Building new "classic" steam

A thread, "Building a T-1 duplex," has recently started on this forum, discussing the idea of building a new T-1 for use on main-line excursion trains. The idea isn't COMPLETELY loony: British railway enthusiast have managed (planning, fund-raising and construction took about 20 years) to get a NEW 4-6-2 steam locomotive built, to the (slightly updated to make it usable on today's railway) design of a late-1940s class none of which were preserved.

Suppose a similar project were to be attempted in the U.S.: a new steam locomotive to be built, closely following the design (& in particular the external appearance) of some late steam-era class, with the idea of using it on main-line excursions. (So: design changes allowed to make it buildable, and safety certifiable, in contemporary conditions, and to enhance the likelihood of major railroads allowing it to operate on their tracks.)

BUT... which design? Probably not a Union Pacific FEF-3 or a Norfolk & Western J, since operable exemplars of those classes already exist. My fear, if someone tried to get such a project underway, is that all too many American railfans would refuse to support it unless their favorite locomotive (or at least something from their favorite railroad, was chosen...

Any thoughts? Either unobvious nominations(*), or proposals for how the choice could be made in a way that would maximize support?

--

(*) UNobvious, please! A New York Central enthusiast like me would OBVIOUSLY vote for a J-3 Hudson, but how much would any of us learn from postings that made the obvious nominations?

I kind of like Wardale's approach with the 5AT.... develop the needs and back-track the design from that.

There are two key routes I would take... classic American steam I think would lead to the a 2-8-4 berkshire arrangment. The berkshire allows the heavy firebox needed for free steaming via the 4-wheel trailing truck. It gives the best balance between adhesion and smaller wheelbase through the use of a four-coupled drive axle frame. It maintains as much weight as possible on the drivers through the elimination of the one of the lead axles. Using 69-74 inch drivers would give it the best speed to tractive effort ratio. 74" drivers would be best for out west where mainlines would be more likely to allow the engine to upen'er up and let her run. 69" drivers would be better in the east with the lower speed limits and heavier grades on the mainline. For the design chosen, I personally lean towards the C&O front end design, however I would suggest an aesthetically-pleasing blending of late steam designs from all over the US, and call it a "USRA Heavy Berkshire". After from the 4-4-0's, there were few designs used throughout the USA aside from the WWI USRA designs.

Now, if free-form was permitted to maximize efficiency and technological development, I'd be looking at something along the lines of a 2-6-2+-2-6-2 Garrett. First, it would give the most power to axle-loading ratio, plus would track much closer to a diesel, reducing track wear. Also, the design would allow free space for the design of the most efficient boiler possible in the size limits.

To add one thing... no matter the design, articulated piston valves would be used, not poppets... Porta said so, there-fore I take it as gospel .

This is a no brainer. Streamlined Hudson. i.e.of 20th Century Limited Fame. I'll kick in the first $20!!

Mikein Neb--
Well, I already said I was a NYC fan, so I'm not going to disagree! The New York Central Hudson strikes me as having a practical advantage, too: it's not as big or as heavy as the final generation of Northerns (and pseudo-Northerns like the PRR
T-1), and doesn't have as long a rigid wheelbase, so it might be easier to persuade railroad companies to allow it on their tracks!

The trouble with any hudson is that you only have three power axles, reducing the amount of tractive effort. Also you have a much higher support to driver ration, there-by reducing your adhesive weight available for increased power. Any 4-6-4 would therefore be limited in train-size options.

This was how I came by my 2-8-4 recommendation... four-drive-axles for maximum tractive effort within the limits of accepted wheel-base size, while reduced wasted weight by eliminating one of the front support axles.

If a hudson is the absolute most desired arrangement, then thought should be considered to producing a 2-6-4 design.

But then it wouldn't be a "Hudson". This whole premise is driven by getting the Warren Buffet's- Bill Gate's-"rich guys with model railroad sets" to kick in a couple of million to build the ultimate train set to run on Warren's full scale layout!!

If we're talking Hudsons, I must nominate the New Haven's I-5
Edward Ozog's photos

Easier said than done. That new Tornado A-1 has some major issues and has been disassembled with the boiler sent to Germany for repair.

MikeinNeb wrote:This is a no brainer. Streamlined Hudson. i.e.of 20th Century Limited Fame. I'll kick in the first $20!!

Eliphaz wrote:If we're talking Hudsons, I must nominate the New Haven's I-5
Edward Ozog's photos

I see your eastern Hudsons and raise you the fastest Hudson, and probably the fastest steam locomotive in America. Possibly the world.

Didn't Milwaukee Road have an Atlantic that had streamlining like their Hudsons? That would be a nice, fast, light locomotive.

Back in the steam era, wouldn't the Milwaukee's engines have been restricted from use on many eastern lines for clearance reasons? (Leading to the question of how they were delivered...)
But I suppose that the work in recent years to raise clearances to allow double-stack container trains means that, at least as regards height, virtually any stam locomotive could run on most main lines (persuading management to allow it being a bigger issue than actual clearances!)

But this is certainly something that would have to be clarified if there is really to be a project to build new steam in the U.S.!

