Can a new mainline steam locomotive be built in the United States in the 21st Century? The T1 Trust and strategic partners at FMW Solutions and throughout the rail industry are answering that question one piece at a time. Join us for a detailed discussion on the steady recreation of a Pennsylvania Railroad T1 steam locomotive from our steam mechanic and engineering experts and learn about the challenges and rewards inherent in revisiting this iconic locomotive design.
It actually can if the government used the money ta keep the steam train engines updated kept n photocopied the plans the steam engines could n would have been able ta run n pull passenger n freight services n would have put more jobs out there but that's the problem the government don't want ta use the money on fixing up America they rather put a bandage on what needs stitches ta help it heal it's sad that the government is just letting these historic engines that actually helped built America 😢😢😢
I can sympathize with old drawings and how the railroad liked to dimension things... Seems the drafting pen was in one hand, and the bottle in the other. lol! Loved this roundtable. Excited to see what's next.
Remember that they were doing everything on paper, by hand. It took how many drawings to make a frame, trucks and all the parts and piping that went into an engine. They had one datum point that could be referenced to all related drawings. Using CAD today, it can all be done on one drawing using layers. Those guys did calculations with slide rules. I doubt anyone can use one today. Most people don't even know what they are, much less use one.
That is fine - Very good idea. Then we do not need to build a stone aged engine. Let's not waste any more money on this T-1 project. It was a failed engine anyway. Let's just scrap all these old relics of the stone age and use the metal for something useful.@@kleetus92
I randomly clicked on this video and had no idea this kind of project even existed. Amazing. You're really gonna build a modernized T1?! Amazing. Can't wait to see this thing with my own eyes someday.
All of us were very happy to see your comment. For many of us at work on the project for over a decade, it's always a relief when we can introduce it to new people.
i have steadily donated since its inception & i think its worth it , i have shirts patchs mugs & plans for building a 5550 out of legos donate if you can
The tornado project brought a new era of steam restoration, is crazy we went from building a a1 peppercorn, to a massive prr t1 and lner p2. Props to everyone involved in the project and good luck.
A cautionary tale from the UK about how small things can trip you up. I heard this 30 plus years ago, so hopefully the issue has been resolved, but just in case: The Flying Scotsman had been brought back into service, all the big terrifying things had been sorted, and she was pulling main line trains, but they started getting bearings running hot. (Local Steam Railways did not have this problem as they were only doing short hops between stations, and manually oiling. Main line Express Trains do not stop). Eventually they worked out that the lubrication system was at fault. The original method was a pipe, fed through with a flax wick, connected to an oil reservoir. They had used a modern synthetic wick. So they replaced the wick, but still had problems: Oil. They needed a specific viscosity oil that would match the flax, and drip at the required rate. Luckily, one of the old engine shed workers happened to have a can of the correct grade oil that he had liberated when the the works shut down. From that they were able to get the formulation, only to find that it was no longer made. One of the big Oil Companies stepped in an made a one-off batch for them, and they were back up and running. How they manage all these years on I do not know! I know that the "Big Boy" still runs in the US, so I am guessing that they must have some solution for that problem, but beware the small things that you just don't think about, to come out and bite you! Hope you-all succeed.
Restorations in the United States had similar problems with certain types of grease. The grease is not available, thus the conversion to oil cellars for main wheel bearings. Texaco was one of the suppliers of the grease and after the end of steam had no need to produce it, and would not produce small batches. While Texaco did provide the formula, and one operation was able to find a company that was willing to produce a small batch ( boxcar or two load ) the company would not produce another batch as it was found to be dangerously volatile in certain stages of production.
The fact the PRR T1 Trust are on the verge of pulling off the unthinkable, the answer is yes. With the right people who have the knowledge about what they are doing and also having the adequate funding and industries to contract the work out to; it can be done. If you want to get a new rebuild started after the T1, the biggest one to do next would be a New York Central J3a Hudson.
Well it should be possible in the USA, we were to do it over here in the UK, The Tornado was built from scratch based on a modernised existing design and with another large standard guage locomotive to a similar design is in progress. So good luck hope to see your project completed in the not too distant future.
In the UK at present there are SEVEN new locomotives being built from scratch these include two P1 s 2 Standards and a CLAN class pacific not bad for a small country
I have to say, after watching this video, it made me realize how much of a difference this project is making in rail preservation. What really spoke to me was at @23:44
A great update on the T1 project, I really think these people can pull it off, they are very passionate about what they're doing. The re-engineering of the frames is a huge effort in itself, the one piece casting was something far more complicated and cutting edge than the plate frames used in the UK till the end of steam. Actually North British Locomotive had their frames for South African Railways classes 25 and GMAM cast in the US as the customer demanded this and no foundry in the UK could do such large castings. Well thought in the proces is not only a fabricated frame hold up to the stresses of operation, but with maintainability in mind as well, not all mechanics are short, skinny and flexible, so good accessibility of components is a real concern. The T1 trust is also lighting up another very important aspect in preservation as a whole, that is pulling the industry in. In the UK the industry supporting the huge preservation movement is large, some companies almost completely depending on orders from the preservationists. But also regular metal shops and engineering firms embrace the idea as very suitable for learning purposes, many apprentices learning some aspects of the trade in a very oldskool way, but with incorporation of modern machining and construction tech. So very good to see that you found some firms seeing manufacturing parts for the T1 as a challenge and not as a nuisance hindering their of the shelf mass production. The T1 trust is going to be the first preservation/new build group in the US getting a donation from me, with greetings from the Netherlands and success with this awesome project.
@@user-ky9sx8ti9y got to fit that second pair of cylinders in somewhere... and the huge firebox takes up a lot of space... Many German locomotives employ a mixer preheater for the feedwater located just in front of the chimney in the top of the smokebox.
CO2 is plant food but if any initial emissions can be reduced and reused (think combined heat and power) to make it economical, makes sense to conserve fuel.
The can part isn’t the question. It’s possible. The probability was the issue in question. You made it further than I imagined. May your progress continue.
Thank you guys for bringing steam locomotives back to life and back from Extinction God bless your souls for that fact just do me a huge gigantic favor what does FMW stand for thank you for all you do keep up the great work
Yesterday I stood in front of Mallard at the UK national railway museum and thought I dare anyone to beat that, now I have found your site In some ways I hope you do!
Crazy-mad respect for what you guys did with USSC #148 (especially given what you had to work with, both the remains of the locomotive and the lack of drawings), and not surprised you're involved with this one as well. Looking forward to when this one is completed.
Certainly can be done, and the pride it brings to all involved to bring one of these spendid giants back to life for all to see operating once more is enormous. For posterity rather than simply being a cold static exhibit.
As long as there is support I believe it is possible. I am glad the Trust stuck to their guns and went with the PRR T1. A lot of people would rather have the Trust build a NYC locomotive like a Hudson or a Niagara. While I think those would be cool I’d still make the argument that a PRR T1 makes better choice.
Not to mention the T1's didn't get much of a chance to shine due to the time period where the country was shifting to diesel power and the crews they assigned to operate the T1 had no knowledge on how to handle it, which led to the wheel slip due. @@johnblair8146
I am tempted to note that perhaps the 'logical' follow-on project would be a NYC C1a, which shared considerable DNA with the T1s but had more conventional valve gear and very close to Baldwin's recommended GA. Of course, that locomotive would have used an only trivially modified Niagara boiler, and all the complex work on metallurgy and detail design of the Timken rods is 'in the can', and the frame construction and jigging will be reusable... and while a Niagara may not be the prettiest NYC power, we need to finish 3001 in Elkhart, which has most of the looks of a Hudson while being more practical, before doing a replica -- and I agree with it being 5345 rather than some J3a clone.
I ran across this video and at first thought yiu were going to build a miniature "Live Steamer". I saw the locomotive and was thinking, Nahhhhhh, they're not really going to BUILD one are they? But you ARE! I'm so excited to see the progress you've already made and can't wait to see the real thing! Ive been a railroad buff since I was a kid and am surprised that I never heard of this project before. I wish you all the greatest success!
