PRR Duplexes and Experimental Engines ( S1, S2, T1, Q1, V1 etc.)

19928 views
382 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    April, 2018
  • 971 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Sunday, July 29, 2018 7:58 AM

Overmod
The decision to cash the Big Engine in was not taken idly, but in a world of PRR losing money and deciding to dieselize fast there was little question which way it would go.

It’s sad that there was no wealthy railfan, collector or any organization willing to save this beauty, the whole society was still recovering from WWII and S1 looked so “torn up” which probably need tons of money for repairment, bad luck, bad timing…….
I can understand that in 1949, the empire of PRR kept falling apart, the financial situation was deteriorating for at least 2 years. Who would s
ave a vase when the Mansion is collapsing. 

Overmod

The story about the approach curve 'restriction' in Pittsburgh station was well-documented by the T1 Trust, as was the research that eventually put enough lateral into T1s to get around it (I believe it was later removed with track realignment, but don't remember the specifics.)  It did not as I recall involve access to all tracks in the station (tight point of a double slip switch?). 

Quote from T1 Trust: "A specific problem with 130 lb no.8 switches prevented them from operating through Pittsburgh - but an increase in lateral motion in 1946, and track realignments in the modern era (required to handle longer freight cars than the 1940's) mean that this particular issue has been resolved" Sadly, S1 was retired by mid-1946, if PRR keep her longer, she might have a chance to do what she supposed to do, hauling long-distance train from Chicago to Pittsburgh. I wonder if the Wye which was built especially for S1 (in 39?) was still in Pittsburgh that time……

 

Overmod
The closest thing PRR really achieved to a grand train was the Congressional Limited so beloved of Dave Klepper.  And that, of course, didn't really involve steam power.  It might have been interesting to see if PRR would have developed an actual high-speed Fleet of Modernism if the 1928 plans to develop a New Main Line with much higher achievable speeds had in fact been achievable (but that would involve not only no Depression, but no significant use of funding for electrification, for steam to be involved more than 'experimentally').

It would have saved so many people time, including the heads of PRR if the original electrification plan became a fact, the performance of GG1 was so extraordinary compared to post-war steam train like T1, Q2 etc, but I probably wouldn't become a PRR fan since they probably won't spend too much time on new steam engine design.

Electrification of the system was probably the most foresighted thing PRR ever planned and ever did. Imagine how awesome it would be an "RR1" hauling a 16 cars consist, running at 141.1mph Stick out tongue straight form D.C to Pittsburgh or even Chicago? But I still prefer Steam locomotive to Electric locomotive. A new High-Speed Main Line between Chicago to Pittsburgh with average speed 90mph+ specially built for Class S1 6100-6109 (using poppet valves and roller bearing side rod ) A route as famous and as successful as the Hiawatha is always my dream. Smile, Wink & Grin

6103, a fantasy S1

Jones Family Railroad Hobby YouTube Channel: 
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCu9gt9Q9RF-Hwq7xWciVcWg/

  • Member since
    September, 2013
  • 4,104 posts
Posted by Miningman on Sunday, July 29, 2018 12:26 PM

Well at least everybody's thinking here!

Overmod--161 mph? Wholeeeeee Makinaw. That's nuts.

Not buying a $1.25 million dolllar equivalent for the scrap value of the S1. That would make the initial costs of duplex drives 2.32 billion. No way. The $35,000 put directly into the cost of a Diesel amounts to less than 10%. I don't know playing with numbers doesn't tell the tale though. Was it the S1 or the S2 that had it side all smucked up by a flailing broken side rod.

Jones1945-- I like the corruption angle. Powerful men at Pennsy, Baldwin, EMD, NYC, Alco ... lots of interactions, favours, shenanigans and big big $'s on the table. Things were done, of course. 

In the past Overmod has alluded to actual documentation that may exist by executives at Pennsy stating how to go about making the T1's a hopeless engine. They couldn't get Diesels fast enough and I do recall reporters, analysists, shareholders and such hounding Pennsy as to why total Dieselization was taking so long. The answers were reasonable, that it was a huge system and it could not be done overnight. However, they couldn't get rid of steam fast enough and the heat was on. So strange things were happening amidst the big push and rush. 

I have asked several times regarding the surprising and somewhat suspicious and mysterious loss shown by Pennsy in 1946 and then again in subsequent years in the late 40's. Perhaps they spent too much on Capital purchases. 1946 and the later 40's were still halcyon days. Sure labour costs were increasing but the railroads did and had the moving and the shaking economy wise.

Real criminals like Stuart Saunders were not in full effect yet but something is real fishy about it all. 

They got together and complained about being underpaid for postal services over several years and got a fat settlement with Uncle Sam during this time as well. 

I simply do not understand the 1946 loss.. how? 

 

 

  • Member since
    September, 2003
  • 7,029 posts
Posted by Overmod on Sunday, July 29, 2018 12:32 PM

Jones1945
It would have saved so many people time, including the heads of PRR if the original electrification plan became a fact, the performance of GG1 was so extraordinary compare to post-war steam train like T1,Q2 etc, but I probably wouldn't become a PRR fan since they probably won't spend too much time on new steam engine design.

Part of the difficulty with PRR steam was precisely that they overcapitalized on obsolescent designs -- all those K4s in the late '20s a notable example -- and then indulged in somewhat wacky electric designs analogous to 'standard' wheel arrangements (O1 approximating an E6; P5 a K4; L1 a lollipop, etc.), and then later making some dubious assumptions with the DD2 that was going to be the design model for the various classes for the electrification west of Harrisburg.  This was precisely the time that the great convergence between Super-Power and advances in balancing post-Eksergian was coming together, after the Alco diversion into three-cylinder power was over, and PRR experienced this only peripherally through the J1s (and the process of perfecting them all over again that came from using the 'wrong' blueprint sets!)

Electrification of the system was probably the most foresighted thing PRR ever planned and ever did.

That is true, but remember that dieselization was a direct consequence of the 'electric' planning, giving a great deal of the advantage of 11kV wire to Pittsburgh while avoiding the expense -- and I wish it hadn't, but it made sense at the time -- of the full tunnel bypassing Horse Shoe, which at over 9000' would not have been worked with diesels at PRR's traffic density.  We have a prospective 'wartime' plan for the engine classes of the first stage of the electrification, which would have followed the general plan of the DD2 with the horsepower classes reflecting use of the better 428A motors, right up to back-to-back eight-powered-axle units (!) for the part of the railroad far more deserving of the advantages of electrification than the politically-favored route between New York and Washington.

Perhaps interesting, I don't think the DD2 classes were intended to make very high speed.  There would, however, be the same design "convergence" that led to the T1 and later the 'centipedes' and A-B-A BP-20 locomotives being the equivalent of a GG1; it's possible that some part of the Q2 design was made to match consists assembled in Enola and fired west over the mountains under wire.  Problem is that F units are still a better answer all round, don't require massive expensive improvements to the railroad, and have the same advantages to equipment-trust bankers that saw them prescribed for lost-cause NYO&W.

