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

9184 views
267 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    April, 2018
  • 400 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Monday, October 01, 2018 11:15 AM

Overmod

Just as a note, only one of these was built with the Caprotti poppet-valve gear (and was perhaps inevitably nicknamed 'Mussolini'); there were several other test installations of this kind of valve gear in this general time period, with none being markedly successful.  (This was around the time that Baldwin acquired the rights to Caprotti gear and tried it on a wide range of product -- equally unsuccessfully.)  If I recall correctly it was in connection with K5 testing that Caprotti noted 'your locomotives pull houses, not cars' -- and the detail design of the Italian version of the gear was in some respects not up to North American loads.

I have found it interesting that no attempt was made, even for test purposes, to fit any version of the Franklin System to one of the K5s, or for that matter to one of the M1as where the better volumetric efficiency might have meant something important.  How much of that was a bad taste left from the Caprotti 'experience', I can't directly say.

 

 
Not quite familiar to K5's history in detail but I agree with you that the K5 deserved more testing on different poppet-valve. I wonder why PRR picked Caprotti poppet-valve gear for their first attempt to max out the potential of a Pacific, was there any poppet-valve gear available and proofed successful in America or EU? From what I saw from a YouTube video, the basic mechanical principle of Caprotti poppet-valve gear was simple and easy to understand. And what PRR manage the K5 project was different from T1 that they didn’t equip both engines with the poppet valves, Franklin’s poppet valves was tested on a K4s but T1 was a completely different design to K4s, PRR was acting on impulse in T1’s case. One of the flews of K5 that many pointed out was its low FA, the higher TE played a role for her low FA, but why didn't PRR test it on M1, which had 4 pairs of drivers with smaller diameter. 
 
By the way, despite the low FA, it seems the wheel slipping was not a problem of K5, but I don’t have many info of them in hand.
 
  • Member since
    September, 2003
  • 6,030 posts
Posted by Overmod on Monday, October 01, 2018 11:59 AM

Jones1945
I wonder why PRR picked Caprotti poppet-valve gear for their first attempt to max out the potential of a Pacific, was there any poppet-valve gear available and proofed successful in America or EU?

Caprotti was THE hot thing in the latter 1920s, one of the follow-ons to the three-cylinder craze.  Keep in mind this is very little like the 'British Caprotti' system of the 1950s.  As noted, Baldwin thought it would be the 'wave of the future', bought a license, and advocated its use widely ... for a few years, anyway.

From what I saw from a YouTube video, the basic mechanical principle of Caprotti poppet-valve gear was simple and easy to understand.

You wouldn't say that looking at the 'nightmare box' that was actually used on some of those locomotives.  Bad enough that it was a complex mechanism with many finely machined components, relatively easy to derange.  Now imagine it located between the frames and subject to road dirt and damage!

Franklin’s poppet valves was tested on a K4s but T1 was a completely different design to K4s, PRR was act[ing] on impulse in T1’s case

As far as cylinders and tracting is concerned, 'steam is steam' and there is little difference with the possible exception that the short-stroke relatively small-bore duplex cylinders inherently have more dead-space percentage than a larger block should.  In any case, part of the Lima 'second rebuilding' (with the larger superheater and better flow) was to eliminate some of the prospective performance loss inherent in the K4 boiler design, which most critics seem to think it did.  

I don't think it is fair (or right) to accuse PRR of impulse-buying the Franklin System valves wholesale.  You will note they were never applied to 6100, and while several variants were tested on K4s, never applied to fleet quantities of any other PRR classes in the years between the original K4 and the mass orders of T1s.  There was considerable cost, including royalty expense, in buying the proprietary Franklin components, so the perceived value to PRR's motive-power department had to outweigh that cost.  Certainly it seems to be factual that Baldwin tried to talk PRR out of using poppet valves on 'their' part of the T1 order, or at least providing competitive piston-valve-equipped T1-size locomotives to test, and was unsuccessful. (They also failed to get a 102-104 sq.ft. grate installed, which is another set of stories...)

Let me repeat here that I think it has been established beyond a doubt (both in original testing and in the reviews made by Joe Burgard in recent years) that the advantages for poppet valves (whether type A or B-2 drive) were present in quality for T1s just as they were observed on the Lima K4 'demonstrator' -- you will see this if you know where to look in the results for the T1 vs. T1a at high cyclic rpm under load.

The mistake that seems to have been made by other roads was to set up and tune performance of a Franklin-System-equipped locomotive for economy at 'equivalent' performance, rather than optimize free running at high speed.  This is of course not a "mistake" in terms of how most railroads could or did operate reciprocating steam power... it's that even significant operating economies were eaten up by maintenance issues: witness the NYC poppet-valve Niagara.  (You can in fact extract the relevant data from LeMassena's '80s article on the subject in Trains, but you need to do a little work to realize how Kiefer and the Franklin people scaled the installation.)

 

One of the flaws of K5 that many pointed out was its low FA, the higher TE played a role for her low FA, but why didn't PRR test it on M1, which had 4 pairs of drivers with smaller diameter.

Starting factor of adhesion is kind of a spurious quantity for a locomotive intended for high-speed express service with heavy trains, as most of the higher power is only useful at very high speed ranges.  The problem is that some (probably most) operating departments think that the fancy modern technology they paid for ought to be able to start any train it can pull, and make up trailing load accordingly -- then rely on horse-out-the-throttle engineers from the days of dome throttles to get them started.

Where the K5s wound up being operated, the relatively low FA was more than usually problematic: many curves and relatively poor track meant often-compromised adhesion, especially with trailing load sized to suit the theoretically greater capability of the larger Pacific.  But I can't help wondering if the conditions there were worse than experienced (proportionally adjusted) by N&W Js in typical service; those had a factor of adhesion lower than a K5.

By the way, despite the low FA, it seems the wheel slipping was not a problem of K5, but I don’t have [much about] them in hand.

The reports I've read all indicate wheelslip was a chronic problem much of the time, but that's just the normal starting wheelslip, not the kinds of high-speed slipping that the T1 would be accused of.  It would also be relatively easy to control or arrest slipping with a piston-valve locomotive that has direct throttle and reverser controls.  I suspect some of the kvetching would be made by comparison with K4/E6 performance, which would be far less affected by ham-handed impulsiveness in throttle opening.

  • Member since
    April, 2018
  • 400 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Monday, October 01, 2018 9:09 PM

Overmod
Caprotti was THE hot thing in the latter 1920s, one of the follow-ons to the three-cylinder craze.  Keep in mind this is very little like the 'British Caprotti' system of the 1950s.  As noted, Baldwin thought it would be the 'wave of the future', bought a license, and advocated its use widely ... for a few years, anyway.

 Thank you, Overmod. I just found out that I was watching the wrong video Stick out tongue, which was an computer animation of “Britich Caprotti” system. I wonder why Baldwin “had a crush” (but not Alco or Lima) on the Caprotti gear which was “more complex and needed expensive maintenance” even though, from my shallow understanding, it was widely used on 400 locomotives in Italy, but wasn't the operation envrionment in Italy was very different from US? three-cylinder steam locomotive wasn't common in the States as well.

It seems to me that many ambitious or innovative attempt of Baldwin which they tried to improve their products since 1920s were not as smooth as they expected, including their “Baldwin 60000” of 1929; Duplex for PRR was a great idea on paper and was doing ok in real life, but they didn’t have enough time to show their potential due to the world war and postwar dieselization, their mainline diesels were “national grade disaster” ……
 
 
"At least they tried......" Baldwin's pic.
 
Overmod
You wouldn't say that looking at the 'nightmare box' that was actually used on some of those locomotives.  Bad enough that it was a complex mechanism with many finely machined components, relatively easy to derange.  Now imagine it located between the frames and subject to road dirt and damage!
 
No wonder why Lima and Alco didn’t adopt such technologies directly from Europe (or did they?)
 
