I find myself jokingly thinking to myself that, given a combination of the speed of technical advances and the sluggish time it will take the fans to agree on a loco and/or raise the necessary funds, by the time we're ready we'll just be able to submit the CAD to a metallic 3D printer and have them crank out a boiler in a day or so.

"Oh, wait, did you want the firebox copper or steel? Gotta change the feed line and cartridge head...."

Of course, I want to see what happens when someone forgets to carry the two in their calculations:

http://www.flickr.com/groups/3d-print-failures/

Has anyone seen any specifications that any of the groups proposing projects to build new replica locomotives have written for the equipment and components they need for their projects, along with any of the RFP's they issue for contractors and a copy of their supplier pre-qualification requirements? They are of course going to have written information packages available for potential suppliers describing parts and services they will need, right? Some of us might know some folks in industry who could bid on the items they require.

PC

Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding the regulations but since it's new construction, will this new proposed locomotive have to meet all the new crash worthiness standards and emissions?

Mr. Mitchell;
I don't think the A. S. M. E. will be allowing 3D printing of Section I boilers anytime soon. However, with a properly engineered set of drawings, a good "S" stamp shop could build a Code locomotive boiler.
Nathan

A very good question. The CFR uses the term "locomotive" in applicability of the collision regulations. When you get to the definitions part, this gets quite interesting:

49 CFR 238.5 Definitions of applicable locomotives:

"This term does not include a locomotive propelled by steam power unless it is used to haul an intercity or commuter passenger train."

Definition of intercity passenger train:

"Train, long-distance intercity passenger means a passenger train that provides service between large cities more than 125 miles apart and is not operated exclusively in the National Railroad Passenger Corporation's Northeast Corridor."

Definition of "in passenger service":

"In passenger service/in revenue service means a train or passenger equipment that is carrying, or available to carry, passengers. Passengers need not have paid a fare in order for the equipment to be considered in passenger or in revenue service."

Notice the definition of intercity passenger train says it "provides service", it does not say "provides regular service" or "provides scheduled service", even one time use would appear to bring it under regulation, and who operates it or whether a fare is charged or not makes no difference. Consider the impact on a business plan for operating a new and very expensive one of a kind replica, steam or diesel. Participants can draw their own conclusions.

The requirement for 1/2 inch steel plate on the forward facing walls of the cab and the requirements to block paths for fluids to enter the cab are also of interest in this issue.

PC

> Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding the regulations but since it's new construction,
> will this new proposed locomotive have to meet all the new
> crashworthiness standards and emissions?

I've been proceeding under the assumption that the answer would be 'yes' to both, albeit potentially with some waiver or 'special measurement methods' for Tier 4 final.

In fact, I had been presuming that some considerations applying to new locomotive construction in the FRA regs, such as mandatory use of one-piece wheels, would apply to new steam. (This deriving from some of the discussion at the time of the ACE 3000, regarding the use of one-piece 'multiwear' drivers with a purposely very thick rim section...) That now appears not to be a concern, or at least not as much of one.

Armoring the cab, preventing flammable-liquid intrusion, etc. are reasonable on new construction. I am not sure whether other materials of equivalent structural integrity can be substituted for the 1/2" plate (for example, where the use of aluminum as in a replica T1 might be more appropriate), but the amount of safety provided is quite large for a relatively small amount of revised or additional design. A more interesting (to me) area is how a 'crew refuge' might be designed into the cab of a solid-fired locomotive: in part, the need for such a thing is relatively limited, compared to, say, wide-cab diesels, because the cab space is protected against intrusion and buff-and-draft compromise by the substantial boiler and frame to the front, and the 'tender behind'.

Now, the flammable-liquids requirement almost inherently involves air conditioning for the cab, for what I consider a variety of fairly evident reasons. It cannot be assumed that carbureted flammable liquids will actually be in process of combustion when they reach the cab area, but it is almost a certainty that they will be no more than a short time afterward, given the amount of flame source in a conventional firebox. A question is whether there is a possibility of flame blowback through the firebox in a flammable-liquid accident, and therefore whether some automatic control over the firedoor, its inspection holes, and any secondary-air ports in the cab -- etc. -- should be considered.

Interesting subject, I think.