Imagine how awesome it would be a "RR1" hauling a 16 cars consist, running at 141.1mph straight from D.C. to Pittsburgh...

No call for high speed on that run (even if current Amtrak services make it look a bit normal) -- in fact, we were discussing in another thread how definitively B&O was able to destroy PRR's ability to compete in the extension of service between DC and Chicago by utilizing the P&LE for better speed while keeping the excellent dining-car service.  I don't think it could be possible to improve the Northern Central for appreciable high-speed gains with more money than PRR could spare from other more significant necessities; the same is probably true of the Port Road route.  Meanwhile the Atglen & Susquehanna was no real speedway for that kind of performance, and not optimized for improvement into one, so it would fall to the New Main Line effort to progressively take out all the kinks and kludges that hampered, and in many respects still hamper, the PRR through Philadelphia (think Amtrak 188) and then out to the west via North Philadelphia.  And as noted PRR really didn't think so much of passenger revenues to spend All The Money Required on providing great speed through the Allegheny regions.

I still prefer Steam locomotive to Electric locomotive. A new High Speed Main Line between Chicago to Pittsburgh with average speed 90mph+ specially built for Class S1 6100-6109 (using poppet valves and roller bearing side rod ) A route as famous and as sucessful as the Hiawatha is always my dream.

But this is precisely the route that promised those sorts of speeds (and, supposedly, where the T1s produced them on a number of occasions).  I am not sure what improvements could be made between Pittsburgh and Crestline, or to allow 100mph speed to within 6 miles or so of the Chicago terminal as was the case for the Hiawathas, but there was track suitable for 112mph with 70" drivers in between...

Now, the S1 was not the right design for the steam service.  Paul Kiefer would disagree with you on the necessity for poppet valves; his 120-mph postwar engine shared many of the characteristics of the T1 but had piston valves and Baker gear (and a rightsized firebox, the boiler being nearly common to Niagaras except for the extra length) and of course the PRR itself took out patents on the technology needed for wholesale conversion of type A eight-valve chests to piston valves.  Note that PRR optimized their balance by using extremely short stroke (in fact they would have used shorter, but the web in the driver center between mainpin and axle seat fixed the dimension at 26") and this got around the need for 84" drivers to make reasonable high speed.  By the time machinery speeds make 84" desirable again you're in the range where reciprocating steam locomotives are no loner preferable.

So the mantle falls on the passenger version of the mechanical turbine, the one Loewy's design patent likely covers.  We now know how unlikely this construction would be, but it was certainly enough for Baldwin to filch the idea for its C&O turbines with all the wrong detail design.  The killer here was, and is, the same thing that killed the V1 for freight: the water rate went upside-down above about 7000hp at just the time water treatment and deoxygenation became vital necessities.  When the largest eight-axle coast-to-coast cistern gives a range less than 130 miles, you lose any real superiority over even early F units.

There are ways to get the water rate down, but these are difficult to package and to run at 8000+hp size.  A case could be made for Holcroft-Anderson recompression, but this requires extensive cisterns, pumping power via separate engines, and some system of mechanical draft, with no guarantee that economy can be achieved in many practical PRR operating circumstances -- little real competitive advantage over MU to scale power to need.  (And no particular romance to the appearance!)

  • Member since
    January, 2002
  • 3,676 posts
Posted by M636C on Sunday, July 29, 2018 9:25 PM

Jones1945

 
Another thing amazes me is that the
 “Gresley double-bolster 8ft 6in bogies used on their standard coaches(LNER), a 1920s design managed to go as fast as 90mph+ without falling apart, I don’t know how was the ride quality though, but it is not hard to imagine riding a speed boat. :P

PRR 2DP5 vs Gresley Bogie

PRR 2D-P5 and Gresley Bogie

 

 

Although it isn't clear from the photograph, the suspension arrangements for the Pennsylvania truck illustrated and the Gresley bogie were the same. Both used coil springs in compression supporting an equalising beam as primary suspension over the axleboxes, and full elliptical leaf springs on a swing bolster as secondary suspension. The Pennsylvania truck had the equalising beam in full view, while it was hidden behind the side frame on the Gresley bogie. The Gresley beam was straight with the coil springs located on steel rods projecting downward held by collars and bearing against internal brackets on the side frame. The bottom ends of these (coil spring) rods can be seen projecting below the frame inboard of the wheels in the photo above.

The Gresley bogie was rated as better than the standard British Railways bogie (based on the LMS design) and was used on dining cars, and on a fleet of electric Commuter trains based on Glasgow in the mid 1960s. The more modern BR B4 and B5 designs provided a better ride still but they only arrived in the mid 1960s.

The LNER steamlined trains, apart from the Gresley Bogie, were purpose designed and had more modern interiors than the "Coronation Scot" which used standard LMS coaches of the period. Of course, the "Coronation Scot" was air conditioned and had only four seats per compartment in first class so West Coast travellers were not "hard done by". But the ride wasn't as good, not just when passing through crossovers at 57mph instead of 20mph...

Peter

  • Member since
    September, 2013
  • 4,104 posts
Posted by Miningman on Monday, July 30, 2018 1:05 AM

 

 

This kind of sort of explains things but I can't seem to connect things very well. 

The PRR reports record passenger and freight revenues for 1946, revenue exceeds expenditures, they recieved a whopping 17.6% freight rate increase then go on to say there is a loss due to government regulations. 

Yet they state they transported more freight and passengers in 1946 than any year and in the same breath say revenues were down 114 million due to the decrease in wartime traffic and strikes. 

The T1's are not mentioned by name but they are definitely mentioned in the article.

They recieved 37 high speed 6500 horsepower steam locomotives and tenders to complete an order of 50.

 Someone help me out here and tell me what the heck is going on. 

  

 

  • Member since
    April, 2018
  • 971 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Monday, July 30, 2018 1:23 AM
Miningman
Well at least everybody's thinking here!
Overmod--161 mph? Wholeeeeee Makinaw. That's nuts.

Very true, glad to share my thoughts with you guys here!
IIRC NYC J-3a with Boxpok drivers was designed to achieve 160mph+, however, they can hardly reach 95mph when hauling a long consist of the 20th Century. I heard another rumor about a story of J-3a reached 165mph during a special run to save a kid (rushed to somewhere to buy rare medicine for the kid), I would believe this story if it was 165kmh, not mph.


Miningman
Jones1945-- I like the corruption angle. Powerful men at Pennsy, Baldwin, EMD, NYC, Alco ... lots of interactions, favours, shenanigans and big big $'s on the table. Things were done, of course. 
In the past Overmod has alluded to actual documentation that may exist by executives at Pennsy stating how to go about making the T1's a hopeless engine.


