Some interesting thoughts, indeed!!!

It would appear that the only way it could happen here is if the few remaining Class 1's adopted such a project as part of a greater national PR campaign. Don't dismiss this out of hand as there is a MAJOR sea change taking place as we speak due to the rr's realization that they will need large amounts of public funding to achieve their need to increase their physical plant, and thus they now really care about their public image. Witness the AAR buying 2 spots during the Super Bowl @ $ 3 million! They would have to provide the bulk of the funding ( $ 15-20 million) and agree in partnership with Amtrak to a multi-year operating plan.

Then would be the consensus of which class engine to recreate. As fractured as we are there's little chance of us agreeing on any one engine so someone would need to make a decision based on a few critical criteria such as-- 1. Big enough to pull a decent train at sustained track speed, 2. " Small" enough to go anywhere a GP-9 can go, 3. complete erection drawings exist.

It would seem to me that based on this criteria that a NYC Hudson would be an ideal candidate??

Certainly worthy of some further thought!

Ross Rowland

RE: large steel castings (engine beds) for replicas of the big stuff should not really be an issue, as they can be replaced by welded fabrications (see cylinder fab for SP 2-8-2/Austin Steam Train) for one-offs. I recall hearing that the rejection rate for GSC's cast engine beds was something like on out of every two or three--- but they just went back into the melt pot for repouring. Cast frames were great when building 10-20-30 of an order for locos; and the fabricating and welding art was not as advanced as it is today.

As for "right-sized" replica engines, the UP 119 replica at Promontory is almost a dead ringer for (original) Naugatuck RR "Thomaston", a typical Rodgers 4-4-0 of the late 1860s era. Plans and patterns exist, yes? Any isssues as to rights, licensing, etc.? No, we are not starting the fund-raising for that project just yet....

Howard P.
No Big Boys, CT

I agree with you Howard P. that getting the pieces made in the USA is not an issue.

Even if you wanted to go with the one piece frame there are a number of US shipyards capable of pouring a one piece frame any size you want, all it takes is the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$.

Also, there are at least 6 second tier boiler manufacturers capable of producing a 300 psi all welded fire tube boiler all you need is the $$$$$.

Interesting. Ross Rowland

Ross, to go right back to your 1-2-3 criteria above, the "perfect" class of engine does exist, and it's not an NYC Hudson---- and it's a class that you are actually pretty familiar with-- the CPR 1200-series G-5 4-6-2s. They will run on 80 lb rail (they are 118 tons engine in working order), they will run 60 mph, they have about the hp of a GP9 or RS11, most if not all the drawings exist, two had welded boilers (get those drawings..). I learned a few lessons from the "old days", and that's why RMNE has CPR 1246 today.

A Hudson is too damn heavy.

But, another issue you raise, a "PR campaign" for the Class one railroads, certainly will NOT center around steam locomotives. The (big) (freight) railroads are coming into the national awareness as "green" and modern and environmentally-friendly and actually up-to-date. Steam takes all that and dumps it upside down.

Keep steam locomotives where they belong-- as museum pieces to be operated on shortlines, regionals, museum railroads. Operate them in situations where the dynamic can be controlled, where the freak-out factor of CEOs of billion-dollar corporations is eliminated, where people can get up close and see-smell-hear-feel the things.

It's interesting that a few days ago, I was thinking that just 40 years ago NOW, drawings of how a blue-painted 2-8-4 were being finished in Ohio, and a few months later, that blue 2-8-4 was steaming away on a cool May night, 20 miles from where I'm sitting now. It was steaming away that night, banked fire, awaiting the great and grand 2-week adventure it would start a few days later. It was steaming away as a 17-year old kid flashed #22 bulbs at it while a 4x5 Speed Graphic perched on a tripod. Ross, that was another time, a magical time, but it was a long time ago, it was on another planet, and we can't do that again. The world has changed.

Steam is still magic-- but it gets presented differently now.

Howard P.
I-Miss-Harmon, NY

Surely, if one man can build this gorgeous locomotive in his (admittedly awesome) garage, then a group of like-minded enthusiasts can build a NYC Hudson, CP G-5, or whatever.

Howard, the plans and patterns for most of your reproduction "Thomaston" are available to you from the NPS...anytime you want them :-)

Photo: Leviathan web site.

http://web.mac.com/vtlyon/iWeb/The%20Le ... an%20.html

Keep in mind that conventional wisdom in the UK back when the A1 folks got started was that it was never really going to happen there either. You can't have a "they said it couldn't be done" project until somebody tells you it can't be done. As it was, Tornado took over twice as long and cost twice as much as the original estimates, but they got her done, and the results are absolutely stunning.