It is one big project to design and build a large new steam locomotive and pattern it after a steam locomotive that was made many years ago. This is a unique project because all the other large steam locomotives that are in operating condition are old steam locomotives from the steam era that had extensive restoration work done on them to make them operational.
This is so far 10 years in the making, I'm hyped to see this engine be completed in the near future or even at least assembled to show how it's looking and will eventually look. Note: by "assembled to show how it's looking and will eventually look", I mean when the frame is completely made and done, have the drive wheels (when the last 2 are done), future pilot and trailing wheels, and the fully welded boiler (with cab, fire and smoke boxes, and nose prowl) put together to show the resemblance of a steam engine, even if it doesn't have all the tubes, pipes, and streamlining on it.
FMW and T-1 trust is a power house, if I ever win the lottery funding won't be an issue. This project shows the endless possibilities of modern manufacturing technology. Imagine a brand new design, 2-8-8-6 (like an allegheny on crack), 350 psi. Maybe titanium pistons, piston rods, titanium cross heads with needle bearings, poppet valves, full roller bearing running gear, 600 mile service range and 80+ mph top speed. Call her the Claytor class.
It takes a special kind of insanity to argue about steam trains. Really can’t make a video about the project without at least one person arguing that a Dreyfuss Hudson or Niagara would be a better build. Can’t say I’m innocent myself of course, I’ve made my stance fairly clear on the subject. Maybe the real answer is we should all go touch some grass.
Keep up the great work, would love to see the day you beat the world steam locomotive speed record!!!, you guys are a modern- Raymond Lowry, he would be proud of what your doing!!!
I saw the headline and thought... isn't that being done? My dad and I both said... it's a good thing we weren't closer, or we would be volunteering every free minute we had...
My father was an engineer on the PRR and the P&LE, from the 1920s until an accident at Conway Yards in 1948, I took a test for the PRR in 1965, I passed, then less than a week later my Uncle that was chief mate on tankers, got me my merchant marine papers, I went to seamans school and chose to work in the engine room. Of my 18 ships, 15 were WWII-era c2, c3, and T2, Which all were steam turbines, I worked as a fireman/watertender, oiler and the last ship as a cadet engineer, working to get my 3rd engineer's license. My first love was boilers and steam-driven horizontal and vertical piston pumps. If I was 20 years younger I would have enjoyed working on a restoration or even the re-manufacturing of a steam locomotive. 30 some years ago I opened a studio ,and at the present time I restore huge wooden doors, frame work and windows for churches. Good Luck,
You ask, I answer. Of course we can! However, how long will it take? we still need to get the money. All in all, I know we will get this magnificent beast locomotive on the rails! Good luck to everyone supporting the project! 🤗
The opening music is intrusive. I would advise against its being so loud....if you must use it at all. Apart from that observation, and it's only a personal opinion, I am with you all the way. I have donated in the past and will again. I sincerely appreciate your service to humanity and to railfans everywhere who want this project to succeed.
This is great the progress you guys are making, I’m just very doubtful that any mainline railroad allows this engine to run on their rails. If completed I see this engine working short lines or class three railroads, doubtful it will ever run on the main.
This part of the problem is tricky, and the British experience involves the whole system which has many differences in safety and control from US standards. But part of the process for Tornado was the test run to 100mph, along the East Coast Main Line. The 100mph was over the speed required to run a train on that line without interference with normal trains, and apart from everything else it was safe with the overhead electrification. As I recall, the British requirement is to match the freight and ordinary passenger traffic for speed, which means the problems of one train passing another are minimised. Perhaps the question should be who sets the standards for every train on a US railroad and who tests that a locomotive design meets them?
While we're helping build the T1, we're also helping restart the restoration on the Pennsylvania K4. Learn more here: czcams.com/video/S-a4GS7IuNw/video.html
This can't be overemphasized. While there aren't any great insights to be gained by the professional finishing of the protracted 1361 saga -- it is one of the great iconic steam designs, and will be highly appreciated when operating.
The challenge isn't the building of this magnificent locomotive... ...the REAL challenge is finding a railroad that will let it operate on their tracks.
The Trust has received multiple invites from short lines and tourist railroads to operate 5550 when completed. And don’t give us that “mainline locomotives and short lines don’t go together” BS
Only Reason big 1 ran the 765 np up by me was because they wanted to shot over the letchworth bridge before tearing it down .otherwise they would of never did it . Almost ran her outta water an got low on coal due to grades . Ya don’t say never .but I’ll be holding my breath waiting for them to run an consess the lines up For a EXTRA witch they do all the time .
There are several things to bear in mind here. First is that any hard coating and piston-ring combination has to work both with 'wet' steam and highly superheated steam, with compatible tribology. Some of this applies to the piston rod (and its metallic packing) as well as the piston. There has been research into some types of coating, including a practical method of forming superlattice hard coatings in locomotive cylinders. To date the cost of implementation outweighs the easily-identified operating and maintenance gains. There are also experiments in oilless steam-engine construction (for example Spilling, in Germany), some of which might be applicable to large reciprocating-locomotive practice. An extreme, but thermodynamically worked-up alternative is Russell Brown's asynchronous compound, which uses tailrods to keep the piston several thou from the cylinder wall with only spot condensation between; the blowby is directed to a LP turbine for KERS or auxiliaries.
A question regarding the tender... You guys bought that 210F75a, you guys will modify the tender right? If I recall correctly, the production T1's had 180P84's which were very similar in size to the 210F75a's, except the 180's held less water with the tradeoff of holding more coal.
I’m not a part of the Trust, but my understanding is they will at minimum change the tender from coal to oil. I believe they also plan to streamline it.
I love this. Just ran across this channel. Now fire it with propane and you will have a machine that will be low emission and yet have the steam advantages as well. It could be put into commercial use even. Propane is cheap by comparison.
Thank you. There are several grades of oil (even waste cooking oil and vegetable oil) that are also in use in steam locomotives, including another that we assist with in Florida that burns oil collected from restaurants for fuel.
I mean the changes are enough to be referenced as a T-1c, since the T-1a and T-1b had different valve gears, so it's safe to say cause it's still a PRR T-1 styled locomotive and there's more than enough minor changes to the original design that you can say it's a new sub type. Not enough you could call it a T-2 but more than enough to be a T-1c. Now one thing a do hope you do is covert the tender to a corridor tender and maybe make a corridor water tender so you guys could do nonstop excursions between water stops.
Can't believe it won't be possible. Here in Britain, one or two mainline steam locomotives have been built from original blueprints in recent years and there are several currently in varying stages of construction.
I wonder if the improved T1 will be competitive with modern Diesels, or close in terms of economy? If you don't know it can't be done, there's nothing to stop you.
They of course can do it! The big issue is matnence that was why they were displaced in the first place if we can reduce the matnence cost then maybe there is a chance ( steam has been shown to be stronger and get up to speed faster than modern locomotives)
Against 1-2 maybe 3 It could, but there’s no way in hell there’s gonna be a steam renaissance. There’s no way it can compete against every diesel. Even if it could railroads will probably switch to electric, or hydrogen. There’s no doubt in my mind that this thing would whoop the Niagaras though
@@backonpro5679 Class T1 Cylinders 18 3/4 X 26 Steam pressure 300 LB Driver's 80" Tractive effort 64,650 Lb Niagara's Cylinders- 25 1/2 X 32" Steam pressure 290 LB Driver's 79" Tractive effort 61,570 LB ( Source: American Locomotives a picturial record of steam power Edwin P Alexander ) Not as whooped as you may believe but yes a good sizable advantage, but please know I would love to see a project spring up to bring the niagara's back too 🙂 (Sorry It took so long to respond) 🚂
The only issue I see is logistical and regulatory. The UK Mainline successfully incorporated Heritage Steam into mainline operations and the two mostly co-exist happily. I can foresee the FRA and private owners not wanting to play ball with steam on America's dated rail network. Looking forward to this and the A1 Trust's P2!!
