Question for the Steam Experts

So being the bored 16 year old railfan I am, I started thinking about this after talking to a friend who is an N&W Transition-Era modeler (HO) and N&W Steam fan. After looking at some of the steam engines designed and built late into the steam era (especially the J Class), I thought what if one was built new today?

This is just a hypothetical question that I'm curious about. What is a rough estimate of the cost to build an oil-fired 4-8-4 new from a scratch design that can meet/exceed Amtrak's requirements for certification? This would be a traditional styled steam engine and not like the ACE 3000 or something like that. The 4-8-4 would have 72"-80" drivers, have roller bearings everywhere possible (for ease of use and maintenance, definitely roller bearings on all tender axles), be easy to service, incorporate modern technology where possible such as an in-cab diesel m.u. control stand, lightweight (but strong) side rods, good counterbalancing, electronic speedometer, cab signaling and electronic speed limit HUD, good tractive effort, at least 5000 horsepower, 300 psi working pressure, and a self-lubrication system. Streamlining could also be incorporated to improve speed, but it adds weight. However, from what I understand (please correct me if I'm wrong), more weight on the drivers improves tractive effort and adhesion. The locomotive would be geared for high speed and high power output, somewhat of a scratch-built and scratch-designed cross between a Niagara and an N&W J Class. Please note this is only for a single 4-8-4 and not multiple or the feasibility of steam making a comeback. I'm sure all of us know steam will never come back. UP and Strasburg steam is the only steam we'll ever really see in revenue freight service. 

Other suggestions would be helpful. Again this is just hypothetical and I know Tornado was something between 3,000,000 GBP and 5,000,000 GBP, so I'd imagine a 4-8-4 would be a bit more. As discovered later in the thread, a 4-4-4-4 T1 built from the ground up costs about $10,000,000 ($13,000,000 if the tender was built from the ground up). I know pretty much anything is possible so long as you have the cash to do it. 

Hot Water, if you're reading this, I'll admit I don't know a huge amount about steam, so if there's anything useful you want to mention or educate me on please go right ahead. 

Original Post

GenesisFan99 you might want to read the NTSB Accident Report on the Gettysburg Railroad it will give you better understanding of a Steam Locomotive and some of the issues that confront a steam locomotive today. That accident brought a lot of changes to the steam locomotive industry. PB96-917008, NTSB/SIR-96-05. I did and learned a lot from it.

Rick

PRRT&HS #8473

N&W HS  #5825

State College, PA

"Riding that magic carpet made of steel"

   "This train got the disappearing railroad blues

 

 

 

At the risk of stating the obvious, aren't the emissions gonna be the Achilles heel?  I can't cite the emission factors for Tier 4 diesels off the top of my head, but certainly that's been a big program to reduce diesel emissions.  I don't know what the Amtrak requirements are...

One of the big reasons that diesels replaced steam 'way back when' was the availability issue - again I don't recall the exact numbers without digging around, but a lot of big road steam engines spent as much or more time in the shop than on the road - maintenance was a really big deal.  Presumably a more modern design might be able to improve that, but steam engines are really complicated - and were often specialized or unique designs so it was difficult to to swap out parts.

I'm a big steam engine fan, but I can't see them making any sort of comeback even with modern designs and Tier4-level (and beyond) emission controls.  The cities along the NE corridor long ago required electrification - and Amtrak's operations in the NE corridor have continued that.  Indeed, all of the highspeed rail around the world is electrified.  We're even finally gonna get electrification on the Caltrain route into SF (its been a long slow march...).

richs09 posted:

At the risk of stating the obvious, aren't the emissions gonna be the Achilles heel?  I can't cite the emission factors for Tier 4 diesels off the top of my head, but certainly that's been a big program to reduce diesel emissions.  I don't know what the Amtrak requirements are...

One of the big reasons that diesels replaced steam 'way back when' was the availability issue - again I don't recall the exact numbers without digging around, but a lot of big road steam engines spent as much or more time in the shop than on the road - maintenance was a really big deal.  Presumably a more modern design might be able to improve that, but steam engines are really complicated - and were often specialized or unique designs so it was difficult to to swap out parts.

I'm a big steam engine fan, but I can't see them making any sort of comeback even with modern designs and Tier4-level (and beyond) emission controls.  The cities along the NE corridor long ago required electrification - and Amtrak's operations in the NE corridor have continued that.  Indeed, all of the highspeed rail around the world is electrified.  We're even finally gonna get electrification on the Caltrain route into SF (its been a long slow march...).

