Before anybody builds a new steam locomotive of any size or type in the US they had better first buy the railroad on which they want to run it. After you buy the railroad you will need to have a bussiness plan that will at least establish a permanant way of paying for the upkeep of the railroad. Only then can you start building a locomotive and be sure to have a place to run it. Considering the bussiness climate in the US and how subject to change it can be it is simply not possible to depend on finding other railroads on which to run your locomotive. Of course that goes for restoring a locomotive as well.

If you want to build say a Western Maryland locomotive you could buy the WM Scenic or perhaps the Maryland Midland. Fill in you own line and locomotive and then you can build whatever specific locomotive you want. Personally I would rather buy something like the EBT, D&SNG, or Grand Canyon than start from scratch. At least you have an established operation with which to start.

Lastly, and perhaps most important, why build something new when there are so many historic locomotives that need help. Even if you restore a locomotive that may be in danger of being lost and never find a place to run you have at least provided a new life for something truely historic. As dearly as I would love to have a living breathing L&N berkshire built I would rather see all that money put to restoring several other worthy locomotives.

John Bohon

There is one point that has not been made in this thread... Egos would prevent such a project from being successful! First, I would wager a bet that rather then going with one of the 3 or 4 guys in this country that could pull such a project off, some half rate individual would be used because they talk a good game and sing the song of "persons XYZ charge to much, I can do it for half the price". I say this because it has been my observation that the best in the industry, with proven mechanical track records, are talked badly about the most. As a contrast, those that do improper work based on opinion rather than an established standard practice seem to keep nudging their way into really big operations/restorations.

This subject has come up here and at steam_tech several times but this is about the best discussion on the subject I've read yet and a lot of good points have been raised.

I think the key ones are:

1- There is less interest among the general population in trains in general than in the UK, which would make raising funds more difficult

2- It would probably be harder to get a consensus on what engine should be built, but I tend to agree that an NYC 4-6-4 would be the most likely candidate.

3- There are probably far more unrestored legacy steam locomotives in the U.S. than in the UK; therefore there's less reason to build a replica

4- Mainline operations in the U.S. are becoming more difficult due to traffic and insurance issues

I tend to favor Dave's general idea of building a new, relatively small steam locomotive that would be useful in far more locations than another big mainline steam locomotive. I think there's a distinct possibility that a new steam locomotive designed specifically for tourist railway service might prove an economically viable proposition with better performance, better fuel economy, and much lower maintenance costs than a legacy steamer.

Switzerland's DLM (formerly SLM) has built new rack steam locomotives for service in Europe and has proposed several new conventional steamers for different services. I'd think a U.S. design along these lines would be the way to go.

I tend to agree that we're not going to get any concensus nationally as to a particular model of locomotive to try and replicate. I've long thought the NYC Hudson would be the most logical candidate, but logic doesn't seem to have much to do with these sorts of things. Building a huge replica of a steam locomotive in the business and operating climate of today probably is far from logical.

I really would like to know how much of a demand there would be for a new, mass-produced (more than a couple anyway) tourist line loco there is? Crown Metal built amusement park American types for a lot of years, but went out of business more than 10 years ago when park trains were overshadowed by more exciting coasters. I'm not close to any steam tourist operation at this time, so I'm not familiar with any (if any) studies as to the difference in attendance at a tour railroad or museum having an operating steam locomotive on a daily/weekly basis makes. This has been discussed here in the recent past, and I don't think any conclusions were made from that discussion. I know that the last two years that OC 1293 came to the CVSR for a week it generated a lot of gawkers and riders, but I also remember weekends in the late 70's/early 80's (when far more people who remembered steam were alive) when I was about the only fan out chasing #4070.

Those who have said that circumstances in the U. S. are different from the UK or the rest of Europe are certainly right. I read a report on the internet the other day from a fan in England about a steam weekend on a tourist railway there that had SEVEN engines under steam for a weekend (in January, no less), operating 25 trains/day, passenger and freight, on a double-track tourist mainline, complete with signals and proper stations, towers, and other facilities. Not going to see anything like that here. The best we can hope for (and don't get me wrong, I'm really looking forward to it) is two big mainline locomotives on a single-track branch line for one weekend every four years or so. Even this takes a huge effort to pull off.

Maybe, just maybe, what we should work towards is developing ONE really good national museum/historic railroad, that has the room, central location, population base, etc. to have a dedicated double-track main, in good shape, with multiple restored locomotives operating daily or near-daily steam service. Oh, wait, we were supposed to have that in Scranton. How's that working for you? Potential and execution sometimes just don't add up. We've got too many big egos pushing too many eccentric agendas to probably ever pull something like this off.

You'd think in a country of nearly 300 million it would be possible to have ONE first-class museum/operating steam railroad that could approach what is currently happening in a country the size of a medium-sized state. You'd think.