The S1 Duplex should be next. It all starts with forming an interest group and a trust fund and foundation. Finding the original design plans is also fundamental.
The problem with building a new S1 is that it is just too impractically large to rebuild and still go around tourist railroads. The S1 had 6 wheel leading and trailing trucks to carry its weight. That’s more than most articulateds. That is part of the reason the Trust choose the PRR T1 instead: the PRR T1 was for all intents and purposes an improved S1 that was more compact and didn’t require as much leading and trailing axles.
Just imagine the huge casting to pour a one piece frame that once existed in a huge factory that is no longer here with huge overhead cranes specifically designed to do a job that is no longer done.
I mean, in the UK they already built a couple engines and they are actually currently working on doing a Mikado! (the P2) which is still a much smaller engine, but it shows how these projects are more then just fantasies!
ACE3000 was a 4-cylinder compound reciprocating (piston) locomotive, not a steam turbine. (It did use a turbine for the induced draft, but not for power...) Read the patent description for a very detailed discussion of the design and its details (although Porta's sketch of the 'frame' in unintentionally hilarious if you understand what would have been needed).
I love it! Other locomotives can e brought back as well. It may not be a steam locomotive, but how about a U50C? On the subject of the steam locomotive, l wonder what it would take to bring back a program like the ACE 3000 that would develop a modern steam locomotive?
@@NickTheCrossdresser2149 The other 4 class ones would probably be involved also. I wouldn’t mind seeing it happen. A reciprocating steam locomotive could theoretically burn anything in its firebox. I can imagine a modern steamer burning corn oil. What a nice smell!
Unlike a T1, the U50C had operating issues that would be difficult to solve, even in a replica. You'd be far better doing one of the B-B+B-B span-bolster engines using the gas-turbine underframe design. Or for real fun and a T1-Trust-style science-project test... why not a DH643?
There are people who believe in restoration of trains , trucks , and cars . Everyone else thinks they’re crazy . It just means they have no sense of history and industrial beauty . Restorers do the almost impossible and they make the world better .
I wish you guys a lot of luck! With modern technology and electronics, computers etc I'm sure a steam locomotive can be made much more efficient , but at what operating costs? There is virtually no coal and water infrastructure around anywhere at this point in this country. I would think Steam locomotives would still require high levels of operator maintenance unless you are designing a steam turbine based system and even then op and main. costs are high. Another issue would be facing the GREEN WEENIES" and tree huggers. They are trying to kill off everything coal, gas and oil in favor of "ALL EV " systems. But Diesel electric is hard to beat with modern tech too. They started to try this in the 1980's with the A3000 project but it failed due to lack of finances I think. but this was in the 80's too, so modern tech was not as sophisticated as today. Great luck to you!
As others have said the UK have managed to build more than one new build the Princess Of Wales is being built and will share wheels and other parts with Tornado. The only thing is not getting Governments involved they are the problem. In Britain all our steam locos only run on coal and guess what the Government are closing our last coal mine this year and trying to stop imports! As for finishing the job of the new build. I travelled to Cumberland from UK to Cumberland and traveled behind 1309 and that is almost a complete rebuild! So it can be done with a population of I think over 230 million people
With today’s technology you could build a stronger lighter frame especially if it’s forged. You have to have enough t weight for traction. Steel wheels on steel rails you need a certain coefficient of friction. But we still have to problem of water. The higher pressure boiler you go, you need better water for your boiler tubes. Steam is dangerous. My experience is 600 and 900 psi marine boilers and steam turbine. Boiler feed water is tested two times a day and chemicals added for dissolved oxygen and dissolved solids. You need good distilled water, more water and more water. Making water costs money.
In 1921, William Alfred Webb from Ohio was appointed Railway Commissioner here in South Australia. During what was known as The Webb Era, many large locos took to the lines. This era led to the 520 Class (1943), similar to the T1 (1942) but with 4-8-4 wheel arrangement instead of the 4-4-4-4 of the T1. It will be wonderful to see this original variant up and running once more. czcams.com/video/xRKyUm5qdug/video.html
Cast frames would be almost impossible to build now, we have lost so much knowledge from mold making to the actual casting, a constructed steel frame might be stronger in the long run, cast frames eventually get stress cracks just like the GG1 had!! This will be seriously cool if you guys pull this off, if I remember correctly no NYC Mohawks were saved from the scrappers torch so that would also be a cool engine to bring back too!!! My bad it was Niagaras and Hudsons that were scrapped!!
The answer to your question is "yes", we have the capability to build any thing we want. The bigger question is whether we have the motivation and the money to build something out of a bygone era.
The "T1 Trust" was originally specifically patterned after the organization that accomplished the real great technical miracle in Britain, beside which a piddling Peppercorn Pacific ranks low: restoring and then fixing the whoopsies with 71000 Duke of Gloucester. (Look for example at the repairs involved with the cylinders alone... and how they accomplished it all in a not-very-robust economy.
@@wizlish With 71000 they also solved all the issues which bedevilled it when it was in BR service because of mistakes and compromises made while it was under construction.
That's what I meant when I said 'fixed the whoopsies'. I dislike conspiracy theories as much as anyone, but there come times that Tom Lehrer's 'Christian Scientist with appendicitis' metaphor seems awfully applicable. Just as it seems clear to me that a great deal of the 'problems' with the T1 were suspiciously related to getting out of the equipment-trust obligations early, I find it impossible that several of the fabrication 'mistakes' on 71000 that kept it from demonstrating appropriate performance were not intentional. (Just like the smokebox door on Leader being conveniently left open, or its bogie being crash-reversed while being tested on air, were "accidents"...)
They should look a selling there engineering drawings to raise funds because I’m shore the scale railroad guys might be interested if the want to build a 5 inch or 7 1/4 inch version if they could scale it down in solid works and tests the scaling works
in a way I like to imagine this as....let's say a test run for something we can do in the future. If we, as people, can build something as complex as a streamlined articulated steam locomotive with no surviving bases from the ground up and have it fully able to run under it's own power...think of what ELSE we could bring back. The first thought in my mind is bringing back the NYC hudson, or similar engines to it. perhaps other streamliner's with no survivors could be brought back this way. What I'm basically getting at is if this works..we have the power to bring titans long thought dead....think on that.
I really liked it a lot and it's really cool project. Not to mention I'd love to see it in operation. But how is it economically viable? Running excursions maybe?
If they can get the steam record with a faithfully built T1, then it'll confirm all the stories of the T1 and S1 going that fast in the past. Proving that the mallard probably only held the record for 4 years, rather than the 84 (and still increasing) that is claimed.
Mallard has legitimately held the record (whether other engines did, or could, have reached a higher speed) since 1938. What we need to be careful about is what that record speed actually is -- 126.1 or higher is a fairy tale, an artifact of measurement. Gresley himself accepted 125mph, and depending on how long a speed peak needs to be maintained, the number is about 125.4. This was then cheated up in post-production and politics to preclude any further attempts with the BR 05s... which as things turned out never eventuated. Alfred Bruce of Alco noted in the early Fifties that he had seen Milwaukee A-class 4-4-2s run faster than 128mph on more than one occasion (that speed probably chosen as greater than the 127.1mph PRR Atlantic tale) and he was in an uncommonly good position to bring about the conditions and permissions needed for running that fast. However, without proper dynamometric proof that can be independently analyzed and confirmed... it is no record. Arnold Haas is the source of the S1 doing "141.2 mph" (suspicious precision given that the locomotive's speed recorder only went to 110) and several of the other reported details don't pan out. A report of 132mph in Popular Mechanics also does not pan out if you investigate where the speed was supposedly confirmed. I personally suspect the 135+mph speeds that Vernon Smith reported were more likely artifacts of high-speed slipping (which goes with the nature of the damage the Franklin engineers were reporting) but this counts no more than Kiefer's augment testing with a J3a spun up to the equivalent of 161-163"mph" in the 1947 survey of motive power. Fast Loop at TTCI, where the 5550 high-speed testing will be done, is 165mph, which should be adequate both to establish high-speed characteristics and to overcome any revisionistas who want to impose FIA-style 'bidirectional runs' on things.