“Where there's money, there's corruption”, this is applicable in every corner of the world. I believe if we have more evidence and solid proof, it will make a good Hollywood movie! Stick out tongueDieselization itself was a golden opportunity for the criminals, but it seems that they wanted even more. The project like S1, T1, S2, Q1, Q2, were probably seen as another money tree for the criminals to milk the PRR even more. I really can’t believe that an experienced train manufacturer like Baldwin and PRR unable to foresee the Problems of S2 6-8-6 Turbine (which was a 1920s concept from Europe) and the Adhesion problem of S1, or were they just playing dumb for some dirty shady reason? More repairing means more money investment and transaction, money from the shareholders turned into criminals own money. I won’t assume everyone worked for PRR and its business partner was a saint.

Oh mine….. I almost make PRR looks like a super scammer, I wish I am wrong on this topic to be honest.

Miningman
I have asked several times regarding the surprising and somewhat suspicious and mysterious loss shown by Pennsy in 1946 and then again in subsequent years in the late '40s. Perhaps they spent too much on Capital purchases. 1946 and the later '40s were still halcyon days. Sure labor costs were increasing but the railroads did and had the moving and the shaking economy wise.
I simply do not understand the 1946 loss... how? 
 
This is a good question. Assuming some of the Heads of PRR or even NYCRR were some crafty old fox, any figures provided by them (or their adherents ) would have no reference value. The official answer was War Traffic created an illusion of high need of Train service from the public, but it seems the downfall came too fast.

("My owner paid $16,640,000 to build us and dumped us all 7 years later", help me!) 
PRR5544

Jones Family Railroad Hobby YouTube Channel: 
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCu9gt9Q9RF-Hwq7xWciVcWg/

  • Member since
    August, 2003
  • From: Collinwood, Ohio, USA
  • 7,974 posts
Posted by gmpullman on Monday, July 30, 2018 2:35 AM

Jones1945
I heard another rumor about a story of J-3a reached 165mph during a special run to save a kid (rushed to somewhere to buy rare medicine for the kid), I would believe this story if it was 165kmh not mph.

That plot sure sounds familiar...

Great Milwaukee Road action here, and not a bad story, either...

Regards, Ed

  • Member since
    April, 2018
  • 971 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Monday, July 30, 2018 3:19 AM
Overmod
 
Perhaps interesting, I don't think the DD2 classes were intended to make very high speed.  F units are still a better answer all round, don't require massive expensive improvements to the railroad, and have the same advantages to equipment-trust bankers that saw them prescribed for lost-cause NYO&W.


Speaking of DD2, a pre-war design, I wonder what PRR would have to do in the post-war era if the ridership wasn’t dropped so suddenly in 1946/47 and they had more time to think about how to compete with the Airlines. It has been proved that Electric Train is the best choice to develop high-speed train, after those painful development of the Hover trains (Aerotrain in France), gas turbine-electric (early TGV and A.P.T in the UK) etc. If PRR’s electrification plan went according to plan, they are the best candidate to develop the first high-speed train for America with their rich experience. High-Speed Train was the only choice to compete with the Airlines, if PRR able to decrease the travel time between New York to DC to 2 1/2 hours; New York to Chicago to 9 hours or less (via the new mainline?), I believe PRR still had a chance to survive much longer (lol).
 
Anyway, as I mentioned before, the Federal government didn’t want to see the development of the nation’s Aerospace industry slowed down by High-speed rail, thus we have what we got today.
 
Overmod
 
But this is precisely the route that promised those sorts of speeds (and, supposedly, where the T1s produced them on a number of occasions).  I am not sure what improvements could be made between Pittsburgh and Crestline, or to allow 100mph speed to within 6 miles or so of the Chicago terminal as was the case for the Hiawathas, but there was track suitable for 112mph with 70" drivers in between...
Now, the S1 was not the right design for the steam service.  Paul Kiefer would disagree with you on the necessity for poppet valves; his 120-mph postwar engine shared many of the characteristics of the T1 but had piston valves and Baker gear (and a rightsized firebox, the boiler being nearly common to Niagaras except for the extra length) and of course the PRR itself took out patents on the technology needed for wholesale conversion of type A eight-valve chests to piston valves.
 
Thank you very much for your detail and professional reply, Overmod ! My fantasy dream of Class S1 serving on a new mainline is just a personal preference thing, I didn’t concern if it is practical or not. One of the reasons I started this post was to try finding out all the good things and bad things about S1. I love almost everything (except civil rights etc) in the 1930s to 50s and S1 is the most beautiful machine I have seen. Compare to the T1s, S1 had a much larger size firebox and heating area, it was a smooth rider, good steamer and more stylish too. I don’t know how serious the wheel slip problem was or how fast it really can go, hauling 1000 tons plus consists, but in my heart, it is still my favorite Steam locomotive.

If I was the head of PRR and was being practical, I would have ordered N&W J class (maybe with a larger drivers and a new streamlined shrouding by Raymond Loewy) or even develop a new 4-8-4 or 4-8-6 base on the M1, if PRR still wanted to develop Duplex after this, they could do it on one of two prototypes instead of a whole lot of a 50-engine order.
I believe if PRR purchased 50 N&W J instead of 50 T1, a smooth transition between steam and diesel may occur (assume there was no corruption in the head of PRR, Baldwin, banker etc.)

(a lazy photoshopped pic of a fantasy PRR 4-8-4) Stick out tongue Time

Fantasy M1 4-8-4

 

 

 

 

Idea Sorry I think I messed up the format of my post......

Jones Family Railroad Hobby YouTube Channel: 
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCu9gt9Q9RF-Hwq7xWciVcWg/

  • Member since
    April, 2018
  • 971 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Monday, July 30, 2018 4:54 AM

M636C
 

The Gresley bogie was rated as better than the standard British Railways bogie (based on the LMS design) and was used on dining cars, and on a fleet of electric Commuter trains based on Glasgow in the mid 1960s. The more modern BR B4 and B5 designs provided a better ride still but they only arrived in the mid 1960s.

The LNER steamlined trains, apart from the Gresley Bogie, were purpose designed and had more modern interiors than the "Coronation Scot" which used standard LMS coaches of the period. Of course, the "Coronation Scot" was air conditioned and had only four seats per compartment in first class so West Coast travellers were not "hard done by". But the ride wasn't as good, not just when passing through crossovers at 57mph instead of 20mph...

Peter 



Interesting! I guess Gresley Bogie and PRR 2D P5 truck both doesn’t have shock absorber, am I right? I only have experience riding truck or buses which using leaf springs suspension, some of them have shock absorber on the front axle, but the vehicle still shaking like a roller coaster even in slow speed, but from what I see on YouTube, it seems that passenger coaches using Gresley Bogie looks very stable on high speed. I can't find 3 axles version Gresley Bogie on the web but I know LMS used 3 axles truck/ 6 wheels bogie on their sleeper and dinner. I bet the main reason for using 3 axles truck in the UK was to achieve better stability instead of fulfilling tonnage regulations? Anyway, I seldom heard about the story of passenger complaint about the ride quality of speed train in 3/40s, neither in the UK and the States.

