One man's opinions and thoughts, nothing more.

I've watched the Tornado story from early on, through our recent string of postings.
It really is an amazing story, something that would make a great made for tv movie, if such movies involved these things and not stories of unrequited love !

I'm really struck by two things as I read these postings here, they're sort of intertwined. The first is the prevailing discourse of "why we can't/shouldn't". Have we become that complacent in the US that we collectively would rather sit back and shoot an idea down instead of at least trying to find a solution ?

I'll be amongst the many to admit this is a huge challenge, just the narrowing down of a single prototype is almost as monumental a challenge as the money, the timeframe, the building, and eventually a place to run it. (Who can even dare to guess what American railroads will look like in 20-25 years with the economy, environmental issues, etc ??) But at the end, it's a challenge folks, if it was easy, we'd be shopping them out by the boatload. I in no way beleive that it's just a simple thing of applying the good old "Can Do" spirit, but just as equally,,, the first and most guaranteed force to stop anyone in anything, is to beleive that you can't !

The second part of this is my opinion that we as a collective are just too darn fat and happy in our lives, and unwilling to cut loose with even the minimum of dollars if it's going to affect our lifestyles. We all love our plasma tvs, Blackberrys, satellite radio, etc, a bit to much (and yes, guilty as charged your honor !)

I put out this example :
Last summer, while gasoline prices in the Chicago area were hovering at the $4.50-$4.75 a gallon (for basic gas, not the premium stuff) everyone and his brother complained and rightly so about the prices. But I noticed over a couple of days of listening to this in my office, these same people talked about the high price of gas and how it was almost too expensive to come to work, and then followed up with conversations about what they watched on cable tv the night before. A simple survey found that most of the people I have working for me have extended cable packages, most in the $120+ per month range.

I would never deny anyone a luxury they could afford, or even want, but how do you complain about the cost of gas, when you spend that much for the proverbial "300 channels and nothing on" ? It's a simple math question of luxuries versus necessities.
I'm quite certain these people would have pared back , even canceled cable (as just one example) if it push came to shove, but the point is, they were very reticent at best, to give up any lifestyle choices, even in the face of tough economic times.

If you have that sort of mentality, are you going to give up even $10 a week, for say,,, 20 years, with only a hope and a dream of seeing something down the road ?
Yet if we could manage that same type of operation, $10 per week, for 20 years, by just 10,000 people (that's not that many considering your population base) gets you your 10 million without any sizeable sponsors or grants. And we all know that money begets money, once you have a bit of a bankroll and can prove you're for real, they're far more eager to offer extra funding.

For all the people that sit trackside as the fantrip rolls along, and all the folks that visit the museum bemoaning the "pile of junk",, the reality is that we have things like
Ross's 614, Doyle's 4449 and PA, IRM's massive collection, and literally dozens more, big and small, because a very small handful of people had an idea, a vision, and stuck to it, despite huge odds, and usually in the face of common sense.

The only chance this could happen is to have that same "unrealistic vision", and do whatever it takes to make it happen.

Again, one man's opinion, nothing more.

PS - Couldn't we wrest the PS-4 out of the Smithsonian's hands and get it running for a lot less than $10 million ?

PPS - Not really sure of the current situation in Far East (ie, China) Is there any possibility of using/reopening any of their steam facilities to build/rebuild/Americanize
something at a lower cost than a rail-head up build ??

The problem with the internet is that it makes it easy to shoot down anything, anywhere, any time. But if someone wants to create such an effort, they need to just go do it. The A-1 Trust started as essentially just a small group of can-do people. The money and the supporters came later and built up over time. Polling and focus groups will never get a project like this off the ground. If this ever happens in the U.S. we will hear about when someone has set up a group, has a plan and can ehthuse us and excite us into giving.

