This is purely serious - not a slam at anyone.
Considering the depth to which the 1361 has been rebuilt, I'd say we were getting a virtually new locomotive in return. Given the perspective of looking back over what was discovered and had to be re-built, would constructing a second locomotive from scratch at the same time have been feasible? Would it have cost as much or more(or less)? Since RMPa is not likely to allow 3750 to be rebuilt, another K4 built with modern technologies would have been quite a treat. Opinions?



glueck@maine.edu

The last time I saw photos of the K4 it looked as if a can opener was applied to the boiler. What is the complete list of work done to boiler and frame?

There would be a large amount of pattern work done to cast cylinders etc. so the cost would be much higher.

Incorporating modern technologies would make the new locomotive not a K4. Given the number of mainline roundhouse queens looking for a chance to stretch their legs now, I have to wonder if there is any incentive to make the K4 run again other than from a historical POV which could justify cost of replication? Yeah, there are good reasons to have the standard passenger engine of the standard railroad of the world running on home rails, but i am having a hard time trying to justify the capital investment to build a generic modern steamer without the historic verisimilitude.

For the record, a Porta style modern 4-6-0 or something equally small but with PortaPower (no pun intended) and efficiencies would be a wonderful eye opener for those who are convinced that there is no future for steam. Shoehorning the new designs into an existing visual envelope like the K4 would reduce the efficiency of a new pure design.

Dave



irondave@bellsouth.net

> There would be a large amount of pattern
> work done to cast cylinders etc. so the cost
> would be much higher.

Well, not necessarily.. Being familiar with the state of engineering today, I'd fairly certain that such a piece could be machined on a CNC machine.

I'm sure that large-scale CNCs exist for the aerospace and defense industry. For projects like nuclear subs I'm sure that one-off parts are a run-of-the-mill type of thing.

Machining technology has come a LONG way in the last 50 years, to the point where many small shops are maintaining steam locomotives and manufacturing parts for them on a scale that could have only been done at a shop like Juniata or Reading 50 years ago.

A remember not too long ago, in discussion about the ever-mythical "new J3" that comes up from time to time, someone mentioned that there ARE founderies in the US that STILL have the capability to cast objects as large as a locomotive frame, but the option exists to weld one as is being done in England now.

What it boils down to is that the technology does indeed exist to build brand new steam locomotives right here in the United States. The question is who is going to foot that somewhat frivilous bill?


Wowak.Railfan.Net
mrwowak@yahoo.com

> The last time I saw photos of the K4 it
> looked as if a can opener was applied to the
> boiler. What is the complete list of work
> done to boiler and frame?

> There would be a large amount of pattern
> work done to cast cylinders etc. so the cost
> would be much higher. bs you dont need patterns the penn rr. had approx. 130 welded cyls. made from 1940 to 1945. They also had some driver centers madeup mostly for k4s. Please check your refs. before making opinons as statements.
regards bb

staybolt2@netscape.net

> Well, not necessarily.. Being familiar with
> the state of engineering today, I'd fairly
> certain that such a piece could be machined
> on a CNC machine.

Your biggest problem would be to obtain the stock to machine. This would have to start out as a casting and you would be very unhappy with the metallurgical properties of this large lump of steel ...or iron. Since you are having someone specially cast you the starting material you might as well go thru the process of building the patterns and cores and cast as close to size as you can to simplify the final machining. It would be a lot of fun to machine the internal porting to obtain the streamlined patterns necessary to maintain proper flow.

The other thing to question is, do you really want to build an R&D machine or a working locomotive. Do you really want to do things two or three very expensive times in the name of technology ?


lamontdc@adelphia.net

And please check YOUR temper before responding.

It is possible to offer corrections of fact free of insults and that is how we prefer to do business here.

eledbetter@rypn.org

Richard,

Have a look at the A1 Tornado web site. They want to build a Pacific and it is taking years, even though they have had the steel donated and even had a tender which in the end they decided not to use.

The A1 has a number of good British historical reasons to build a new one. And they are still having a difficult time.

They will at least have a place to run it. And that seems to be the bigggest problem here. Where is there high iron to run the engine on?

Ted Miles

ted_miles@nps.gov