(Upper: Pullman Heavy Weight Truck, Middle: UK 6 wheels bogie, Bottom: PRR 3DP2 homemade truck)

UK and US 3 axles truck

Jones Family Railroad Hobby YouTube Channel: 
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCu9gt9Q9RF-Hwq7xWciVcWg/

  • Member since
    September, 2003
  • 7,029 posts
Posted by Overmod on Monday, July 30, 2018 5:53 AM

As to the 'follow-ons' for the electric district, the answer is actually historical (and verifiable from a variety of sources) -- rectifier/Ignitron locomotives using diesel-style bogies with relatively low wheels and independent-axle traction motor drive (with DC, not universal, motors).  This was clear on PRR by the time of the 'experimental' classes ordered in the early Fifties, and culminating in the vacuum-cleaner E44s ordered in the early Sixties.  All these predominantly for freight, of course; passenger needs were covered by the wartime GG1s (in what might be considered a reprise of too many K4s in the Twenties) so no New Haven 'Jet' analogues, but that's what you would have seen had the passenger electrification been taken up at a reasonable point after the War.

In parallel, the evolution of the V1 into what became Jawn Henry is an interesting and valuable thing to observe.  The 4-8-0+4-8-0 became a span-bolstered C-C+C-C, which turned out to roast a set of hexapole motors beyond reasonable repair in just a few years of testing.  How much of that was attributable to drop damage in the main generators and how much of that was overloading may never be thoroughly known.

Anyway, as I mentioned before, the Federal government didn’t want to see the development of the nation’s Aerospace industry slowed down by High speed rail, thus we have what we got today.

 
The truth is just the opposite; see the UMTA as part of the 'guns and butter' in the Johnson administration, and consider that any modern high-speed passenger enhancements by the 1960s would require extensive Federal subsidy no matter how 'proprietary' they were (think how many railroads would invest in Metroliners...)  This is also the era of Bertin and various kinds of hovertrain, and of the thought that supersonic transport was the next great service development in the Jet Age, so what we now acknowledge to be wacky technologies were fostered right along with those for steel rails -- the problem being that few if any people designing then seemed to understand the profound split in costs and infrastructure involved in operation to 125mph as opposed to 150 or higher.  The French figured this out, right down to the required power infrastructure, and so they've gone from success to success and have pervasive true high-speed rail, while American development couldn't figure out how to put the necessary motor power density in Pioneer trucks and to this day has the porky Acela as its excuse.
 
Were priorities to change ... or better lobbying to be organized ... this could change.  But not within the RPO-mandated buff and draft requirements.
 
The objection to the S1 was and is that it's too damn big for any of the use you can get out of it.  That was implicitly recognized in the T1 development, of course; you should note that a T1 isn't even a very large 4-8-4 to be making 6400hp, as would have been a C1a.  As with the S2, you get rid of the six-wheel trucks and the heavy architecture, and 'get out the tinsnips' as Al Staufer put it, and not incidentally develop lightweight and capable rolling stock for meaningful consist size -- look at the 'mission' difference between the S1 and T1 spec, and tell me realistically what sort of passenger consist needs to weigh 1000t in a single train that fits real-world platforms, especially from the Forties on as demand for multiple sections starts falling away.  Keep in mind that this is not the Lima use of three trailing-truck axles to accommodate perceived-better circulation and chambering and the sometimes-ridiculous mass increases that conventional enlargement of that area particularly with Nicholson syphons provides.  Even the PRR 'enlarged Q1' drawing has the wrong design of trailing truck, as though it didn't matter geometrically where the axles and the pivot were located for reasonable engineering.
 
If you want a reasonable starting point for a PRR "next-generation M1" 4-8-4, I would advocate starting with a "late" C&NW zeppelin H, with or without duplexing, and put a double Belpaire boiler on it (the 76" drivers being acknowledged as the highest that would fit the PRR clearance diagram with a rightsized version of that chamber, and plenty high enough for balanced speed with Timken rods).  Use arch-tube circulators and not those silly syphons.  I suspect there was plenty of evidence as to what circulation methods worked and which didn't in the records of various railroad companies trying different arrangements ... most of which was probably lost without much trace as dieselization progressed.  Fortunately it is not rocket science to figure out expedient methods of maximizing steam generation within packaging and even weight requirements; one reason I support Snyder preheaters and Cunningham circulators so strongly is that they provide meaningful thermodynamic advantage for comparatively little structure and operational complexity.
 
Yes, I'd keep type B (or even "C") and use the three-poppet arrangement used on ATSF 3752 even if there would be parts and service commonalty with 8-valve T1s.  To retain piston valves you're talking proportional improvement over M1a valves, probably all the way to 15", and special arrangements to drive these with lightweight means would need to be checked into (see some of the late French experimentation, notably on the last de Caso Hudsons, for interesting ideas).  One alternative would be to use the divided steam path idea of Franklin gear with a pair of separately-driven piston valves (one for admission and one for exhaust and drifting bypass) but that's a lot of structure and weight, and substantial maintenance issues, for the advantages gained
  • Member since
    April, 2018
  • 971 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Monday, July 30, 2018 10:24 AM

Overmod
In parallel, the evolution of the V1 into what became Jawn Henry is an interesting and valuable thing to observe.  The 4-8-0+4-8-0 became a span-bolstered C-C+C-C, which turned out to roast a set of hexapole motors beyond reasonable repair in just a few years of testing.  How much of that was attributable to drop damage in the main generators and how much of that was overloading may never be thoroughly known.

When I was much younger, I want to own a model of C&O Chessie. I admit I am obsessed with big machines.Smile, Wink & Grin

 V1, or Jawn Henry both have at least one thing in common, they are too big! Jawn Henry was even bigger than S1. I can understand that S1 was *probably built for the 39 World Fair to represent America (without PRR's stockholder's approval), so it was unnecessarily massive, heavy and *expensive.

Jawn Henry was not built to show off, but Baldwin didn’t or maybe not creative enough to design a practicable body which can house so many things inside one locomotive. In page 76 of the Book “Black Gold - Black Diamonds: The Pennsylvania Railroad & Dieselization” Vol 1, There is a drawing showing a proposed “pulverized coal burning, high-pressure steam, condensing turboelectric locomotive” of PRR from 1943, more than 10 years before Jawn Henry was built. The layout is similar to Union Pacific GTELs, a 3 unit set, which is much more practicable at least on the paper. It seems that building a reciprocating steam locomotive or diesel switcher was what Baldwin only good at. Not going to beat the dead horse today anyway, maybe tomorrow. Smile, Wink & Grin
 
Overmod
 the problem being that few if any people designing then seemed to understand the profound split in costs and infrastructure involved in operation to 125mph as opposed to 150 or higher.  The French figured this out, right down to the required power infrastructure, and so they've gone from success to success and have pervasive true high-speed rail

I do have an impression that the Federal Government "murdered" most of the railroads on purpose, but I will keep being open-minded and learning. Imagine Baldwin, Alco and Lima still exist today and making high-speed trains and railway stuff, can they contribute as much as The Boeing? Like China, a country can’t make bank by making Civil Aviation Aircrafts, tried to export their HSR to other developing countries for years, but turn out they run up against the wall everywhere. Developed countries can make high-speed rail by themselves, development of aerospace and automobile, making bank by exporting them is the most beneficial thing to the State. But I think the fallen flags can't blame the Federal Government for everything, many of them have so many issues like poor management and restless investments, not to mention possible corruption.
 