Overmod
I don't think it is fair (or right) to accuse PRR of impulse-buying the Franklin System valves wholesale.  You will note they were never applied to #6100, and while several variants were tested on K4s, never applied to fleet quantities of any other PRR classes in the years between the original K4 and the mass orders of T1s…… (They also failed to get a 102-104 sq.ft. grate installed, which is another set of stories...)
 
I admit that my criticisms to PRR might be too harsh or emotional, but there were reasons behind them. The decision of introducing a completely new steam engine design as prime motive power during wartime itself was risky enough, as a PRR fan, reviewing PRR's history can be a frustrating thing, but if it wasn't PRR, I probably wouldn't invest so much time and money on America's railroad history.
 
You may remember PRR signed an agreement with Franklin and Lima in June 1939 (“1939” was probably a typo by the author) for the installation of the new Franklin's poppet valves on a K4s. At the same time PRR also wanted to use them on the S1 #6100 which was still under construction in 1938, but the official reason of such idea got dropped was “the poppet valve engineering and design work wasn’t far enough advanced to make this feasible”, thus only one K4s was installed with Franklin’s poppet valve, which means PRR did try to equip S1 #6100 with Franklin’s poppet valve. PRR, Franklin and the whole S1 design board were lucky enough that this reckless suggestion was not executed since S1 was never the best testbed or showcase to promote Franklin’s products, let alone it was the first duplex engine ever built by PRR and chose to represent the America's Railroads in the World Fair. (Note that Lima who rebuilt K4s #5399 and Alco was also participated in the construction of S1) For S1’s historic role, performance and problems, we discussed it extensively before.
 
 
 
 
I agree with you that Baldwin may have hidden agenda when they tried to persuade PRR to not equip Franklin’s poppet valves on both prototypes (#6110,#6111) in the same order in 1942, after PRR failed to equip Franklin poppet valve on S1. However, I think despite their hidden agenda, it was a reasonable suggestion to let PRR able to compare the performance of two almost 100% identical duplexes (#6110,#6111) using different gears, one act as the control group another act as the experimental group, instead of comparing data with a giantic, glorfied testbed aka S1 #6100.(I can't use the term "test data" in this case since S1 was not tested on the test plant until 1944, two years before her retirement and without detailed official test records.) 
 
PRR's managerment probably thought that since S1 #6100, a duplex, was already using conventional gears while the two T1 prototypes, also a pair of duplexes but scaled down a bit, equipped the cutting-edge poppet valve, thus the T1 phototyprs and S1 were good enough to provide the data they needed. So they ignored the suggestion by BLW. If PRR really thought like that, I can't agree that S1 was the best engine to be the control group.
 
PRR had a tradition to test a new class of engine thoroughly before mass production, there was no urgency or necessity of using the same poppet valve gears on both T1 prototypes. From day one, they should have handled this case on a rigorous approach since the engine’s design itself was a completely new concept and almost had no successful example from the past for reference, there was no precedent except B&O’s 4-4-4-4. If they do so, they would have made a better choice when the War Production Board urged them to increase motive power in 1945.
 
Anyway, the first paragraph in the book "Pennsy Power I" about T1 pretty much summed up the situation: 
“ ….The locomotive performed satisfactorily under all operating conditions…. We believe their performance in actual service stamps them as notable examples of railroad motive power.” Editor Malcolm K. Wright was making an optimistic prognostication about the initial pair of T1 class duplex-drivers, engines 6110 and 6111; in his Baldwin Locomotives Magazine for December of 1942, Little more than five years later, and with a fifty-two-unit fleet of T1’s that had passed Altoona test plant instruments with flying colors, President Martin W. Clement announced, early in 1948: “ By May of this year, we expect all our important east-west thought passenger trains will be diesel-powered west of Harrisburg.” 
 
  • Member since
    September, 2003
  • 6,030 posts
Posted by Overmod on Monday, October 01, 2018 11:42 PM

Jones1945
... Caprotti gear which was “more complex and needed expensive maintenance” even though, from my shallow understanding, it was widely used on 400 locomotives in Italy ...

You've heard of 'not invented here'?  Fascist Italy was the 'here' for native son l'ing. Caprotti, just as Germany was a fertile place for Diesel engine development...

Here is the nightmare box in action.  Just think about keeping this running in American service long-term:

It bears remembering that the New York Central C1a duplex design, presumed as late as April 1945 to be THE high-speed postwar NYC passenger steam power, never had poppet valves even as Kiefer anticipated their use (for economy) on Niagara 5500.  That was a decision taken early in the design process, and it is particularly interesting since the 64-ton tender was specifically intended to take advantage of the better thermodynamic performance of the duplex design to permit unrefueled Harmon-to-Chicago service.  The fuel consumption in 'typical' NYC service with poppets would likely have been lower, yet Kiefer happily uses long-travel Baker.  Tells ya something, doesn't it?

Don't forget the ATSF duplex (oil-burning, cab-forward 6-4-4-4) which as it turns out resembles the B&O and Q1 cylinder arrangement, cylinders at the 'corners' of the driver wheelbase.  This would likely NOT have constituted a viable competitor to the evolving diesel-electrics...

  • Member since
    April, 2018
  • 400 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Tuesday, October 02, 2018 2:28 AM

Overmod

Here is the nightmare box in action.  Just think about keeping this running in American service long-term:

Wow I didn't expect I learned so many things today! Thank you for sharing the video, Overmod!

The first thing that came to my mind when I watching the vid was that I guess the box must be filled with a lot of lubricant, oil and stuff in the past or those spinning part will worn out very soon, I don't know what speed of the box was trying to simulate but I played the vid at 10X speed by using a Browser add-on, I think such device were too "exquisite" that it looks like a music box, a clock or something you can find in a kitchen in 64AD more that a device which could control a 200 tons locomotive moving 800 tons of passenger stock at 80mph! Compare to the Walschaerts gear, it is really a bit too much! More parts mean higher chances of malfunction, I bet the frequency and loading of train service were much lower and lighter in Italy, so it worked there but not in the States. It is hard to believe one K5 was equipped with it and served for so long. 

Overmod

.......and it is particularly interesting since the 64-ton tender was specifically intended to take advantage of the better thermodynamic performance of the duplex design to permit unrefueled Harmon-to-Chicago service.  The fuel consumption in 'typical' NYC service with poppets would likely have been lower, yet Kiefer happily uses long-travel Baker.  Tells ya something, doesn't it?

Don't forget the ATSF duplex (oil-burning, cab-forward 6-4-4-4) which as it turns out resembles the B&O and Q1 cylinder arrangement, cylinders at the 'corners' of the driver wheelbase.  This would likely NOT have constituted a viable competitor to the evolving diesel-electrics...



Do you mean Harmon, Illinois Overmod? I can't find the service between Harmon, IL to Chicago by New York Central. As the elapse of time, Diesel-electrics and electric train was the only economic choice for any RRs. Earlier report shown that PRR S2 Steam turbine and T1 once managed to beat early diesel, but they can't catch up with E7. I refused to accept this as the final result, but it won’t change the fact. ( I wish T1 Trust's 5550 will show the whole world an extraordinary result)

By the way, I never heard about the proposed ATSF duplex 6-4-4-4, is it possible to find any drawing or rendering of her? Thanks! 

 

 
Another easy solution for Pennsy: Hudson 4-6-4, but Pennsy wanted something better...... and yes, this design looks like a finger. CoffeeHmm
  • Member since
    September, 2003
  • 6,030 posts
Posted by Overmod on Tuesday, October 02, 2018 11:32 AM

Jones1945
The first thing that came to my mind when I watching the vid was that I guess the box must be filled with a lot of lubricant, oil and stuff in the past or those spinning part will worn out very soon

All these camboxes ran with what was essentially bath lubrication; I think that some of the British Caprotti videos show their version of the cambox 'opened up' and you can see the amount of lubricant involved there, too.  Interestingly, the T1 camboxes were a very infrequent source of failure; the problem was much more one of inspection (particularly on the one for the rear engine!) than actual breakage.  That couldn't be said about the stunted little valve gear that was intended to implement cutoff on type A OC gear.  (If you think about poppet action a moment, you will come by first principles to appreciate why conventional SHM valve-gear drive wouldn't really work well on an OC engine with sustainable cam lift profiles, but that's a different discussion...)

