>>1432740OP it would be an F-3 unit which did in fact survive until the 80s and 90s in spots.
>Let's just use the Southern Pacific for an example. What would a Lima GS-6 look like in 1986? What modernized parts would be added, what would be removed?Ok, you're talking about steam, which case:
1. Manual controls would be completely removed, everything would be electronically monitored and controlled. If a fireman is still needed his job is basically to monitor a needle and occasionally comment on the operator's hair. Cabooses would still be gone.
2. Coal was already on it's way out and would be replaced with some sort of liquid fuel, likely CNG (propane) because it would require minimal modification to equipment but operate much cleaner. Tender cars would be replaced with modern ones.
3. Aux power generators installed on all tender wheels - SP was already doing this at the very end of their steam era but if they had kept it going then a second (third? who knows) tender full of batteries for jobs that required a lot of power eg MOW work
4. Condenser units, similar to how South Africa went in the 50s and 60s. This would cut their water usage and thus operating costs.
It's not too hard to see, just look at what older power plants do during their retrofits. Additionally if anyone wanted a new steam loco era 1980 that was somehow not steam-turbine or steam-electric, it would absolutely be a cab forward to improve driver visibility.
A more interesting question is if engineers themselves wanted to make AWD locos much like auto manufacturers did... this would require some complicated mechanical transmission devices to route steam through each wheel as is effortlessly done in a vehicle with electric traction power. To that end steam probably could have survived even as steam-electrics although that's not a purist view.
>>1432741Of course they would, steam operated under wire in places as necessary including the PRR's attempt at steam-turbines.
