> Under 500K for a 2 foot 2-6-2, 20 mil for a
> standard gage 4-8-4. Using costs from a
> decade ago, SLM new product for about 2.5
> mil for a 3 foot 2-8-2.

> Just goes to show we don't really have a
> plan and a true cost for other than these
> specific proposals, which, granted, cover a
> lot of ground.

> Representatives from MultiPower occasionally
> post here - any ballpark estimates on a 3
> foot gage 2-8-0 built to ASME standards?

> dave

It seems we already have a recent (at least in relative terms) benchmark for cost; didn't the NPS buy a pair of Jupiter and 119 replicas for the Golden Spike Monument? Anyone remember what these cost? If Big Daddy Warbucks...er, Uncle Sam can do it, anybody should be able to :)

Dennis Storzek

dstorzek@elnet.com

I did some work for a shortline operator about ten years ago, trying to help him get a tourist operation started. I contacted MultiPower, and got a price on a slightly used SY, (a demo?) overhauled and with a one year warranty. It would have cost (then) $335,000 delivered to either Baltimore or Philadelphia.

Alas, the operation never got off the ground, either with the RS-1 that was then available or the SY. But that $335,000 number struck me as being quite reasonable for the time.

> Under 500K for a 2 foot 2-6-2, 20 mil for a
> standard gage 4-8-4. Using costs from a
> decade ago, SLM new product for about 2.5
> mil for a 3 foot 2-8-2.

> Just goes to show we don't really have a
> plan and a true cost for other than these
> specific proposals, which, granted, cover a
> lot of ground.

> Representatives from MultiPower occasionally
> post here - any ballpark estimates on a 3
> foot gage 2-8-0 built to ASME standards?

> dave


edm5970@earthlink.net

Those locos were built between 1975-79 so we would need to figure in todays dollars.....Wooly

> It seems we already have a recent (at least
> in relative terms) benchmark for cost;
> didn't the NPS buy a pair of Jupiter and 119
> replicas for the Golden Spike Monument?
> Anyone remember what these cost? If Big
> Daddy Warbucks...er, Uncle Sam can do it,
> anybody should be able to :)

> Dennis Storzek


wooly421@charter.net

I spent many years training and working as an engineering draftsman (civil). One of the most basic engineering dicta I learned was this: It is as sinful from an engineering standpoint to overbuild something as to underbuild. For an extreme example, consider the difference between desiging and building the following:
A. An historically correct replica of UP 844, arguably one of the most modern steam locomotives in existance -- 20 mil or more
B. Advanced, high-tech steam superpower incorporating modern technology -- nearly incalcuable
C. A representative Class A Climax with its wooden frame and body, vertical boiler and inboard-mounted marine-style engine -- A skilled craftsman could probably build one in his back yard workshop for about the price of a new car.

A previous poster has pointed out that new narrow-gauge power is a priority due to the dearth of heritage equipment available. But there is another incentive to build narrow gauge power as well. Just as it did 120 years ago, narrow-gauge offers what Geo. Hilton called "a low-capital entry into railroading".

While it may be impractical to build new main line steam power, small, simple narrow-gauge locomotives, capable of meeting the needs of tourist railroads and museums could probably be built for less than 1/4 of the cost.
J


jeff_acock@hotmail.com

> No I didn't forget......I would anticipate a
> great deal of work would be required to
> assure Cuban boilermaking standards for the
> decades of repair out in the sugar mills is
> up to ASME or other applicable US industrial
> standards. New boilers would most likely be
> cheaper.

Despite the fact that the boilers at worst only have/had one-quarter to one-third the use of any eighty-to-hundred-year-old loco (because they were only fired up for the harvest, and many say unused for years before being put back into service), I would trust a hamster wheel and belt arrangement over the Cuban boilers in whatever condition they're in now.

But presumably we're specifically talking expendable equipment for "consumption" or replication by CHS, East Broad Top, WW&F, Durango & Silverton, etc. Scrap the bad boilers in Cuba, bring the rest of the remains over, weld together new boilers that are safer and more effective.....

Hell, it's time to set up a "shadow" importer in Canada!


LNER4472-NOSPAM-@bcpl.net

> I would
> trust a hamster wheel and belt arrangement
> over the Cuban boilers in whatever condition
> they're in now.