I don't know what speed of the box was trying to simulate but I played the vid at 10X speed by using a Browser add-on

You can deduce the necessary speed by looking at the cams and extrapolating that to anticipated road speed based on driver diameter.  Diameter speed for the Mussolini K5 would have been 80mph.  I suspect the particular advantages of Caprotti's poppet valves would become meaningfully evident at a higher speed than that, probably no less than the 90mph or so that a conventional K4 would top out at.

It is hard to believe one K5 was equipped with it and served for so long

MUCH bigger locomotives were equipped with it -- the list of test locomotives that received a Caprotti experiment is surprisingly long.  Part of the premise of cam drive of the poppets is that the force required to operate them is dramatically less than what's involved for piston valves driven via SHM gear like Walschaerts or Baker (I believe for Lima "type C" on the order of  3hp vs. about 35hp).  This becomes a meaningful amount of power at very high speed, but is more significant in that relatively lighter components are appropriate for reasonable life.  Franklin experience in the '30s made much of their equipment reasonably robust, I think camboxes included (the main issues early on with the T1s being first valve bounce and then spool breakage, neither of which is a real cambox issue as the valve drive is not desmodromic)

 ah, yes: Dave Klepper's adored I-5.  Not a bad locomotive, and representative of Baldwin's contemporary production (see the similarities to the ATSF 3460 class under the streamlining?)

Pity NYNH&H, after all those wrecks in the Mellon years, was such a slow railroad.  These girls never really got to stretch their legs...

 

Do you mean Harmon, Illinois Overmod? I can't find the service between Harmon, IL to Chicago by New York Central.

I will restrain from snarky remarks.

Harmon, New York was the location where trains to and from Manhattan (New York City) changed between electric and steam power, about 30 miles north (railroad west).  So all range calculations for NYC passenger power are made relative to Harmon and not, say, Mott Haven yard, as Harmon is where the steam power would be put on the trains.  The required range is 'that much less' than the 999 miles or so that technically separate Chicago and New York on the Water Level Route (either through or around Cleveland -- the unrefueled range being most important for trains like the Century that did not change engines for the short Cleveland electrification but ran through on the lakefront route).

Earlier report shown that PRR S2 Steam turbine and T1 once managed to beat early diesel, but they can't catch up with E7. I refused to accept this as the final result, but it won’t change the fact. ( I wish T1 Trust's 5550 will show the whole world an extraordinary result)

Were you to operate either an S2 or T1 in the same service as the Niagaras used in Kiefer's testing, they would very likely have equaled or bettered the performance vs. E7s.  (The C1a design is very powerful evidence if you need it!)  The preference for E7s on Pennsylvania is largely driven by other factors, some physical and some political; it was a different railroad with a number of factors decidedly unsuited either to mechanical direct-drive turbine or short-stroke duplex power, especially between Pittsburgh and Harrisburg.

That said, no steam locomotive was competitive against E8s, or E9s, or what could have been provided as second-generation or later high-peak-speed passenger power had the need for that developed.  (The closest to that, I think, would have been the C636P; regardless of what the CSR/SRI propaganda may imply, I don't think any reciprocating steam engine would meaningfully sub in for even the original Genesis AMD-103s, let alone Chargers)

By the way, I never heard about the proposed ATSF duplex 6-4-4-4, is it possible to find any drawing or rendering of her? Thanks!

There were a couple of threads about bashing up a model of this, but the result didn't resemble the actual proposed design.  I'm a little surprised there isn't at least one Web-stored image of the available drawings (of which I have seen two) -- the canonical 'source reference' is in the "Iron Horses that didn't make the trail" section of Worley's Iron Horses of the Santa Fe Trail

 

 
Another easy solution for Pennsy: Hudson 4-6-4, but Pennsy wanted something better...
 
Thereupon hangs something of a tale.  PRR was just taking delivery of the end of a monster order of K4s (the fleet got to something like 475 by the end of 1928), 'standardizing' the high-wheel passenger power just as the extension of Super-Power design theories to passenger engines was becoming established.  It is a bit hard to give credence to a locomotive as large and relatively sophisticated as a K5 being built without a stoker, but it was -- and this of course ruled out any passenger-engine design with a two-axle trailer even being appropriate. 
 
By the mid-Thirties, even with Depression-era service reductions, there was no particular future on PRR for six-coupled passenger power of any kind.  You'd have to double up locomotives for a train of any particular contemporary length, even with lightweight stock, using any mid-'30s Hudson that would fit PRR loading gage ... and if you have to double, there wasn't much that PRR could even imagine that a pair of its already available K4s couldn't easily handle at PRR normal speeds.  (Or for that matter that any railroad with workable station-platform lengths could imagine; we're talking the equivalent of an articulated locomotive with 12 80" drivers and steam adequate for four large cylinders...)
 
I won't get into the discussion of whether application of evolving balance sophistication would have made a K4 into a really good high-speed engine.  The fun thing was a PRR tendency to think that Atlantics were the high water mark of high-speed locomotive design (see the 'Lindbergh engine' discussions) and hence there was a perfect storm between the anticipated improvements to passenger mains after 1928 (curtailed by the Depression and then the electrifications, but never abandoned before the '50s) and the idea of putting a couple of Atlantics under a big boiler to get the effect of 'rightsized' doubleheading without paying two crews...
 
I also won't go into the 'timeless topic' of whether an improved-balance M1 would have constituted a perfectly rational 'best passenger locomotive' for the real, contemporary PRR (much as it turned out that 74" 4-8-2s did almost anything NYC needed better than even the best 4-6-4s).  By the time the true high-speed 4-8-4 'formulae' were worked out, PRR was on to bigger and better things than eight-coupleds: the "replacement" for the M1 was the '5/4 capacity with higher drivers' Q1 ... and we all know how that turned out in practice ... and then for wartime priority or any other high-capacity traffic the Q2s, and for other stuff the 70"-converted J1a, which is a fine answer anywhere there's a hard 50mph limit on freight on a railroad built to PRR permissible axle-load and Cooper's ratings.
 
and yes, this design looks like a finger.
 
Have to confess I'm looking for the popcorn to make when Dave Klepper reads this... Whistling
 
What's amusing in that second I-5 picture is the utter lack of understanding of high-speed balancing priorities displayed in the artist's rendering.  See those little 'cranks' from the driver centers down to where the rod pins are?  This is precisely the place where you want the rod mass as far inboard as possible, and there is plenty of available strength in a disc driver center to keep both the axle and pin fits free of distortion at any piston thrust a six-coupled engine can use.
 
Ah, well.  Artistic license is fun, sometimes.  As long as it doesn't reflect engineering 'judgment'!
  • Member since
    April, 2018
  • 400 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Wednesday, October 03, 2018 1:04 AM

 

Overmod
Interestingly, the T1 camboxes were a very infrequent source of failure; the problem was much more one of inspection (particularly on the one for the rear engine!) than actual breakage. 
 
What a way to “…make the duplex a hopeless engine…”, Overmod. Both camboxes of T1’s gears were “almost” inaccessible, what in the earth they were thinking when they decided to mass produce T1? Did they expect T1 need no daily maintenance until general overhaul? S1 6100 was the best precedent to show PRR what was the dos and don'ts when constructing a duplex.
 
 
During PRR S1’s first general overhaul after she racked up 150,000 miles around 1942, she was extensively de-skirted for better accessibility for daily maintenance and heat dissipation, but on the other hand, from the two prototypes T1 to the 50 production T1, the streamlining casting on the front end of T1 was still fully streamline shrouded, both camboxes were hidden like a tapping device, the streamlining never tested in wind tunnel and unable to “lift the smoke up”, the front end of whole fleet; 52 of them; needed to rebuilt before the last production T1 was built. This sounds like EMD was actually in charge of the T1 project in stead of PRR and Baldwin.
 