Overmod
look at the 'mission' difference between the S1 and T1 spec, and tell me realistically what sort of passenger consist needs to weigh 1000t in a single train that fits real-world platforms, especially from the Forties on as demand for multiple sections starts falling away. 

 
I am afraid only PRR can answer you this question my friend since the "hauling a 1,000-ton passenger train at 100 MPH” requirement of S1 was from PRR, a company which running his business for more than 90 years in 1938! Assume a post-war lightweight Pullman sleeper is 48 tons, a 1000 tons consists would have 20 cars, if it was a pre-war H/W Pullman consists, it would be 15-16 cars, the latter was quite common (including all the head end) during the Wartime traffic to be honest. Maybe PRR was too optimistic on the ridership or maybe S1 was just a showpiece for the 39 World Fair, this “requirement” or goal was just another talking point created by PRR to entertain the visitor. Don’t get me wrong, I love T1 too, especially the prototypes, I collected tons of pics of T1, S1, as well as S2, Q1, and Q2. Smile, Wink & Grin
 
The difference of weight and length of passenger car between the US and Europe is another topic I wish to learn more, maybe next thread. 

(IIRC there was another version of the story about this 4-6-4-6 drawing of "Q1", I will try to find the detail)
 4-6-4-6
Overmod
If you want a reasonable starting point for a PRR "next-generation M1" 4-8-4, I would advocate starting with a "late" C&NW zeppelin H, with or without duplexing, and put a double Belpaire boiler on it


Noted with thanks! Overmod. By the way, I found another old thread from this forum, the title was "Duplex Steam Locomotive / Steam discussion", there are so many things to read and learn, thank you once again for everyone's generous sharing! I feel like I am back to school again. (in a good way)Bow

PRR T1 6110 (1942- 1992 1952) 
T1 6111

Jones Family Railroad Hobby YouTube Channel: 
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCu9gt9Q9RF-Hwq7xWciVcWg/

  • Member since
    September, 2003
  • 7,029 posts
Posted by Overmod on Monday, July 30, 2018 11:24 AM

The 1943 proposal is likely a version of the infamous 'Triplex' which led to so much controversy between Carleton Steins and Raymond Loewy.  This is amusingly associated with the secret crash development program at Baldwin to produce the C&O M1 turbines 'outside' Steins' patents before PRR made turbines of its own ... there is loving, if potentially highly one-sided documentation of this in some of H.T. Cover's correspondence at the Hagley.  Some of the specific points of failure in the M1 design are more comprehensible when you know how they came about...

The spec for the T1 was dialed back to 880 tons at 100mph, a far more reasonable number for a locomotive with four-coupled engines especially in light of the lack of boosters for starting (you will remember that one of the prototype T1s was built with a booster, but had it removed in spite of the ghastly unloading problem created by the long equalizing beam between the engines, which was thankfully purged from the production suspension).  This is just about platform limit length of high-speed lightweight coaches for something like a Trail Blazer.  There is a certain optimism in designing Pullman trains for 100mph or faster operation over much of PRR where a considerable amount of high speed would involve projection out of one's berth, a consideration that factors amusingly into some of the anecdotes about high-speed running with the T1s.

It's not that Jawn was "too big", it was that he lacked meaningful horsepower for his size, and that characteristics of his electrical transmission made some of Baldwin's claims (the 65mph speed in particular) little better than ill-qualified lies.  Something burned out all those motors in no more than three years of testing, and trust me, it's hard to kill a hexapole even intentionally.

Note that a steam-turbine electric today requires a practical continuous horsepower of 8800 or greater just to remain competitive with conventional diesel power, even as it combines all the inefficiencies of mobile Rankine-cycle with water as the working fluid with electrical conversion and drive using truck-mounted motors.  It's possible there will be niches for such a thing; I am helping develop them.  But it's not very effective as a one-for-one replacement for a class A locomotive, or a properly improved Y-class either.

Boeing as you may know was involved heavily in transit car manufacture at one point (out of the Vertol helicopter plant in suburban Philadelphia).  I toured the plant as the first LRVs were coming off the line, and had great hopes for how the future would be.  Likewise United Aircraft (which was Sikorski) voluntarily perfected Allan Cripe's train as a showcase for PT6 turboshafts and then made a reasonable show of promoting it -- the 1967 proposal to NYC with detailed timing calculations made by computer is a dramatic positive example.  Of course Bombardier the snowmobile company became involved in aircraft production as well as diversifying into high-speed rail production, but that's not really the same.  The real problem is that, as for TGV with LGV, new routes optimized for very high speed are required to make true HSR practical.  Where that's not the case, it's far better to build to 110mph or 125mph specs, where the costs are not yet ridiculous or weight-saving quite so dramatically required, as in Britain where the HSTs were successful but the APTs (for a nominal top-end advantage of no more than about 25mph) were certainly not. 

And as done to death on various Trains fora, there are comparatively few services outside identifiable (and fundable) corridor services where 125mph service enhancements will pay their way.

  • Member since
    September, 2013
  • 4,104 posts
Posted by Miningman on Monday, July 30, 2018 3:05 PM

Interesting thread with many branch lines! 

Anyone have any thoughts on how record setting freight and passenger transport translates into a loss when the year previous ( which was surpassed) shows a $49 million profit ...aaannnnd not only that but they enjoyed their recieved 17.6% increase in freight rates! 

Everything in the article seems to conflict. 

If you recieved a whopping 17.6% hourly pay increase on top of a banner year of hours worked that even beat your last extremely profitable banner year and revenues exceeded expense, but you lost all the money and dipped into last years, then I can only conclude you went to the Casino ... a lot!  

It has been my understanding that Pennsy had a sort of military structure, no one at each lower level would dream of questioning those at the next level. I think this makes it easier for secrets and info withheld level to level. 

  • Member since
    July, 2016
  • 416 posts
Posted by Backshop on Monday, July 30, 2018 4:13 PM

Although some here have lamented the PRR for not preserving the S1, they actually did a decent job of preserving examples of their better known, bread and butter steam locomotives.

  • Member since
    January, 2002
  • 3,676 posts
Posted by M636C on Monday, July 30, 2018 7:20 PM

Interesting! I guess Gresley Bogie and PRR 2D P5 truck both doesn’t have shock absorber, am I right?

As I said earlier, both these designs had full elliptical leaf springs for the secondary suspension. These are the sort of leaf springs seen on the British LMS three axle bogie above the axleboxes, but combined as an inverted set pivoted to an upright set at each end of the leaves.