I know the emissions wouldn't exactly be very friendly to the environment, but I don't think that it would be a huge problem since most of the steam engines today produce quite a lot of emissions. I'll edit the original post, this was a hypothetical question not about the return of steam, but the cost of building a single oil-fired 4-8-4 from scratch from a scratch design (see original post for more details).

I'm sure given proper funding, facilities, crew, and relations with Amtrak and Strasburg a single scratch-built 4-8-4 wouldn't be harder to manage than your average large excursion 4-8-4.

Hot Water posted:

I prefer not to get involved in these "pie-in-the-sky" discussions. However, you might checkout the group that is already in the process of constructing a PRR T1 4-4-4-4 duplex, from scratch:

www.prrt1steamlocomotivetrust.org 

 

RJT posted:

GenesisFan99 you might want to read the NTSB Accident Report on the Gettysburg Railroad it will give you better understanding of a Steam Locomotive and some of the issues that confront a steam locomotive today. That accident brought a lot of changes to the steam locomotive industry. PB96-917008, NTSB/SIR-96-05. I did and learned a lot from it.

Hot Water- Thank you I have seen the T1 Trust before, but I had not previously looked at their budget. Looks like it would have been something like $13,000,000 had the tender not existed already. 

 

RJT- Thank you for the recommendation it was very helpful. What I got from it was make sure your crew knows what they're doing (formal training by professionals) and make sure your equipment is actually in good shape. Crew really has to watch the crown sheet and fix things properly. 

TrainLarry posted:

In the 1980's, a modern steam locomotive, the ACE 3000 was designed. It would of cost about $125 million dollars to build the prototype.

Sadly, it was never built.

 

Larry

I've heard about the ACE 3000. A very interesting idea, surprised the price tag was that much though. I am kind of glad it never got built, not the prettiest looking locomotive.

Genesisfam99-

The T-1 Trust has had to address about all of these questions and like HotWater said, I would troll around their site to get a pretty good feel for your question.   The ACE 3000 project is not comparable, IMHO.  I would think that NYC clearances should be used for any new builds.  Currently you can not run NKP 765 or SP 4449 from Chicago Union Station eastward on Amtrak and NS and that has been a big operating roadblock on a number of occasions.

I don't think the poster was asking about the feasibility of doing a steam locomotive for revenue service, I think they were just asking it as a thought experiment. Even a modern steam locomotive utilizing modern materials, modern controls and so forth, is going to be a lot less efficient than alternatives (diesel, diesel electric), likely would be more costly to maintain and so forth. 

The answer would be in the 10's of millions of dollars, depending on how it was designed and built (for example, sourcing the parts overseas would likely cost a lot less than making them here). Prototypes and single builds always cost a lot more than once serialized for production, because you can't spread the cost of tooling and whatnot over a whole range of whatever you are making.  

As far as pollution goes, a steam engine would not necessarily have to be more polluting, it could be pretty pollution free. The reason old time steam engines were so dirty was the kind of fuels they burned and the nature of their boilers, coal is not a very clean fuel, nor is the kind of fuel oil they burned in trains (someone may be able to answer that, but did they use something like diesel fuel, or did they use the kind of oil known as bunker oil, which is much less refined and full of crap than diesel).  In a modern steam boiler (think power plants, for example), you likely could have a much more efficient boiler and also you can have things like catalytic converters to reduce emissions of things like NOx. You also in a modern steam engine could burn liquified or compressed natural gas, which is very clean burning.  Yes, a steam locomotive on a thermal efficiency scale is less than a diesel, but a lot of the lost efficiency is heat losses through the use of external combustion, not inefficient burning in the burner that produces the steam, so there is no reason why you couldn't have relatively clean burning burners in a steam engine, back in the day pollution wasn't a concern so no one was going to invest in reducing soot emissions and sulfur dioxied and NOx emissions, the way they did for things like extending the range of an engine in terms of fuel efficiency and water usage. 