 
 
Overmod
...... ah, yes: Dave Klepper's adored I-5.  Not a bad locomotive, and representative of Baldwin's contemporary production (see the similarities to the ATSF 3460 class under the streamlining?)
Pity NYNH&H, after all those wrecks in the Mellon years, was such a slow railroad.  These girls never really got to stretch their legs...
…Harmon, New York was the location where trains to and from Manhattan (New York City) changed between electric and steam power, about 30 miles north (railroad west). 
 
NYNH&H I-5 drew the streamlined steam engine of Northeast to a perfect end. Those thick white walled drivers made it looked fantastic. Harmon of NYC was similar to Harrisburg of PRR wasn’t it? Both of them was a place to switch electric power to steam or diesel power for long distance through trains. Harrisburg is much far away from New York though. And after PRR's electrification of Northeast, no PRR steam powered passenger train run between New York to Chicago (Harrisburg to New York or Chicago instead) anymore, except wartime.
 
 
Overmod
  
There were a couple of threads about bashing up a model of this, but the result didn't resemble the actual proposed design.  I'm a little surprised there isn't at least one Web-stored image of the available drawings (of which I have seen two) -- the canonical 'source reference' is in the "Iron Horses that didn't make the trail" section of Worley's Iron Horses of the Santa Fe Trail
 
I found the thread of it and the model looked really strange to be honest, I think putting EMC/EMD cab and nose on a reversed T1 or Q1 never match, by the way the “Iron Horse that didn’t make the trail” is one thick-as-brick book, I wish books like that will have a digital version. I read the 6-4-4-4 was supposed to power the Super Chief, it is interesting to know Santa Fe was looking for Alternative power to haul their prime trains after the war.
 
 
Overmod
  
Have to confess I'm looking for the popcorn to make when Dave Klepper reads this...Whistling......
 ......Ah, well.  Artistic license is fun, sometimes.  As long as it doesn't reflect engineering 'judgment'!
 
 
 
I know it was a joke, I believe Dave adored the real I-5 but not her “artist impression drawing" or “conceptual design drawing”. That pic of I-5 just like many other early renderings from different manufacturers, including the streamlined S2 by Westinghouse you posted before, they had nothing to do with engineering 'judgment' and their main function or “existential value” were to impress the potential buyer or used for publicity purpose and usually looked nothing like the real thing. If the potential buyer was interested, the manufacturer will show them the technical drawing and a mountain of document. So, you could pass your popcorn to me this time.Dinner
 
  • Member since
    September, 2003
  • 6,030 posts
Posted by Overmod on Wednesday, October 03, 2018 1:46 AM

Jones1945
What a way to “…make the duplex a hopeless engine…” ... Both camboxes of T1’s gears were “almost” inaccessible, what in the earth they were thinking when they decided to mass produce T1?

Part of the problem, I think, was that they may have believed what the folks from Balmar were telling them about the integrity of the Franklin System.  Not the first time proprietary device performance was somewhat overstated.

The way the rear cambox was located was particularly amusing; it is a principal reason that no gear or shaft conjugation of the type A-equipped T1 could be practically considered.  With this removed, there is actually a 12" lightening hole in a diaphragm transom that a shaft could pass through...

 

 

During PRR S1’s first general overhaul after she racked up 150,000 miles around 1942, she was extensively de-skirted for better accessibility for daily maintenance and heat dissipation, but on the other hand, from the two prototypes T1 to the 50 production T1, the streamlining casting on the front end of T1 was still fully streamline shrouded ...

This is a little unfair, as the steel of the smokebox was that shape, analogous to the front of the A4 Pacifics in Britain, and there was little point in tinkering with it as, if anything, the front end was too efficient already (the ejection of combustion gas at perfectly suitable rate not rising high enough to escape being pulled down by the aerodynamics along the boiler).  For that matter there was little point in modifying the 'prow' on a production T1 to something less "streamlined" like a flat door. 

The original 'porthole' front skirting was removed on most engines with almost uncanny speed, replaced with simple (to me, elegant) enclosures for the compressor aftercoolers.  There is probably some indication on what this cost, but it certainly indicates PRR was well aware of things impeding maintenance access, and still had the 'will' to modify them actively.

I believe none of the production T1s were actually built with side skirting as on the two original locomotives, and the aesthetics are in my view greatly improved by cutting the skirting back to how the engines appear in general service.

... the streamlining never tested in wind tunnel and unable to “lift the smoke up” ...

This requires a little more discussion, as there are multiple issues.

First, it is almost indisputable that making these engines with small (and non-enlargeable!) grate area, thinking that the combination of greater machine/thermodynamic efficiencies and good passenger gas coal would suffice, was a badly false economy.  In an era where even the AAR started advocating washed, sized, good quality coal for locomotive fuel, PRR slid into providing more and more junk, and it is not surprising that you get burning-of-Rome smoke shows when things were even a bit less than perfect.

Second, we need to separate the issue with smoke drifting down the lee side from the issue of smoke coming in through the cabin ventilation in the roof.  The latter, really the more serious problem, could have been addressed a number of ways, including a little bit of wind-tunnel analysis to see how airflow was actually being preferentially induced.  Meanwhile, to my knowledge no "smoke-lifting" device intended to physically lift airflow or stack plume with air displaced around the upper front of the smokebox ever worked, more than accidentally.  And while some brute-force elephant-ear 'smoke deflectors' certainly had effect on other railroads, the actual reason they worked seems not to have been fully understood even by Witte, and perhaps even by Quellmalz half a century and more later, and (as I believe Quellmalz indicated) there are easier and less drag-inducing ways of creating the necessary trailing vortex to move a smoke plume out of the engineer's line of sight.

 

Harmon of NYC was similar to Harrisburg of PRR wasn’t it? Both of them was a place to switch electric power to steam or diesel power for long distance through trains.

The differences are more significant.  NYC used comparatively slow-speed third rail and locomotives for its terminal electrification, something PRR changed out for its major trains (getting rid of those awful L5s in the process) by the early Thirties.  PRR to Harrisburg represented a major portion of the trip, and the prospective extension of that electrification to Pittsburgh (likely a priority even with PRR losing money had effective-enough diesel-electrics not been developed when they were) promised some interesting time savings.

It is easy to forget that NYC was actively considering wiring the railroad all the way up to Buffalo after the war; you can see one of the proposed locomotives prominently displayed in that 1947 review of motive power (it has a whole-page plate in the book) and this would be roughly competitive with a PRR Pittsburgh electrification, not incidentally solving the Albany Hill problem on the way...

I read the 6-4-4-4 was supposed to power the Super Chief, it is interesting to know Santa Fe was looking for Alternative power to haul their prime trains after the war.

This was very, very much a 1930s proposal, and inherently dependent on an abject failure of internal-combustion power to perform reliably on an appropriate scale.  As the opposed-piston duplex configuration was far from the success anticipated, and the history of EMD on ATSF largely successful from the 'twins' onward in the middle '30s, it ain't surprising that this concept went nowhere fast (especially after the 3765 class with modern balancing proved perfectly happy well up into the duplex top-speed range!)

I believe Dave adored the real I-5 but not her “artist impression drawing" or “conceptual design drawing”. That pic of I-5 just like many other early renderings from different manufacturers, including the streamlined S2 by Westinghouse you posted before, they had nothing to do with engineering 'judgment' and their main function or “existential value” were to impress the potential buyer or used for publicity purpose and usually looked nothing like the real thing.

Yes, but the popcorn was for the comment you made about what you thought the streamlining on the I-5 looked like.  (For the record, I agree with you; to me the streamlining looks pudgy although nowhere near as reprehensible as the Mae West treatment on the ATSF 3460 class, but Mr. Klepper I believe likes it)

  • Member since
    June, 2002
  • 14,078 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Wednesday, October 03, 2018 7:07 AM

The I-5 repressents the best 4-6-4 streamlinineg for me, better than Dryfuss, and better than any 4-6-2 as well.  Both sides of the Atlantic too.  Better than the Greseley A-4.  (Not fond of an inverted bathtubs, even one as elelgant as the A-4, the best of the type.)

