Video: PRR S1 6100 on the Broadway Limited?

12140 views
18 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    July, 2006
  • From: Matawan, NJ
  • 120 posts
Video: PRR S1 6100 on the Broadway Limited?
Posted by Redwards on Monday, February 18, 2008 12:18 PM

I was excited to come across this YouTube Green Frog video preview with a few shots of the PRR S1 in what looks like Englewood, IL. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPaniwHGSTw&feature=related

I haven't been able to find much on the S1 regarding it's brief service life but I did read that when it did run it was often assigned to The Trail Blazer and The General.  In the clip here you can see a NYC train pulling out at the same time as the 6100.  I can't read the tail sign but the observation car sure looks like the one from the 1938 20th Century Limited.  Is the 6100 pulling The Broadway in this clip or is there another explanation? 

--Reed 

 

  • Member since
    March, 2002
  • From: Lakewood NY
  • 674 posts
Posted by tpatrick on Monday, February 18, 2008 8:16 PM
Two minutes of music over the sounds of steam killed the sale for me.
  • Member since
    June, 2007
  • From: Boone Iowa
  • 520 posts
Posted by cnwfan51 on Monday, February 18, 2008 9:17 PM
I  enjoyed it thank you larry
larry ackerman
  • Member since
    January, 2001
  • From: US
  • 281 posts
Posted by rogruth on Monday, February 18, 2008 10:24 PM
Possibly those early sections did not have sound. ???
  • Member since
    January, 2002
  • 3,551 posts
Posted by M636C on Tuesday, February 19, 2008 5:58 AM

It sure does look like the Twentieth Century departing Englewood, and the Pennsy train could well be the "Broadway". There would seem to be no reason to keep the S1 off the Broadway if it was available and running well. It was certaily powerful enough, and it would be pulled off at Crestline since it wasn't allowed East of there.

Its big problem was its size. It was a rigid locomotive as big as a UP4000 with half the number of driving wheels, so it was a bit heavy on track. It was said to have done 141 MPH but while I don't neccessarily believe it I don't doubt that it could go that fast in the right conditions.

M636C

  • Member since
    July, 2006
  • From: Matawan, NJ
  • 120 posts
Posted by Redwards on Tuesday, February 19, 2008 6:38 AM

I have read posts on various modeling forums asking whether or not the S1 ever pulled the Broadway but no positive responses.  Like you said I can't think of a reason why it wouldn't have so it would be interesting if this video confirms it.   

There is something about the S1 (and the T1's) that really fascinates me despite their much maligned reputations.  I love how a railroad which had been extremely conservative about making changes to its steam designs green lit these projects, it was almost like the steam design version of a "Hail Mary" pass.  

I have read the stories about a government official clocking the S1 at 140mph and subsequently fining the Pennsy.  Unfortunately I don't think there is a shred of evidence to support the story.  There seem to be more credible stories about the T1 "flying low".  I wonder if the T1 might have the top speed edge vs. the S1 due to its poppet valves and smaller size.     

Regarding the long wheelbase and rigid frame - There is an amusing anecdote on this site about turning the S1 on the wye at Crestline. 

http://www.crestlineprr.com/duplexexperimentals.html#s1          

--Reed 

 

  • Member since
    May, 2007
  • 167 posts
Posted by nyc#25 on Saturday, February 23, 2008 9:07 AM
The PRR train is the "Trail Blazer", all coach train. Check out the windows, the cars are NOT Pullmans.
  • Member since
    July, 2006
  • From: Matawan, NJ
  • 120 posts
Posted by Redwards on Sunday, February 24, 2008 7:10 AM

That settles it.  Thanks.

Is there any easy explanation on how to ID Pullman cars by windows?  Fewer windows per car or specific patterns of windows?

--Reed 

  • Member since
    July, 2006
  • 148 posts
Posted by dredmann on Monday, February 25, 2008 1:02 PM

It was a rigid locomotive as big as a UP4000 with half the number of driving wheels, so it was a bit heavy on track.