The person who dies with the best toys dies a happy person

In order to have devices like catalytic converters or diesel particulate filters, you have to have a very clean very complete combustion or the devices will plug up in VERY short order.  on an automobile, an engine burning a little too much oil or a miss-firing cylinder can ruin a cat very quickly. If you've ever driven your car with a flashing check engine light, you can ruin a converter in no time, which is why the owner's manual tells you not to do it for anything more than getting the vehicle off the road. I can't imagine how you could EVER consistently get that complete of combustion in a locomotive fire box.  I'm not quite sure how the EPA will look upon any NEWLY BUILT steam locomotives.  Original ones are grandfathered in, but a new one, especially if used for a revenue generating purpose? 

I think that thermal efficiency and emissions would be significant issues in building a new steam locomotive.  No matter how clean the combustion process itself, if the thermal efficiency is low the fuel consumption and therefore emissions will be high. It would be necessary to:

1) Increase the thermal efficiency by operating at much higher temperatures and pressures than a conventional steam locomotive.

2) Add a condenser to recycle the exhaust steam and reduce the waste of energy due to exhausting into the atmosphere.

Neither of these is practical in a locomotive.

I recently wrote about this elsewhere on the forum. For what it's worth, I repeat my comment below.

In the early 1970s, I worked for a company that was funded by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to develop an automotive steam engine. The thinking was that generating steam in a continuously-firing external boiler (burning gasoline) would produce lower emissions than a gasoline engine in which there is intermittent combustion of fuel. The boiler and reciprocating expander (engine) ran at a steam pressure of 1600 PSI and a superheated steam temperature of 1600 deg-F - both much higher than anything ever contemplated in a steam locomotive. The high temperature was needed for thermal efficiency (fuel economy) and the high pressure allowed the engine to be compact. Unlike a locomotive, the automotive system was a closed circuit in which the exhaust steam was condensed and reheated, thereby eliminating the large quantities of water that were required in conventional steam locomotives, which simply exhausted the hot water through the stack and wasted energy. Ultimately, the automobile's emissions were excessive because the thermal efficiency of the steam cycle (proportional to the maximum steam temperature) was too low. Diesels and automotive gasoline engines combust fuel at higher maximum temperatures than were possible in our steam engine and therefore are more efficient and have lower emissions.

MELGAR

I don't think anyone was seriously proposing a steam engine for revenue service, that ship has sailed, I think again this was just a fun thought experiment. People have pointed out, quite correctly, that between maintenance and things like emissions, such a beast would likely not be practical. We could build a steam engine that was a lot more clean burning and efficient than the ones we had in the past, but even at 100% of the rated efficiency, an external combustion engine is significantly less efficient than an internal one (if I remember thermo class correctly, on the absolute scale, an external combution engine's theoretical heat efficiency is around 6%, an internal like a diesel or gasoline engine is around 11 or 12%, based on t2-t1/t2 x100). 

As far as catalytic converters fouling, yes they can, but for example they have catalytic converters now on things like woodstoves. The catalytic converter on a car is made up of exotic metals (platinum, I think rubidium (sp?) and some others), and it can get fouled by some things. Not so much oil, what gets fouled with that is the O2 sensor in the exhaust from what I recall, the catlytic converter on the other hand gets fouled by other metals (it was a blessing that the catalytic converter came about, it single handedly got tetraethyl lead out of gasoline, because lead fouled the catalytic converter, they only banned lead in fuel after basically it wasn't being used any more). The point being there are  a variety of catalytic converters around, wouldn't necessarily be the same one used in cars....and if a relatively clean burning fuel were used in the firebox, like natural gas, likely a converter could be used to help lower emissions. 

The point is I think that such an engine could be built, but it would be basically as someone else said, a modern reproduction of an old technology, not a viable commercial product. The whole point of a thought experiment is to imagine and dream and BS about the possibility, given that none of us is likely to have the capital or experience to do this, it is all in fun, like having trains, the whole point is to have fun with it, should be nothing serious about it. And what makes these kinds of things great is how much you learn or are forced to remember, with things like thermodynamics and the like

The person who dies with the best toys dies a happy person

As a dedicated and fanatic steam fan who gives thanks he was there besides the tracks when they still rolled through , they are history. Technology has outraced history. I seek out restored and operating locos and lines, to experience history.

 

??Another one of THOSE!!??  What you want to sell is not what I want to buy!

colorado hirailer posted:

As a dedicated and fanatic steam fan who gives thanks he was there besides the tracks when they still rolled through , they are history. Technology has outraced history. I seek out restored and operating locos and lines, to experience history. 