But, overall, I like the Norfolk and Western Js and the SP Daylights much more.   Any streamlined Pacific or Hudson seems "pudgy" compared to a Northern. Or compared to a T-1.

 

 

  • Member since
    April, 2018
  • 400 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Wednesday, October 03, 2018 11:27 AM

Overmod
Part of the problem, I think, was that they may have believed what the folks from Balmar were telling them about the integrity of the Franklin System.  Not the first time proprietary device performance was somewhat overstated.
The way the rear cambox was located was particularly amusing; it is a principal reason that no gear or shaft conjugation of the type A-equipped T1 could be practically considered.  With this removed, there is actually a 12" lightening hole in a diaphragm transom that a shaft could pass through...

 
Although you refused to pass me your salty spicy popcorn, I am still really grateful for the fact that despite there is language barrier between us (my fault), you still willing to share your professional insights and knowledge with me! 
 
I didn't pick up this hobby again since 2 years ago so you might be surprise to know that I have never seen a single pic of the rear cambox on all T1 before. I collected tons of T1's pictures, photos and drawings from all the sources I could reach but I could never ever find a pic or a drawing of the cambox. (also including the “twins headlight” T1 you mentioned in my first post in this forum) This was probably because photos of T1 under construction or maintenance are already rare enough and the location of the cambox was really hard to reach.
 
If the mistaken judgement was caused by PRR's over-reliance to Balmar, it was a really serious mistake since it simply proofed that what Balmar told PRR was absolutely divorced from reality, if not scamming! During three years testing of the two prototypes, such obvious design flaw was discovered by nobody! From frontline work forces, mechanical engineers, project manager to VP of the motive power department, until 50  production T1 got constructed. It is hard to believe that nobody; from PRR to Balmar and Franklin or even Baldwin; was punished for dereliction of duty. Just as I stated on earlier post, Duplex was a completely new concept for PRR, it needs extra attention to monitor the whole progress of the project. It was not hindsight, it just common sense. I believe there was more untold stories behind all this.  
 
Overmod
 
This is a little unfair, as the steel of the smokebox was that shape, analogous to the front of the A4 Pacifics in Britain, and there was little point in tinkering with it as, if anything, the front end was too efficient already (the ejection of combustion gas at perfectly suitable rate not rising high enough to escape being pulled down by the aerodynamics along the boiler).  For that matter there was little point in modifying the 'prow' on a production T1 to something less "streamlined" like a flat door. 
 
I think it was some misnomers of me. I never wanted PRR to alter the design of the “upper front end” which was the “Prow” and the smoke box (I still prefer the longer “Prow” nose though) From the prototypes to the production version and modified version of 1947, I never think that that was a need to modify or remove it.
 
Overmod
 
The original 'porthole' front skirting was removed on most engines with almost uncanny speed, replaced with simple (to me, elegant) enclosures for the compressor aftercoolers.  There is probably some indication on what this cost, but it certainly indicates PRR was well aware of things impeding maintenance access, and still had the 'will' to modify them actively.  
 
This is the part (The “lower part front end”; the section with three “portholes”) I don’t agree with the way of how PRR handled it.. If the modified version was what PRR really wanted, why didn’t they built it in such design from day one? the lesson they should have learned from S1 before the construction of production T1 was that the work force hated those shrouding in guts because it made daily maintenance even more difficult. Management of PRR should have already known that the “lower front end” with a “Radiator Grille” housed a lot of things which require constant maintenance or fixing, like the air pump, steam pumps gas tank, radiator/condenser etc., but they didn’t change or improve the design until the train was built, wasting manpower and hours to modify them, this was quite unprofessional in my book.
 
 
I agree with you that it indicates PRR was well aware of things impeding maintenance access, and still had the 'will' to modify them actively (probably because the work forces started venting on the front end judge from photos around 1946) but It was a bit late and absolutely avoidable! I guess you remember I shown you this pic before of DB BR 10 001-002, the lower front end could be wildly opened, if the work force and the management had a better communication during the construction, I am sure Raymond Loewy could make such feature with an even more creative design and get a design award for it.
 
 
Overmod
 
I believe none of the production T1s were actually built with side skirting as on the two original locomotives, and the aesthetics are in my view greatly improved by cutting the skirting back to how the engines appear in general service.
 
I totally agree with you on this point, and it also apply to S1. My perfect T1 would be the original Loewy design front end (upper and lower, especially the Radiator Grille) but without side skirt. The skirting of #6110, #6111 looks meaningless and uninteresting, but I like both skirted and de-skirted version of S1, if there was a S1 #6101, I wish Lowey could provide an integrated design of S1 without side skirt, based on S1’s bullet nose design. Those 84 inches drivers, all those piping and the size of it would WOW everyone on NYC’s trains like 6100 and T1s on a daily basic. De-skirted version of S1’s brass model is very rare and expensive, unlike the skirted one which you could find collector sell them every few months.
 
The reason I bring up S1 in pervious post was that PRR had two years (1940-1942) plus three years (1943-1945), total five years of experience to deal with different kinds of streamlining (one S1, Q1, two T1s, five K4s). They remembered to improve the design of production T1 by removing the side skirt from the original design plan but “forgot” to improve the design of the “lower front end”, which was much more difficult or time consuming than removing side skirting.

For a Class I railroad, the largest RR in the World, this was not a big deal but such management style didn’t match their status in the industry.    
 
 
 
Overmod
 …In an era where even the AAR started advocating washed, sized, good quality coal for locomotive fuel, PRR slid into providing more and more junk, and it is not surprising that you get burning-of-Rome smoke shows when things were even a bit less than perfect.
 
…And while some brute-force elephant-ear 'smoke deflectors' certainly had effect on other railroads, the actual reason they worked seems not to have been fully understood even by Witte, and perhaps even by Quellmalz half a century and more later, and (as I believe Quellmalz indicated) there are easier and less drag-inducing ways of creating the necessary trailing vortex to move a smoke plume out of the engineer's line of sight…
 
This is a topic I really interested in but didn’t have a chance to learn or discuss in any other platform! I believe ATSF, SP and UP had a long history to deal with smoke issues.
 
Since it is a problem which threatened the health of the crews and basic operation safety, even though there *was no method which was scientifically proved absolutely practical and effective to avoid the issues T1 encountered, I still think that PRR should have used any available measures and method to deal with the problem, it was their responsibilities. A wind tunnel test might not gave RR a firm answer but at least it would help RR to design a streamlined shrouding which wouldn’t make the situation worse! T1 was a mainline engine hauling important trains of the States, serving important personnel of the Nation, for safety sake, they really needed to find out why T1 but not S1 or Q2,“ranks as one of the least aerodynamically-satisfactory designs of all time from the standpoint of keeping smoke away from the engineer's line of sight or out of the cab.” (quote from Overmod’s reply)
 
 
 
Overmod
 
…It is easy to forget that NYC was actively considering wiring the railroad all the way up to Buffalo after the war; you can see one of the proposed locomotives prominently displayed in that 1947 review of motive power (it has a whole-page plate in the book) and this would be roughly competitive with a PRR Pittsburgh electrification, not incidentally solving the Albany Hill problem on the way...
 
I am not familiar with NYCRR’s history, but I am glad that you introduce me the electrification plan of New York Central. Penny’s publicity materials from late-40s always tried to show the public how great they used variety of power and proud of it. I do think PRR’s electrification of the Northeast corridor was their biggest contribution to America, the positive affection of Penny’s decision is still there. If things went according to plan, NYC, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington D.C, Pittsburgh would have become the largest HSR network at the time. People shouldn’t judge anything only base on its negative side isn’t it.
 