Are statements like this based on factual observations or because such statements have been so consistently restated that they are no longer questioned. I have seen similar statements often repeated in old issues of Trains and Railfan/Railroad about Mexican railroad shops with no other backing in the article. Today US manufacturers, railroads and rebulilders are sending more and more business to former NdeM shops. I would definitely like to see more information before the Cuban locomotives are written off as un-preservable.

altoonaroundhouse@umich.edu

Most of the Cuban narrow gauge lines that operated in recent years were 30" gauge, not 36." There were only two 36" gauge mills using steam into the 1990's. When Minaz renumbered all steam engines in Cuba into a national numbering scheme, there were 63 three foot gauge engines that made it into the new numbering system, and some of them never operated again.

Here is a list of those 63 engines, plus one 34 1/2" gauge engine that was later regauged to 36" gauge. Scrapping dates and other current info from "Industrial Steam Locomotives of Cuba" and from various railfan reports. As you can see, there are only around 20 three foot gauge engines left and at least half of them are formally preserved.

The real tragedy was the scrapping in 1999 of the two Frank Pais 4-6-0's which were built to the same plan as the Tweetsie engines!

NUEVA CODIFICATION PARA LAS LOCOMOTORAS A VAPOR
CLAVE, UNIDAD, MARCA, NUMERO DE LA CONSTRUCCION, ANO CONSTRUIDO, TROCHA, ORDEN DE LA RUEDA, ESFUERZO TRACTIVO, NUEVA NUMERACION

(Data appears as Mill #, Mill Name, Builder, CN, Built Date, Gauge, Wheel arr., TE, Minaz #, Notes.

