Rebuilt. But not restored.

They are taking this historic engine--the last of her class--and completely modifying it as an experiment. Sure wish they would take the money and do a proper historical restoration to operation. But that's just me.

I dont agree, I think that if she sees steam, and runs on the rails, who cares what fuels her.  

Rich always said he would convert the 765 to oil in a heartbeat.  I think this would be no different.  If the fuel is easier to burn and maintain, she is still running the rails and under steam.

This might be a great thing. If the technology works then it might blaze a trail for more steam engines to be restored and operated. Will someone be following this story? Once all the fanfair dies out it would be interesting to see how they progress.

Yes, it will be intersting to see if anything comes of this. There's a reason you don't see steam locomotives hauling trains today.

It's been suggested elsewhere that they would be better off building something from scratch--from the ground up--if they're trying to push the envelope.

I'm not sure you could find the facilities to build something from the ground up, at least not the frame and other big castings/forgings.

As long as they keep the integrety of the engine intact I'm ok with it. Heck, all the "restored" engines have been modified and upgraded in someway. It is kind'a nice that steam engines are modified when they are restored as it represents a new chapter in their life as opposed to trying to recature an old chapter. 

I don't mind modifications that are pratical necessities--roller bearings on 765's tender trucks, for instance. 

I guess my point is, if you are are going to *******ize an historic artifact for the sake of scientific experimentation (which may or may not succeed), you might as well start from the ground up. Take that frame for instance--is it going to be up to the specifications they need to get to 130 mph? Maybe a lighter alloy would be preferable? I mean, if they're modifiying jsut about every aspect of this engine, what's the point of using a 1930s-technology frame?

Can't wait to see how they will make it more efficient, and less maintenance intensive than a diesel electric!

I agree with you, I just don't think you could build a frame today, and even if you could, it might blow the budget.

Some of the main things that could be done with a redesign are things like modern joint sealing and alloys and coatings on things. When you think about it these engines where designed before any "space age" alloys had been brought to market. I think the basic frame and boiler are fine, but all the add-ons could use a healthy dose of engineering.

Regardless of the many difficulties that most likely will occur and have to be overcome, I sincerely wish the team every success. To my way of thinking, using 'hybrid' green fuel and whatever else is required for operation, is far superior to letting the engine continue to deteriorate (rot) due to exposure to the elements.

New organization to restore Santa Fe 4-6-4 as “clean” passenger locomotive

Santa Fe 4-6-4 No. 3463 will become a test bed for biofuel-powered steam locomotive technology.

Photo by Sustainable Rail International

MINNEAPOLIS – A new Minneapolis-based organization, the Coalition for Sustainable Rail today announced plans to rebuild and modify ex-Santa Fe 4-6-4 No. 3463 into “the world’s first carbon-neutral higher-speed locomotive.” The engine was built by Baldwin in 1937 and has been on display in Topeka, Kan., since 1956. The group has already acquired the locomotive from the Great Overland Station Museum and Education Center in Topeka.

The coalition is a collaboration of the University of Minnesota’s Institute on the Environment and the nonprofit Sustainable Rail International. Sustainable Rail is the brainchild of four people: Rob Mangels, Shaun McMahon, John Rhodes, and Davidson Ward. Mangels and Ward have been involved for several years in the “Friends of the 261” organization, which operates Milwaukee Road 4-8-4 No. 261. Their new group is not affiliated with the 261, even though both are based in Minneapolis.

Ward, who serves as Sustainable Rail’s president, said he and his partners have been working on the idea of a clean steam locomotive for several years, but made the project public today as efforts to raise funds and move the locomotive get under way. He told Trains that the idea is to develop a steam locomotive using today’s technology that can produce a more powerful locomotive that will cost less to operate than diesels in passenger applications, such as commuter service. Seeking to develop a high profile and prove its technology, the group plans to use a modified 3463 in an attempt to break the world speed record for a steam locomotive, operating it at speeds up to 130 mph. It has named the venture “CSR Project 130.”

The key to the project, Ward said, is the lower-cost fuel that the locomotive will burn. It will run on torrefied biomass (biocoal), a biofuel that exhibits the same energy density and material handling properties as coal. The organization said that unlike coal, biocoal is carbon neutral, contains no heavy metals, and produces less ash, smoke, and volatile off-gases. With the ability to burn biocoal efficiently, and without negative impact on the environment, the coalition claims its steam locomotive will exhibit significantly better horsepower output at higher speeds than diesel locomotives that pull the majority of passenger trains in the United States today.

The group hopes to apply its technology to more than just locomotives. The engineering on combustion and boiler technologies could allow CSR to develop power boilers and electric generators for use in homes in the United States and the developing world. “Every dollar spent on engineering support of CSR Project 130 can generate up to three times the benefit in outgrowth technologies to solve energy problems in the United States and around the world,” the organization said.