Leading to the further question, in a country that is $17 Trillion in debt and functionally bankrupt by any GAAP standards, with many projects already underway that have resulted in equipment being taken apart with less than adequate donations to support getting them reassembled and running again, is there really any funding base available for one of a kind replicas that might have to comply with current construction and emissions standards, including requiring testing. Where is the new and enormous inflow of money going to come from in a hobby/industry that has historically had great difficulty with fundraising? Don't expensive new projects just detract from ongoing preservation efforts and draw off more of the available financial support?

PC

> Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding the regulations but since it's new construction,
> will this new proposed locomotive have to meet all the new
> crashworthiness standards and emissions?

I've been proceeding under the assumption that the answer would be 'yes' to both, albeit potentially with some waiver or 'special measurement methods' for Tier 4 final.

In fact, I had been presuming that some considerations applying to new locomotive construction in the FRA regs, such as mandatory use of one-piece wheels, would apply to new steam. (This deriving from some of the discussion at the time of the ACE 3000, regarding the use of one-piece 'multiwear' drivers with a purposely very thick rim section...) That now appears not to be a concern, or at least not as much of one.

Armoring the cab, preventing flammable-liquid intrusion, etc. are reasonable on new construction. I am not sure whether other materials of equivalent structural integrity can be substituted for the 1/2" plate (for example, where the use of aluminum as in a replica T1 might be more appropriate), but the amount of safety provided is quite large for a relatively small amount of revised or additional design. A more interesting (to me) area is how a 'crew refuge' might be designed into the cab of a solid-fired locomotive: in part, the need for such a thing is relatively limited, compared to, say, wide-cab diesels, because the cab space is protected against intrusion and buff-and-draft compromise by the substantial boiler and frame to the front, and the 'tender behind'.

Now, the flammable-liquids requirement almost inherently involves air conditioning for the cab, for what I consider a variety of fairly evident reasons. It cannot be assumed that carbureted flammable liquids will actually be in process of combustion when they reach the cab area, but it is almost a certainty that they will be no more than a short time afterward, given the amount of flame source in a conventional firebox. A question is whether there is a possibility of flame blowback through the firebox in a flammable-liquid accident, and therefore whether some automatic control over the firedoor, its inspection holes, and any secondary-air ports in the cab -- etc. -- should be considered.

Interesting subject, I think.

Can somebody point me to a succinct description of how to edit or remove superfluous postings made by vagaries of the computer or BBS system?

Thanks in advance.

> ... is there really any funding base available for one of a kind
> replicas that might have to comply with current construction and
> emissions standards, including requiring testing?

There may be, *provided* that there's a meaningful opportunity for the new locomotive to operate profitably in the service for which the 'improvements' are required. Note that this is not quite like automotive crash testing where the proof needs to be verified physically for each structural version or revision.

I would be interested to see what the 5AT consortium discussed regarding American use of their locomotive.





> Where is the new and enormous inflow of money going to come from
> in a hobby/industry that has historically had great difficulty
> with fundraising?

There really aren't answers other than 'better planning, better execution, knowledge of the costs as one factor of what needs to be accomplished'. And understanding that the cost is a necessary part of the design and build, and accounting for it 'up front' perhaps as distinct line items in appeals for funding, or feasibility plans.


> Don't expensive new projects just detract from ongoing preservation efforts
> and draw off more of the available financial support?

I have been looking at this very carefully for some time. At least some of this is due to the currently restricted state of 'available financial support' -- which does not even provide adequate funding for meritorious rebuilds like 2900-class 4-8-4s. Ideally new builds would have to be sufficiently diffferentiated from anything achievable via a legitimate restoration of a historical original ... or have their own distinctive funding approaches or campaigns that do not cannibalize those restorations' sources.

I don't think that there is a necessary overlap between the people who would support, say, a 5AT locomotive or a T1, and those who would support 765 or 1361 or 261 (to quote a range of alternatives). But I have to wonder whether the professionalism of a new-build's organization, or the sophistication with which it pursues its financial choices and alternatives, might 'count' as a factor even where scarce resources are concerned. If someone wants to put together an effort to build a NYC Hudson, I'd support the idea regardless of whether it might tend to distract attention from other perhaps more 'worthy' preservation efforts. And that is simply because I think it's worth having a Hudson in the world again, whether or not it steams regularly.

I purposely am avoiding those issues where a restoration is over-promoted, or gets 'half done' at great cost and then virtually abandoned, or an owner takes a functional 'dog-in-the-manger' attitude about either restoration or effective preservation.

.