A feature of these springs is that the leaves move relative to eachother as the spring compresses or expands and this provides a built in damping that avoids oscillation.

At the time these trucks were designed, automotive style shock absorbers were not generally available, and automotive shock absorbers of suitable capacity only arrived in the 1950s.

If you look at USA streamliners, most prewar trains had full elliptical secondary springing, but post war trains had coil secondary springs with some form of damping added.

Peter

  • Member since
    January, 2002
  • 3,676 posts
Posted by M636C on Monday, July 30, 2018 9:44 PM

It is generally agreed that the PRR S1 and UPRR "Big Boy" are generally the same size overall, despite the UP locomotive having twice as many coupled axles.

Looking at the boiler barrel as something to base a comparison upon, the dimensions were:

S1 100" diameter by 21' 11" long

4000  106" diameter by 22' long

So unsurprisingly, the 4000 has a bigger boiler, but not significantly longer.

I'll have to think about the fireboxes since the arrangements are so different...

Peter

  • Member since
    December, 2005
  • From: Cardiff, CA
  • 2,930 posts
Posted by erikem on Monday, July 30, 2018 11:12 PM

Something to add about PRR's financial status in 1946...

IIRC, Paul North posted some PRR ad's from the late WW2 time frame about having to defer maintenance on their track to to prioritizing wartime traffic over maintenance. At the same time the federal government forced the PRR to declare the "savings" from not maintaining their track and then taxing that as income, which was then subject to the high wartime tax rates.

 

  • Member since
    September, 2013
  • 4,104 posts
Posted by Miningman on Monday, July 30, 2018 11:55 PM

Well thank you for that erikem. Wow that's some kind of twisted up thinking on the government's part.

  • Member since
    April, 2018
  • 971 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Tuesday, July 31, 2018 12:48 AM
Overmod
 
The spec for the T1 was dialed back to 880 tons at 100mph, a far more reasonable number for a locomotive with four-coupled engines especially in light of the lack of boosters for starting (you will remember that one of the prototype T1s was built with a booster, but had it removed in spite of the ghastly unloading problem created by the long equalizing beam between the engines, which was thankfully purged from the production suspension). 


I didn’t know that the booster was removed from 6111, could you specify the detail of the ghastly unloading problem created by the long equalizing beam between the engines? I tried to search “steam engine unloading problem” on the web but it seems I found the wrong thing. I know the equalizing beam between the 2nd set of and the 3rd set of the driver was removed from the production batch, but I don’t know about how a booster plus the equalizing beam affected the performance of 6111.

By the way, if one of the unofficial goals to develop T1 was to outperform Diesel like the NYC 
Niagara 4-8-4 which successfully achieved, using a booster would at least increase the average annual maintained cost and average annual fuel cost as well.       

V1


Miningman

Interesting thread with many branch lines!

If you recieved a whopping 17.6% hourly pay increase on top of a banner year of hours worked that even beat your last extremely profitable banner year and revenues exceeded expense, but you lost all the money and dipped into last years, then I can only conclude you went to the Casino ... a lot!  

It has been my understanding that Pennsy had a sort of military structure, no one at each lower level would dream of questioning those at the next level. I think this makes it easier for secrets and info withheld level to level. 



I bet 70 years ago when the concept of transparency and Media's supervision were not a daily thing, it was a completely different world compared to nowadays. (recommended thread: Jim Crow laws & railroads ). The military structure thing you mentioned in Pennsy makes it more difficult to find the truth today. If the Head of PRR (or other Class I railroads) did cheating or other shady things, I believe it is a mission impossible to reveal the truth without professional investigation, but many people involved had already passed away, not many railway enthusiasts have that amount of resource and time to find the truth. But I think it is a good start to at least raising the question. 

 
NYC proposed turbine

Jones Family Railroad Hobby YouTube Channel: 
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCu9gt9Q9RF-Hwq7xWciVcWg/

  • Member since
    April, 2018
  • 971 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Tuesday, July 31, 2018 1:02 AM

Miningman

Well thank you for that erikem. Wow that's some kind of twisted up thinking on the government's part.

If that was the best a government can do to a company which contributed so much to win the war, that was really messed up.

By the way, I wish people won't forget that she helped to win the war too: Cool S1 Trail Blazer

Jones Family Railroad Hobby YouTube Channel: 
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCu9gt9Q9RF-Hwq7xWciVcWg/

  • Member since
    April, 2018
  • 971 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Tuesday, July 31, 2018 1:51 AM

M636C

It is generally agreed that the PRR S1 and UPRR "Big Boy" are generally the same sizes overall, despite the UP locomotive having twice as many coupled axles.

There is a table comparing some of the gigantic steam locomotives on steamlocomotive.com, the Grate Area, Evaporative Heating Surface, Superheater Heating Surface of S1 were smaller but very close to the "Big Boy", S1 only "beat" "Big Boy" by its tender weight, overall wheelbase, driver diameter and drawbar horsepower.

If “Maximum Axle Weight" on that table means the maximum Adhesive weight of one set of the driver, S1 was 73,800 lb, Big Boy was 67,800 lb. (Assume the figures provided are all accurate.)

I have seen an official movie by Union Pacific on YouTube which shown a Big Boy starting with wheel slipping on its rear set drivers, but once it starts moving, there was no problem. Smile
 
 
(Something I made when I feel bored Laugh )
Compare the size

Jones Family Railroad Hobby YouTube Channel: 
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCu9gt9Q9RF-Hwq7xWciVcWg/

  • Member since
    April, 2018
  • 971 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Tuesday, July 31, 2018 2:36 AM

M636C

but post war trains had coil secondary springs with some form of damping added.

 

Post war train truck in US and UK,
Top: Commonwealth bogie (UK), Bottom: GSC 41-N-11 Passenger Truck (US)

Post war train truck

Jones Family Railroad Hobby YouTube Channel: 
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCu9gt9Q9RF-Hwq7xWciVcWg/

  • Member since
    September, 2003
  • 7,029 posts
Posted by Overmod on Tuesday, July 31, 2018 7:57 AM

... could you specific the detail of the ghastly unloading problem created by the long equalizing beam between the engines? I tired to search “steam engine unloading problem” on the web but it seems I found the wrong thing. I know the equalizing beam between the 2nd set of and the 3rd set of driver was removed from the production batch, but I don’t know about how a booster plus the equalizing beam affected the performance of 6111.

The two are really separate issues; I only mentioned them together in the context of problems affecting slipping in the evolution of the T1 design.

Remember that the T1 started with a somewhat ridiculously high FA, and was subsequently dialed even higher by the equalization changes; all this while the N&W J stayed ridiculously low.  In other words PRR and Baldwin recognized there would be a price for short-wheelbase duplexing, and expected that the increase in nominal wheel load on driver groups would address it -- the physics did not match their expectations, and one of the things the T1 Trust modeling will find out is the extent of that.

