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

[Hermann]

As you know, the Germans were quite unwilling to surpass the 400rpm rotational speed, which is about 150kph / 93 mph with 2000mm drivers. (Compare this to a J going westward to Chicago....). The last batch of the 01.10 had been equipped with roller-bearings, but there was simply no experience with light-weight alloys  that time (at least not with locomotives...). The standards for most locomotive parts, as they had to be exchangeable, were set in the 1920s, and the chief mechanical engineer of the DRG was quite conservative to say the least...

These streamlined pacifics were given a top speed of 150kph. After the war, when the streamlining - or what was left of it - had been removed, this was reduced to 140 kph. When 01 1102 was returned to life, it received just minor improvements, as a full boiler insulation due to concerns the blue color might suffer from the boiler heat in the long term.

After 01 1102 was re-streamlined, it was test-run and achieved 160 kph/99mph on February 9, 1996, so becoming the fastet 01.10 ever.

Surely, it would be the ideal candidate for Porta-or Wardale-style improvements, yet it depends on the owner, his financial capacities and his will. Luckily, there are no speed restrictions for steam here, but the track infrastructure has been cut back badly. Hardly any sidings to be found on many lines. You can run steam on the DB, but as you need slots between the scheduled DB trains, the faster the engine, the better! The usual steam specials are powered with locomotives going at least 80 kph/50 mph.  The right place for the T1 is here...;-).

When we saw old 1309 in Baltimore the first time in 2012, no one then believed its fate might turn out as it did, but no matter how long this restoration might take - theft, lacking of funds plus the curve/turntable issues - 1309 is going to be a winner soon. For 01 1102 things look rather bleak, it will most probably remain cold. Heavy overhauls cost in the range of half a million here, and then you have six years only to go.

Roger Waller surely would know what to do if he had his hands on it. Wider steam passages, slightly higher boiler pressure, even better insulation of course (cylinders included), new blast pipes, may be even compounding.. probably poppet valves might be a "nice to have" too, of course Franklin B..

The one advantage 01.10/03.10 and 05s surely had over the PRR streamliners was a casing which had been tested before in a wind-tunnel. What they didn't have was the looks of a T1...

[Overmod]

I have tried hard to appreciate the 3.10 and 1.10 classes, particularly the latter, but I've never thought of either as anything comparable to a class 05 for high speed.  It was my somewhat naive assumption that roller rods plus three-cylinder drive were all that would be needed to match Mallard's speed on smaller drivers -- did any of the 1.10s in fact come anywhere near that speed range?

Now with ten of them preserved, it is something of a temptation to give one a comprehensive American high-speed balancing plus opening up of steam circuits, compression control, modern front end, etc. and see what the design could do.

I notice 1.10 1104 is in something of the straits the C&O 2-6-6-2 finds itself in, and with donations down due to the coronavirus; perhaps we should put out the call here and on RyPN to donate to the effort.  This would be a fun engine to return to high-speed-capable excursion service.

[Hermann]

Overmod

It is possible to model the S1 in software and do multiphysics and kinematic analysis on the chassis to determine its stability and freedom from resonant couples (as was done, for example, for the German 05 class which had a calculated severe emergent critical speed close to 122mph, perhaps explaining why a run to outdo Mallard was never made).

 

The run on May 11,1936 was made as a demonstration to impress the government to invest in high-speed trains. It is proven that the emperor of that time was not interested in railroads at all, instead he preferred the Autobahn and the Volkswagen. Surpassing the 200 kph mark was just for public relation.

 

The Mallard run was in 1938, when orders were given by the Reichsbahn for 400 streamlined pacifics with slightly smaller dimensions than the class 05 prototypes classes 01.10 and 03.10.

The first of the serial streamlined steamers was delivered on a tuesday. Thursday the same week, September 1st 1939,  the Volksempfaengers spread the news that from 5.45 "there will be shot back". Time for high-speed steam in Germany was over. Most of the streamline locomotive orders were cancelled and the Reichsbahn had neither interest nor time to improve the speed record, of which the 05 with its superior dimensions was surely capable of.

 

Happy 4th of July!

[Overmod]

Jones1945

I wonder if he would have complained even more (for mechanical failure caused by overspeed) if PRR picked N&W Class J instead of T1, since the Class J wasn't designed for 100mph daily operation even though the Js could hit 110mph or above in test runs.

The issue with the 70" wheels on passenger power is carefully described in the 'official' PRR report of the J testing.  

