Southern Pacific class P-8 and P-10 4-6-2s are nearly identical mechanically to Southern Ps-4s. Both use the basic boiler design from USRA heavy Pacifics, combined with 73" drivers from the USRA light Pacific design for a better match to hill-and-dale running. The only significant differences in dimensions are cylinders (SP favored long-stroke 25"x30" for extended work on 1.5% grades in Nevada and Utah, versus Southern's more traditional 26"(?)x28"), overall height (SP's clearances were more generous, so stack, domes, and cab are all taller), fuel (SP's are oilburners), tender style (Vanderbuilt vs. rectangular), and feedwater heater (SP used Worthington BL & BL-2s, Southern favored Elesco), and possibly combustion chamber length. But the basic locomotive underneath is the same.

The oilburning vs. coalburning is the most significant difference. According to A.Bruce's "The Steam locomotive in America", an oilburning Pacific with 70 square feet of "grate" (firepan) area has equivalent boiler capacity of a coalburning Hudson with about 91 square feet (130% x 70 sf) of grate area. This is why SP's P-8s and P-10s steam very easily (they have at least 30% more boiler capacity than can be used except with a heavy train at very high speed); the boiler could support the running gear of a 4-8-2.

P-8s 2467 and 2472 have already been restored to operation, and P-10 2479 is well along the process. (Technical note on the difference between S.P. P-8s and P-10s: P-8s were delivered in 1921 without feedwater heaters, and had them added mostly in the late 1920s. P-10s were delivered in 1923(?) with FW heaters. Some P-10s [but not 2479] also were delivered with trailing truck boosters. P-10s also have the final design of Delta trailing truck, with proper centering action, whereas P-8s have a peculiar intermediate Delta truck design without the centering action.)

- Doug Debs

doug.w.debs@lmco.com

It's going to take a bit more than just sharing Sprencer's lawnchair refreshments to convience one of the three SPacific groups to paint their repective engine green!

ken.middlebrook@nsc.com

There is, of course, no reason why a new U.S. steam locomotive could not be built, except that not enough people care to do it. I joined the A-1 Steam Locomotive Trust a while back, because I thought it was neat, and wanted to see how it was being done. Lots of people in England thought those folks were smokin's something, too, when the scheme was announced, but now the engine is about half complete. The 3 cylinders, frame, smokebox and cab are erected and installed on the wheels and trucks. An original tender was found, and all that remains to be done is the boiler.

There are some mechanical differences between the A1 job and an American locomotive. Even a modern British locomotive uses plate frames and separate cylinder castings. The A1 outfit could make the engine's frames on a NC flame cutter, and did not face the job of making a huge casting from a pattern, or engineering a giant, complicated weldment. Ultimately, the A1 job is nothing more than making all the spare parts for a Pacific at once, something the Brits have been doing piecemeal for years.

Similarly, there was nothing really exotic about how the money was raised. They simply organized a nonprofit society, issued a plan of work and a budget, and invited anyone who thought it was realistic and wanted to see it happen to send the price of a pint a week. In American beer and currency units, that works out to about $15 a quarter. Four or five years later, there is a frame on the rails, and in another two years or so there ought to be a complete locomotive. They do come up with an occasional quirky fund-raiser, such as inviting former donors to have their spread over the a1's grate after they croak and, presumably, remember the organization in their wills.

They project has generated a new locomotive-building facility in the oldest carshop of the oldest railway, the Stockton and Darlington, at Darlington. Its next project will apparently be a Gresley high-wheeled passenger 2-8-2.

Again, there is no reason why this could not be done in this country, except that no one has made a plan of work and invited participants. Until someone does that, we won't know if yawning silence would greet such a proposal.

Aarne Frobom
The Steam Railroading Institute
The Michigan State Trust for Railway Preservation, Inc.
P. O. Box 665
Owosso, MI 48867-0665

froboma@mdot.state.mi.us

There was a serious discussion on one of the less reputable NG boards a couple months ago about the feasability of building brand new locomotives. There was, actually, a lot of insightful information there, mixed in with the usual "foaming".
Both the building of one off replicas of "lost" engines, and the production of a modernised general purpose lokey for tourist lines were thoroughly hashed over. An interesting idea was that you could possibly build the second type to help finance the first. (Everybody knows, building a dozen (or two) locomotives to a standard design is much cheaper per unit than custom building just one). They decided that the most popular sizes for "mass" produced engines would probably be a modified USRA type 2-6-0, (2-6-2) or a 2-8-0, (2-8-2)
It was also decided there that while techically the project was completely feasable (actually not even very difficult), that financial considerations would prevent it from actually being put into motion unless one of 4 unlikely, or undesirable things happened:
1. A new super amusement park was constructed and ordered a fleet of 6... paying cash in advance.
2. Bill Gates suddenly decided he wanted to play at being a rail baron....money no object.
3.The Government passed unreasonably harsh, or unmeetable legislation on vintage steam locos
4. A LOT of the stuff thats out there gets used up, beyond the point where a new replacement becomes cheaper than repair.