105 A. C. Sandino Baldwin no data no data 36" 0-4-0 7,042 E1113 scrapped 1981
105 A. C. Sandino Baldwin 12998 1892 36" 2-6-0 9,049 E1114 scrapped 1996
105 A. C. Sandino Baldwin 25214 1905 36" 2-6-0 12,168 E1209 derelict 1997
105 A. C. Sandino Baldwin 53236 1920 36" 2-6-0 14,737 E1312 scrapped by 1985
105 A. C. Sandino Alco 58746 1919 36" 2-8-0 16,467 E1404 in use 2000
105 A. C. Sandino Henschel 12429 1913 36" 2-6-0 16,910 E1405 present 2000
109 Orlando Nodarse Baldwin 42216 1915 34 1/2" 2-6-0 12,800 E1210 converted to 36", in use 2003 at 105
401 Heriberto Duquesne Baldwin 43729 1916 36" 2-8-0 13,880 E1317 scrapped 1994
401 Heriberto Duquesne Baldwin 21308 1902 36" 2-8-0 13,880 E1318 scrapped 1994
401 Heriberto Duquesne Baldwin 53830 1920 36" 2-8-0 15,295 E1319 scrapped 1994
401 Heriberto Duquesne Baldwin 52379 1919 36" 2-8-0 17,000 E1417 scrapped 1980
401 Heriberto Duquesne Baldwin 29764 1906 36" 2-8-0 17,490 E1418 scrapped 1980
401 Heriberto Duquesne Baldwin 52632 1919 36" 2-8-0 18,160 E1419 scrapped 1994
401 Heriberto Duquesne Baldwin 53847 1920 36" 2-8-0 18,160 E1420 Converted to 27 1/2"
411 José María Pérez Baldwin 53107 1920 36" 2-8-0 15,730 E1325 scrapped 1994
411 José María Pérez Baldwin no data no data 36" 2-8-0 18,800 E1423 scrapped prior to 1981
411 José María Pérez Baldwin 54233 1920 36" 2-8-0 18,060 E1424 scrapped 1997
427 Quintin Banderas Davenport 1751 1919 36" 0-4-OT 8,415 E1145 preserved 1997
427 Quintin Banderas Vulcan no data no data 36" 2-8-0 9,790 E1146 scrapped 1993
427 Quintin Banderas Baldwin 52382 1919 36" 2-8-0 12,165 E1229 scrapped after 1980
427 Quintin Banderas Baldwin 52383 1919 36" 2-8-0 12,165 E1230 scrapped 1994
427 Quintin Banderas Baldwin 52390 1919 36" 2-8-0 12,165 E1231 scrapped 1994
427 Quintin Banderas Baldwin 18387 1900 36" 2-8-0 13,880 E1339 scrapped after 1987
427 Quintin Banderas Baldwin 13083 1892 36" 2-8-0 13,330 E1340 scrapped by 1981
427 Quintin Banderas Baldwin 43650 1916 36" 2-6-0 14,805 E1341 scrapped by 1981
435 Hermanos Ameijeiras Baldwin 8956 1887 36" 2-6-0 8,680 E1156 preserved 1997
435 Hermanos Ameijeiras Baldwin 18970 1901 36" 2-6-0 14,340 E1349 scrapped 1985
435 Hermanos Ameijeiras Baldwin 43394 1916 36" 2-8-0 15,600 E1350 Lenin Park
435 Hermanos Ameijeiras Baldwin 45070 1917 36" 2-8-0 15,600 E1351 converted to 30"
435 Hermanos Ameijeiras Baldwin 52156 1919 36" 2-8-0 15,600 E1352 scrapped by 1980
435 Hermanos Ameijeiras Baldwin 58778 1925 36" 2-8-0 17,500 E1431 present 1997
611 Antonio Quiteras Baldwin 52101 1919 36" 2-6-0 15,300 E1378 scrapped by 1981
611 Antonio Quiteras Baldwin 56739 1923 36" 2-6-0 15,300 E1379 scrapped by 1981
611 Antonio Quiteras Baldwin EO1741 no data 36" 2-6-0 17,210 E1450 scrapped by 1981
611 Antonio Quiteras Baldwin no data no data 36" 2-6-0 17,800 E1451 scrapped by 1981
611 Antonio Quiteras Baldwin 54009 1920 36" 2-8-0 24,000 E1667 in use 2000 at 435
611 Antonio Quiteras Baldwin 58755 1925 36" 2-8-0 24,000 E1668 scrapped by 1977
616 Juan M. Márquez Baldwin 55731 1922 36" 2-6-0 12,859 E1252 scrapped by 1981
616 Juan M. Márquez Baldwin 54321 1921 36" 2-6-0 12,800 E1253 preserved 1997
616 Juan M. Márquez Baldwin 53309 1920 36" 2-6-0 14,400 E1380 scrapped 1996
616 Juan M. Márquez Baldwin 53310 1920 36" 2-6-0 14,400 E1381 present 1996 @ 629
622 Argelia Libre Baldwin 38971 1912 36" 2-8-0 15,225 E1371 scrapped by 1977
622 Argelia Libre Baldwin 40111 1913 36" 2-8-0 15,225 E1372 scrapped by 1996
622 Argelia Libre Baldwin 43983 1916 36" 2-8-0 15,225 E1373 in use 2000 at 435
622 Argelia Libre Baldwin 43984 1916 36" 2-8-0 15,225 E1374 scrapped by 1977
622 Argelia Libre Baldwin 43985 1916 36" 2-8-0 15,225 E1375 scrapped by 1977
622 Argelia Libre Baldwin 43986 1916 36" 2-8-0 15,225 E1376 scrapped by 1977
622 Argelia Libre Baldwin 46968 1917 36" 2-8-0 14,125 E1377 scrapped by 1977
622 Argelia Libre Baldwin 52295 1919 36" 2-8-2 17,246 E1448 scrapped by 1977
622 Argelia Libre Baldwin 52296 1919 36" 2-8-2 17,246 E1449 scrapped by 1977
624 Roberto Ramírez Baldwin 52257 1919 36" 2-6-2 10,200 E1261 preserved 1996
624 Roberto Ramírez Baldwin 42690 1915 36" 2-8-0 15,000 E1382 Boiler explosion 2000
629 La Demajagua Baldwin no data no data 36" 2-8-0 12,000 E1254 preserved 1995
629 La Demajagua Baldwin 38661 1912 36" 2-8-0 11,900 E1255 present 1996
630 Manuel S. Tames Baldwin 39006 1913 36" 2-6-0 12,000 E1259 present 1990
630 Manuel S. Tames Baldwin 53237 1920 36" 2-6-0 12,000 E1260 Lenin Park
638 El Salvador Baldwin 12976 1892 36" 0-6-0 8,700 E1178 scrapped by 1981
638 El Salvador Baldwin 31953 1907 36" 0-6-0 8,700 E1179 scrapped by 1981
640 Frank País Baldwin 57207 1923 36" 2-8-0 12,405 E1256 present 1997
640 Frank País Baldwin no data no data 36" no data 10,731 E1257 gone by 1981
640 Frank País Baldwin 54234 1920 36" 2-8-0 16,800 E1457 Lenin Park
640 Frank País Baldwin 53858 1920 36" 4-6-0 16,800 E1458 scrapped 1999
640 Frank País Baldwin 53859 1920 36" 4-6-0 16,800 E1459 scrapped 1999
640 Frank País Baldwin 53886 1920 36" 4-6-0 16,800 E1460 scrapped by 1981