Part of the problem is that we're talking people who reached their positions of great responsibility having learned conventional wisdom about balancing, diameter speed, etc., and who may have been influenced negatively by the 'experts' in modern scientistic balancing coming such a cropper with the ACL R1s.

Even the Q1, which would have tremendously benefited from 72" wheels with disc centers and lightweight rods, "conventional" augment reduced by the duplex principle, was given what was tantamount to LV dual-service 4-8-4 driver diameter ... splendid, but excessively heroic for an "improved M1".  

Now, just exactly what PRR thought would be a 'proper' high wheel for a dual-service 4-8-4 is a bit confused by perceived passenger-engine requirements: probably the 'sweet spot' is in the 74" to 75" range with modern balancing ... but we then have the example of Kiefer's 4-8-4, which was wasted with its sisters' 75" but magical at the moral equivalent of 80", so I think it is safe to assume that any contemporary 4-8-4 would be considered the "doubleheaded K4 replacement" just as the T1 would be ... and would be expected to have the 'high wheels' dictated by motive-power-department choice.  Regardless of whether Virginia intelligence and magic gave well-over-100mph capability to a locomotive with M1-size drivers, and a great deal of 'normal PRR passenger-train' running flexibility to boot...

One thing I have to wonder, though, is what the effect of Glaze balancing on the Pennsylvania Js would have been.  A postwar change on a great many of them was to increase driver diameter to 70" -- done expediently with fatter driver tires, I suspect... but it need not have been that.  If we use lightweight inboard rods, crosshead, and pistons, we can reduce the operative overbalance in the main to something around 120lb (see what the peak vertical component of rod thrust at 'best speed' cutoff is, and use it) with the rest in the coupled wheels -- and this in turn reduces the need for a cast driver-center type that accommodates heavy angled weights.  Then reduce the overbalance to what the lead and trailing trucks and longer driver wheelbase can 'stand' -- and you might get a surprisingly long way toward the J's tolerable maximum speed at acceptable vertical augment.  All without compromising your desire for 125mph rayguns on wheels for the marvelous resumption of passenger traffic after the war...

[Jones1945]

Overmod

I'm stil waiting for someone to find and post the actual wording of the communication by Symes (ideally in the context of an exchange of communications) regarding specific use of the S1 in 'freight' service.  

Among other things, such a decision -- on an engine which by that time probably had north of 3 million gold dollars of PRR money in it -- implies the service reliability on block-mail or M&E trains was no better than on passenger service.  And that high-speed slipping was more of a problem even at 'typical mail' speeds than explicitly reported and recorded... 

 

I am also waiting for it. Syme's thought, mainly complaints, on the S1 is mentioned in the article "The S1 - Biggest of them all" by Charlie Meyer but he didn't quote Syme's actual wording. If I were in his position I would have complained too. I wonder if he would have complained even more (for mechanical failure caused by overspeed) if PRR picked N&W Class J instead of T1, since the Class J wasn't designed for 100mph daily operation even though the Js could hit 110mph or above in test runs. 

[Overmod]

I'm stil waiting for someone to find and post the actual wording of the communication by Symes (ideally in the context of an exchange of communications) regarding specific use of the S1 in 'freight' service.  

Among other things, such a decision -- on an engine which by that time probably had north of 3 million gold dollars of PRR money in it -- implies the service reliability on block-mail or M&E trains was no better than on passenger service.  And that high-speed slipping was more of a problem even at 'typical mail' speeds than explicitly reported and recorded... 

[Hermann]

Overmod

(BTW to Hermann and perhaps others: opportunity is knocking to test your whittling skills. Just as George Washington got lovely shaped teeth made like piano keys, you can make a sort of 'bridge' to replace the missing part of the S1 'smile' between those funny little wheels. With a little filing you could gin up correct front and rear sideframe portions, too. Not that much work, but a dramatic improvement in 'prototypical verisimilitude'... Big Smile)

As I am a model maker, I actually could do that:

"A small step for my CNC mill, one giant leap for a Chinese pencil sharpener"....

 

But as to your thoughts about the financing of diesel power: what if in the 1940's the banks were more eager to give money for diesels because they saw a chance of the diesel having not the longevity of steam, thus needing to be replaced sooner, meaning the RR officials needed to visit the bank offices more frequently for more loans?

 

[Hermann]

Overmod

(BTW to Hermann and perhaps others: opportunity is knocking to test your whittling skills. Just as George Washington got lovely shaped teeth made like piano keys, you can make a sort of 'bridge' to replace the missing part of the S1 'smile' between those funny little wheels. With a little filing you could gin up correct front and rear sideframe portions, too. Not that much work, but a dramatic improvement in 'prototypical verisimilitude'... Big Smile)

As I am a model maker, I actually could do that:

"A small step for my CNC mill, one giant leap for a Chinese pencil sharpener"....

