Well, I didn't believe the rumors. Now, I know they are true. Following the success of the A1 Steam Locomotive Trust, which built a new steam locomotive in the UK, there was a lot of interest in doing it here in the States. There is a group that is going to attempt to build a Pennsylvania Railroad T1 Duplex 4-4-4-4. They plan to run it to 140MPH. It has a $10 million price tag.
There is also a group that wants to build a New York Central J3a Hudson. They are currently in the stage where they are trying to raise awareness of their cause. (Thanks to BronyPacific4023 for bringing this to my attention.)
As much as I would LOVE to see this happen, it isn't. The reason that the A1 Steam Locomotive Trust succeeded in building Tornado is because European locomotive frames are plate frames, made of individual pieces of metal riveted together. In the US, the frames were one solid casting. There is no place left that can undertake the job of pouring a new locomotive frame, especially one 122 feet long, in the T1's case. They could go to China, but since the Chinese are dieselized, I don't think that they could pour a frame. Another problem is that the T1 had problems with wheel slip, and the drivers could, and did, slip at 100 mph! The 140MPH isn't going to happen, as the T1's top speed was 100MPH.
Like I said, it would be neat to see these on the road, but it isn't going to happen. And I think that sucks.

PRR T1

NYC J3a Hudson

Steam locomotive frames were some of the most intricate and difficult frames that were ever made, and as you said it was primarily North American locomotive builders that constructed them.

They were huge and rugged...

... and I don't honestly believe that, with how much industrial knowledge we have lost over the last fifty years, that there is any place in America that still does castings of this size. Building one would require all new tooling, so we could be talking hundreds of millions of dollars for a one-off.

I love the idea of building new steam engines... I just don' see it as happening. At the moment, I'd rather see the money put into efforts to preserve and restore actual historic steam engines, like N&W #611, NYC #3001, or B&M #3713.

2510628 You haven't heard? 611 is being restored! ON TO 1218!

I am looking at the pictures of the engines in question. And I can see that the T1 would take a longer time to build than the J3a Hudson. On the question of the frames, the Hudson doesn't look to have a very difficult frame layout. (From what I can see at least.)

2512038 The point is that there is no place that could cast the frame.

2510652
Oh, yes, I had heard that there is a group attempting to restore #611, but they still need funds and the like.

2514715 They have the funds to restore the engine. They just need the funds to build a place to service and store it between excursions

2513671 I see. That is a problem. Seeing as no one will willingly rebuild a steam locomotive in a world filled with diesels.
What workshops would they use? Any candidates?

Seeing as no one will willingly rebuild a steam locomotive in a world filled with diesels.

2518747 What do you mean? In the UK, there are now over 15 new steamers being built.
All these guys are trying to bring a type of locomotive that no longer exists back to the rails.
I think that China is still building small locos and parts for other countries. The UP Steam Program got the new boiler crown for 844 from China, as no place in the US had the tools to make it. If NS hadn't sold all the tools, machines, spare parts, and patterns for their steam program, then UP might have been able to get the part domestically.
As for your last question,
The largest steam workshop in the country is either Steamtown, the East Broad Top Railroad museum, since the shop buildings are still there, and filled with machinery (but it couldn't build a new loco, since the EBT bought the locos from Baldwin, the tools are for a 3-foot locomotive, the EBT bought the locos from Baldwin, they haven't been used since the EBT shut down, and to top it off, they are the type that use a leather belt being turned by a central shaft coming from a boiler house, and the boilers have been cold since 1956), Cass Scenic Railroad, but that is more suited for geared locomotives, the Tenesse Valley Railroad Museum, the UP steam shop in Cheyenne, Wyoming, the Oregon Rail Heritage Foundation, where SP&S 700, OR&N Co 197, and SP 4449 are, along with ALCO PA1 NKP 190, or the new roundhouse that was built by the former owner of Ohio Central for his collection of steam locomotives. The last one is a fully equipped workshop for maintaining his locomotives.
All of these are great for restoration and maintenance, but not construction. There just isn't a place for them to be built in the US, unless UP is willing to rent out a berth in Cheyenne, but I doubt it, as they really don't have the space with 4014 coming in.

2510652 i don't think 1218 will be oppererating anytime soon, there are to many parts missing

2711069 I know that. She is just an empty shell right now.

2711840 But never say never. If 611's restoration is a success and U.P. can return a Big Boy to the rails NS will be almost certain to look into 1218. And if some die hard fan can either find or make the parts she needs there's always a chance.

