[Big Dave]

The ACE 3000 was so wrong on so many levels.

The slow response to the throttle would have made it a bear to operate.

The ACE folks thought six GP-type (four axle) chassis would yield a 3,000 HP locomotive. The best they could design was 2,000 HP. One chassis was the turbine-generator and electric controls. One was the baghouse for particulate emissions (this was before EPA clamped down on SO2 and NOx). One was the steam generator. One was a tender. Two were needed for dry condensers. A huge agglomeration of machinery for a paltry 2,000 HP. Six GP-40-2 locomotive put out a reliable, easy-to-handle 1`8,000 HP.

The ACE 3000 would be slow, temperamental, unreliable and hard to handle. And a maintenance hog to boot.

Fluidized-bed boilers use gravity for control. They are necessarily tall. The ACE would have had to use a pulverized-coal boiler.

How do I know all this? I worked at Chessie's Huntington Locomotive Shop at the time and was detailed off to keep an eye on this project. We leased a building (an old paint shop) and a track to Rowland during tests with the No. 614. I rode his instrument car and spent days getting cinders out of places cinders ought not be. Ross had a heavy hand with the whistle and that cut his efficiency a bit.

The ACE 3000 had no provision for regenerative braking. The pre WQorld War I technology of the GG-1 (Pennsy) and the GE (Virginian) electrics made heavy use of regenerative braking.