One of the things that was done on the Tornado project, was to modernize the design of the engine, so that it better fit the needs of today's mainline requirements.
If we were to modernize say, a replica of a NYC Hudson, would anyone have a beef with it being an all roller-bearing engine, what about going further...does it have to be a coal burner? I would imagine it is easier to fuel 2816 or 4449 than it is to do 614 or 6325. It would be easier yes, but less authentic, so where is the trade off point? I'm sure railroad officials would be happier with an engine not having friction bearings, not being a cinder risk, etc, but I can hear the purists now..."that's not right, that's not the way they were...." One of the big stumbling blocks to any recreation, or restoration for that matter is attention to detail and authenticity, but compromise is where people really need to focus if this were ever to become reality.

I'm going to throw in another factor involved in the overall situation that, as it turns out, does make a major difference.

If someone in North America wants to acquire and use an "expendable," modern, more up-to-date mainline-capable steamer, we have/had the option of the Chinese SY's and QJ's--and, indeed, several of each have made it here.

The British loading gauge makes that a non-option in Britain.

True, a QJ doesn't quite have the emotional appeal that, say, a replica NYC Hudson/Niagara, Reading G3 Pacific, or [insert your favorite loco] does, but it was obviously an option for the likes of Posner, Corman, etc. Though we never heard that Corman or anyone else ever wanted to replicate a L&N "Big Emma" or whatnot, either.....

As for the coal v. oil thing: yes I think it matters. The northeast
was all about coal in one way or another. An oil burner to me
is pretty odd. Im a New Yorker.
In UK they worry whether or not they have a copper firebox. :-)

And it's comments like this that for me will doom this project if it ever gets started. Failing to step back emotionally and take into account the needs of a steam locomotive operating on the mainline in the 21st century. If your steam locomotive is running diesel fuel, it's readily available anywhere the locomotive runs, water is your primary concern. That makes good sense in today's modern environment.
No one has yet answered the question: How can we build and run new steam if the steam we already have isn't running? I've seen several dance around this question or gloss it over but it's the elephant in the middle of the room. Tornado runs because steam runs on the mainline in Britain on a regular basis. When they build the locomotive they knew running opportunities existed on the mainline or such a locomotive. Where does this exist in the quantity needed to justify building a new locomotive? I think Ross has it right that to be successful the engine will have to pay it's own way when it comes down to it. So I ask again, how can we build and run new steam if the steam we already have isn't running?

What if the group that desires to build a new locomotive went to the Class 1s and Amtrak and asked them, "What can we build so we may run on your railroads?" Then you avoid the problem of restoring a locomotive with no where to run.

I don't think there is anything we could build that would allow steam free reign on the mainline once again. Most of the big steamers now represent the height of steam locomotive design with continual improvements to allow helper diesels, cab signals, radio improvements, bearing monitors etc. Engines like 611 and 614 are state of the art with all the modern compatibly that one would expect to allow them such freedom. And they are not running. 614 I know is equal to the Tornado in range and modern equipment, Ross has seen to that. It doesn't matter the horse if you have no place to let it run.
Let's look at the Class 1's and how they run steam. UP? UP steam only and understandably so. It's a business with business work to get done. No chance at all. NS? Slim to none. CSX? I have no idea truthfully. BNSF? They have the best off railroad steam deal right now but it's still a fight and I have a feeling that it'll keep getting harder and harder. It's not a fact of will or want methinks. It's the fact that these railroads are here to cater to their paying shippers and running steam engines is at the bottom of a very long long list. We have the modern engines that we all WANT to build. There is no need to build them, and if we did they would be in the same boat as the rest of US steam, held captive by a system that although understanding at times, has moved on.
Tornado had a place to run, and really run, from the time she was built. As did many other restored steam engines in Britain, one of the reasons the past time is so prevelent. We have no such place here, so it's back to the original question.
Here is a question for you, maybe for another thread: How about vintage diesel excursions? I know those are huge across the pond as well. Clagfest anyone?

Let me first say that I am merely a gracious observer of steam preservation and not an active participant (though I would like to be at least in one point in my life).