Exactly correct in my opinion. Steam locomotives were highly developed examples of advanced engineering that should be appreciated for their technology and historical importance. But technology is always advancing and no matter how much we may admire what is now familiar and current, something new and better will eventually replace it.

MELGAR

colorado hirailer posted:

As a dedicated and fanatic steam fan who gives thanks he was there besides the tracks when they still rolled through , they are history. Technology has outraced history. I seek out restored and operating locos and lines, to experience history.

 

I totally agree with your assumption Hirailer. I spent many hours watching "History Roll By", and wished that I would have appreciated it more than I did....!

 

New, certainly.  Better?  That's relative.

I tried to roll down the power window on my wife's 2001 Chevy Tahoe this morning, but it was frozen shut.  But the windows on my '69 Chevy Pickup go up and down just fine!  Guess which one I wish I had been driving when I went through the drive-thru at the bank.

Frisco, MoPac, and T&P near Rolla, MO
MELGAR posted:

 

 The boiler and reciprocating expander (engine) ran at a steam pressure of 1600 PSI and a superheated steam temperature of 1600 deg-F - both much higher than anything ever contemplated in a steam locomotive. The high temperature was needed for thermal efficiency (fuel economy) and the high pressure allowed the engine to be compact. 

MELGAR

Advancements in metallurgy must have made some great strides since my retirement in 2013 from the electrical utility business. Metallurgical advances in metals have allowed steam generation of high pressures up to critical pressure (3200 psi). But at the highest pressures the metals cannot be operated safely much above 1000 degrees F. Our reheat steam could be safely heated to 1050 degrees F, but its pressure was typically near or less than 600 psi. Metals become too fluid above these temperatures.

Could you explain further where your 1600 degrees F is used?

TM Terry posted:
MELGAR posted:

 

 The boiler and reciprocating expander (engine) ran at a steam pressure of 1600 PSI and a superheated steam temperature of 1600 deg-F - both much higher than anything ever contemplated in a steam locomotive. The high temperature was needed for thermal efficiency (fuel economy) and the high pressure allowed the engine to be compact. 

MELGAR

Could you explain further where your 1600 degrees F is used?

Boiler produced superheated steam at 1600 deg-F, 1600 psi. This was the working fluid supplied to the reciprocating expander which admitted steam through sequential poppet valves and exhausted through ports into a condenser. I did thermodynamic analysis but not metallurgy... Ceramic pistons and cylinder liners were considered as a means of further increasing efficiency.

MELGAR

MELGAR posted:
TM Terry posted:
MELGAR posted:

 

 The boiler and reciprocating expander (engine) ran at a steam pressure of 1600 PSI and a superheated steam temperature of 1600 deg-F - both much higher than anything ever contemplated in a steam locomotive. The high temperature was needed for thermal efficiency (fuel economy) and the high pressure allowed the engine to be compact. 

MELGAR

Could you explain further where your 1600 degrees F is used?

Boiler produced superheated steam at 1600 deg-F, 1600 psi. This was the working fluid supplied to the reciprocating expander which admitted steam through sequential poppet valves and exhausted through ports into a condenser. I did thermodynamic analysis but not metallurgy... Ceramic pistons and cylinder liners were considered as a means of further increasing efficiency.

MELGAR

What was the material of the steam generator? What material transferred the steam from the generator to the pistons? What volume? 

TM Terry posted:
MELGAR posted:
TM Terry posted:
MELGAR posted:

 

 The boiler and reciprocating expander (engine) ran at a steam pressure of 1600 PSI and a superheated steam temperature of 1600 deg-F - both much higher than anything ever contemplated in a steam locomotive. The high temperature was needed for thermal efficiency (fuel economy) and the high pressure allowed the engine to be compact. 

MELGAR

Could you explain further where your 1600 degrees F is used?

Boiler produced superheated steam at 1600 deg-F, 1600 psi. This was the working fluid supplied to the reciprocating expander which admitted steam through sequential poppet valves and exhausted through ports into a condenser. I did thermodynamic analysis but not metallurgy... Ceramic pistons and cylinder liners were considered as a means of further increasing efficiency.

MELGAR

What was the material of the steam generator? What material transferred the steam from the generator to the pistons? What volume? 

I think the boiler was stainless steel but not certain. Bore and stroke were approximately 3-inches each with 4 cylinders.