@goldenfloof5469 - whatever happened in the past, if the videos I've seen of the appalling state of your tracks is anything to go by, I think doing 50mph is chancing your arm, let alone 125mph+
The Brits (and also the Reichsbahn with the 05) got their succession of speed records in the 30s precisely because they ran equipment to precisely measure said speeds. Regardless of any claims, or their veracity, any we made in the U.S. remain hot air until such time as one of the claimants can back it up with a dynamometer or other precise measuring data. We’re just in the unfortunate situation that other than trying to push 611 past the 110mph or so one of her sisters did, or get one of the CB&Q Hudsons restored and make a speed attempt I’ve seen one of them rumoured to have done, we in the U.S. will have to build replicas of any of the claimants. And if they do set records, those will stand from the date they are set now, not from back when claims were made in the 1930s and 40s.
@@wizlish "What we need to be careful about is what that record speed actually is -- 126.1 or higher is a fairy tale, an artifact of measurement." What the hell is an 'artifact of measurement'? If the instruments were properly calibrated, and I've seen ZERO evidence to doubt that, then the speed was as recorded - regardless of what Gresley, or you, choose to 'believe'. As for the claims you refer to for the Milwaukee 'A' Class, the PRR Atlantic, S1 and J3A - without dynamometer car recordings, that's all they are. Just claims.
Evidently you are ignorant of dynamometry, have never actually read or interpreted the trace from the record run, or read why Gresley accepted the speed he did. Simply taking first differences off the trace, assuming the precision but not the accuracy of the time standard, shows an impossible acceleration to reach the extremely short "126mph" peak. If you can explain that with actual physics rather than knee-jerk chauvinism, I'd be interested to hear your explanation. I personally don't think much of the idea that 5550, or something like the rebuilt ATSF 3463, is being built to "beat Mallard's record" (which was, and I think still is, in some of the early T1Trust material). Even at 125.4 or whatever, even if another pass with a BR 05 not artificially terminated above 200 km/h, even if Bruce could swear to the accuracy of the A timings, Mallard has what I consider the unquestioned speed record for a run undertaken to establish a verifiable record. It just falls me that politics were then involved in faking the speed up to a higher, unsustainable value that becomes as commonly accepted as the various BS about the T1 being a 'failed design'. Now, it may well be that the T1 actually has difficulty reaching the high speeds attributed to it (Crosby's account being proved a bit of, shall we say, embroidery by certain characteristics of reading 120mph for timing). Those will be tested first for dynamics on the roller rig, then by loading the rollers progressively and simulating the effect of various conditions disturbing adhesion at high speed and load, and then through the testing in Pueblo with full appropriate instrumentation and analysis. (The other thing would be for someone across the pond to arrange an A4 with triple Kylchap and the improved big end to have the necessary instrumented wheelsets, and bring her over during the time reserved for testing... I would like to establish that Duddington knew what he was saying about getting up to 130mph.),
For close to 40 yrs. I've hoped to see the ACE 3000 project move forward. Does anybody have any insight into the future of those engineering ideas? Or was Ross Rowland's work all for naught?
The real issue with the ACE3000 was that it was colossally over complicated for only 3000hp equivalent, its interoperability with contemporary diesel-electrics not properly considered, and the very likely problems with condensing inadequacy even in the East made it unlikely to run in typical road service. You can get a very good idea of what was involved technologically by reading the patent description. The 'rightsized' version of a modern steam locomotive with two units has to be at least 8800hp; the first problem being that even Holcroft-Anderson requires more heat-exchange volume than would fit on a locomotive. For more unintentional humor, look up the Foster-Wheeler and Combustion Engineering work in the early '80s. The final nail in the coffin for any conventional external-combustion power is the current push straight to zero-carbon instead of zero-net-carbon. If you source fuel from fully renewable sources, using only renewably-sourced energy to produce and refine it, you might be able to justify something like the proposed Project 130's torrefied fuel (this is something FMW Solutions is highly qualified to discuss). But there is no effective way to sequester CO2 emissions from an 8000hp road locomotive that operates with comparable cost and overhead requirements to modern AC diesel-electrics.
Can a new mainline steam locomotive be built in the United States in the 21st Century? The T1 Trust and strategic partners at FMW Solutions and throughout the rail industry are answering that question one piece at a time. Join us for a detailed discussion on the steady recreation of a Pennsylvania Railroad T1 steam locomotive from our steam mechanic and engineering experts and learn about the challenges and rewards inherent in revisiting this iconic locomotive design.
Could it be possible to rebuild a New York Central Hudson?
Stay tuned for a brief discussion of this possibility inh the video @@blairterry9435
@@fmwsolutions Ok!
@@blairterry9435I know it can be possible with you starting a campaign to build one from the ground up and not being all-talk about it.
It actually can if the government used the money ta keep the steam train engines updated kept n photocopied the plans the steam engines could n would have been able ta run n pull passenger n freight services n would have put more jobs out there but that's the problem the government don't want ta use the money on fixing up America they rather put a bandage on what needs stitches ta help it heal it's sad that the government is just letting these historic engines that actually helped built America 😢😢😢
I can sympathize with old drawings and how the railroad liked to dimension things... Seems the drafting pen was in one hand, and the bottle in the other. lol!
Loved this roundtable. Excited to see what's next.
Remember that they were doing everything on paper, by hand. It took how many drawings to make a frame, trucks and all the parts and piping that went into an engine. They had one datum point that could be referenced to all related drawings. Using CAD today, it can all be done on one drawing using layers. Those guys did calculations with slide rules. I doubt anyone can use one today. Most people don't even know what they are, much less use one.
@@organbuilder272 True, but just because we used stone wheels eons ago doesn't mean we need to revisit them.
That is fine - Very good idea. Then we do not need to build a stone aged engine. Let's not waste any more money on this T-1 project. It was a failed engine anyway. Let's just scrap all these old relics of the stone age and use the metal for something useful.@@kleetus92
@@kleetus92totally agree
howdy mark!
I randomly clicked on this video and had no idea this kind of project even existed. Amazing. You're really gonna build a modernized T1?! Amazing. Can't wait to see this thing with my own eyes someday.
All of us were very happy to see your comment. For many of us at work on the project for over a decade, it's always a relief when we can introduce it to new people.
i have steadily donated since its inception & i think its worth it , i have shirts patchs mugs & plans for building a 5550 out of legos donate if you can
The tornado project brought a new era of steam restoration, is crazy we went from building a a1 peppercorn, to a massive prr t1 and lner p2. Props to everyone involved in the project and good luck.
A cautionary tale from the UK about how small things can trip you up. I heard this 30 plus years ago, so hopefully the issue has been resolved, but just in case:
The Flying Scotsman had been brought back into service, all the big terrifying things had been sorted, and she was pulling main line trains, but they started getting bearings running hot. (Local Steam Railways did not have this problem as they were only doing short hops between stations, and manually oiling. Main line Express Trains do not stop). Eventually they worked out that the lubrication system was at fault. The original method was a pipe, fed through with a flax wick, connected to an oil reservoir. They had used a modern synthetic wick. So they replaced the wick, but still had problems: Oil. They needed a specific viscosity oil that would match the flax, and drip at the required rate. Luckily, one of the old engine shed workers happened to have a can of the correct grade oil that he had liberated when the the works shut down. From that they were able to get the formulation, only to find that it was no longer made. One of the big Oil Companies stepped in an made a one-off batch for them, and they were back up and running. How they manage all these years on I do not know!