Overmod
 
Yes, but the popcorn was for the comment you made about what you thought the streamlining on the I-5 looked like.  (For the record, I agree with you; to me the streamlining looks pudgy although nowhere near as reprehensible as the Mae West treatment on the ATSF 3460 class, but Mr. Klepper I believe likes it) 
 
 
 
 
I once suspect that Baldwin’s I-5 for New Haven was an attempt to lure Pennsy buying the 4-6-4 Hudson but for the reasons you mentioned, the concept of duplex was accepted instead thus even though I-5 looked pudgy like the Lowey’s K4s, BLW didn’t receive one single order of Hudson from Pennsy.
 
I-5 itself was a decent looking locomotive, she looked SO MUCH BETTER than ATSF’s #3460 for me. ATSF #3460’s bullet nose was too tall and the color of it was a little bit “too sissy”, those “stuffs” or everything you could see between the marker lights in front of the smoke stack was……. Could you kindly passing me the Sickness bag please…..Ick!
 
  • Member since
    April, 2018
  • 400 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Wednesday, October 03, 2018 12:05 PM

daveklepper

The I-5 repressents the best 4-6-4 streamlinineg for me, better than Dryfuss, and better than any 4-6-2 as well.  Both sides of the Atlantic too.  Better than the Greseley A-4.  (Not fond of an inverted bathtubs, even one as elelgant as the A-4, the best of the type.)

But, overall, I like the Norfolk and Western Js and the SP Daylights much more.   Any streamlined Pacific or Hudson seems "pudgy" compared to a Northern. Or compared to a T-1.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts, Dave. I also like SP Daylights, although I prefer GS-3 to double headlights GS-4. 

  • Member since
    September, 2003
  • 6,030 posts
Posted by Overmod on Wednesday, October 03, 2018 3:03 PM

Jones1945
I also like SP Daylights, although I prefer GS-3 to double headlights GS-4.

My introduction to the GS-3 came early, as I suspect it did for some others of you:

But I didn't care much for how fat, almost pig-eyed, the locomotive looked with the single small headlight vs. the conical GS-4 door with the two lights. I spoze de gustibus non disputandum est and all that.

(Later, of course, when the show switched to color, they also switched the train to Diesels; funny that I remember this in amazing bright saturated Daylight paint, not what the current YouTube cuts show... kids' imagination, I guess.)

 

  • Member since
    April, 2018
  • 400 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Wednesday, October 03, 2018 4:46 PM

Overmod

My introduction to the GS-3 came early, as I suspect it did for some others of you:

But I didn't care much for how fat, almost pig-eyed, the locomotive looked with the single small headlight vs. the conical GS-4 door with the two lights. I spoze de gustibus non disputandum est and all that.

(Later, of course, when the show switched to color, they also switched the train to Diesels; funny that I remember this in amazing bright saturated Daylight paint, not what the current YouTube cuts show... kids' imagination, I guess.)

Now I know the shocking reason of why you monopolize that cup of sweet smelling fresh double butter popcorn and refused to share it with me Overmod! Confused You were watching Adventures of Superman and eating popcorn all day long! I am still thinking if I should feel disappointed or not...... But note that George Reeves was not the best Superman I am sure, he can't even stop a SP 28-car consist powered by a 6000hp EMD E8 within 6.5 secs when trying to rescue a street clerk ! Undeniable evidence here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DeyqyKDLDLY#t=01m58s 

 

  • Member since
    September, 2013
  • 3,096 posts
Posted by Miningman on Wednesday, October 03, 2018 6:37 PM

Overmod-- Thanks for the Caprotti video. Now is there something on par for the Franklin Type B along with an explanation as to why it would be better, especially for the T1's and the 5550 project. 

  • Member since
    September, 2003
  • 6,030 posts
Posted by Overmod on Wednesday, October 03, 2018 10:27 PM

Keep in mind that when referring to T1s it is always "Franklin type B-2".  There is a substantial technical difference in the arrangement and operation.

The original Franklin carried over from Lentz not only oscillating cams (which they thought suitable to be driven from a standard type of continuous-cutoff valve-gear reverse, in part to indicate attractive economies of construction cost to railroad buying agents!) but also the arrangement of valves seen in the corporate emblem (and Kirchoff's "shield") with two smaller admission and two larger exhaust valves per cylinder end (that's eight per cylinder block and sixteen per T1)

'Regular' type B (which is a rotary-cam gear) was developed differently; you will note that in the example fitted to ATSF 3752 there are only three valves per cylinder end.  The problem for the T1s was, of course, that the cast engine bed cleverly included all the ports and passages for the type A valve arrangement.  So B-2 was 'ginned up to have appropriate bridges and offsets to allow the shifting-cam spherical followers (as illustrated in the '47 Cyc) to work the existing valve arrangement (which in my opinion was better suited to very high speed working anyway), rather than do a T1a-style cutting off of the whole cylinder block across the dead space, making up four brand-new 'catalog' type B compatible castings and jigs to keep them aligned, and firing up the electroslag machines.

I suspect any videos that actually show B-2 in action will have to wait until the T1 Trust has finished more of the virtual models (both for multiphysics and for 'train simulators') that will be used for the initial rounds of testing.  I expect one of the things generated then will be an analysis of the Franklin gear, with 'animated illustrations', all the way from the development in the '30s through to type D (the Vulcan 'kits' for the Army). 

You and Jones1945 are welcome, of course, to sign up for the engineering task force at the Trust, which will give you access to the repository there.

  • Member since
    September, 2013
  • 3,096 posts
Posted by Miningman on Wednesday, October 03, 2018 11:04 PM

Well Thank You! Sounds like a capital idea. 

  • Member since
    April, 2018
  • 400 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Thursday, October 04, 2018 4:04 AM
Overmod
I suspect any videos that actually show B-2 in action will have to wait until the T1 Trust has finished more of the virtual models (both for multiphysics and for 'train simulators') that will be used for the initial rounds of testing.  I expect one of the things generated then will be an analysis of the Franklin gear, with 'animated illustrations', all the way from the development in the '30s through to type D (the Vulcan 'kits' for the Army). 
You and Jones1945 are welcome, of course, to sign up for the engineering task force at the Trust, which will give you access to the repository there.
 
 
Thanks for that, Overmod. One of my family members earned a “top fans” badge in T1 trust Facebook page, It is not an achievement, but it shown the support of my whole family to this project and we wish The T1 Trust every success. 5550 will be an engineering showpiece for every railfans all over the world including the younger generation. It will be a cross-sectoral tribute to everyone who involved in the designing and construction of T1, from PRRs work forces to Raymond Loewy. I consider myself lucky enough to know about this project not long after I became a PRR fans.
 
I understand that the term “train simulators” which The T1 Trust using or creating will be a professional engineering software, but the term “train simulator” really reminds me a popular computer game which allow player to create their own locomotive in 3D model form and testing the power and speed for player’s own train or stock locomotive in the game. Simulate the physical effect like gravity, speed and momentum of objects is not a rare thing in 3D computer games or general civil use software for different industries nowadays. There are 3 “Train simulators” available for general public but only two of them allow user to manually adjust the configuration of the 3D model or import their own 3D model. The following figures is extract from a config file created by my family members for the PRR S1 #6100, some figures needed conversion or estimation base on the Instruction manual of the formula it provided, I put it here for those who interested or already playing this “game” as a reference.
 