“Participation in the Coalition for Sustainable Rail has enabled our team to pursue one of the more exciting and potentially groundbreaking research projects in the history of the Institute on the Environment,” Rod Larkins, special projects director of the institute’s Initiative for Renewable Energy and the Environment, said in a news release. “Once perfected, creating the world’s first carbon-neutral locomotive will be just the beginning for this technology which, we hope, will later be used for combined heat and power energy in the developing world as well as reducing the United States’ dependence on fossil fuels.”

Plans are to move No. 3463 within the next year. The group is searching for a suitable site in the Twin Cities area to house and rebuild the 4-6-4. Ward said the organization hopes to raise funds with the assistance of the University of Minnesota, and that several railroad industry professionals have been approached and are interested in the project. For more information, see the July 2012 issue of Trains magazine, and visit www.csrail.org.

I agree with Hot on this one. An external-combustion reciprocating steam locomotive moe efficeint than diesel-electric, AND able to go 130 mph? I ain't holding my breath...

Maybe, they'll put a big ol' can motor and worm gear in her!

Rusty

They may mean horsepower to specific consumption, I hope

What about Magna-traction

I think you all have to realize that they most likely are not going to test how efficient the steam is at driving the wheels and moving the train, as we already know that, the technology has been around for over 100 years.  What they are doing is a proof of concept at the bio fuel heating the water and being carbon neutral.  

If the concept works well then a whole new locomotive design would most likely be created.   I would think a steam turbine with the water heated by this carbon neutral fuel.  

First, it doesn't matter how "efficient" they make there fuel burning and/or furnace system. If they are still retaining the reciprocating, two cylinder, steam powered engine drive system (which is essentially a constant torque, variable horse power machine), they they will NEVER approach the efficiency at the rail head, of the modern diesel electric locomotive.

Second, steam turbines have already proven to be failures in North American railroad applications.

Sadly, I think it's a pipe dream. Diesel so effectively stamped out steam that I can't see going back. Steamers are maintenance heavy. They require fueling stations that have long been taken down and would be expensive to restore. They cannot be mu-ed. And passenger service is a losing proposition in most parts these days. I doubt the NE Corridor could sustain 130 mph locos, anyway.

As much as I love seeing steamers restored to operation, and have no problem with them getting this old gal up and running, I don't think I would put much hope in bringing a fleet of steamers back to the rails based on this.

What did I read somewhere? Shades of the ACE 2000?

Again I do not believe it is about retaining the reciprocating 2 cylinder drive system but to prove the efficiently of the fuel burning system.  

Engineering is done like this all the time.  Systems are fitted into existing technology to test them.  It is much cheaper to rebuild the locomove then to build a new one from the ground up.  After they prove the fuel system then they might move onto the actual locomotion system.  

My fear for this project, if it does indeed advance to the reconstruction phase, is that it may be cancelled before completion, probably for lack of funding.  The 3463 could then be left in a state of limbo: neither a new 'high-efficiency' steam locomotive nor an intact historic artefact.

It will be interesting to see what kind of thermal efficiency they can get with this.  I see they say the same as coal but....will have to see actual numbers.  Personally I think it will be interesting to follow, but not practical in the end.

"When done, locomotive 3463 will share only the most fundamental resemblance to the engine it once was."

This doesn't sound good. They're taking what once was a beautiful steam engine and detroying it--the last of her kind to boot. Couldn't they find some other way to test this new wonder fuel?

I just looked up "torrefied biomass."

Sounds like charcoal to me... 

The  average steam locomotive in the steam age had an overall efficiency of about 3-4%. the reason is that reciprocating steam is EXTERNAL combustion, where most of the heat input into the working medium (water) went up the stack. There is no way that an external combustion machine can even come close to the efficiency of INTERNAL combustion. Modern diesel efficiency easily exceeds 30%, and it does this throughout its entire speed range.

I would LOVE to see an ATSF Hudson under steam. But based on what I read about them in the Farrington Book "The Santa Fe's Big Three", there is no way that this engine can even approach 130 mph. (On test runs the engine was so badly out of balance that the firebrick dropped onto the grate. Baldwin was never known for precise counterbalancing, as evidenced by the New haven Hudsons and the ACL 4-8-4's, both of which badly kinked track at operating speeds. The Baldwin C&O poppet valve Hudsons also exhibited running gear problems, being out of quarter.)

To go that fast, you probably need a PRR T1 with poppet valves. For a lighter load and a smaller engine, you would need a NYC J-3A with poppets. The need for poppet valves is due to the need for lowest reciprocating weight. The NYC J-3 had the lowest unbalanced mass of any modern steam except for the Milwaukee Class A Atlantic type, although neither engine was equipped with poppet valves. That's just my opinion, of course.....

Hudson, the running gear will be completely different from what the engine has now to correct those balancing problems.

I agree, go experiment  with something else....

 

Originally Posted by smd4:

"When done, locomotive 3463 will share only the most fundamental resemblance to the engine it once was."