The MBTA service expansion being studied for New Bedford and Fall River has a projected $1.6 billion price tag (yes, billion) and would operate through post industrial brownfield neighborhoods with old textile mills where a steam locomotive would look right at home. A great opportunity for the folks who claim that steam locomotives can be made as efficient, environmentally friendly, and operationally flexible as diesels to have a chance to prove it.

PC

First as other posters have noted.....we need a railroad first,with a location and proper business plan with which to support it. We then need to have locomotives which fit the territory the railroad is operating in. We then have to put together the logistics of being able to bring in "guest" locomotives and other equipment as seen fit. How do we staff this outfit? We also need a good supply of cars for these locomotives to pull,and design services to get the people in the seats. We also need a shop facility,turning facilities and the ability to market the railroad to the world market,not just nationally. Can it be done? Yes I think so. Will it be done? That depends on the ability of people to get over themselves and focus on the mission we all believe in. They seem to have gotten over that hurdle in England,where locomotive owners are more concerned with seeing their machine run and not so preoccupied with the right(left) hand seat. To have a tourist line on which you can ride a mixed train behind a 2-8-0 in the morning, a 4-6-2 with matching heavyweight cars for brunch and a massive 4-8-4 on a moonlight run where she can strut her stuff on good rail for about 40 miles or so would be quite the party....and add to the mix a 2-8-2 on a "hotshot"freight meeting and passing these trains during the day and evening as an added bonus. These types of things are orchestrated in England on a regular basis,on multiple heritage lines,and mainline trips from somewhere in England almost every weekend We can pull it off. It just takes attitude and money. If my attitude was money I'd be a billionaire.

Maybe it's the national character of the US v/s England that might doom such a project. I've spent a lot of time 'cross the pond and can say that in comparison to our Britanic cousins, us upstart colonistst simply have no comparable sense of history. In a culture that thinks that the world was black/white before the late 60s, we don't have a history like England does.
For crying our loud, the RADF actually has a unit that flies WW2 fighters and bombers at state sponsored events, with active duty pilots and ground crews, all paid by tax dollars! Can anyone really imagine the USAF or USN restoring a B-24, some Mustangs and some Corsairs and doing the same? Heck no! And why not? Because the average American would look up, find out the government put money into it and scream that the money should have gone to schools or something!

It has been a few years now, but if I recall correctly, the range of funding that several people have posted would be needed for this project (the locomotive alone, not a railroad and other equipment) was just about the amount of money that another steam restoration project, the SS NOBSKA, flushed down the drain.

The Nobska ended up being cut up for scrap in Charlestown, Massachusetts, after the installation of new bottom plating was almost completed. A previous grant went down with the ship, taxpayer money essentially wasted.

http://www.nobska.org/news/f1.htm

PC

Although I'm not really up to date on all the legalities of it, I had heard that we have a law that says something to the effect that all boilers built after 1978 have to have very low emissions levels, low enough to make new full-size steamers impractical or impossible to build. If that's the case, it would certainly factor into building a new one.

It sounds to me like just a rumor, but I don't know. Is this correct, or have I heard wrong?

Folks,

There are a lot of good things being said in this thread.

But as for me i would like to see money spent on a real historic locomotive rahter than any replica. There are so many deserving historical pieces that deserve a chance to run again.

If anyone goes to a replica project. Then I think that the problem will be finding a place to run it rather than a technical hitch. If you throw enough money at the production problems they can go away.

Even assuming that you do a Union Pacific locomotive; they are the only company that has any corporate level experience with steam in recent years. They might be interested in running a replica. I say again might!

Moving away from the main line the narrow gauge folks have several projects in the works. For example, the WW&F Museum in Maine has announced the intention to built a replica of their WW&F #7 an 0-4-4 Forney type that was scrapped in 1937.

This same group is building a new boiler for their #9. This project will include new frame parts and FRA compliance for the locomotive.

There has been for several years parts of a 19th century standard gauge locomotive (read small) at the Strasburg, PA Shops. The wheels have been cast and show in some of the pictures that Linn has been posting. They are bright red. The project as I understand it is on time and money available basis. Who knows what the present economy has done to their money source.

Moving back to Great Britain again. Over at the Ditcot Railway Centre of the Great Western Railway they have built a new boiler and engine to power a rail Motor Car whose wooden body survivied from around 1915.

These cars were the equilivent of our electric Interurbans, except they were steam and used on lightly used branch lines. They are using Heritage Lottery money to fund the project.

There are several other "restoration projects using existing parts to re-create extinct classes of British locomotives. The same GWR folks are doing I think an Atlantic if I recall.

Some of the restorations that took place on the worn out parts and pieces that came out of the Barry Scrap yard are AMAZING!