I think the best equivalent we could come up with in this country would be the NYC Hudson. Like the North Eastern Region of British Rail (where the A1's operated), the NYC had a pretty dismal record of preserving their steam locomotives despite having a strong following of admirers, and the Hudsons, like the A1's, are widely regarded as "ones that got away". Sure, we all have our own favorites that we'd like to see built (I'd cast my vote for a Northern Pacific N-1 Atlantic, but I'd probably be more or less alone on that one), but I think pretty much everyone who has ever had even a passing interest in steam locomotives is familiar with the classically handsome lines of the NYC Hudson, immortalized by the Lionel and Rivarossi models among many others. The Niagara may have its partisans among the NYC fans, but I think the Hudson would have the much broader appeal that would be absolutely critical for such a project to succeed.

A Hudson may also be more practical to operate than something larger like a Niagara or a Pennsy T1, while still being large enough to stir the emotions of potential donors. Absolutely, something like a light Pacific or a 2-6-2 could have more potential to get a return on investment once it's built, but would be severely lacking in the excitement factor that would attract donors to the project. We could talk about a 4-4-0, but we've already got the Promontory engines. Is that our answer to Tornado?

So, let's say we built a Hudson, where does she run? If she were ready to go today, there aren't a whole lot of places where she could, but it's difficult to predict what kinds of opportunities there might be to run a new Hudson on the mainline 18 years from now. The fact that it's a new locomotive may make a difference too. For example Tornado is (or will be) certified to run up to 90mph on the UK mainlines, instead of 75 for restored steam locomotives. The one thing that is for certain is that she won't run anywhere if she isn't built!

As others have pointed out, the cast frame would be a challenge in this country in this day and age. But if we're talking about a comparable project to Tornado, compromises were made there too, like the all-welded, all-steel boiler (the originals were riveted and had a copper firebox) made in Germany. Patterns for some of the castings were made of styrofoam instead of carved out of wood. If modern techniques can produce a fabricated frame that looks and functions the same as the cast original of the Hudson, why not?

Do I think it will happen in this country? Probably not, but I don't think that's the right question to ask. For the Tornado folks, the question wasn't "can we do this?" it was "how can we do this?" They put together an ambitious project with a solid, if somewhat revolutionary fundraising plan, and got to work. Now, 18 years later, they've proved all the doubters wrong.

Could it be possible to build a locomotive like a Hudson with lighter materials and still have the same horsepower? Actually, could it be possible to build a 3,500-4,000 hp steam locomotive that comes in around 286,k lbs?

The design/engineering/fabrication is not the problem. How to raise, realistically raise that kind of money is the major problem.

And, then, where to run it/how to move it. Anyone ask a Class One to move a steam loco long distances lately? Seems to me TVRM's CNR 5288 (a BIG Pacific) went to Chattanooga on a flatcar.

I'm still 97% convinced that any "new build" engine has to be capable of being moved not on its own wheels.

And we're still talking about "which one" and "how to make it". Not "how to get the money in the US" (with no Heritage Lottery and lots of engines already going begging for funds).

Howard P.

Shouldn't an organization have a very clear mission before asking for money?

If moving the locomotive some way other than "on its own wheels" were a dealbreaker, quick connections between the engine and tender could be used for easy (er) separation, maybe a coupler added to the front of the tender, and a "jeep" (to use a lowboy term) built using heavy haul trucks that could attach to the pilot beam and the back of the frame with the engine spanned between them and riding a few inches off the rails...But, if it (the Hudson) is an all-roller-bearing engine anyway, perhaps mainrods that are relativly easy to remove would turn the trick?

Cheers, Dave

If I am not mistaken there have been several movements of steam on their own wheels since that move. NKP 763 from Roanoke to Ohio Central, NKP 765 towed under steam in Ft. Wayne and RJ Corman's QJ operated on CSX.

I think the case of the CNR engine was unique in that it would have taken too much $$$$ to make her road worthy on her own wheels.

I has some thoughts last night when this subject came up, and more later today. Instead of replicating a "lost" engine, why not come up with a generic engine that could have run just about anywhere in the country?

Transport from event to event seems to be a big issue. Would it be possible to build, and get approval to operate, something akin to a gooseneck highway trailer, but on rails? If so, then figure on the largest steam locomotive that would fit on such a car and clear, say, 90% of the clearence restrictions across the country. Having thus defined your maximum size, design (or rebuild) the largest engine that will fit on the flat and still fit through the tunnels and bridges, without taking it too far apart.

True, the engine would not be a 4-8-4, but something like a really well Americanized SY (or engine of similar size) should fit within the envelope. Pile on all the features needed for reliable (and simple) operation on todays railroads; things like 26 air, ditch lights, roller bearings, the latest radio, ample fuel and (especially) water capacity. To keep the maintenance costs down, go with a welded boiler, and perhaps stay away from superheaters and feedwater heaters. Keep it simple, less for the operating railroads to fear breaking down on the road. A main reservior line fore and aft, and possibly a diesel MU box, could help in this regard.