I know that the "Big Boy" still runs in the US, so I am guessing that they must have some solution for that problem, but beware the small things that you just don't think about, to come out and bite you!
Hope you-all succeed.
Restorations in the United States had similar problems with certain types of grease. The grease is not available, thus the conversion to oil cellars for main wheel bearings. Texaco was one of the suppliers of the grease and after the end of steam had no need to produce it, and would not produce small batches. While Texaco did provide the formula, and one operation was able to find a company that was willing to produce a small batch ( boxcar or two load ) the company would not produce another batch as it was found to be dangerously volatile in certain stages of production.
The fact the PRR T1 Trust are on the verge of pulling off the unthinkable, the answer is yes. With the right people who have the knowledge about what they are doing and also having the adequate funding and industries to contract the work out to; it can be done.
If you want to get a new rebuild started after the T1, the biggest one to do next would be a New York Central J3a Hudson.
That's the logical choice for the next American newbuild steam locomotive.
The Hudson should be first.
@@gamerfan8445 Too late, then. When are you going to start the campaign for building a Hudson? We’re waiting…
@@chooch1764 you know my reply already.
I want the 5344 to be rebuilt as it was the only J1e Hudson to be upgraded to the J3a classification as it was the test bed for all the J3as.
Well it should be possible in the USA, we were to do it over here in the UK, The Tornado was built from scratch based on a modernised existing design and with another large standard guage locomotive to a similar design is in progress. So good luck hope to see your project completed in the not too distant future.
However it important to point out that the British built a locomotive that was successful back in the day, then they made mix preforms’s locomotive.
In the UK at present there are SEVEN new locomotives being built from scratch these include two P1 s 2 Standards and a CLAN class pacific not bad for a small country
@@michaelnaisbitt7926 it mostly likely one p2. The other one is basically a waste of money.
There are couple more Locos being built at this moment.
@@SvenTviking okay name one, in the states, and not a pre 1820s locomotive
Honestly really refreshing to see all the upgrades that are going into this locomotive. Keep up the good work!
I have to say, after watching this video, it made me realize how much of a difference this project is making in rail preservation. What really spoke to me was at @23:44
A great update on the T1 project, I really think these people can pull it off, they are very passionate about what they're doing.
The re-engineering of the frames is a huge effort in itself, the one piece casting was something far more complicated and cutting edge than the plate frames used in the UK till the end of steam.
Actually North British Locomotive had their frames for South African Railways classes 25 and GMAM cast in the US as the customer demanded this and no foundry in the UK could do such large castings.
Well thought in the proces is not only a fabricated frame hold up to the stresses of operation, but with maintainability in mind as well, not all mechanics are short, skinny and flexible, so good accessibility of components is a real concern.
The T1 trust is also lighting up another very important aspect in preservation as a whole, that is pulling the industry in.
In the UK the industry supporting the huge preservation movement is large, some companies almost completely depending on orders from the preservationists.
But also regular metal shops and engineering firms embrace the idea as very suitable for learning purposes, many apprentices learning some aspects of the trade in a very oldskool way, but with incorporation of modern machining and construction tech.
So very good to see that you found some firms seeing manufacturing parts for the T1 as a challenge and not as a nuisance hindering their of the shelf mass production.
The T1 trust is going to be the first preservation/new build group in the US getting a donation from me, with greetings from the Netherlands and success with this awesome project.
Thank you so much for donating to get 5550 put together and running! Can’t thank you enough my friend!
Why is it so much longer than a regular 4-8-4? Annd has any thought ever been given to reheating the exhaust steam?
@@user-ky9sx8ti9y got to fit that second pair of cylinders in somewhere... and the huge firebox takes up a lot of space... Many German locomotives employ a mixer preheater for the feedwater located just in front of the chimney in the top of the smokebox.
I’m digging Matt’s collection of Kegs and his CO2 management system. He’s the master of serious gas and steam pressure!
CO2 is plant food but if any initial emissions can be reduced and reused (think combined heat and power) to make it economical, makes sense to conserve fuel.
The can part isn’t the question. It’s possible. The probability was the issue in question. You made it further than I imagined. May your progress continue.
Thank you guys for bringing steam locomotives back to life and back from Extinction God bless your souls for that fact just do me a huge gigantic favor what does FMW stand for thank you for all you do keep up the great work
Yesterday I stood in front of Mallard at the UK national railway museum and thought I dare anyone to beat that, now I have found your site In some ways I hope you do!
Crazy-mad respect for what you guys did with USSC #148 (especially given what you had to work with, both the remains of the locomotive and the lack of drawings), and not surprised you're involved with this one as well. Looking forward to when this one is completed.
Godspeed to the T1 Trust! 😁😁 Love to see it complete!
Certainly can be done, and the pride it brings to all involved to bring one of these spendid giants back to life for all to see operating once more is enormous.
For posterity rather than simply being a cold static exhibit.
As long as there is support I believe it is possible. I am glad the Trust stuck to their guns and went with the PRR T1. A lot of people would rather have the Trust build a NYC locomotive like a Hudson or a Niagara. While I think those would be cool I’d still make the argument that a PRR T1 makes better choice.
The T1 is a unique design and a LARGE locomotive. Once the T1 is completed, the Hudson should be relatively simple.
Not to mention the T1's didn't get much of a chance to shine due to the time period where the country was shifting to diesel power and the crews they assigned to operate the T1 had no knowledge on how to handle it, which led to the wheel slip due. @@johnblair8146
@@johnblair8146if the T1 works as it expected.
I am tempted to note that perhaps the 'logical' follow-on project would be a NYC C1a, which shared considerable DNA with the T1s but had more conventional valve gear and very close to Baldwin's recommended GA.
Of course, that locomotive would have used an only trivially modified Niagara boiler, and all the complex work on metallurgy and detail design of the Timken rods is 'in the can', and the frame construction and jigging will be reusable... and while a Niagara may not be the prettiest NYC power, we need to finish 3001 in Elkhart, which has most of the looks of a Hudson while being more practical, before doing a replica -- and I agree with it being 5345 rather than some J3a clone.
@@johnblair8146 its more about expensive than complex :P
I ran across this video and at first thought yiu were going to build a miniature "Live Steamer". I saw the locomotive and was thinking, Nahhhhhh, they're not really going to BUILD one are they? But you ARE! I'm so excited to see the progress you've already made and can't wait to see the real thing! Ive been a railroad buff since I was a kid and am surprised that I never heard of this project before. I wish you all the greatest success!
It’s going to be exciting to see so many folks from around the world that will travel to see, chase, and ride behind 5550!
It is one big project to design and build a large new steam locomotive and pattern it after a steam locomotive that was made many years ago. This is a unique project because all the other large steam locomotives that are in operating condition are old steam locomotives from the steam era that had extensive restoration work done on them to make them operational.
This is so far 10 years in the making, I'm hyped to see this engine be completed in the near future or even at least assembled to show how it's looking and will eventually look.
Note: by "assembled to show how it's looking and will eventually look", I mean when the frame is completely made and done, have the drive wheels (when the last 2 are done), future pilot and trailing wheels, and the fully welded boiler (with cab, fire and smoke boxes, and nose prowl) put together to show the resemblance of a steam engine, even if it doesn't have all the tubes, pipes, and streamlining on it.
I donate to them twice a year. If you care, and if you can afford any amount, please donate--that is what this project needs!!!
Thank you so much for donating! I really appreciate you.
FMW and T-1 trust is a power house, if I ever win the lottery funding won't be an issue. This project shows the endless possibilities of modern manufacturing technology. Imagine a brand new design, 2-8-8-6 (like an allegheny on crack), 350 psi. Maybe titanium pistons, piston rods, titanium cross heads with needle bearings, poppet valves, full roller bearing running gear, 600 mile service range and 80+ mph top speed. Call her the Claytor class.
The comment section drama is hilarious as always.