trainrider47@aol.com

> Are statements like this based on factual
> observations or because such statements have
> been so consistently restated that they are
> no longer questioned. I have seen similar
> statements often repeated in old issues of
> Trains and Railfan/Railroad about Mexican
> railroad shops with no other backing in the
> article. Today US manufacturers, railroads
> and rebulilders are sending more and more
> business to former NdeM shops. I would
> definitely like to see more information
> before the Cuban locomotives are written off
> as un-preservable.

I will state that my statements on this matter are based on a combination of several reports from several British fans I personally know as well as my somewhat limited knowledge of American railroad and boiler standards.

The Cubans have the same fundamental baseline standard for boiler maintenance as we do: Make a mistake, and someone dies. Above and beyond that, however, it's open to interpretation. Do the Cubans do regular boiler washes? Maybe now, but what of 50 years ago? Have the Cuban boilers been hydrostatically or ultrasonically tested lately? Highly doubtful. Do the Cubans have state boiler inspectors? Do they have standards for boiler maintenance similar to what our OSHA or FRA or state boiler standards mandate? Are their welds up to ASME standards, or just meant to get the loco through the end of the season, and who cares what happens after that?

Today's railroad contract work sent to Mexico is likely to be held to identical standards as American shops--remember NAFTA. And when was the last time a steam loco was sent to Mexico for work? Even if just for political reasons, I'll trust a Mexican shop over a Cuban one any day.

I have no political or personal agenda against the Cuban sugar industry rail personnel. For all I know, they might put the Strasburg or Ohio Central crews to shame. However, I would treat a Baldwin-built 1920 three-foot-gauge choo-choo from Cuba with the same degree of suspicion as I would a similar loco from any other third-world country like Sudan, Chad, Eritrea, etc.: assume it's a potential bomb unless/until proven otherwise. And any professional in railroading would be a fool to assume otherwise.


LNER4472-NOSPAM-@bcpl.net

> I will state that my statements on this
> matter are based on a combination of several
> reports from several British fans I
> personally know as well as my somewhat
> limited knowledge of American railroad and
> boiler standards.

> The Cubans have the same fundamental
> baseline standard for boiler maintenance as
> we do: Make a mistake, and someone dies.
> Above and beyond that, however, it's open to
> interpretation. Do the Cubans do regular
> boiler washes? Maybe now, but what of 50
> years ago? Have the Cuban boilers been
> hydrostatically or ultrasonically tested
> lately? Highly doubtful. Do the Cubans have
> state boiler inspectors? Do they have
> standards for boiler maintenance similar to
> what our OSHA or FRA or state boiler
> standards mandate? Are their welds up to
> ASME standards, or just meant to get the
> loco through the end of the season, and who
> cares what happens after that?

> Today's railroad contract work sent to
> Mexico is likely to be held to identical
> standards as American shops--remember NAFTA.
> And when was the last time a steam loco was
> sent to Mexico for work? Even if just for
> political reasons, I'll trust a Mexican shop
> over a Cuban one any day.

> I have no political or personal agenda
> against the Cuban sugar industry rail
> personnel. For all I know, they might put
> the Strasburg or Ohio Central crews to
> shame. However, I would treat a
> Baldwin-built 1920 three-foot-gauge
> choo-choo from Cuba with the same degree of
> suspicion as I would a similar loco from any
> other third-world country like Sudan, Chad,
> Eritrea, etc.: assume it's a potential bomb
> unless/until proven otherwise. And any
> professional in railroading would be a fool
> to assume otherwise.