 

This doesn't sound good. They're taking what once was a beautiful steam engine and detroying it--the last of her kind to boot. Couldn't they find some other way to test this new wonder fuel?

 

See Chris ,
This is deja vous all over again or "Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it".

This is like being in John Fishwicks office in 1980 and him telling his son and I . "you may even see some steam engines on N&W's tracks in the next couple years."

This will happen from time to time as people forget or just don't know the high maintenance costs associated with running steam and they may figure out how to MU them but I doubt it . You can't use an alloy frame because you'd give up the weight it needs for tractive effort.
Now your going to take an engine that was designed by slide rule and try to get it to 130 MPH. Well the "J" was designed for 140 but I don't think anyone in their right mind would want to be at the throttle while it was doing it.

My father told me that the diesel is the closest thing in human existence to perpetual motion and paired with the electric motor it's the most efficient way to run an engine.
Even the S-1's and the Jawn Henry were flops compared to the diesel.
Your not going to change that running it off of Match Light.
I just wish their flopped proof of concept wasn't a one of a kind steam engine.

David

Seems like adapting a diesel locomotive or stationary power plant to bio-fuels would be easier...

Rusty

Can't wait to see their proposal on THAT!

By the way, did anybody notice that the President of Sustainable Rail International is a recent graduate (2010) of the "School of Architecture", from the University of Minnesota?

Should be real interesting!

School of Architecture??.... Oh boy.....what could possibly go wrong?..

Yeah Dave....they just don't learn....sadly.

Neither can I.  I have often wondered if a more electronic valve gear would be worth while, and am anxious to see what they propose.  My extreme case would be an encoder on a drive axle, and likely a few servo motors connected to poppet valves.  This would allow you to easily change the inlet and exhaust timing and duration similar to today's computer-controlled variable valve timing gasoline engines.  Doing this would also allow you to get rid of the reciprocating mass associated with a traditional valve gear, making the balancing easier.

And speaking of, in a day and age where multiple car manufacturers make 5-cylinder engines that don't shake body panels off (thanks mainly to internal balancing shafts designed by computer simulation), I have to believe that there are technologies that could be applied to a steam locomotive.

Coarse in the case of 3463 it may be a blessing in disguise . Looking at the engine it looks as if it was placed there to die a silent death. When we (all us old farts) were little kids every city wanted a steam engine to place on display. They at least made an attempt to keep them up cosmetically . From the looks of 3463 the attitude was "Why paint it ? It'll just rust again anyway".

Maybe this project will be it's savior . I know they wanted a testbed but clearly they took what they could get. They would have been money and time ahead if they'd have been able to acquire a more modern steam engine.
Either way try as they might , I think they're wasting their time and government grant money.

David

When they get this one done, it's gonna doublehead with the Ace 3000.

Barnum was right...

"When they get this one done, it's gonna doublehead with the Ace 3000".

Good one Rich!

Ed M

Well they better put it at the back of the Ace 3000.
So it'll be the explosion that got it moving

David

When they get this one done, it's gonna doublehead with the Ace 3000.

If this project goes very, very well they might have a locomotive that could doublehead with C&O 614. 

Since the "project" will be done in Minnesota, wouldn't 261 be a better candidate? Besides, the 261 stands a MUCH better chance of actually finishing her FRA 15 year inspection and returning to operation THIS YEAR!

Hot Water

Yes, using MILW 261 would make much more sense if the goal was to come up with a functional locomotive soon.  But I don't know how the 261 people would feel about converting their locomotive into a wood burner.

And that gets back to the practicality of this whole thing.  As you mentioned earlier, a reciprocating steam engine represents a method of converting energy into motion that inherently has low thermal efficiency.  It also has high maintenance costs and low availability.

This project claims that a low cost fuel source may make it an economically competitive  type of locomotion.  Looking at the history of locomotive fuels they progressed from:

Wood to

Coal to

Heavy Fuel Oil to

Diesel Fuel

Each step represented a move to easier fuel handling, lower emissions, lower overall environmental impact and greater overall economy.  This project aims to take about 3 evolutionary steps backward and yet make environmental and economic progress.  That seems unlikely.

It is worth noting that just to the west of Minnesota there is one of the words great oil finds being developed right now.  The oil is a light, sweet crude that produces a high portion of the refined product as light fuels with a low sulfur content.  It makes great fuel for locomotives with high thermal efficiency, low emissions, low maintenance costs and high availability: diesel-electrics.  If they really want to do something different to try and lower costs LNG would be a good alternative.

But wood?

No way! 

It is a step 150 years backward.  It is even less likely to be part of our transportation future than street cars.  And wood it is too valuable a resource for other uses.  Wood chips have a value for paper making and are a more reasonable fuel to use to fire stationary boilers of far higher thermal efficiency at the paper mill.

Maybe some college professor found a way to play trains in 12 inch to the foot scale and have some else pay for it, anybody ever think of that.