Keep up the good work FMW and T1 Trust, looking forward to see what comes next :)
It takes a special kind of insanity to argue about steam trains. Really can’t make a video about the project without at least one person arguing that a Dreyfuss Hudson or Niagara would be a better build. Can’t say I’m innocent myself of course, I’ve made my stance fairly clear on the subject. Maybe the real answer is we should all go touch some grass.
@@Stooltoad5017agreed, grass is nice. I should touch it more often.
As long as you don't proceed to smoke it more often...
@@Stooltoad5017 agree, as long as grass touching includes intermittent coal scoop or atomizer touching...
@@fmwsolutions lol I wish it did for me
Thats amazing that anyone is taking on a project like this, Best of luck with the project. 👍😎👍
Looking forward to taking a ride on this train once she’s done ✅
Excited to see this huge endeavor being realized!!
YES! YES! YES! ABSOLUTELY! Steam Power Forever!✊
Keep up the great work, would love to see the day you beat the world steam locomotive speed record!!!, you guys are a modern- Raymond Lowry, he would be proud of what your doing!!!
YES! I think we can! The project is almost half way done.
I saw the headline and thought... isn't that being done?
My dad and I both said... it's a good thing we weren't closer, or we would be volunteering every free minute we had...
Now that'll be something. 1361 and 5550 running together.
YES!
My father was an engineer on the PRR and the P&LE, from the 1920s until an accident at Conway Yards in 1948, I took a test for the PRR in 1965, I passed, then less than a week later my Uncle that was chief mate on tankers, got me my merchant marine papers, I went to seamans school and chose to work in the engine room. Of my 18 ships, 15 were WWII-era c2, c3, and T2, Which all were steam turbines, I worked as a fireman/watertender, oiler and the last ship as a cadet engineer, working to get my 3rd engineer's license. My first love was boilers and steam-driven horizontal and vertical piston pumps. If I was 20 years younger I would have enjoyed working on a restoration or even the re-manufacturing of a steam locomotive. 30 some years ago I opened a studio ,and at the present time I restore huge wooden doors, frame work and windows for churches. Good Luck,
You ask, I answer. Of course we can! However, how long will it take? we still need to get the money. All in all, I know we will get this magnificent beast locomotive on the rails! Good luck to everyone supporting the project! 🤗
The opening music is intrusive. I would advise against its being so loud....if you must use it at all. Apart from that observation, and it's only a personal opinion, I am with you all the way. I have donated in the past and will again. I sincerely appreciate your service to humanity and to railfans everywhere who want this project to succeed.
Thank you so much for donating!
This is great the progress you guys are making, I’m just very doubtful that any mainline railroad allows this engine to run on their rails. If completed I see this engine working short lines or class three railroads, doubtful it will ever run on the main.
Railroad management on class ones change every three years on average. Never say never.
This part of the problem is tricky, and the British experience involves the whole system which has many differences in safety and control from US standards. But part of the process for Tornado was the test run to 100mph, along the East Coast Main Line. The 100mph was over the speed required to run a train on that line without interference with normal trains, and apart from everything else it was safe with the overhead electrification.
As I recall, the British requirement is to match the freight and ordinary passenger traffic for speed, which means the problems of one train passing another are minimised.
Perhaps the question should be who sets the standards for every train on a US railroad and who tests that a locomotive design meets them?
While we're helping build the T1, we're also helping restart the restoration on the Pennsylvania K4. Learn more here: czcams.com/video/S-a4GS7IuNw/video.html
This can't be overemphasized. While there aren't any great insights to be gained by the professional finishing of the protracted 1361 saga -- it is one of the great iconic steam designs, and will be highly appreciated when operating.
The challenge isn't the building of this magnificent locomotive...
...the REAL challenge is finding a railroad that will let it operate on their tracks.
Not a Class I, for now... but there are quite a few heritage roads and Class IIIs that wants #PRR5550 to run on their lines.
The Trust has received multiple invites from short lines and tourist railroads to operate 5550 when completed. And don’t give us that “mainline locomotives and short lines don’t go together” BS
Only
Reason big 1 ran the 765 np up by me was because they wanted to shot over the letchworth bridge before tearing it down .otherwise they would of never did it . Almost ran her outta water an got low on coal due to grades . Ya don’t say never .but I’ll be holding my breath waiting for them to run an consess the lines up
For a EXTRA witch they do all the time
.
She's welcome here :)
That intro animation slaps
It SUCKS that they titled over it!
I think combining steam with diesel on the mainline to take advantage of both of their strengths would be really interesting
metal on metal friction and wear are a big issue with steam engines.have you looked into new surfact finishes? porsche has a new low friction coating
There are several things to bear in mind here. First is that any hard coating and piston-ring combination has to work both with 'wet' steam and highly superheated steam, with compatible tribology. Some of this applies to the piston rod (and its metallic packing) as well as the piston.
There has been research into some types of coating, including a practical method of forming superlattice hard coatings in locomotive cylinders. To date the cost of implementation outweighs the easily-identified operating and maintenance gains.
There are also experiments in oilless steam-engine construction (for example Spilling, in Germany), some of which might be applicable to large reciprocating-locomotive practice.
An extreme, but thermodynamically worked-up alternative is Russell Brown's asynchronous compound, which uses tailrods to keep the piston several thou from the cylinder wall with only spot condensation between; the blowby is directed to a LP turbine for KERS or auxiliaries.
Why not, we've been doing it in the UK for a while, it's just about getting the money to pay for it.
Doubleheader when?
A question regarding the tender...
You guys bought that 210F75a, you guys will modify the tender right?
If I recall correctly, the production T1's had 180P84's which were very similar in size to the 210F75a's, except the 180's held less water with the tradeoff of holding more coal.
I’m not a part of the Trust, but my understanding is they will at minimum change the tender from coal to oil. I believe they also plan to streamline it.
@@Stooltoad5017 this I know, but I mean to ask is if they will be adjusting the water/fuel space ratio to be correct to the 180P84 design.
I guess we won't know until after they complete the engine.
I love this. Just ran across this channel. Now fire it with propane and you will have a machine that will be low emission and yet have the steam advantages as well. It could be put into commercial use even. Propane is cheap by comparison.
Thank you. There are several grades of oil (even waste cooking oil and vegetable oil) that are also in use in steam locomotives, including another that we assist with in Florida that burns oil collected from restaurants for fuel.
Why not a thorium nuclear salt reactor? You'll be able to out compete fossil fuels with that ;)
These guys need to have coffee with Cory Anderson...same down to earth ideas it seems.
I hope the t1 is successful so we can get some New York central Hudson’s maybe and maybe even some Hiawathas
This is an awesome project.
idk but i want to see a revival of the ACE3000 project from the 80s man the ACE3000 would have been incredible
Bring back ONE class each of a steamer long gone at least! The most special and historic of course!
I mean the changes are enough to be referenced as a T-1c, since the T-1a and T-1b had different valve gears, so it's safe to say cause it's still a PRR T-1 styled locomotive and there's more than enough minor changes to the original design that you can say it's a new sub type. Not enough you could call it a T-2 but more than enough to be a T-1c. Now one thing a do hope you do is covert the tender to a corridor tender and maybe make a corridor water tender so you guys could do nonstop excursions between water stops.
There is no reason why you cant build any locomotive, you just need determination not to give up, the right people and attitudes.
Can't believe it won't be possible. Here in Britain, one or two mainline steam locomotives have been built from original blueprints in recent years and there are several currently in varying stages of construction.
I've always wanted to ride in a steam locomotive
I wonder if the improved T1 will be competitive with modern Diesels, or close in terms of economy?
If you don't know it can't be done, there's nothing to stop you.
