also Vicose 6 and maybe others. A too-tall stack, and the safeties and whistle, could come off for shipment, and maybe even the cab roof, right at the eaves. Come to think of it, if the money is there to build a new 4-4-0, perhaps a special 'well' type trailer could be built and dedicated to this locomotive.

Again, this is a 'what if' discussion, but we can always dream... and play the lottery.

If you make that many essential and major changes, you are designing a new locomotive. That locomotive can be built without the historically appropriate weaknesses of the Jupiter and 110 replicas, including built - up frames and cylinder saddles. A "modern" 4-4-0 of, say, the turn of the last century style can have roller bearings, force freed lubrication, fabricated cylinder saddle assembly with removable cast iron cylinder sleeves, and given oil headlamps were still in vogue, no need for the steam hungry whining turbogenerator, although Peltier junctions in the smokebox chargung batteries for flame-replicating LEDs would be way cool........ and very sustainable.

Hi David

Are you sure you want to mix "tapered" and "fitted" bolts in the same category? They are different for us. "Tapered" is, well, tapered. But "fitted" means reaming the hole, and then turning a bolt on the lathe to fit the hole very closely. We actually have two classes of these, in Danish. "Fitbolt" is a turned bolt with a very snug fit (often turned to fit the measured hole). "Drevbolt" is one that has to be hammered into place. Neither is tapered. The drevbolt is considered disposable and has to be replaced if it is ever removed. Fitbolts can be removed and reused. I have made and installed both of these.

O’Connor designed and constructed the Jupiter and 119 replicas with frames torch-cut out of solid steel rather than built-up of pieces. The cylinders and saddle for each locomotive were also cast as a single piece.