MELGAR

MELGAR posted:
TM Terry posted:
MELGAR posted:

 

 The boiler and reciprocating expander (engine) ran at a steam pressure of 1600 PSI and a superheated steam temperature of 1600 deg-F - both much higher than anything ever contemplated in a steam locomotive. The high temperature was needed for thermal efficiency (fuel economy) and the high pressure allowed the engine to be compact. 

MELGAR

Could you explain further where your 1600 degrees F is used?

Boiler produced superheated steam at 1600 deg-F, 1600 psi. This was the working fluid supplied to the reciprocating expander which admitted steam through sequential poppet valves and exhausted through ports into a condenser. I did thermodynamic analysis but not metallurgy... Ceramic pistons and cylinder liners were considered as a means of further increasing efficiency.

MELGAR

I'm not sure where you're getting these numbers.

I don't have high-pressure steam experience, but I doubt the pressure and temperature would be the same number. Indeed, in an on-line steam calculator, if I plug in a pressure of 1600 psig, the calculator tells me the temperature would be 606 degrees F.

Steve

 

smd4 posted:
MELGAR posted:
TM Terry posted:
MELGAR posted:

 

 The boiler and reciprocating expander (engine) ran at a steam pressure of 1600 PSI and a superheated steam temperature of 1600 deg-F - both much higher than anything ever contemplated in a steam locomotive. The high temperature was needed for thermal efficiency (fuel economy) and the high pressure allowed the engine to be compact. 

MELGAR

Could you explain further where your 1600 degrees F is used?

Boiler produced superheated steam at 1600 deg-F, 1600 psi. This was the working fluid supplied to the reciprocating expander which admitted steam through sequential poppet valves and exhausted through ports into a condenser. I did thermodynamic analysis but not metallurgy... Ceramic pistons and cylinder liners were considered as a means of further increasing efficiency.

MELGAR

I'm not sure where you're getting these numbers.

I don't have high-pressure steam experience, but I doubt the pressure and temperature would be the same number. Indeed, in an on-line steam calculator, if I plug in a pressure of 1600 psig, the calculator tells me the temperature would be 606 degrees F.

The unknown then would be the amount of superheat applied to the steam, which if his numbers are correct, would be 1000 degrees superheat.

 

smd4 posted:
MELGAR posted:
TM Terry posted:
MELGAR posted:

 

 The boiler and reciprocating expander (engine) ran at a steam pressure of 1600 PSI and a superheated steam temperature of 1600 deg-F - both much higher than anything ever contemplated in a steam locomotive. The high temperature was needed for thermal efficiency (fuel economy) and the high pressure allowed the engine to be compact. 

MELGAR

Could you explain further where your 1600 degrees F is used?

Boiler produced superheated steam at 1600 deg-F, 1600 psi. This was the working fluid supplied to the reciprocating expander which admitted steam through sequential poppet valves and exhausted through ports into a condenser. I did thermodynamic analysis but not metallurgy... Ceramic pistons and cylinder liners were considered as a means of further increasing efficiency.

MELGAR

I'm not sure where you're getting these numbers.

I don't have high-pressure steam experience, but I doubt the pressure and temperature would be the same number. Indeed, in an on-line steam calculator, if I plug in a pressure of 1600 psig, the calculator tells me the temperature would be 606 degrees F.

I shall answer your question and then end my part in this discussion since thermodynamics is not the subject of this thread.

The temperature you have determined (606 deg-F) is the saturation temperature of water at a pressure of 1600 psia. This means that if water is pressurized to 1600 psia, it will change state from liquid (water) to vapor (steam) when heated to 606 deg-F. It can then be heated further (superheated) in the vapor state, to 1600 deg-F, as was done for this engine. Thus, the steam had 994 deg-F of superheat. 

ASME Steam Tables (5th Edition) show steam properties only up to 1500 deg-F, so they are not sufficient in this case.

“Engineering Thermodynamics” by J.B. Jones and G.A. Hawkins lists properties (Table A-1.3E page 752) for superheated steam at 1600 deg-F and pressures of 1500 psia and 1750 psia. Linear interpolation of the Table values gives the following thermodynamic properties of steam at 1600 deg-F, 1600 psia:

  • Specific volume = 0.7597 cubic-feet per pound mass
  • Specific Internal Energy = 1619.0 Btu per pound mass
  • Specific Enthalpy = 1842.6 Btu per pound mass
  • Specific Entropy = 1.7958 Btu per pound mass per deg-F

I worked on this project and analyzed the thermodynamics of this steam engine for three years. End of discussion for me.