The purpose of a booster on a locomotive of this kind can be thought of as providing an 'additional coupled axle' that at low speed can use the boiler-generated steam efficiently where the main engine(s) can't.  They convert a Hudson briefly into a Mountain where starting a relatively long, heavy train is concerned, but when disengaged have no real effect on high-speed running (there is additional mass in the trailing truck, and some addition of unsprung mass on the rear trailing axle, but no unbalanced force in any plane from rotation, as there is with 'auxiliary engines' with rods).

Unsurprisingly, the NYC espoused the things, and perhaps also unsurprisingly PRR found reasons not to support anything the 'green team' was connected with.  But as Staufer noted, by the time the Niagara design came to fruition there was no booster, and he noted famously that it was needed 'about as much as a Christmas tree sticking out of the stack' as far as 'starting any load it could pull' was concerned.

The issue at hand is different: whether the additional smooth and gear-enhanced traction provided back at a trailing truck would solve or at least ameliorate the low-speed slipping issues with four-coupled duplexes starting a train over typical yard trackage, or accelerating with short stroke to the 35mph or so where the T1's began to produce real acceleration.  This would seem an ideal use even for something as simple as a Franklin E-2, but there's also a degree of 'where's my big savings?' both in first cost and maintenance if the booster only provides "equivalent" slip performance to a comparable 4-8-4.  (And if there were problems getting PRR to use front-end throttles and poppet gear effectively, imagine the fun with warming up, engaging, and disengaging boosters with no cutoff adjustment...)

Meanwhile, the original Baldwin design provided for the T1 'thought' that all the drivers in both engines should be equalized together, which required some cleverness to get past the cylinder block for the rear engine.  Their solution was the long pivoted beam on the prototypes.  One effect of this was pronounced unloading of the forward engine under any particular load.  Analysis of the suspension revealed that (no particular surprise) it was better to divide the suspension in the middle of the 'driver wheelbase' and tie off the equalization with helical springs and snubbing (which is choosing the spring rates so the various resonance frequencies are highly out of phase and the system as a whole tends to self-damp - this was a design principle on the GG1s but was later removed).  By 1947 all this had been repeatedly refined (there are many noted drawing revisions on the equalization by then!) and things had been perfected about as far as they could be without actual damping via shock absorption.

One big advantage that came into postwar truck design was the use of  'silentbloc' rubber bushings at contact points and joints.  The French in particular made heavy use of this (and I think it was instrumental in achieving some of the contemporary high speeds reported for the equipment as early as the Fifties).  If you look at the two truck designs you provide, note the radius rods and shock absorbers required especially for outside-swing-hanger designs; I believe John White has a section on proper postwar design in The American Passenger Car (vol.2).  More modern designs have much more emphasis on low unsprung mass and controlled degrees of freedom, but still require controlled damping of shocks and other running forces.

What's the source for the streamlined-duplex 'cut' you provided?  That looks like something a British enthusiast would provide for a C1a using an auxiliary and perhaps corridor tender instead of track pans; we made very little use of that kind of deep angle cab even with vestibule, and the NYC cabs that had vestibules (the Niagara and A2a Berk important examples) had them up near deck height.  Is there a story associated with the picture, or more explanation of its origins?

By the way, if one of the unofficial goal to develop T1 was to outperform Diesel like the NYC 
Niagara 4-8-4 which successfully achieved, using a booster would at least increase the average annual maintained cost and average annual fuel cost as well.[/quote]

  • Member since
    January, 2002
  • 3,676 posts
Posted by M636C on Tuesday, July 31, 2018 8:12 AM

To revert to the original request, here are a couple of references:

Loco Profile 24 "Pennsylvania Duplexii" by Brian Reed Profile Publications Windsor UK, 1972.  Brian Reed was a locomotive design engineer with the North British Llocomotive Company.

"Rekord Lokomotiven" by Wilhelm Reuter, Motorbuch Verlag Stuttgart 1978 pp 303 to 315, chapter title "The Big Engine".

Peter

  • Member since
    January, 2002
  • 3,676 posts
Posted by M636C on Tuesday, July 31, 2018 8:58 AM

Miningman

Well thank you for that erikem. Wow that's some kind of twisted up thinking on the government's part.

 
 
An example of twisted government thinking...
 
In 1986, the Australian Government introduced a "Fringe Benefits Tax". So if a company provided a car to an executive, his tax was increased by the nominal extra income that would have been paiid for him to buy and run the car.
 
Mc Donnell Douglas employed senior engineers in Australia at that time to assist in the local assembly of F/A 18  fighter aircraft for the Royal Australian Air Force. These people were paid their USA salaries, but Australian taxes were higher than those in the USA. So McDonnell Douglas paid the difference between the USA and Australian taxes. This paying of tax of course was a fringe benefit, so the Australian Government increased the tax paid by the engineers to compensate. This was paid by McDonnell Douglas. But it was an allowable cost of operation, so Mc Donnell Douglas were able to charge the total extra tax, plus 20%, to the Royal Australian Air Force, who ended up paying 141% of the tax differential for the engineers concerned.
 
I understand that Canada is buying the best of the remaining Australian F/A-18s to replace older Canadian aircraft of the same type. So if you see one, remember them as an example of government taxation gone crazy...
 
Peter
  • Member since
    January, 2002
  • 3,676 posts
Posted by M636C on Wednesday, August 01, 2018 1:05 AM

I have more information regarding the 1937 test run of the Coronation Scot and its description mentioned by Overmod.

There are three separate descriptions of the entry to Crewe in Cecil J Allen's "British Pacific Locomotives" from Ian Allen in 1962. My first edition has the price "65 shillings" pencilled in the back. The 1937 run is covered on pages 137 to 139.

R.A.Riddles, later credited with the design of the BR Standard locomotives, was riding the locomotive.

Part of his description reads:

"Spectators from Crewe coming into view along the lineside; and the train still hurtling at 114 miles an hour. On went the brakes, off the regulator but on we sailed, flames streaming from the tortured brake blocks....   We were still doing 60 to 70 miles an hour when we spotted the platform signal. The crockery in the dining car crashed. Down we came to 52 mph through the curve, with the engine riding like the great lady she is. There wasn't a thing we could do but hold on and let her take it. And take it she did; past a sea of pallid faces on the platform we ground to a dead stand, safe and sound and still on the rails."

Allen's own description is similar but less colourful. He did mention that two cast iron rail chairs in the curves had fractured...

LMS Vice President Sir Ernest Lemon said, at the press lunch:

"Of course, gentlemen, you will realise that we shan't need to do this kind of thing on every trip of the "Coronation Scot"; we were coming in a little faster than we shall have to do in the ordinary course..."