But the same number of total wheels, right? So the axle loadings don't necessarily have to be a big problem, no? It is my understanding that one problem with these locomotives is that so much of their weight was on their non-driving wheels that they were slippery. Of course, if you put a lot of power down through a relatively small number of wheels, especially where the forces are oscillating (as in a piston steam locomotive), you can be hard on the track. But only if you have friction to transmit those forces--wheel slip probably means less force applied to the track.

 

 

  • Member since
    February, 2002
  • From: Mpls/St.Paul
  • 10,743 posts
Posted by wjstix on Tuesday, March 04, 2008 8:06 AM

 tpatrick wrote:
Two minutes of music over the sounds of steam killed the sale for me.

The YouTube clip is basically the "background" music and images you see when you bring up the menu on the DVD; it's also used as a background to the opening credits. Once they get past the credits there's no music just narration (which you can turn off) and train sounds. It's a very good production, I have 1 and probably will pick up 3 (and maybe 2) soon. The NYC ones look pretty good too though....

Stix
  • Member since
    December, 2006
  • From: Michigan City, In.
  • 781 posts
Posted by spikejones52002 on Monday, March 10, 2008 9:18 AM

I will always love the authenticate sound of Piano, Trombone, and saxaphone sounding stream engines.
That remindes me of a video of South African steam. The narrator made note of the distintive sound of the different stacks.

Immediately the music played over it.

That killed my interest in buying the video.

That is why I only view Pentrex videos "NO MUSIC".

I am so excited of what I will be able to look at in the future. A beautiful diesel (UG what did I just type) with the sound of RAP music comming out of its stacks.

 

  • Member since
    December, 2006
  • From: Michigan City, In.
  • 781 posts
Posted by spikejones52002 on Monday, March 10, 2008 10:33 AM

Thanks Redwards for the link.

I seen and learned a lot about PRR's S2 turbine.

Question were all split driver engines articulated(all railroads)? 

  • Member since
    January, 2002
  • 3,551 posts
Posted by M636C on Thursday, March 13, 2008 7:50 AM
 dredmann wrote:

It was a rigid locomotive as big as a UP4000 with half the number of driving wheels, so it was a bit heavy on track.

But the same number of total wheels, right? So the axle loadings don't necessarily have to be a big problem, no? It is my understanding that one problem with these locomotives is that so much of their weight was on their non-driving wheels that they were slippery. Of course, if you put a lot of power down through a relatively small number of wheels, especially where the forces are oscillating (as in a piston steam locomotive), you can be hard on the track. But only if you have friction to transmit those forces--wheel slip probably means less force applied to the track.

No, two fewer axles on a 6-4-4-6 compared to a 4-8-8-4!

It was preferable to keep axle loads down on idler wheels, at least in plain bearing days since their rotational speed was so much higher owing to the smaller wheels. I think the S-1 had roller bearings on the trucks, and I think about half of the locomotive weight was on the trucks.

The vertical component of the piston thrust, known as "hammer blow" would still have been transmitted to the rail even if the loco was slipping.

M636C

  • Member since
    June, 2002
  • 14,215 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Friday, March 14, 2008 3:40 AM

My understanding was that the S-1 had roller bearings on all axles, drivers, pony and trailer trucks, and tender trucks.   Am I wrong?

The S-1, T-1, and Q-1, and Q-2, all four cylinder PRR steam locomotives, were all non-articulated, both "engines" in each case were on the same long rigid frame.

  • Member since
    April, 2018
  • 552 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Tuesday, August 28, 2018 11:36 AM
It is a 10-year old post but since I can find it on google, I think it is not too late to post it here, so that readers could get the answer from this post.

According to Wiki: "Timken roller bearings were applied to the crosshead pins, all engine truck, driving axles, trailer truck and tender trucks of Class S1. In addition, the lightweight reciprocating parts were made from Timken High Dynamic Steel and designed by Timken engineers"(quote end)
 
S1 did tow the Broadway Limited in the late 40s, during the first few months it was put in revenue service, when the named train was still struggling with low ridership. This arrangement was probably a publicity thing since towing a 10 car consist could have been easily done by a single K4s.
 