2711873 I'm not worried. There are places that make flues, and that is what would take the most work. Like I said, right now, her boiler is an empty shell. If they really need it, they can get a crown sheet from China.

2711955 Yup. The biggest problem will be her constant upkeep.

2510628 2512038 2711069 2711873 They have enough funding for the keystone. So, a little progress has been made. And 611 has enough funding!

3291185 I would love to see the old steam engines get restored.

There's also the CSR 130 Project which is currently rebuilding the last ASTF 3460-class to reach 130 mph, as well as running on "biocoal."

3339495 Read about that. I don't think that "biocoal" will work. Too much ash

2510628
if you like the idea of New build steam, then pop on over to our fair country of the U.K.

we've been building new steam locomotives since the 1990s
http://newbuildsteam.com/

ever hear of Tornado?

the first of a new era for steam, completed in 2008

The Unknown Warrior

still being built

The Prince of Wales

construction has just started

2519590 you forgot to mention there is a steam works in Germany that provides new boilers for most steam locomotives in Europe

3426394 True, but do you think they'll be up to the task of making a boiler over 100 feet long, with a firebox area of 490 sq ft and a total heating area of 5,639 sq ft, along with a superheater area of 1,430 sq ft?

Here is what Wikipedia says about the group:
"A new non-profit known as the T1 Locomotive Trust which wants to build a fully operational replica of PRR's classic 4-4-4-4 duplex design. They estimate the cost to be $10 to $20 million and take up to 20 years to see completed."

How long did Tornado take from start to finish?

Also, I'm not worried about the boiler, I'm worried about the frame, as I've said before.

3359092 Actually, from what I've just read, biocoal produces less ash compared to regular coal (10% compared to 25-40%).

3489313 Ah. But do you think they'll make their goal of 130? That loco wasn't designed for it. If anything, an F7 Hudson could. Reportedly, they made it several times, but didn't have an official timekeeper aboard, like City of Truro, or a speed recorder.

3291261 They are. All around the world. N&W J-class 611 is under restoration, Southern Railway 2-8-2 4501 was jsut finished, Big Boy 4014, Challenger 3985 is under her FRA mandated overhaul, the never retired 844 is also under the mandated overhaul, and C&NW 1385, an R-1 class 4-6-0 is under restoration at the Mid Continent Railway Museum in North Freedom, Wisconsin, among others. (Her cab is being rebuilt in my home town. I saw it coming in a while ago. The driver got lost and ended up taking it down Main Street! ) The museum is a former C&NW branch line that served several iron mines, home turf of several R-1s. They received the Trains Magazine scholarship for restoring the nation's last surviving fish car, Wisconsin Fish Commission "Badger Car #2".

3489481 I just wish UP never got rid of the original 119

3489482 She was outdated and unneeded., so they did what any railroad does, they scrapped her. Preservation wasn't really a thing then. We were lucky enough to get 999, The General and the John Bull.

3489455 There are a lot of factors to consider, including the track being used for test runs. There's a reason why so many British rail records were recorded on Stoke Bank. Personally, I believe a BR Standard Class 9F also has the potential for breaking the Mallard's record.

3490302 That is right, all the records were downhill, weren't they? IMHO, it should be on level track.

3490337 That's why I believe the 9F could be a good contender due to its continuous performance on level track. During its brief career in passenger service, it was already exceeding 90 mph in multiple cases.

3490359 Same with 611. Precision balancing, roller bearings, good steaming. It was joked that the J's top speed was only limited by the nerves of the engineer.
A Pennsy engineer had one hauling a 15-car 1050-ton train at speeds in excess of 110 mph over the PRR's Fort Wayne Division, called the "Racetrack Division" because it had a reputation for fast running, while on loan.

2510628 2512038 2711069 3291261 3490359 3426393
I asked my frame question on their Facebook page, and got an answer.

Thanks for the great question! So far, we've identified one foundry that is capable of making a casting that large, and has expressed interest in participating - Bradken Engineered Products in Atchison, Kansas. They have the ability to pour up to 120,000 lb. of steel in a single part, and have experience in casting parts for the railroad industry. Unfortunately, a 60 ton pour will typically yield a part of about half that weight after gates and risers are removed, and we estimate that the T1 frame is somewhere between 37 and 44 tons. Because of the weight and complexity of the T1 engine bed, we may be forced to fabricate the frame from several smaller castings, or from welded plate. The exact details of the revised frame design are still being evaluated.