 
steam
{
  boiler-volume                         33.849998
  burn-rate                             3
  burn-rate-idle                        0.005
  firebox-heating-surface-area          73.589035
  firebox-efficiency                    0.99
  max-coal-mass                         8000
  ideal-coal-mass                       5500
  max-fire-temperature                  1100
  piston-angular-offsets                0.0174,1.5882,3.159,4.7298
  piston-volume-min                     0.0145
  piston-volume-max                     0.2452
  piston-area                           0.2452
  safety-valve-low-pressure             2046
  safety-valve-high-pressure            2146
  water-injector-rate                   15.15
  boiler-efficency-idle                 1
  boiler-efficency                      1
  boiler-efficency-min                  1
  speed                                 35
  cutoff                                0.45
  blower-effect                         0.2
  blower-max-flow                       0.1
  steam-chest-volume                    1.9616
  steam-chest-max-flow                  408
  valve-lap-percent                     0.1
  hand-brake-max-force                  10
  super-heating-constant                138
  number-cylinders                      4
  number-power-strokes                  2
  shovel-coal-mass                      130
  min-fire-temperature                  450
  starting-coal                         600
  initial-boiler-temperature            500
  safety-valve-high-flow                8
  safety-valve-low-flow                 4
  firebox-thermal-conductivity          17
  starting-boiler-steam                 1.5
  fusible-plug-volume                   7500
  boiler-heat-loss                      2
  water-injector-rate2                  16
  fuel-energy                           "3.1401e+007"
  fuel-specific-heat-capacity           1600
  tractive-effort-constant              0.4628
}

 
Using the above figures to run the S1 at “realistic mode” in the game, the train will keep slipping and stuck at maximum cut off forever during start up, but once I reset the throttle to zero and adjust the cutoff to 26-30%, she will start moving slowly and increasing speed until around 68mph at maximum cutoff and full throttle. She can reach 100mph within 8 mins on a level track with 1500 tons (adjustable) behind her at 38-41% cutoff, top speed was around 120mph at 21% cutoff. I do wish I have a chance to drive the S1 in a professional simulator which can simulate everything like those professional softwares for automobile manufacturing. 
 
  • Member since
    September, 2003
  • 6,030 posts
Posted by Overmod on Thursday, October 04, 2018 6:39 AM

Yes, when I say 'train simulator' I'm talking about the "Microsoft game" style products, where the virtual model is assembled in 3D graphics and extensive physics can be specified.  There were several private efforts documented and coordinated within the Trust technical discussions.

This is different both from the use of Dassault 3DS and software like COMSOL to perform multiphysics analysis on a 3D structural model of the locomotive made from actual drawings and materials characteristics, where the physics emerges from the design rather than being specified or calculated as in the game, and from the use of software like ADAMS or VAMPIRE where the physical response of the device, for example at high speed, can be determined.  Note that when the 'smart drivers' are installed, it will be possible to analyze road shock, compliance, and augment in realtime at high speed, which is likely the only way high-speed running at the Pueblo test facility would be permitted.

  • Member since
    April, 2018
  • 400 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Thursday, October 04, 2018 10:48 AM
This is great! One of the things that “Train Simulator” can't simulate well enough is the elasticity of the suspensions, some of them don't even have this feature which means it can only simulator how fast or slow the train can run at given load and slope. When 3D engines and the power of graphic cards keep improving, newer civil use computer are powerful enough to handle more complicate simulations. "games" which belongs to simulator category like "Spintires: MudRunner" and "BeamNG Drive" could be used as assistance tools (since they are much cheaper) to simulate situation like high speed wheel slipping, beside professional engineering software. Once T1 Trust release more 3D images and videos of 5550, I believe more and more people will notice and support this project.
 
This 3D artist made a lot of PRR trains, take a look: https://hiveminer.com/Tags/prr%2Cs2
  • Member since
    April, 2018
  • 400 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Friday, October 05, 2018 12:12 AM

Extract from "Penny Power I". One of the clay models of 3768 for wind tunnel test. There were more than 20 (I forgot the exact number) different designs of it before finalization. 

  • Member since
    April, 2018
  • 400 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Friday, October 05, 2018 9:02 PM

An advertisement of Franklin Railway Supply Limited in 1947:

"... Thus, it is apparent that the events of the past year (1946), coupled with a look into the future, give a pretty strong indication that the steam locomotive with be with us for many years to come and that in the future it will give better and better service at lower and lower cost...."
 
 If I was living in 1947 and read something like that, I would incline to believe what Franklin said in the adv and shared it to all my friends who love steam locomotive. Unfortunately, a lot of factors killed PRR Class T1, T1 also killed Franklin's ambitious sale plan. Imagine how many express steam locomotives would equip the poppet valve from Franklin if the demonstration went much smoother and convincing. Turn out PRR can't even find a buyer for T1.
 
 Franklin managed to use the newly design steam engine of the World's largest railroad as a showcase for their cutting-edge products, but it turned into a self-defeating. Both Type A and B weren't  bad or useless product, they did improved T1 and K4s preformance, but many things happened after T1 got put into revenue services  encouraged PRR to speed up their Dieselization instead. UmbrellaStorm
  • Member since
    September, 2003
  • 6,030 posts
Posted by Overmod on Tuesday, October 09, 2018 2:29 PM

Jones1945
An advertisement of Franklin Railway Supply Limited in 1947:

It is possible to be a bit cynical about coverage of technical issues in trade publications, but there are a number of accounts of the Franklin System in articles in publications like Railway Mechanical Engineer -- a good one discussing the actual meaning of 'long compression' being found very close to one of the articles on the ICC speed order of 1947 in the first few months of enactment.

There is also a fairly substantial spread by Franklin in the '47 Cyc that covers the system; it clearly shows the continuous-contour cam that finally provided reasonable stepless cutoff control to RC setups, and the spherical follower design needed to make this work ... to the extent it did.  There is a technically better, but alas! smaller coverage in '50-'52 ... then all was gone.

It's easy to forget that a whole generation of the Franklin System was designed, tested, proved buggy, and re-engineered without a single customer in these years.  That is why I always mention "type C" (shifting-cam RC using long-compression principles) in quotes -- to my knowledge there was never a service engine equipped with this, and the Vulcan conversion kits for Army engines are so different as to be type D.  Yes, it's a bit sad that Col. Townsend couldn't even get a demonstrator built ... even at the model scale represented by the double Belpaire 'test article' ... that would show all the late stuff the way 1111 did for roller bearings, and auxiliaries, and Alco, etc.

  • Member since
    April, 2018
  • 400 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Tuesday, October 09, 2018 7:21 PM
Overmod
…a good one discussing the actual meaning of 'long compression' being found very close to one of the articles on the ICC speed order of 1947 in the first few months of enactment... it clearly shows the continuous-contour cam that finally provided reasonable stepless cutoff control to RC setups, and the spherical follower design needed to make this work ... to the extent it did.  There is a technically better, but alas! smaller coverage in '50-'52 ... then all was gone.”
 
Thank you, Overmod. Do you mind sharing more details about the “shifting-cam RC using long-compression principles”with us ? 
 
I note there were quite a lot of advertisement of different Franklin products in the magazine like the Railway Age; a publishment which I could hardly find any ‘news’ or articles related to Pennsy. It gave me an impression that the business of Franklin has been focused on steam powered locomotives accessories like their renowned steam booster engines; but it seems to me that they didn’t put enough effort developing products for diesel or their management knew that there was no space for them to join the “diesel power club” at all.
 
 Once the 59/69/79 mph speed limit from "I.C.C. Order of 1947" promulgated, it previewed the demise of their business; let alone one of their largest customer (Penny) in mid-40s decided to completely dieselize their fleet. (52 T1s equipped 104 pair of Franklin poppet valve gears) I bet Franklin and Baldwin were the two largest stakeholders who didn’t want to see the Class T1 fail. Penny was not one of them since It is an open secret that there was different opinions in PRR’s board. If the development of direct-drive steam turbine engine S2 and V1 went according to plan and became the prime power of Pennsy, Franklin would need to find another customer for their poppet valve.
 
 
Overmod
Yes, it's a bit sad that Col. Townsend couldn't even get a demonstrator built ... even at the model scale represented by the double Belpaire 'test article' ... that would show all the late stuff the way 1111 did for roller bearings, and auxiliaries, and Alco, etc.
 
 I am looking forward to seeing the test report of 5550 and how good the Franklin B rotary cam poppet valves will be working on the new T1. If 5550’s performance, without too many modern technologies interference, will be as good as or equally competitive as EMD E8, that would be interesting. If only I can wait until 2030.    
 