Gentlemen, It appears to me that we have morphed into 3 distinct(although to varying degrees interrelated) questions(topics).

1. Is there a practical solution out there for the CHS to find suitable STEAM substitutes for the equipment currently being run in that service?

2. Is there a way to bring the two warring parties back to the bargaining table and attempt to reach a solution both can live with so as to allow the current operator to stay in place?

3. The macro subject of replicating a state of the art mainline steam locomotive in the world of 2004.

Please allow me to share my thoughts on each;

1.I would say the answer is a solid NO. the probabilities of being able to find appropriate substituteable OPERABLE equipment that is now available WITH the qualified people to reliablely operate it AND who would be willing/desirous of moving to Colorado is nil.

2. It appears to me from a distance that the current situation has deteriorated(as these matters almost ALWAYS do) into an argument driven largely by personalities vs. principles! It would seem on the surface at least that it is strongly in the self-interests of both parties to hammer out a new agreement they can both live with( any deal in a situation like this will require a new arrangement that both parties will have to accomodate something from the other sides point of view) vs. the alternative!

3. There's zero doubt in my mind that for somewhere between $ 20-$30 million(U.S.$$) we could replicate a state of the art mainline steam engine(i.e.my C&O J3a,#614) and incorporate the many improvements developed over the last 40/50 years by Dante Porta, David Wardale and others and end up having a very first class machine capable of operating daily at 100mph pulling a full passenger consist

The key question is not an engineering/fabricating/construction one, but rather is there anyone out there who loves mainline steam enough to put up that kind of capital, just to see it run??? Does steam railroading have a Branson or a Paul Newman or someone with mega-bucks who loves mainline steam enough to fund a new J3a or NYC6000, knowing that it will NEVER come anywhere near close to earning back the investment??? So far the answer has been no. But, never say die-- A Jerry Jacobson or a Bill Benson or a Harry Schmidt or a Philip Anschultz or a current unknown may just get wealthy enough(and crazy enough) to do it!! How many tens of millions do you think Branson sunk into his around the world hot air baloon fantasies??? My guess is at least $50-75 million!

THe other distinct possibility is that with the rapidly rising world price of crude oil that another attempt will be mounted to develope a modern coal burning steam loco. for the railways of those countries that are coal rich/petroleum poor(U.S.A., China,Eastern Europe etc.). I think it will be attempted and I further believe that this time it will succeed,as I believe that this time GM&GE will fail in their attempts to repeat the ruse they successfully used in '85-86 of sucking up all the Federal Clean Coal Locomotive development $$$ and of course producing "prototypes" that proved it was not feasible!! What else would you expect them to produce- with the multi-billion dollar investment they have in diesel-electric propulsion.
I have faith that this time enough funding will go to entitities that aretruly committed to making it work, and one or more of them will succeed!

My educated guess is that it will be a machine that the average member of the public won't be able to distinguish from a current diesel-electric as it passes by-- but it will be burning coal vs. oil and be cleaner to the enviornment in the bargain!

My guess is that the maiden journey of the first prototype will be around 2007, and the beginnings of the industrys conversion back to coal will begin somewhere around 2009.

It will certainly be interesting to see how it all plays out!

Ross Rowland

rrowland@weidel.com

Tim,

Glad to see you are doing what I wish I had done ~30 years ago when I was in college.

The Swiss company SLM (since succeeded by DLM) did a project like this on a former German Class 52 2-10-0 a few years back. The 52's were "austerity" locomotives built during WWII. The modernization included full outfitting with roller bearings on axles and rods, streamlined steam circuit, increased superheat, a Lempor exhaust, a modern oil-firing system, increased thermal insulation, and a Riggenbach counter-pressure braking system (the steam equivalent of diesel dynamic braking). The rebuilt locomotive is used to pull the famous "Orient Express" in Switzerland.

There were a lot of teething problems with the rebuilt engine, most of which were due to the age of the original engine. There were problems with compliance with obscure railway regulations in Germany, so the engine was never able to operate where it was intended. SLM successor DLM recently bought the engine back and it is now operating in Switzerland. They say if they had it to do over again, they'd build an entire new engine as they'd have a better locomotive for about the same money.