3490359
3490398

even if they were able to beat Mallards official record, there's many a tail of the A4s reaching upwards of 130 mph (this was in B.R. days, when they had fiddled with the valve gear to give not only faster running, but more fuel efficiency, it also solved the problem with the bearings melting on the middle cylinder)

one driver recalled how he managed to push Mallard herself to 140 mph, but at that speed it began to rock back and forth violently, rather than side to side

3739216>>3490359 3489482 2714918 2711069 2518747 2510628
Ok, I got some more info on the T1. They just completed the wooden master for the drivers. It will be used to create the mold for the drivers to be cast in.
Here are some of the FAQs from the website
Where will it be built
There are a number of railroad contractors who can fabricate the components necessary to build the locomotive. These include Diversified Rail Services, Steam Operations Corporation, Steam Services of America, the Strasburg Rail Road, and WRRC. The T1 Trust has already worked with the Strasburg Rail Road in tapping the threads on the 5550 Keystone. Diversified Rail Services has begun construction on the headlight assembly for 5550. The T1 Trust is looking forward to doing business with a multitude of qualified vendors in realizing the completion of T1 5550.
When will it be done?
Our current estimated completion date is 2030. This was based on our own internal estimates of the number of man hours required to complete certain tasks, as well as the duration of the A1 "Tornado" project in the UK. In reality, the program timing will likely be dependent on manpower and funding. If we don't get the volunteers needed to complete the engineering and construction, or the funds to produce the parts, it could take much longer. Conversely - if we received a donation of $20 Million tomorrow, we could hire a full time professional engineering and fabrication staff, and the project could be completed in as little as 5-6 years.
Where in the USA may the T1 run beyond 120 mph with a decent train consist?
Presently there are only two possibilities, neither of which is likely for revenue service - The USDOT test loop in Pueblo, and portions of the Northeast corridor. The DOT facility is where we would intend to perform high speed testing to confirm the locomotive's tracking qualities and top speed potential, with an instrumented test train, and only in compliance with all applicable DOT regulations. High speed running is not necessarily part of the routine service plan. Our intent is to maintain schedule on whatever railroad is willing to host the locomotive for excursion service. We anticipate this will be limited to 79mph top speeds on one or more of the Class 1 railroads. If, however, Amtrak can be persuaded to allow excursion trains on their system, we would plan on operating at speeds of 85-110 mph plus to match their timetable.
What caused the wheel slippage issues the locomotive had and what if anything could be done to rectify this if you were to build another one today?
The wheel slip issue had two root causes. The first was ineffective spring equalization. As originally designed (engines 6110 and 6111), the engine truck was not equalized with the drivers, and all four pairs of drivers were equalized together. When entering curves or moving over track that was less than perfectly level, weight was transferred off the front engine, causing the front pairs of drivers to slip. This condition was observed at all speeds, and we believe is the basis for the "uncontrollable" reputation the T1 has. The PRR addressed this in the production fleet by splitting the spring rigging in two - the front engine was equalized with the engine truck, and the rear engine was equalized with the trailing truck. The other root cause was improper handling. Engineers assigned to T1s were given no formal training on how to operate them, and their performance was very different than the K4's most of them were accustomed to. The front end throttle, high boiler pressure, very large diameter steam delivery pipes, and poppet valves combined to make the T1's very responsive to throttle application compared to a K4. Too much power applied too quickly resulted in wheel slip, especially at speeds around 15-25 mph. We will be performing kinematic and compliance simulations of the spring rigging and equalization to determine whether further improvements in adhesion are possible. We will be applying a wheel slip alarm, so the engineer would be made aware of a wheel slip more quickly should it occur, and reduce power manually. We will also investigate fitting an electro-mechanical anti-slip device similar in concept to that fitted to the Q2, but with more reliable valves and modern electronics, so no involvement from the engineer would be required.
Why are you planning to use the Franklin Type B2 valve gear, instead of the Franklin Type A gear originally used on the T1?
The Type A gear, while effective, presented a challenge with regard to maintenance, especially for the rear engine. To illustrate this, it's necessary to explain the main features of the Type A system.

Power for the gear was taken from a lever attached to the crossheads of both engines. This lever actuated a bell crank, which actuated an adjustable length rod, which was attached to another bell crank, which actuated the input shaft of the gearbox. The gearbox itself was a sealed, cast steel box which was located above (front engine) or between (rear engine) the locomotive frames. Inside each gearbox were two complete sets of miniature Walshaerts' valve motion, which were immersed in about 30 gallons of SAE 30 oil. One set provided drive for the intake valves, the other for the exhaust valves. Each set of motion actuated a separate output shaft from the gearbox. Each of these output shafts had a bell crank, which actuated another adjustable length rod, which then actuated another bell crank attached to the inboard end of one of the camshafts. The camshafts were mounted in a second sealed box, mounted between the steam chests, and filled with 2 gallons of cylinder oil. The Camboxes then opened and closed the valves, which were mounted in the steam chests.