With new construction, if chosen, you would have the opportunity to go with larger cylinders and a higher boiler pressure, if desired, keeping in mind your factor of adhesion. Definitely explore the most recent advances in drafting and front ends. For fuel, as a matter of practicality, I think I would go with oil. You can feed the engine through a hose, and there are no ashes to get rid of.

With the engine taken care of, you need a train. I have often thought it would be neat to send a set of P-54 drawings to China, and ask for a quote. Cars of that size could be used almost anywhere, and eight or ten coaches, with a baggage and concession car, would be a pretty respectable train for a light Mikado. (And don't forget the tool car, which could carry additional water in belly tanks.)

Of course, the coaches would have roller bearings, and nothing exotic for brakes; think ABDW, understood by all car knockers. The use of freight car draft gear, couplers, freight car wheels (36") and brakes should make them more acceptable for movement on their own wheels. If not, then they get "gooseneck" flats as well.

I see such a set of equipment physically being able to go on tour more easilly than one of the Berks or 4-8-4s. I fear that on today's mainline railroads, we're not going to see too many more trips with big engines and 20 car trains. What I have proposed here could operate on many of the regionals, and be transported between them with (hopefully) little difficulty over the bigger roads in between.

Of course, it all comes down, again, to a four letter word, money, in this case spelled C-A-S-H. Someone has to pay for it, and these are very hard times.

Just my two cents-

EDM

A new construction locomotive is not heritage equipment and I would suspect that by the end of the project, the organizers would get to know some very expensive consultants quite well, and be on a first name basis with the local inspectors of many federal agencies. And if this were a new design and construction that will haul passengers, I would also suspect it would have to spend an extended test period at Pueblo in order for there to be any hope at all of ever getting insurance for operating it. There are already dozens and dozens of rusting engines all over the country that get little financial support. Over the last four decades I have seen a number of much more affordable projects spring up and then die for lack of funding. With so much historically significant equipment being neglected and lost, is a project to try to manufacture history really needed?

PC

I guess I'd like to know where the money would come from? Like others have suggested, I don't really think that many people with ridiculous amounts of money would front such a project. If that were the case, Ross, I'd think you'd have had 614 in steam already and have your Yellow Ribbon Express train already put together and ready to go by now. With the economy where it is at this time, I really can't see anyone putting down large amounts of money for a private "toy." Sure, you have Paul Allen and his collection of airplanes: http://www.flyingheritage.com/TemplateM ... ntentId=43 But that's the exception, not the rule.
A friend of mine and I used to sit around and think of the things we'd do if we suddenly became millionaires. These sessions covered all kinds of things, like going to Eastern Europe and finding abandoned WW2 German tanks or Pacific Islands for American airplanes and restoring them for operation. When we'd get to trains, we'd often talk of going to China with the patterns for some long-extinct breed of locomotive, usually a NYC streamlined Hudson, just for the "wow factor," even though I'm not a big fan of the NYC.
I too am baffled at the people who want a new-built "Big Boy" or even the suggestion that there's anywhere to run such an engine, replica or original. I could only image what would happen if somehow, someone did restore a 4000 and present it to UP. I'm sure Steve Lee's crew would LOVE to run one, but I could imagine it not getting too much use. I do know for a fact that someone with money DID approach the Chinese with the plans for an "extinct" US locomotive soon after the first Chinese engine got to the US for operation. However, the tooling costs killed the project (actually, the idea that someone else could walk up right afterward and get their own replica engine for far less after the initial tooling had been done was what did it).
It's amazing what can be done with a far older design, like the Leviathan replica being built right now: http://web.mac.com/vtlyon/iWeb/The%20Le ... G_4709.jpg But considering the conditions these engines were built under originally, you could argue that modern equipment could improve the construction and design of the originals. I doubt that'd be the case for, say, a UP #4000 class.
Still, all this being said, it's a given that along the way, the folks building the "Tornado" must have heard their fair share of folks who said, "It will NEVER happen!"

It has been mentioned before but in the UK there is
more than just the A1 being built. Yes, some are
modifications really using some existing components
but I think there are at least 6 projects underway
now. Likely more. The money is clearly there.
Years ago when I was in high school I believe Trains
Magazine had something like 60k subscribers.
I often wondered why there wasnt a call for ten bucks
from each to do a project. Well, now if I called for
100 bucks from every subscriber what would we
be able to do? Not much. The A1 could not be
built today for what they paid I bet.
But in the USA railfans seemingly refuse to
spend a nickel unless it is on new cameraware.
The nation is so big and spread out that it
would be tough to have a nationwide project.