 

But as to your thoughts about the financing of diesel power: what if in the 1940's the banks were more eager to give money for diesels because they saw a chance of the diesel having not the longevity of steam, thus needing to be replaced sooner, meaning the RR officials needed to visit the bank offices more frequently for more loans?

 

[Overmod]

CSSHEGEWISCH

Diesels were coming anyway, the FT, any number of switchers and various E's all predated WW2.  The war just speeded up the process.  LST's were powered by 567 engines and submarines had OP's for surface running, which was most of the time.

But it's also true that, as Baldwin pointed out in 1940, the actual return on equity of a 6000-horsepower locomotive's worth of FTs, given the enormous capital cost over modern steam, might be better for steam given the large sunk cost of support for the existing steam locomotives.  

We might have gotten to 'dieselization' without the combination of factors in the late '40s ... but it would likely have followed the path nearly everyone expected in the mid-Forties: gradual replacement of serviceable steam power as it wore out, with replacement of a 'class' being accelerated when its net 'contribution to profitability net of depreciation, deductions, tax rebuildability, etc. became negative.  What wasn't expected was that the overhead costs for any steam, no matter how modern, would balloon for so many roads as they did.

What else was not likely expected was that many banks were more willing to loan or trust the high purchase price for diesels, knowing from a banker's perspective that the locomotives were 'fungible' with little more than a new coat of paint.  And if the banks weren't fully willing, GM might have plans that would help...

I periodically speculate on what would have happened if Baldwin had had the combination of chance and financial savvy that GM-EMD did regarding 'bringing down the cost' of the Essl modular locomotive, which was the only thing really competitive with a good modern eight-coupled main line locomotive up to the war years.  Instead they looked at the numbers and went with EMD-style carbodies on bogie trucks... with slow-turning runs-forever tugboat derived engines of strictly limited horsepower-to-weight in them.  And waited for the free-piston turbine revolution ... that, when it came, didn't even completely come to GM-EMD.

It is true that Dilworth's vision for building-blocks-of-'units' MUed power was really better than anything that could have been developed with similar combination of capability and reliability in steam.  By the end of the war this had essentially obsoleted high-pressure flash steam; by the end of the '40s it would essentially obsolete all but the most sophisticated turbines ... and in improved second-generation form would prove the kiss of death, had there not been others 'first', to even the most carefully promoted steam power.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

Diesels were coming anyway, the FT, any number of switchers and various E's all predated WW2.  The war just speeded up the process.  LST's were powered by 567 engines and submarines had OP's for surface running, which was most of the time.

[Overmod]

Erik_Mag

I would think that pencil sharpener was the inspiration of the ray-guns used in the likes of Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers.

Likely more the other way around -- look at the dates on the strips, and some of the contemporary pulps/covers.  Now, when you get to the Fifties rayguns, there will be more design influence to trace.  

To me the influence is much more obviously from aircraft nacelles and spinners -- turn that support pylon upside-down and it gets much clearer.  

Now, a more interesting question (which I've asked before in a different sort of context) is the influence of the '30s version of rocket ships on the kinds of bullet-nosed steam streamlining -- including the excesses -- we saw in the '30s and that might have proliferated more had there been no WWII and subsequent diesel rage.  (Or perhaps vice versa in some cases?)  Part of this is a topic in design history that might be partly described by 'what does a culture think is 'modern' in design?' -- see for example why everyone saw 'saucers' in the late '40s instead of all the other kinds of likelier planform.  If clumsy torpedoes that circle slowly and blow sparks are the Miracle Ships of the Future, it won't be surprising to see slowly-cycling and spark-emitting locomotives far behind...

(BTW to Hermann and perhaps others:  opportunity is knocking to test your whittling skills.  Just as George Washington got lovely shaped teeth made like piano keys, you can make a sort of 'bridge' to replace the missing part of the S1 'smile' between those funny little wheels.  With a little filing you could gin up correct front and rear sideframe portions, too.  Not that much work, but a dramatic improvement in 'prototypical verisimilitude'... )

[Erik_Mag]

I would think that pencil sharpener was the inspiration of the ray-guns used in the likes of Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers.

[Flintlock76]

Jones1945

 

 

Hermann

@Jones1945,

I found a pencil sharpener in the form of an S-1. Are you jealous now?