Peter

  • Member since
    April, 2018
  • 971 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Wednesday, August 01, 2018 2:09 AM

 

Overmod
Meanwhile, the original Baldwin design provided for the T1 'thought' that all the drivers in both engines should be equalized together, which required some cleverness to get past the cylinder block for the rear engine.  Their solution was the long pivoted beam on the prototypes.
Thank you very much, Overmod. I remember S1 also had the same long pivoted beam between two set of drivers, and she was designed by Baldwin, Alco and Lima Locomotive Works under a joint contract, so I assume that using a long pivoted beam (which actually looks like a pair of huge reversed leaf springs) was a consensus between them, even though it turned out to be a unnecessary structure of the duplex design. Unfortunately we have no detailed documents or records about the progress of the making of S1 and all detailed record of the ideas shared between BLW, Alco, Lima as well as PRR, if not, it would be an interesting read!

(A "concept car" under construction in 1938 Stick out tongue Note the long pivoted beam under the rear cylinder)
S1 underconstruction

Overmod
One big advantage that came into postwar truck design was the use of  'silentbloc' rubber bushings at contact points and joints.  The French in particular made heavy use of this (and I think it was instrumental in achieving some of the contemporary high speeds reported for the equipment as early as the Fifties).  
 
Interesting! Speaking of the use of rubber on suspension, I remember it was adopted not only to train but also tram(streetcar) truck in the UK around late 40 to 50s, some of the tram truck design use rubber to replace the original leaf spring on the primary suspension, it reduced noise and ensured a smoother ride at low speed. If you want to know how the ride quality is, you could go to Hong Kong, their tram still using the original tram truck from the mid-40s.
(pre-war tram truck with its primary supension modified from using leaf spring to rubber)

Pre war tram truck
 
Overmod
What's the source for the streamlined-duplex 'cut' you provided?  That looks like something a British enthusiast would provide for a C1a using an auxiliary and perhaps corridor tender instead of track pans; we made very little use of that kind of deep angle cab even with vestibule, and the NYC cabs that had vestibules (the Niagara and A2a Berk important examples) had them up near deck height.  Is there a story associated with the picture, or more explanation of its origins?
 
It is a collection I found at the online archive of the Museum of Pennsylvania (they allow direct sharing of their online collections), the description is very simple. “1946, Proposed Streamliner for New York Central, Baldwin negatives” They do have two more drawing of it (show in pic below) with the name and signature of the designer or artist. I guess it was Baldwin's proposal of their direct-drive steam turbine engine (PRR S2 6200) for New York Central in 1946 to replace their Dreyfuss Super Hudson, the design of it reminds me of Otto Kuhler ‘s style. Unfortunately, the direct-drive steam turbine designs probably needed much more time to make it work to fulfill the State’s operating environment and requirement. On the other hand, streamlining steam locomotive is no longer a fancy thing after the war, NYC didn’t streamline their Niagara which would be adding unnecessary weight and wasting manpower for their fleet. Even PRR removed the streamlined shaurding of their 5 K4s like what NYC did to their Dreyfuss Hudsons and modified the front end of T1, completely changed its stylish looks.

 

Baldwin turbine proposal

 

 
 

BLW turbine proposal

 

Jones Family Railroad Hobby YouTube Channel: 
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCu9gt9Q9RF-Hwq7xWciVcWg/

  • Member since
    April, 2018
  • 971 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Wednesday, August 01, 2018 2:30 AM

M636C

To revert to the original request, here are a couple of references:

Loco Profile 24 "Pennsylvania Duplexii" by Brian Reed Profile Publications Windsor UK, 1972.  Brian Reed was a locomotive design engineer with the North British Llocomotive Company.

"Rekord Lokomotiven" by Wilhelm Reuter, Motorbuch Verlag Stuttgart 1978 pp 303 to 315, chapter title "The Big Engine".

Peter

Thank you very much, Peter. Those are some publishment form 70s, I wonder if it is still possible for me to find them. I really want to read them, If our forum members own these publishment and willing to share with me, please kindly pm me! Thank you very much!! 

(Edit: I found a copy on the web of Loco Profile 24, but I am not sure if full name of  "Rekord Lokomotiven" by Wilhelm Reuter = "Rekord Lokomotiven - Die schnellesten der Schiene 1848-1950", I can found plenty of them on amazon but I can't read German...... Beer

Book

Jones Family Railroad Hobby YouTube Channel: 
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCu9gt9Q9RF-Hwq7xWciVcWg/

  • Member since
    April, 2018
  • 971 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Wednesday, August 01, 2018 4:00 AM

M636C

......Allen's own description is similar but less colourful. He did mention that two cast iron rail chairs in the curves had fractured...

LMS Vice President Sir Ernest Lemon said, at the press lunch:

"Of course, gentlemen, you will realise that we shan't need to do this kind of thing on every trip of the "Coronation Scot"; we were coming in a little faster than we shall have to do in the ordinary course..."


It always amazes me that the weight of PRR S1 without the tender was 304 short tons, PRR T1 was 251 short tons while LMS The Coronation Class was only 121 short tons!


A 9 cars consist of LMS, The Coronation Scot was 317 tons (including Kitchen cars) with a maximum capacity of 166 passengers.

Nine P70KR coaches in the consists of PRR, the Trail Blazer was 657.45 short tons with maximum capacity of 504 passengers, assuming the twin diner car and the head end, P70GSR coach and POC70R coach-observation had the same weight as the P70KR, the total weight and maximum capacity of the Trail Blazer (Pre-war version) consists was 1022 short tons and at least 588 passengers!

Average tonnage/passenger ratio of the above-named trains was 1.91(LMS) and 1.74(PRR) respectively. I used to have a false impression that passenger coaches in the State were built unnecessary heavy compared to UK's, but now I changed my mind.

Anyway, not all of the named train of PRR were all coaches train like the Trail Blazer, full Pullman sleeper train like the General and the Broadway Limited had much lower capacity, not to mention the pathetic ridership of the latter during the pre-war period......

LMS and PRR streanliner

Jones Family Railroad Hobby YouTube Channel: 
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCu9gt9Q9RF-Hwq7xWciVcWg/

  • Member since
    April, 2018
  • 971 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Friday, August 03, 2018 2:26 PM
S1 1941
(Ron Ziel Collection, click to enlarge)

Imagine the air current created at that front shrouding which covered the coupler, when the engine speeding at over 100 mph. The front coupler cover was lifted up during her entire (except the first few months) service life from full-skirted period to de-skirted period, probably not only for better accessibility but also to dredge air stream. Another possibility was to provide better cooling for both Worthington 7-SA water pump under the streamline shrouding.
 
Photographic evidence showing that the front coupler cover on K4s #3768 seldom lifted up, probably because it was officially tested in a wind tunnel many times and it was partially de-skirted not long after she was put in service. However, I never heard or seen any info or pic about S1 or even T1 subjected to wind tunnel test. T1's front end has an improved design which was a Radiator Grille look-alike feature and three (supposed to be four) portholes to dredge air stream and ensure better cooling for the Worthington water pump. I especially like the prototype’s front end, but the heads of PRR did not.

Jones Family Railroad Hobby YouTube Channel: 
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCu9gt9Q9RF-Hwq7xWciVcWg/

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