When the gearboxes needed to be serviced, they were very difficult to access. To reach the front gearbox, located on the frame just ahead of the front cylinders, all of the streamlining on the smokebox and pilot had to be removed. The rear gearbox was almost completely inaccessible, and had to be removed via a drop pit for major servicing. The gear boxes weighted about 3700 pounds each, so removing one from beneath a locomotive was no easy task. Once serviced, all of those adjustable connecting rods between the crosshead and gearbox, and the gearbox and camboxes, had to be re-adjusted to keep the valve events square. That's a total of six rods, whose lengths were specified to the thousandth of an inch, for each engine.

The Type B system avoids all of this. Power is taken from a gearbox driven by a return crank on the main driver crankpin. This gearbox is attached via a jointed driveshaft to a matching gearbox on the outboard end of the cambox. There are very few moving parts, no adjustments required, and everything is accessible from the outside of the locomotive without having to dismantle anything. It's simpler, lighter, easier and cheaper to fabricate, and much easier to maintain.

The Type B is also not without precedent on a T1. In 1948, locomotive #5500 was involved in a sideswipe accident with a K4 on the St. Louis division, resulting in heavy damage. Instead of repairing the locomotive with the Type A Oscillating Cam gear, it was rebuilt with the B2 Rotary Cam gear. Afterward, it gained a reputation as being the best of the fleet, by both engineers and maintenance men alike. There is evidence in PRR correspondence that consideration was given to fitting the type B gear to as many as five T1's, but this idea was not acted upon. It's reasonable to speculate that, had the T1 not been replaced so quickly by Diesels, that additional units would have been similarly modified.

And finally, What are the differences between Franklin Type-B and Caprotti? They look very similar.
utwardly, they *are* very similar - they both are powered by jointed driveshafts, driven by a gearbox from a return crank on the main driver crankpin. The main differences are inside the cambox mounted above the power cylinders. Both mechanisms are hard to visualize without referencing drawings, but a basic comparison follows:

In the Franklin Type B, the valve timing is set by a continuous contour camshaft. Valve opening and closing events are determined by the profile of the cam, which varies continuously along its length. To adjust the cutoff, or switch from forward to reverse, the camshaft slides laterally via the reversing mechanism, thereby presenting a section of the cam profile to the cam follower on the valve stem. The cam follower is a spherical bearing that makes point contact with the camshaft. The valve timing is controlled by the shape of the camshaft where the follower makes contact. In the Franklin system, the cam follower acts in direct line of action on the valve stem, which is oriented horizontally, parallel to the piston rod. Valves are closed by coil springs acting on the valve stem.

In the Caprotti gear (British Caprotti specifically) a variable geometry cam assembly is used. Essentially, there are two very similar cam lobes for each valve, each on separate concentric shafts, which can rotate relative to each other. To adjust the cutoff, or switch from forward to reverse, the angle between the two adjacent cam lobes is altered via a worm gear and crank assembly. The cam follower is a cylindrical roller that makes line contact with both cam lobes simultaneously. The valve timing is controlled by the combined shape of the two cam lobes where the follower makes contact. In the Caprotti system, the cam follower acts via a bell crank on the valve stem, which is oriented vertically, perpendicular to the piston rod. Valves are closed by steam pressure acting on the valve stem.

In both cases, the camshafts are mounted parallel to the driver axles, and operate hollow, double seat poppet valves. When the valves are open, steam passes around and through the body of the valve. There are detail differences in the shape of the valves between the two systems, but they are generally similar in design.

The rotary cam T1 uses a derivative of the Franklin Type B system, called the B2. Unlike the Caprotti system, which uses one cam assembly to operate both intake and exhaust valves, the Franklin B2 has two camshafts - one exclusively for intake valves, and a second one just for exhaust valves. Also, the B2 has 4 valves (2 intake and 2 exhaust) where the Caprotti has 2 (1 intake and 1 exhaust) at each end of the cylinder.

4042427 So, it looks like they're seriously looking into the wheel slip issue since they mentioned the Q2's anti-slip system.

4054792 Yep.