But by the time any of that happens people will probably be nostalgic for Genesis diesels

I'll pass on the Genesis Idea. They don't have any class if you ask me,but I do like the idea of new steam locomotives.
The old locos are great.They can't be replaced when it comes to traditional railroading,however a new engine,either a replica or new design,would be an incredible acomplishment.I stand behind the idea for building new steam.
My only concern would be where could a new loco (standard gauge)be constructed,and what design to follow? New boiler technology and environmental safegaurds or previously constructed(and proven)designs?


btamper@hotmail.com

If the original plans are carried out in Kennesaw, GA, new Glover locomotives may emerge from the demonstration works.

ISTEA and other funds have been on hold for starting the building now for several years, so don't hold your breath either way.

Glovers built smaller locomotives for industrial and export customers including Russian 2-8-0's and a passenger 2-6-2T for Cliffside among the largest, but is mostly known for their low drivered 2-6-0's for Southern loggers. Just the thing for the demonstration hog at a small museum.

Dave

lathro19@idt.net

The point of the British Tornado project is to re-create something that was not preserved. I am not a great fan of the NYC but a Hudson J3a sure looks good on my American Flyer shelf. And I'll bet that there are many other "missing links" that could be added to the list.

Ted Miles

ted_miles@NPS.gov

Brian,

I have to agree with you that a new steam locomotive here in the US is the way to go. Again, it would take a lot of money. The 1.5 to 2 million figure sounds about right. When you look at the engineering factors in building a new steam locomotive, perhaps a replica of a larger mainline engine, Aaron made some good points. Mainly, if you set out to duplicate a Ps-4 or a J-3 Hudson, do you have to build every complex casting in the running gear or can you achieve the same result through many smaller sub-assemblies of less-complex parts. The big builders such as Alco, Lima, etc. certainly had sound engineering principles driving the development of one-piece frame, cylinder and air reservoirs, but was that because it offered a performance advantage or an economic advantage in their competitive field at the time? What I'm trying to say is, even the most complex and modern of steam locomotive designs could be built new today with some reengineering at a lower cost than building to the same locomotive to the exact original blueprints.

I've gone through the A-1 Trust's website and taken in much of the engineering information and found that they have woven modern technology into the basic design of a steam locomotive.

Again, most of the components can be manufactured today and most if not all here in the states. The most difficult components would be the cylinders but don't count that out - look at what the group in Austin is up against in replacing one side of the 786's cylinders. And haven't new drive wheels been cast here in the US for Soo Line #2719? There are machine shops and manufacturing plants around this great land that are run by people who support steam and many have participated in some way with the various major rebuilds in the past 10 years. Combining their talents and capabilities can result in new steam locomotive.

Sounds like it's time for those with the real desire to start communicating with each other, put a name to this idea (create an organization) and start looking at what they want to build.

Just my two cents worth. Open to criticism, etc.

Rob Gardner


train@nls.net

> Brian,

>The 1.5 to 2 million figure sounds about right.

Actually, I think that number is way low, if we are talking about producing a large mainline engine here in the States. The little 4-4-0's built for the NPS Promontory site ran well over 1 million apiece, and that was quite a few years ago.

You might be able to get Poland or China to build an engine in that ballpark, but I doubt it. The Chinese have been building a standard engine, for which they have built all the patterns and fixtures. I don't think they are set up for "one off" production. Dave Conrad could shed more light on this.

Several posters have suggested building a J3a, one of the all time classic engines. The problem here, is with the cast steel frame, with integral cylinders. I would suggest that a J1 might be a more realistic subject, as it could be built using flame cut bar frames and still be authentic. It would still have all the appeal of the later J3a, while being much easier to produce.

Of course, all this is moot if the money cannot be raised.

a231pacific@aol.com

Michael,

Let's say that a group decides they want to build a locomotive that originally had a one-piece frame and cylinder assembly. Would it be absolutely necessary to build a new locomotive to the same exact design. Why wouldn't the flame-cut frame members with individual frame spreaders and a one or two-piece cylinder assembly work?

Rob Gardner


train@nls.net

Ya know,

As advanced as we are technology wise, it's a shame that we can't remember how to build simple things or can't use the knowledge we have gained since those times to engineer it better and build it cheaper, while still retaining the old world charm of the original. They built them without computer aided drafting and stuff like that and they ran and ran well, too. It just goes to show that older people need to pass on the older traditions to younger people so that they stay alive.

Stuart

Frisco 1506
gnufe@apex.net

>Would it be absolutely necessary to build a new locomotive to the same exact design?

Rob,

I guess that's the crux of the matter. Are you interested in building an engine that looks like a long lost engine, building a modern steam engine with all the improvements that would entail, or building an historically accurate reproduction of a lost prototype?

My own bias is historical authenticity. Others want a modern steam engine to use in place of the historic ones that we are currently consuming. Others just want to see something that looks like "the good old 99" or whatever. For me, building a NYC outline locomotive with fabricated cylinders and frame, roller bearings all around, welded boiler, etc. wouldn't detract from the fun of seeing it run, but I would prefer to be able to see one that I knew to be as perfectly accurate as possible. Something that could go into a museum and be labeled as a "reproduction" of an NYC J3a, not a "reasonable facsimile" of one.

Just my own bias!

a231pacific@aol.com