 

 

 

It depends on the quality of it.  Loewy's pencil sharpener:

 

Jeez, that's some pencil sharpener!

It looks like if you crank the handle a death ray is going to shoot out of the pencil!

I hope anyone who used that thing made sure no-one was standing in front of it!

[Overmod]

Deggesty

Is that a steam-powered pencil sharpener? 

To paraphrase what was said about a different 'plex (Triplex, not duplex) "not enough legs and not enough steam"

But the faithful rendition of the twin stacks makes up for it...

... and we know in principle now how to implement the ditchlights.

[Deggesty]

Overmod

 

 

Hermann

OK, you won!

 

 

Adding insult to injury -- and perhaps as an awful unintended consequence of the Lionel 3768 Torpedo scam -- item SK-3280 is labeled a "K-4" (yes, Virginia, with the hyphen) on its box and in its description.

 

Is that a steam-powered pencil sharpener? 

[Overmod]

Hermann

OK, you won!

Adding insult to injury -- and perhaps as an awful unintended consequence of the Lionel 3768 Torpedo scam -- item SK-3280 is labeled a "K-4" (yes, Virginia, with the hyphen) on its box and in its description.

[Hermann]

Jones1945

It depends on the quality of it. Wink Loewy's pencil sharpener:

 

 

OK, you won!

Mine is made in China...

[Jones1945]

Hermann

@Jones1945,

I found a pencil sharpener in the form of an S-1. Are you jealous now?

It depends on the quality of it.  Loewy's pencil sharpener:

[Overmod]

Hermann

Only in Summer 1945, the first derailment took place in Pittsburgh. Then, just one month after delivery of the first serial T1s, 5502 derailed on December 1, 1945, and another serial T1 the very next day. Did somehow, tragically, the two prototypes have the edge over the 5500s in curves?

If I remember correctly, the problem was caused at only one switch location; I dimly and perhaps imperfectly remember it as a double slip switch.  It is possible that the 'problem' was created by track maintenance of some kind, but I think the situation is more likely what Hermann notes.

Thw two original engines had radically different equalization arrangements from the 'production' engines -- for, I think, very good objective reasons.  It's been known since around the turn of the century that equalization of eight-drivered locomotives is better if the equalization is interrupted or 'tied' between the second and third driver pair, with the lead truck equalized with the forward sets and the trailing truck with the rear ones.  This, with some progressive improvement in snubbing and auxiliary springing, is what was done with the production engines right up to 1948.  The original design had a prominent walking beam carrying the equalization from front to rear engine, and this was thought to be causing some of the riding and slip issues -- I have not read the surviving correspondence and source material on this, but it is very clear that substantial changes were made to the arrangement during the war-years testing.

Now, something that is interesting when you look at the T1 spring-rigging arrangements is that a great amount of tinkering went on with the permitted lateral of the driver pairs, sometimes on the order of sixteenths of an inch -- there is a long list of emended numbers, perhaps notable in that by late 1947 there was free lateral on all four driver pairs.  I find it highly suspicious that this would be done on a high-speed locomotive with lateral-motion devices unless it were intended to permit a certain amount of float, at low speed, over the kind of obstacle resulting in derailment in terminal trackage.  (Note that this is very different from the reported issues with T1s losing critical adhesion over frogs and low joints when pulling long consists out of station traffic.)

Now, it would be one thing if Glaze-style stiff lateral compensation on lead and trailing trucks were applied to T1s to keep their required overbalance low (or, in fact, zero, which is a condition likely necessary for T1s to reach the speed their steam generation and valve gear would allow).  That never, apparently, became the case; the assumption seems to have been that the long effective rigid wheelbase and duplex kinetics would keep nosing/hunting minimized.  Interestingly the very large tenders might likely have minimized in-phase surge, too -- so a certain amount of overbalance might have been tolerated that 'shouldn't have been'.  (The effect of increasing augment on propensity to high-speed slip should be no mystery to anyone following along with T1 history!)

There are stories from the Crestline history that describe how much of a penchant 6100 had for derailing (usually somewhere in the driver wheelbase, if I remember correctly) while being run around that servicing point.  To my knowledge that situation was never satisfactorily worked out, even by restricting the engine to particular tracks and stalls.  It would be interesting to examine experiments, if any, with lateral motion on the driver pairs to see what did and didn't help with that.

[Hermann]

daveklepper

I rode behind a T-1 on the Trail Blazer on my way to work for EMD in late June 1952 into Chicago. Do not kbow if it came from Hattisbutg, Pittsburg, or Cteatline.