SLM built several modern rack steam locomotives for use in Switzerland and Austria in the 1990's. DLM hopes to build further modern rack or adhesion steam locomotives in the future.

Read more at their webpage below, or at my webpage at the following link. DLM

Regards,
Hugh Odom
The Ultimate Steam Page
http://www.trainweb.org/tusp

> Hey everyone,

> I've been spending some time researching the
> possibility of rebuilding a
> "modern" steam engine from an
> exsiting one. It's the beginnings of an
> engineering report I'm working on for a
> thermodynamics course at college. But since
> this came up, I'll pose the question to the
> guys here who are much more educated on the
> matters than myself.

> Ok, granted the purists would have our
> heads, but how unreal is this concept? Let's
> say we take a locomotive out there, maybe a
> late 4-8-4 with roller bearings and such
> (and everything else that was state of the
> art in the late 40's). If it's a coal
> burner, maybe convert to oil fire? Use
> today's knowlege of heat transfer,
> insulation, and electronics to design an
> efficient locomotive. Include things such as
> sensors to measure temperature on all axles
> and bearings, possibly even a computer
> controlled firing system? How about one of
> those exhaust systems Wardale or Porta put
> together? Maybe it would even have the same
> power output as before, just with a much
> higher efficiency?

> Obviously we're not looking for steam to
> make it's comeback anytime soon, but in
> theory, would there be any substance to this
> concept? Maybe it would be the ultimate
> mainline steam locomotive.

> Am I way off the deep end, or could this
> happen? Apologies if this has been debated
> here before. If it has, can anyone point me
> in the direction of some quality research
> for the report?

> Many thanks!

> Tim Botti


DLM
whodom2001@yahoo.com

> Those locos were built between 1975-79 so we
> would need to figure in todays
> dollars.....Wooly

Also they were purposely made as much like 1860's technology as practically possible.

dave

irondave@bellsouth.net

What I have been told by friends who have visited and know enough to have opinions worth considering is that there are wide variations in quality and quantity of steam locomotive care based on a lot of variables.

Also, "scrapped" can mean different things. There may be piles of useful parts such as cylinder saddles, or given the recent Chinese hunger for recyclable metal, they may have disappeared.

What a shame that we could not have repatriated the 2-8-0's, 4-6-0's, etc which were scrapped within the past ten years. Makes me question the wisdom of allowing the management of our country to politicians rather than businessmen.

dave

irondave@bellsouth.net

> in 24" guage or 30"?

> I can hook you up with a real nice, modern,
> brand spanking new 24" guage 2-6-2,
> outside frame piston valved, 13 tons give or
> take for under 500K.

> Lemme know.

... or standard gauge. One thing that is intriguing about many posts here that I haven't figured out yet, is this fetish for big, late, mainline steam. Big, late steam may be a thrill, but it isn't representative of the steam that built and served North America's rail transportation system when rail was the only game in town. For that, we should be looking at ten-wheelers and consolidations. And these would be reasonably replicable by existing shops and entities.

It comes down to a matter of historical interpretation - what era are we trying to represent? And why is it assumed that our interpretation must be post-1925?

Steve

Strasburg Rail Road
ssweaver@paonline.com

> As you can see,
> there are only around 20 three foot gauge
> engines left and at least half of them are
> formally preserved.

This information jibes with what I have been hearing the past two years. The real "golden" opportunity to turn to Cuba as America's "Barry Scrapyard" has come and gone. Not to say that there aren't gems down there still, but so many have been torched the past 5-10 years that it isn't the gold mine it could have been.

So, like Mexico of 40 years ago, a great repository of US-built (and in many cases built for US roads) steam era equipment is going to the torch.

I wish I had the answers on how to get a few pieces out of Cuba, but I do not.

Rob

I was in Cuba 2001, 02 & 03. Only a handful of 36" guage loco are on the island, primarily at the Sandino sugar mill (now closed) and the Lenin Park tourist railway in Havana. What they do have is a large number of 30" guage steamers, ranging from immaculate condition to those you wouldn't want to stand too close to for fear of what might happen!

That being said, the Cubans realize the value especially of their NG steamers & have set up several tourist railways at abandoned sugar mills across the country. And the Manileech mill near Havana, still hauls cane with 5 or 6 30" guage locos in use during the Dec - May harvest season.

bas1210@comcast.net