They of course can do it! The big issue is matnence that was why they were displaced in the first place if we can reduce the matnence cost then maybe there is a chance ( steam has been shown to be stronger and get up to speed faster than modern locomotives)
Against 1-2 maybe 3 It could, but there’s no way in hell there’s gonna be a steam renaissance. There’s no way it can compete against every diesel. Even if it could railroads will probably switch to electric, or hydrogen. There’s no doubt in my mind that this thing would whoop the Niagaras though
@@backonpro5679 Class T1
Cylinders 18 3/4 X 26
Steam pressure 300 LB
Driver's 80"
Tractive effort 64,650 Lb
Niagara's
Cylinders- 25 1/2 X 32"
Steam pressure 290 LB
Driver's 79"
Tractive effort 61,570 LB
( Source: American Locomotives a picturial record of steam power
Edwin P Alexander )
Not as whooped as you may believe but yes a good sizable advantage, but please know I would love to see a project spring up to bring the niagara's back too 🙂
(Sorry It took so long to respond) 🚂
Those CAD drawings show how complex the frame is.
The only issue I see is logistical and regulatory. The UK Mainline successfully incorporated Heritage Steam into mainline operations and the two mostly co-exist happily. I can foresee the FRA and private owners not wanting to play ball with steam on America's dated rail network.
Looking forward to this and the A1 Trust's P2!!
The S1 Duplex should be next. It all starts with forming an interest group and a trust fund and foundation. Finding the original design plans is also fundamental.
The problem with building a new S1 is that it is just too impractically large to rebuild and still go around tourist railroads. The S1 had 6 wheel leading and trailing trucks to carry its weight. That’s more than most articulateds. That is part of the reason the Trust choose the PRR T1 instead: the PRR T1 was for all intents and purposes an improved S1 that was more compact and didn’t require as much leading and trailing axles.
Short answer is yes. We built them in the past so with the right amount of money you can build a new steam locomotive.
Just imagine the huge casting to pour a one piece frame that once existed in a huge factory that is no longer here with huge overhead cranes specifically designed to do a job that is no longer done.
I am kind of happy that the prrt 1 is going to be converted to oil burning instead of coal
You know, if this becomes a great success, there’s hope that the Hudson Class Steam Engine can be built
Very nice, like ! ! !
I mean, in the UK they already built a couple engines and they are actually currently working on doing a Mikado! (the P2) which is still a much smaller engine, but it shows how these projects are more then just fantasies!
Matter of fact, they are working on two versions of the P2!
Sounds like the American Coal Enterprises' proposed ACE 3000 steam turbine of the mid-1980s. It never got off the drawing board.
ACE3000 was a 4-cylinder compound reciprocating (piston) locomotive, not a steam turbine. (It did use a turbine for the induced draft, but not for power...)
Read the patent description for a very detailed discussion of the design and its details (although Porta's sketch of the 'frame' in unintentionally hilarious if you understand what would have been needed).
I love it! Other locomotives can e brought back as well. It may not be a steam locomotive, but how about a U50C? On the subject of the steam locomotive, l wonder what it would take to bring back a program like the ACE 3000 that would develop a modern steam locomotive?
@@NickTheCrossdresser2149 The other 4 class ones would probably be involved also. I wouldn’t mind seeing it happen. A reciprocating steam locomotive could theoretically burn anything in its firebox. I can imagine a modern steamer burning corn oil. What a nice smell!
Unlike a T1, the U50C had operating issues that would be difficult to solve, even in a replica. You'd be far better doing one of the B-B+B-B span-bolster engines using the gas-turbine underframe design. Or for real fun and a T1-Trust-style science-project test... why not a DH643?
@@wizlish the older U50 and the DH643 would be awesome! For the U50C they can make a non operational one.
Yes we can
I came across this project when I went down a Wikipedia rabbit hole. I feel very enthusiastic about the T1 trust. How could I donate to this project?
short answer is, yes we can do it but will take time to do it
There are people who believe in restoration of trains , trucks , and cars . Everyone else thinks they’re crazy . It just means they have no sense of history and industrial beauty . Restorers do the almost impossible and they make the world better .
I wish you guys a lot of luck! With modern technology and electronics, computers etc I'm sure a steam locomotive can be made much more efficient , but at what operating costs? There is virtually no coal and water infrastructure around anywhere at this point in this country. I would think Steam locomotives would still require high levels of operator maintenance unless you are designing a steam turbine based system and even then op and main. costs are high. Another issue would be facing the GREEN WEENIES" and tree huggers. They are trying to kill off everything coal, gas and oil in favor of "ALL EV " systems. But Diesel electric is hard to beat with modern tech too. They started to try this in the 1980's with the A3000 project but it failed due to lack of finances I think. but this was in the 80's too, so modern tech was not as sophisticated as today. Great luck to you!
As others have said the UK have managed to build more than one new build the Princess Of Wales is being built and will share wheels and other parts with Tornado. The only thing is not getting Governments involved they are the problem. In Britain all our steam locos only run on coal and guess what the Government are closing our last coal mine this year and trying to stop imports!
As for finishing the job of the new build. I travelled to Cumberland from UK to Cumberland and traveled behind 1309 and that is almost a complete rebuild! So it can be done with a population of I think over 230 million people
With today’s technology you could build a stronger lighter frame especially if it’s forged. You have to have enough t weight for traction. Steel wheels on steel rails you need a certain coefficient of friction. But we still have to problem of water. The higher pressure boiler you go, you need better water for your boiler tubes. Steam is dangerous. My experience is 600 and 900 psi marine boilers and steam turbine. Boiler feed water is tested two times a day and chemicals added for dissolved oxygen and dissolved solids. You need good distilled water, more water and more water. Making water costs money.
Man, Wolf must have dry skin too. I am really respect that. Aveeno is my go to lotion too! I find the citrus scents a bit too harsh though.
Wolf lives in a high altitude with a dry climate. We prefer lemon zest in our machine shop.
A1 trust also P2, BR P6, LBSCR Atlantic and other new builds. Err, not in Europe, in England which is no longer a member of the EU.
They are building new mainline steam locomotives in the U.K. If they can do it shouldn’t be a problem for the US.
So far i heard the US lacks a place like RAW Meiningen (Germany), for that reason i will say: yes you can do it but it will be much more expensive.
In 1921, William Alfred Webb from Ohio was appointed Railway Commissioner here in South Australia. During what was known as The Webb Era, many large locos took to the lines. This era led to the 520 Class (1943), similar to the T1 (1942) but with 4-8-4 wheel arrangement instead of the 4-4-4-4 of the T1. It will be wonderful to see this original variant up and running once more. czcams.com/video/xRKyUm5qdug/video.html
I'd love to see a BP-20 passenger Shark nose diesel built from scratch.
I'm curious to know how much of the cost of the project is devoted/required for government regulation compliance?
i want that shirt !!!
Hope someday in the future someone will do the same for a CNJ G-3 blue comet. there are only a 5 comet coaches still in existence and 0 locomotives.
Cast frames would be almost
impossible to build now, we have lost so much knowledge from mold making to the actual casting, a constructed
steel frame might be stronger in the long run, cast frames eventually get stress cracks just like the GG1 had!! This will be seriously cool if you guys pull this off, if I remember correctly no NYC Mohawks were saved from the scrappers
torch so that would also be a cool engine to bring back too!!! My bad it was Niagaras and Hudsons that were scrapped!!
I have some good news for you if you think that -- google 3001 Elkhart.
@@wizlish Cool, that's in downtown
Elkhart, sweet!!
@@conrailfan6277there’s also 2933
The answer to your question is "yes", we have the capability to build any thing we want. The bigger question is whether we have the motivation and the money to build something out of a bygone era.
It’s the USA. You can achieve anything you decide to!
I seriously doubt there is any foundry in the US that could cast a one piece frame, as were original
I seriously doubt there is any foundry in the US that could cast a one piece frame
Yes, lots of money !!!
This is a modern steam locomotive. Make sure it has PTC so you can run it on the average road.
Can it? Yes. Will it? I hope so.
We do it in UK, so, enjoy yourselves.
If you need help, maybe there is expertise over here.