MELGAR

considering the number of casting patterns you would have to make, the number of specialized heavy machines that would need to be purchased along with the necessary physical plant, it would be ludicrous to make a single, full scale, large steam locomotive.  take for instance the last Lima locomotives (super power) which were constructed with one piece cast frames.  add to this the unavailability of ANY appliance manufacturer.  injectors, air pumps, feedwater heaters, power reverse, headlight, classification lights, bell, whistle, etc, etc would all have to be constructed from scratch.  two or three could likely be made with the only increase being little more than the cost of materials.

overlandflyer posted:

considering the number of casting patterns you would have to make, the number of specialized heavy machines that would need to be purchased along with the necessary physical plant, it would be ludicrous to make a single, full scale, large steam locomotive.  take for instance the last Lima locomotives (super power) which were constructed with one piece cast frames.  add to this the unavailability of ANY appliance manufacturer.  injectors, air pumps, feedwater heaters, power reverse, headlight, classification lights, bell, whistle, etc, etc would all have to be constructed from scratch.  two or three could likely be made with the only increase being little more than the cost of materials.

It seems the T1 Trust is going through the effort.

https://prrt1steamlocomotivetr...newsletter.php?id=16

Rusty

Rusty Traque posted:
overlandflyer posted:

considering the number of casting patterns you would have to make, the number of specialized heavy machines that would need to be purchased along with the necessary physical plant, it would be ludicrous to make a single, full scale, large steam locomotive.  take for instance the last Lima locomotives (super power) which were constructed with one piece cast frames.  add to this the unavailability of ANY appliance manufacturer.  injectors, air pumps, feedwater heaters, power reverse, headlight, classification lights, bell, whistle, etc, etc would all have to be constructed from scratch.  two or three could likely be made with the only increase being little more than the cost of materials.

It seems the T1 Trust is going through the effort.

https://prrt1steamlocomotivetr...newsletter.php?id=16

Rusty

they say it themselves... not only did they consider inflation in their cost estimate, but added a factor of 7x that to cover many of the one-time costs i mentioned.  consequently, if the initial locomotive comes in at $10M, especially considering that the labor is volunteer, they could build a pair for ~$11.5M.  considering the huge amount of preventive maintenance steam locomotives go through in their lifetime, having a 2nd number could ensure that a working locomotive would more likely be available when needed.

Looking for technology that supports a steam engine with extreme high temperature steam, I stumbled on a site - "Researching an Air-Steam Combined-cycle Locomotive" www.martynbane.co.uk by Harry Valentine

The air turbine portion is made of materials like silicon carbide and silicon nitride, which are capable of operation up to 2500 degrees F. Much of the turbine exhaust air is used to generate steam. They used steam numbers like 300 psi and 800 degrees F.

It is an interesting read. The idea of combined-cycle is a real boost in efficiency. Example: My former employer purchased two 150MW combustion turbines and used their exhaust gas to generate steam enough to produce an additional 200MW's "for free" They are considered combined-cycle combustion turbines. For the fuel cost to produce 300MW's they had an output of 500MW's.

I know there were a few comments saying that it's pretty pointless to think about building a steam locomotive that functions similarly to the original technology. However, after reading the EPA's emissions regulations, this would be necessary as hitting the Tier 4 mark would be difficult. The EPA regulations state, "If the locomotive is used for historical purposes, is a replica, or both, the locomotive is exempt from all EPA Tier standards".

So with that, I'm curious what all of you think would make a fast steam locomotive today. With all of the things that the T1 Trust has on its plate, I think it's nice to imagine something with more potential to hit triple digit speeds safely, reliably, and efficiently, without a compromise in horsepower. With the UK's Tornado being such a success and hitting 101 mph virtually problem free, we should be able to do the same. I'm not hating on the T1 Trust, they just have a lot to address, less than a new design. While it is true steam is very expensive in all regards, given proper funding anything can be done. 

Add Reply



OGR Publishing, Inc. PO Box 218, Hilliard, OH 43026 330-757-3020
www.ogaugerr.com
×
×
×
×
×