I'm not aware of any clearance problems with Milwaukee's Baltics (Hudsons) or Atlantics. They were built by Alco.

The Hiawatha ten-wheelers and Pacifics were shrouded in the railroad's Milwaukee Shops. A framing of light iron tubing was applied to the elderly engines and the shrouding hung on that. The ten-wheelers were styled to look like the Atlantics. The Pacifics were styled to look like the Baltics.

They did a good job. Hard to tell apart at first glance.

They also did a semi-streamlining job on some Pacifics with "flowerboxes" on the running boards.

Les

How about something designed but not built? At the very end of steam Lima was marketing the design for a 4-8-6 to challenge the efficiency of the diesel. It would have had a double belpaire firebox and rotary cam poppet valves. Just imagine a C&O J-3 with a beefier firebox and the trailing truck of an Allegheny and you would come close.

Now if I had my druthers I’d try something completely different. Start with a surplus Chinese 2-10-2 and strip it down to the frame. Then scrap the frame; I’d rebuild it as a 4-8-2 which would require a new frame. Roller-bearings on all axles and rods with boxpok drivers of 70 inches. Overall it would be quite similar to Chapelon’s 4-8-4, the 242.A.1 including a three cylinder steam engine except with poppet valves. (Chapelon had wanted his 242.A.1 to have poppets but the national railway said ‘no.’) Mr. Wardale has experience in modifying a Chinese QJ with a gas producing firebox so I would just do it again. The backhead and piping would be modified to North American right hand operation. Then top it all off with a klychap exhaust. Dimensionally it would bear a resemblance to a USRA light 4-8-2. Performance should be closer to that of a 4-8-4.

D.Carleton wrote:How about something designed but not built? At the very end of steam Lima was marketing the design for a 4-8-6 to challenge the efficiency of the diesel. It would have had a double belpaire firebox and rotary cam poppet valves. Just imagine a C&O J-3 with a beefier firebox and the trailing truck of an Allegheny and you would come close.

Now if I had my druthers I’d try something completely different. Start with a surplus Chinese 2-10-2 and strip it down to the frame. Then scrap the frame; I’d rebuild it as a 4-8-2 which would require a new frame. Roller-bearings on all axles and rods with boxpok drivers of 70 inches. Overall it would be quite similar to Chapelon’s 4-8-4, the 242.A.1 including a three cylinder steam engine except with poppet valves. (Chapelon had wanted his 242.A.1 to have poppets but the national railway said ‘no.’) Mr. Wardale has experience in modifying a Chinese QJ with a gas producing firebox so I would just do it again. The backhead and piping would be modified to North American right hand operation. Then top it all off with a klychap exhaust. Dimensionally it would bear a resemblance to a USRA light 4-8-2. Performance should be closer to that of a 4-8-4.

Why bother with the QJ in the first place?

Rather than the 4-8-6, you might be able to get away with a 2-8-6, but I'm not certain that it would be needed... actually, using complete freedom here, I think you might have something there. If the tender was built right, a small steam turbine coupled to a generator could be used to put traction motors on the tender trucks. People always said that diesel tech was better in the slow-speed drag operations, while steam was superior in high-speed "schedule" operations. With a unit capable of both, you might have the perfect engine for excursion service.

My unit would be a 2-8-6 + C-C with a 99inch boiler, lempor exhaust, welded cylinder jackets with live steam insulation. Superheated steam would be provided for the turbine as well. 68"-72" boxpok, cross-counterbalanced drivers with high-speed timken roller bearings and lightweight articulated drive rods. One interesting thing might be the ability to forgo standard "quartering" With the engine having traction motors, you could theoretically start the engine moving with the motors, and then switch to the drive rods after the engine was rolling, which would eliminate the only need for quartering. The only question to be resolved at that point would be the resulting hunting created by the piston reciprocation forces since they would be diametrically opposed at all points of the wheel revolution.

jgallaway81 wrote:Why bother with the QJ in the first place?

It’s a fair question. Simply put, the QJ is a known quantity. It has a well documented operating and mechanical history. There are qualified experts on the QJ on three continents. Many parts are still available new. And, of course, modification is easier (cheaper) than building new.

As for the idea of a steam-turbine electric booster, if done correctly you could add another benefit: dynamic braking. Figure out a way to use the heat from the DB to preheat the water going to the boiler and you’ll have a winner.

Even with electric traction start you still need proper quartering of the drivers. Quartering evens the steam demand from the steam engine and provides proper draught which is essential for the firebox.

I had thought about a twin turbine locomotive with a direct turbine drive in front (think PRR S2 or LMS Turbomotive) and a turbine-generator in back. The operational drawback of the direct turbine drives was the huge starting steam demand; as a rule, turbines are very inefficient at low speeds. Imagine the engineer having two throttles in the cab. Starting the train with the turbine-generator-electric traction should economize starting steam use. After getting up to a low speed such as 20-30 mph transfer from the turbine generator to the more efficient direct turbine. The electric traction system could also be used for dynamic breaking, head end power, low speed booster and reverse moves. Utilizing a condensing tender would also be a plus. But I think we’ve wandered away from “Classic Steam.”