Personal opinion:

If I were to try and get a group together to finance the building of a brand new locomotive in this country, there's two things I would do:

1) Before work even began, I'd find a railroad that would run and maintain it on a regular basis once it is completed
2) I'd pick a relatively generic design (such as a USRA heavy Pacific) and work with that.

I think it would be incredibly cool to see a NYC Hudson or a PRR T1 running around again, don't get me wrong, but the fact remains that both of them are really only suited for lengthy runs, which is something you just don't find in this country. A J3a doing 30 mph on a 12 mile round trip run is a waste, pure and simple. As far as design goes, to use the never-ending example, look at the plan the various groups in the UK are taking. Yes, Tornado is a recreation of an "extinct" model of locomotive, but at the same time, it's still just a Pacific. Most every other group as well appear to going for function rather than "That one looked cool, let's do that."

Just my two cents

>If I were to try and get a group together to finance the building
> of a brand new locomotive in this country, there's two things I would do:

> 1) Before work even began, I'd find a railroad that would run
> and maintain it on a regular basis once it is completed
> 2) I'd pick a relatively generic design (such as a USRA heavy Pacific)
> and work with that.


But these are precisely two concerns that are among the 'foremost' in this discussion!

In the time that it takes to assemble financing and organizational integrity, plan the design, and then build it, many things might happen on that 'railroad' that you found that would run and maintain it. Would you have approached NS in, say, 1988 with an offer to run a replica Ps4, which is more or less exactly the thing you seem to be suggesting? I can easily guess what their answer to you would have been. You spend 6 years building the engine... secure in knowing where it will run and how it will be kept. Then... oops.

I think the arrangement used by the old 261 organization is still preferable: you have a 501(c)(3) that does nothing but perpetual care for the locomotive, and owns all the necessary basing and storage, so it can never turn into a Dick Jensen scenario.

Meanwhile -- why (aside from the aforementioned Ps4 in context) would spending an enormous amount to re-create a legacy Pacific be better than taking an equivalent sum of money and putting it into -- well, as people on here keep saying, all those deserving restorations of far more significant prototypes or rare locomotives. I'd want to see at least one 2900-class, or 3768, finished long before I'd care about a replica Pacific. Is it overkill on a dinner train? Restricted on where it can run by its terrific weight? Yes, but not all that much more than required for the Pacific, with its uncompensated augment, primitive suspension, etc. etc. etc.

If you want modern operating benefits, take advantage of all those man-hours of thoughtful design and build a 5AT ('Americanizing' the profile and appliances, or applying a drop firebox to make it a Pacific, if you like). Runs much better, you're supporting a good cause, and you can be reasonably assured that you're supporting a variety of forward-looking technologies and providers when you build.

Not that I, personally, would mind sseing a new Pacific. Just that you could get a far better one (3713) for far less money and opportunity cost.

I think the "opportunity cost" idea based on the concept that a critical mass of funders are willing to all join in on any particular new design for replication is a false one...... I don't think any specific iconic extinct design has the power to bring enough people together since most are only willing to support their personal favorite. This is sensible - since most iconic extinct designs are large mainline power, and we have plenty of useable mainline hogs that are close to available if not ready to run looking for opportunity to be put to use.

The tourist and museum size power is another thing entirely......here's the opportunity for replication since many are pretty far along the track towards used up without being made essentially new by replacement of a lot of fabric, and there's more opportunity to run them. Kloke is doing a sort of stock 4-4-0 of the wild west period - post Civil War, pre 1890. The style and mass aren't suitable for later light passenger power, such as the D6 and 999. These might also not be suitable since they are made for fast light trains, not slow tourist haulers, so a Sierra 3 clone, 65 ton mogul or prairie, or 75 ton consolidation with under 50 inch drivers would be most useful.

Users purchasing such a replica aren't going to be doing so by popular subscription, but for business purposes - to make its cost back by hauling passengers or fulfilling a specific funded mission, so popularity doesn't enter in to it.

dave

Point of order, so to speak:
The British preservationists didn't have, as a rule, 4-8-2's, 4-8-4's, 2-10-4's, 2-6-6-4's, 4-6-6-4's, 4-4-4-4's, etc. to distract them. The big Mikado referenced earlier is decidedly an exception. The "biggest" you can hope to recreate, realistically, is still "practical", unlike, say, a PRR J1 or T1, a NYC Niagara, etc.