   
 
  • Member since
    April, 2018
  • 400 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Sunday, October 14, 2018 10:16 PM

I found this pic on http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=4934659, the date of this photo taken was Aug 15, 1946, but the site also stated that "The date and the location are approximations.". 

 This photo was taken by an unidentified photographer. Judging by the style and angle of how this photo was taken;  the skirting of lounge-baggage car was still attached,  I suspect it was taken by Penny's staff for official record, probably during PRR S1's first general overhaul after she racked up 150,000 miles around 1942. During the general overhaul, most of her side skirting were removed. PRR updated their drawings of S1 for this.  Note both cylinders were freshly painted and overall the engine and the tender look rather clean in this pic. The front coupler cover was lifted up and hidden inside the frond end shrouding, probably still had the sliver strips attached.

There were different versions about S1's retirement date in the past, some said 1944, some said 1946, but after more files was revealed these years, it is quite sure that she served until the 100th anninsery of PRR and got withdrawn from service in the same year. Her role of hauling the Trail Blazer was replaced by PRR S2 6-8-6 Stean turbine engine and newly arrivered T1s. 

I don't have solid evidence, but I believe some pics or important documents were leaked and destroyed during the establishment of Penn Central, there is a article on Classic Trains, titled " Donald Dohner: The man who designed the Rivets"  By Hampton C. Wayt, mentioned that during the Penn Central merger, quote:  "One day the man was asked to clean out the PRR office in Philadelphia where the model was stored. Everything was to be thrown away, but the man didn’t have the heart to dispose of the model."  The model mentioned in this article was a conceptual design of GG1 in wooden model form; painted with color and had a skirting as part of it streamlining. It is not hard to imagine how many important files, pics, videos, models were destroyed during the merger. I wish some people did try to save as many files as they could during the merger. 

Reader could download the free sample of this article via this link (Classic Train Free Download Section):  http://ctr.trains.com/~/media/files/pdf/ebooks/electricrailroads.pdf

Thank you for the management of Classic Trains for sharing this article for subscriber!

  • Member since
    June, 2002
  • 14,078 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Monday, October 15, 2018 2:51 AM

As good as an EMD E-8?   To replacd a T-1 with diesels, even just to fully replace a K-4, at least two E-8 units are required.

As good as an F40P might be better.

  • Member since
    September, 2003
  • 6,030 posts
Posted by Overmod on Monday, October 15, 2018 4:55 AM

Jones1945
PRR’s electrification of the Northeast corridor was their biggest contribution to America, the positive affection of Penny’s decision is still there. If things went according to plan, NYC, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington D.C, Pittsburgh would have become the largest HSR network at the time.

Only just seeing this by reading on a larger screen.

I don't even think Martin Clement could have arranged HSR to Pittsburgh. That was a different line altogether from what became the NEC. diverging from the high-speed line via a cutoff through North Philadelphia, and even with the proposed tunnel under Horse Shoe would be a difficult proposition for true high speed sustained long enough to make an important difference.  (Not that it wouldn't have been fun  to watch them try!)

"Balmar" (for Baltimore, Maryland) was the Franklin plant where the poppet-valve equipment was manufactured.  I don't remember the full story of the fascinating interlocking ownership of the Coffin empire in locomotive auxiliaries and components, but there are some people like Dave Grover who have teased it out in all its seamy glory, including the Westinghouse role in taking down Baldwin as a locomotive manufacturer, and I encourage you to research this for a side of the 'business' that most railfans never saw.

The only conclusion I was ever able to reach about the T1 smoke was that when the locomotives were designed and tested, the assumption was that they would always be using good PRR passenger 'gas coal' and not the sort of dirty run-of-mine stuff used for lesser power.  Trying to run a high-speed 4-8-4 equivalent on unwashed, unsized coal on a 92-foot grate was always going to be an exercise in soot generation, and what was inconvenient aerodynamics with a clear stack became prep for the minstrel show ... can I make fun of it like that in this new post-#metoo world? didn't work out for Schnatter even though he was quoting Harlan, so perhaps we have to watch it.  We do know that PRR played with smoke deflectors (I remember them on K4s and of course the 6200) but I have no idea if their versions worked, and I'd surmise not well enough since they were not applied in the widespread fashion they were on, say, NYC.

PRR wouldn't buy Hudsons from Baldwin for the reason I gave earlier: they had just spent to get 475 K4s, including 200 from Baldwin, some as late as 1928 (into the real Hudson era).  By the time they were looking at better power, it was into the era of the true high-speed 4-8-4 and there was no point in considering anything but eight-drivered power -- had the divided-drive 84"-drivered locomotive worked out there would have been no need for a trivial little Hudson, and modern balancing made an 80"-drivered locomotive perfectly fast enough for what 'used' to demand an 84" wheel.  (You will note the somewhat lamentable history of 84" drivered Hudsons in practice, with C&NW notable for being unable even to reach 100mph in AAR testing, and Santa Fe getting little faster even with much more heroic proportions; no one claims comparable top-speed limitation for the S1 if they are even borderline sane.  The question was getting that fast, not sustaining it...)

I might mention, in passing, that studies were done to examine whether the nose of the Trust's 5550 could be built, like the nose of the Chezoom, as one piece of composite that would fold up on hinges to allow access to the components (including, if used, a more standard type of feedwater heater) on the pilot beam.  That would have made the porthole type front end much more practical, had it been used, and was considered not a meaningful deviation from historical accuracy for the purposes of the Trust's replication, at the time.  It might be interesting to have seen how materials like Cycolac or "Endura" might have been used if streamlined steam had persisted a decade or two later than it did... or, for that matter, if the soybean-fiber-in-phenolic used for the body panels in Ford's hemp-powered Volkswagen analogue had panned out.

  • Member since
    September, 2003
  • 6,030 posts
Posted by Overmod on Monday, October 15, 2018 5:00 AM

daveklepper
As good as an F40P might be better.

Had there been any in the late Forties.

You'd still need at least two F40s, even F40Cs, to approximate the high-speed power of a T1.  Even a single Charger doesn't quite get there on paper.

Of course, even a single E8 can be a 'fair comparison' if you don't care how quickly the train accelerates or what its balancing speed turns out to be... especially if the E8 'just runs' much more of the time without needing maintenance or service attention.

  • Member since
    April, 2018
  • 400 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Monday, October 15, 2018 11:50 AM

daveklepper

As good as an EMD E-8?   To replacd a T-1 with diesels, even just to fully replace a K-4, at least two E-8 units are required.

As good as an F40P might be better.

 

SmileYes, I think an EMD E8, maybe a A/B set, was a good candidate to compare with T1 in late 1940s. As Overmod stated in pervious post that even renowned steam engine like NYC Nigeria was barely as good as an E7 base on the result of Kiefer’s test in 1946. RRR T1 and S2 could outperform early diesel at high speed but the latter didn't have the chance to be mass produced. If 5550 can prove that a T1 using Franklin B rotary cam poppet valves can outperform and as economic as an E8, Pennsy might kept developing coal burning steam engine a few years more. (enough time to give S2 a new firebox and make it works)

Note that In 1937, AAR wanted to see what power was needed to get 1000 tons of passenger stock up to 100mph, thus a test was undertaken in 1938 and the result showed that 3370-3400 dphp were needed to maintain 100mph along the level with 1000 tons, 4000 dbhp was needed to accelerate the train to that speed within acceptable times and distance. I don't know if a 1000 tons passenger consist was still a common thing in PRR system or not after the declining of ridership since 1946, but I think an EMD E8 or A/B set (or even the E7A/B ordered in 1946) were powerful and economic enough to handle PRR's postwar (shorter) passenger consists. T1's high TE and dbhp will always be a fascinating thing on paper, but operation cost was Pennsy’s main concern, not to mention the "79 mph speed limit" thingy, thus they did pick EMD E8 and some “interesting” diesels from Baldwin and Alco instead of building more T1s.Crying 

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