The "T1 Trust" was originally specifically patterned after the organization that accomplished the real great technical miracle in Britain, beside which a piddling Peppercorn Pacific ranks low: restoring and then fixing the whoopsies with 71000 Duke of Gloucester. (Look for example at the repairs involved with the cylinders alone... and how they accomplished it all in a not-very-robust economy.
@@wizlish
With 71000 they also solved all the issues which bedevilled it when it was in BR service because of mistakes and compromises made while it was under construction.
That's what I meant when I said 'fixed the whoopsies'.
I dislike conspiracy theories as much as anyone, but there come times that Tom Lehrer's 'Christian Scientist with appendicitis' metaphor seems awfully applicable. Just as it seems clear to me that a great deal of the 'problems' with the T1 were suspiciously related to getting out of the equipment-trust obligations early, I find it impossible that several of the fabrication 'mistakes' on 71000 that kept it from demonstrating appropriate performance were not intentional. (Just like the smokebox door on Leader being conveniently left open, or its bogie being crash-reversed while being tested on air, were "accidents"...)
They should look a selling there engineering drawings to raise funds because I’m shore the scale railroad guys might be interested if the want to build a 5 inch or 7 1/4 inch version if they could scale it down in solid works and tests the scaling works
i feel like were well past can, 5550's too far in to just be stopped now!
I wonder if theyll ecer aancle steam tlocomotive? Seems like it could be shielded enough and it would be really efficient
More fast than Mallard
We can build anything. It’s only the cost the limits us.
in a way I like to imagine this as....let's say a test run for something we can do in the future. If we, as people, can build something as complex as a streamlined articulated steam locomotive with no surviving bases from the ground up and have it fully able to run under it's own power...think of what ELSE we could bring back. The first thought in my mind is bringing back the NYC hudson, or similar engines to it. perhaps other streamliner's with no survivors could be brought back this way. What I'm basically getting at is if this works..we have the power to bring titans long thought dead....think on that.
I really liked it a lot and it's really cool project. Not to mention I'd love to see it in operation. But how is it economically viable? Running excursions maybe?
It will be running excursions on regional and short lines across the eastern U.S.
If they can get the steam record with a faithfully built T1, then it'll confirm all the stories of the T1 and S1 going that fast in the past. Proving that the mallard probably only held the record for 4 years, rather than the 84 (and still increasing) that is claimed.
Mallard has legitimately held the record (whether other engines did, or could, have reached a higher speed) since 1938. What we need to be careful about is what that record speed actually is -- 126.1 or higher is a fairy tale, an artifact of measurement. Gresley himself accepted 125mph, and depending on how long a speed peak needs to be maintained, the number is about 125.4. This was then cheated up in post-production and politics to preclude any further attempts with the BR 05s... which as things turned out never eventuated.
Alfred Bruce of Alco noted in the early Fifties that he had seen Milwaukee A-class 4-4-2s run faster than 128mph on more than one occasion (that speed probably chosen as greater than the 127.1mph PRR Atlantic tale) and he was in an uncommonly good position to bring about the conditions and permissions needed for running that fast. However, without proper dynamometric proof that can be independently analyzed and confirmed... it is no record. Arnold Haas is the source of the S1 doing "141.2 mph" (suspicious precision given that the locomotive's speed recorder only went to 110) and several of the other reported details don't pan out. A report of 132mph in Popular Mechanics also does not pan out if you investigate where the speed was supposedly confirmed. I personally suspect the 135+mph speeds that Vernon Smith reported were more likely artifacts of high-speed slipping (which goes with the nature of the damage the Franklin engineers were reporting) but this counts no more than Kiefer's augment testing with a J3a spun up to the equivalent of 161-163"mph" in the 1947 survey of motive power.
Fast Loop at TTCI, where the 5550 high-speed testing will be done, is 165mph, which should be adequate both to establish high-speed characteristics and to overcome any revisionistas who want to impose FIA-style 'bidirectional runs' on things.
@goldenfloof5469 - whatever happened in the past, if the videos I've seen of the appalling state of your tracks is anything to go by, I think doing 50mph is chancing your arm, let alone 125mph+
The Brits (and also the Reichsbahn with the 05) got their succession of speed records in the 30s precisely because they ran equipment to precisely measure said speeds. Regardless of any claims, or their veracity, any we made in the U.S. remain hot air until such time as one of the claimants can back it up with a dynamometer or other precise measuring data. We’re just in the unfortunate situation that other than trying to push 611 past the 110mph or so one of her sisters did, or get one of the CB&Q Hudsons restored and make a speed attempt I’ve seen one of them rumoured to have done, we in the U.S. will have to build replicas of any of the claimants. And if they do set records, those will stand from the date they are set now, not from back when claims were made in the 1930s and 40s.
@@wizlish "What we need to be careful about is what that record speed actually is -- 126.1 or higher is a fairy tale, an artifact of measurement."
What the hell is an 'artifact of measurement'? If the instruments were properly calibrated, and I've seen ZERO evidence to doubt that, then the speed was as recorded - regardless of what Gresley, or you, choose to 'believe'.
As for the claims you refer to for the Milwaukee 'A' Class, the PRR Atlantic, S1 and J3A - without dynamometer car recordings, that's all they are.
Just claims.
Evidently you are ignorant of dynamometry, have never actually read or interpreted the trace from the record run, or read why Gresley accepted the speed he did.
Simply taking first differences off the trace, assuming the precision but not the accuracy of the time standard, shows an impossible acceleration to reach the extremely short "126mph" peak. If you can explain that with actual physics rather than knee-jerk chauvinism, I'd be interested to hear your explanation.
I personally don't think much of the idea that 5550, or something like the rebuilt ATSF 3463, is being built to "beat Mallard's record" (which was, and I think still is, in some of the early T1Trust material). Even at 125.4 or whatever, even if another pass with a BR 05 not artificially terminated above 200 km/h, even if Bruce could swear to the accuracy of the A timings, Mallard has what I consider the unquestioned speed record for a run undertaken to establish a verifiable record. It just falls me that politics were then involved in faking the speed up to a higher, unsustainable value that becomes as commonly accepted as the various BS about the T1 being a 'failed design'.
Now, it may well be that the T1 actually has difficulty reaching the high speeds attributed to it (Crosby's account being proved a bit of, shall we say, embroidery by certain characteristics of reading 120mph for timing). Those will be tested first for dynamics on the roller rig, then by loading the rollers progressively and simulating the effect of various conditions disturbing adhesion at high speed and load, and then through the testing in Pueblo with full appropriate instrumentation and analysis.
(The other thing would be for someone across the pond to arrange an A4 with triple Kylchap and the improved big end to have the necessary instrumented wheelsets, and bring her over during the time reserved for testing... I would like to establish that Duddington knew what he was saying about getting up to 130mph.),
For close to 40 yrs. I've hoped to see the ACE 3000 project move forward. Does anybody have any insight into the future of those engineering ideas? Or was Ross Rowland's work all for naught?
The real issue with the ACE3000 was that it was colossally over complicated for only 3000hp equivalent, its interoperability with contemporary diesel-electrics not properly considered, and the very likely problems with condensing inadequacy even in the East made it unlikely to run in typical road service. You can get a very good idea of what was involved technologically by reading the patent description.
The 'rightsized' version of a modern steam locomotive with two units has to be at least 8800hp; the first problem being that even Holcroft-Anderson requires more heat-exchange volume than would fit on a locomotive. For more unintentional humor, look up the Foster-Wheeler and Combustion Engineering work in the early '80s.
The final nail in the coffin for any conventional external-combustion power is the current push straight to zero-carbon instead of zero-net-carbon. If you source fuel from fully renewable sources, using only renewably-sourced energy to produce and refine it, you might be able to justify something like the proposed Project 130's torrefied fuel (this is something FMW Solutions is highly qualified to discuss). But there is no effective way to sequester CO2 emissions from an 8000hp road locomotive that operates with comparable cost and overhead requirements to modern AC diesel-electrics.