That being said, for all the "ink" being spilled about this discussion, has anyone considered developing a brand new steam locomotive with brand new steam locomotive technology ala ACE 3000?

For as much as I really enjoy those old steamers, if we are going to expend huge amounts of capital (money, labor, fabrication, etc.), it seems rather wasteful to employ that upon old technology that already has operating machines from that era.

As far as not being able to produce the parts here in the US, that may be true for some of the fabrication, but check out http://www.vaporlocomotive.com , they seem to be serious about steam and are located in Idaho.

Just my two cents, minus inflation...

611, 1218, 614, etc.... all suffer from the same problem, they're huge. Railroads want something with an axle loading comparable to locos they have on the rails today.

The 611 is a bit larger than the 3751 in fact the J's are actually just a few pounds ahead of the 2900 class in tractive effort. The axle loading on the 1218 is relatively low because of the number of axles, it is my understanding that it is fairly close to that of modern diesels and easier on curves than a northern due to (of course) the articulation.

Thanks to all who contributed their thoughts on this interesting question.

It would appear from the responses to the question that the following has been established;

1. Most feel that due to a variety of factors that it is HIGHLY unlikely that a similar effort could be successfully pulled off in the U.S.

2. As expected, most felt that it would be very difficult to arrive at a national consensus on which engine to "recreate" even if all the other obstacles were overcome, although it did appear that a NYC Hudson had the support of many.


My own conclusion is that it might be a doable task IF it were done as part of a national multi-year major public relations program funded by the Class 1's and with Amtrak as a full partner. My guess is that for somewhere in the vicinity of $15-20 million we could build a brand new Hudson or other engine ( if the drawings exist) and that there is still the manufacturing capability here to do it.

Let's keep our powder dry and hope that the industry might just say yes one of these years?? Hope springs eternal!!!

IMHO-Ross Rowland

Thanks to all who contributed their thoughts on this interesting question.

It would appear from the responses to the question that the following has been established;

1. Most feel that due to a variety of factors that it is HIGHLY unlikely that a similar effort could be successfully pulled off in the U.S.

2. As expected, most felt that it would be very difficult to arrive at a national consensus on which engine to "recreate" even if all the other obstacles were overcome, although it did appear that a NYC Hudson had the support of many.


My own conclusion is that it might be a doable task IF it were done as part of a national multi-year major public relations program funded by the Class 1's and with Amtrak as a full partner. My guess is that for somewhere in the vicinity of $15-20 million we could build a brand new Hudson or other engine ( if the drawings exist) and that there is still the manufacturing capability here to do it.

Let's keep our powder dry and hope that the industry might just say yes one of these years?? Hope springs eternal!!!

IMHO-Ross Rowland

It still won't wash, Ross.

I like the idea and your "out of the box" thinking, and agree that given the circumstances you describe, it just could happen.

Here are the questions I would pose as a fellow hardened cynic:

*What motivation would exist for the Class Ones and Amtrak to "get on board" with such a proposal? True, the Class Ones are rediscovering the premise of public relations and advertising among civilians and commoners--I've seen ad campaigns by NS and CSX of late--but what would they reap from a modern steamer chuffing about with a train?

*A major part of that cost would be the cost of a reproduction steamer. Who gets control/possession of said steamer after this mission? Wouldn't they have to front some of the costs?

*Part of the success of earlier steam campaigns, such as the Golden Spike Limited, the American Freedom Train, and the Chessie Steam Specials (all of which Rowland had a hand in) was the premise that the occasion was a truly special occasion (100th anniversary, 150th anniversary, 200th birthday) where part of the premise of goading the railroads into the project could be "Hey, we won't be back to ask this again for another 50 years!" I would be hard pressed to conjure up a rationale for any such train today, absent, I don't know, a proposal for railroad nationalization or whatnot. In short: why should they, and we, care?

Hey, I wonder if there's any chance someone for a U.S. tour by Tornado much like the one done by the Flying Scotsman ~30 (?) years ago? THAT might generate some interest in a similar U.S. project.