Which brings me to my last point unless something like the Heritage Lottery happens here on this side of the Atlantic you might as well forget doing a full sized main line steam locomotive and as I said above where would you have to run it, if and when it is ever built?

Ted Miles

A minor correction. WW&F No 7 was a 2-4-4T. No's 9 & 10 are both 0-4-4T's.

Although Britain's Heritage Lottery Fund (and America's lack thereof) has been mentioned several times on this thread, it should be pointed out that the Heritage Lottery Fund (and the National Lottery that supports it) didn't come into being until around 1994 or 1995, several years after the Tornado project began. In fact, as a newbuild rather than a historic locomotive, I believe Tornado was turned down for lottery funding at least once, and I'm not sure they ever received it. The original plan to fund Tornado's construction was to have many supporters each chipping in a small amount on a regular basis (the price of a pint of beer per week) until the locomotive was complete. As the project progressed, corporate sponsors also came aboard, and lottery funding was pursued.

As for the need to own a railroad so our hypothetical new locomotive will have a place to run, as I said in my earlier post, it's difficult to predict what kinds of opportunities there might be to operate a new steam locomotive on the mainline in 18 years' time. In the last 18 years while Tornado was under construction, we've seen some major class 1 mergers, the demise of the Norfolk Southern steam program, the launch of the Canadian Pacific steam program, the successful restoration and operation of Milwaukee Road 261 among others, the import of several Chinese QJ's, and a number of steam-friendly regionals have come and gone. British railways went through a major upheaval during that time as well, as the national railway network was broken up and sold off to private operators in the mid 90's, and the future of mainline steam seemed uncertain in the new landscape (although if anything, it seems privitization turned out to be a plus for mainline steam).

The point is, there were all kinds of reasons why it theoretically couldn't be done. What made the Tornado project special is that they had the audacity to build it anyway.

Here in Southern California, we've had ATSF 3751 run to San Diego and back to LA twice last year, and are looking forward to another trip in May. In the process, it runs on Metrolink, BNSF and San Diego County rails. A few years ago it ran from LA to San Bernardino on the Metrolink line, which I found most intriguing because many miles of Metrolink San Berdoo line track are laid on a former Pacific Electric route. 3751 has also been to Fullerton Railroad Days and has run to San Pedro (LA Harbor). My guess is that in this area, fans would probably prefer to contribute to 3751, with some favoring SP 4449 (even though it's about 800 miles away). And don't forget Ventura County #2, steaming on a regular basis at Orange Empire. What I'm saying is, it would take a heck of a sales job to raise money for a NYC Hudson or other "exotic" (to many native Californians) locomotive. Most of us are not quite as specialized as one local enthusiast, who filed photos, movies, etc. under two classes: "PE" and "foreign", but the general provincialism of railfans would be a major hurdle for a project focused on a distinctive engine.

Hello,

Ross's initial choice of the NYC Niagara to many on this interchange would seem to be "another 4-8-4", like we need that?!

Let's consider a bit of history, I have several references on the Niagara, currently packed far away, so I am going strictly from memory, so forgive me if my stats are little off.

1. Still may hold the record time from New York (Harmon really) to Chicago....15.5 hrs total time? on the 20th Century Ltd. I am not certain if any train has eclipsed this yet. (Hudsons may have achieved the same times but would suspect not with the drawbar load capabile on the Niagara.)

2. ~ 5000 drawbar HP at 50 MPH.

3. Could scoop water on the fly at 80 MPH (with vented tender of course!) Yes, the Hudsons could do this as well.

4. Achived monthly mileage record of 25,000 miles in its zenith. Routinely ran the NY to Chicago 900+ mile circuit, immediately serviced and run right back.

5. Could accelerate a 1000 ton train to 100 MPH from a standing start in 15 minutes.

6. Looks that were tolerated or hated, however built with low profile to run under catenary, I believe it had no steam dome but a slotted dry pipe close to the boiler barrel roof line.

7. Design optimized to about state of the art at the time. Could you image if a full Porta post-rebuild could have been done on a surviver (reference performance achived on the South African Railways, Class 26 Red Devil)....could we say that it's 6000 HP indicated could have been moved to the drawbar? I suspect so and then some.

To me the Niagara was the unsung hero of the modern steam era. Around 25 units made. It worked its heart out during its extremely short life and played second fiddle to the Hudsons, which were about as common as mud. Albeit the 1938 20th Century streamlined hudsons were awsome looking...a real halmark of the art deco era.

They quickly became too powerful for passenger service when ridership went to crap in the post war years. Once the diesel arrived they were swept from the roster like the wind.

To me, the Niagara was just not another 4-8-4............too fast, too good and .......too late.

May they rest in peace.

Regards,

Randy