S1’s dbhp was 7200hp which was equal to more than 3 EMD E7 units or 4 E1 units of EMC, assign her to take care of the Broadway Limited would be a waste of her potential, but using of S1 formed a complete trainset designed by Raymond Loewy, from inside to outside, even though the streamlined K4s #3768 achieved this purpose much earlier than S1 and it didn’t turn the table for the Broadway Limited.
 
About one year after S1 started her revenue service, the Japanese attacked the Pearl Harbor like rats. S1 was assigned to haul much popular trains like the General, the Trail Blazer and various first class trains, played an important role in helping the PRR to handle the crazily busy war time traffic until 1946.
 
From my shallow understanding, S1 seldom or never haul the Broadway after 1941, instead, she contributed most of her time serving the 14-car consist, 1000 tons weight; the Trail Blazer. But the 5 streamlined K4s, two T1 prototypes and S2 #6200 steam turbine would tow the Broadway occasionally until the production T1 arrived in 1945.
 
 
Source: forgot the books name, but it is on google books free preview.
  • Member since
    May, 2003
  • From: US
  • 14,861 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Tuesday, August 28, 2018 2:33 PM

tpatrick
Two minutes of music over the sounds of steam killed the sale for me.

8mm film didn't have sound.

         

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

  • Member since
    February, 2005
  • 1,752 posts
Posted by timz on Tuesday, August 28, 2018 4:55 PM

You're wondering if the train at 0:30 in the video is the Broadway?

Those cars look like coaches. Bet you can't find a 1938 Broadway car with a window pattern like that.

  • Member since
    April, 2018
  • 552 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Tuesday, August 28, 2018 5:18 PM

timz

You're wondering if the train at 0:30 in the video is the Broadway?

Those cars look like coaches. Bet you can't find a 1938 Broadway car with a window pattern like that.

Agree. I am 99% sure the train behind S1 in the video was the (prewar version) Trail Blazer, note the twin-unit dining car with skirt still attached, was the D70CR(Dormitory) and D70DR Diner which were rebuilt from HW Pullman Dining car and used on the Trail Blazer from 1939 to 1948, the rest were coaches P70kr or P70gsr, some of them were de-skirted in the vid. Also the Pb70er combine baggage lounge was an unique icon of the Trail Blazer. PRR never used rebuilt or betterment cars and twin-unit dining car on Broadway Limited before 1948 (requipped). This vid was probably recorded in late-1945 or early-1946.

Spoiler:

I have a copy this DVD. If you are looking for video of S1, what you see on YouTube is what you get.

 

D70CR(Dormitory) 

I posted some pics of the prewar verion Trail Blazer consist in the following thread,

please take a look if you like:  

PRR Fleet of Modernism Livery http://cs.trains.com/ctr/f/3/t/271607.aspx  Smile, Wink & Grin

  • Member since
    September, 2003
  • 6,263 posts
Posted by Overmod on Wednesday, August 29, 2018 9:06 AM

M636C
The vertical component of the piston thrust, known as "hammer blow" would still have been transmitted to the rail even if the loco was slipping.

I think you will find that the predominant component of 'hammer blow' is inertial, rather than due to the vertical component of piston thrust.

In a practical locomotive suspension, the axles must accommodate 'cross level' and not just longitudinal changes, and the pedestal liners and wedges are made to accommodate the necessary degree of 'twist'.  Unfortunately this also allows both inertial and thrust forces to move one side up and down more than the 'other', with an effective fulcrum at the contact patch of the opposite wheel.  In a two-cylinder quartered DA arrangement, this results in a portion of the dynamic augment expressing more on one wheel than the other -- this is what I understand as the 'hammer blow'.  The inertial forces at high speed can be many times the perturbing component(s) of thrust.

Not that the vertical component of piston thrust is not recognized -- the reason why 80lb of overbalance is incorporated in the N&W J main driver is precisely to address the effect of it.

SUBSCRIBER & MEMBER LOGIN

Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more!

FREE NEWSLETTER SIGNUP

Get the Classic Trains twice-monthly newsletter