 

Hi Daveklepper,

as to Charlie Meyers reports, your train should most probably have been powered Harrisburg - Pittsburgh by a T1, Pittsburgh - Crestline by a double set of K4s and Crestline - Chicago by a T1.

After the Pittsburgh derailments in summer/december 1945 and about March 1946, some design changes were made to get a bit more lateral movement on the driving axles so that the T-1s could go into Pittsburgh, but still could not pass the curve west of the station safely. Ironically, the curve was relaid after the T-1s were gone.

 

And late June 1952, you were lucky to have a T-1 on your train.

 

@Jones1945,

I found a pencil sharpener in the form of an S-1. Are you jealous now?

 

 

[daveklepper]

I  rode behind a T-1 on the Trail Blazer on my way to work for EMD in late June 1952 into Chicago.  Do not kbow if it came from Hattisbutg, Pittsburg, or Cteatline.

And, then, which I now find was rare, behind a GP-7 to La Grange.  I think I was able to rent a shower room at Union Station before boarding the Q's scoot, which had the GP-7, generatr car, and two Budd galleries.

All trains were on-time but for arrival in Chicago a few minutes early.

[daveklepper]

Or is it possible that the track was not as well maintained?

[Hermann]

Jones1945

The S2 also hauled lots of crack trains that the S1 seldom pulled, like the Broadway and Manhattan limited. I read somewhere that people saw the S2 once appeared in Pittsburgh, the "forbidden city" of the S1. On the other hand, I have seen pics of the T1 phototypes powered the Trail Blazer.

 

Hi Jones1945,

interesting thing that for three long years, the two prototypes ran into and through Pittsburgh without any reported troubles.

Only in Summer 1945, the first derailment took place im Pittsburgh. Then, just one month after delivery of the first serial T1s, 5502 derailed on December 1, 1945, and another serial T1 the very next day.

Did somehow, tragically, the two prototypes have the edge over the 5500s in curves?

 

[Jones1945]

Hermann

Yes, and/but from March 26, 1945, the S-1 even got a competitor in 6200, which usually ran the Trail Blazer east and the Admiral west.

The S2 also hauled lots of crack trains that the S1 seldom pulled, like the Broadway and Manhattan limited. I read somewhere that people saw the S2 once appeared in Pittsburgh, the "forbidden city" of the S1. On the other hand, I have seen pics of  the T1 phototypes powered the Trail Blazer. 

[Hermann]

Jones1945

S1 stayed in the shop quite often, but whenever she was "recharged," she exclusively hauled some of the most important named trains of PRR (General, Trail Blazer, Golden Arrow) instead of "lower tier" passenger trains. PRR made the best use of her, unlike the T1 and Q2...

Yes, and/but from March 26, 1945, the S-1 even got a competitor in 6200, which usually ran the Trail Blazer east and the Admiral west.

 

As far as I know, before the 1472 days-regulation came into place (tayloured to the heritage RR's needs), the FRA had a locomotive inspection law which ordered the removal of all flues every 48 months within 5 consecutive years, but that period could then be prolonged by the boiler inspector for one year, for one or several times.

 

I do not know, however, if these regulations were valid all the time from their installation in 1911, or if there had been changes due to wartime or so. And I don't know how the term "consecutive" years might have been interpreted for a locomotive which spent good parts of two years as a display.

 

By the way, the site of the old Crestline roundhouse is still for sale!

 

There is an article in German, just a few years old, claiming that GM had acquired essential parts of PRR shares in 1945. Are there any primary sources confirming this?

 

[Overmod]

The 100mph locomotive is the Kantola J1e as rebuilt with the "100mph" Timken rods (and disc drivers and carefully-done balancing).

Note that it would have been a 100mph capable engine unstreamlined; the speed was in the relative absence of augment.

Note that PRR really did little more than toy with this prior to the T1s; the duplex principle and year made Milwaukee A style lightweight rods the 'done thing' on the S1 as built, and it was ridiculous to expect more than low-90s real-world speed out of a K4 chassis.

As noted it would have been fun to see a leaf taken from N&W practice and a set of Timkens with disc main put on a M1 or M1a ... with the sine-wave humongo superheater scaled to fit in the latter case.  You'd get 100mph out of that with a little care with equalizing snubbing, and it would do it with gusto with fairly minimal acceleration run... of course it would also top out proportionally above the J, say about 115mpg if the lubrication tolerated that... and by that time PRR had something with both higher speed and nominally-available HP at that speed, and far better guiding and suspension, in the pipeline...

 

"Boiler ticket" is the pre-Part 230 thing now rolled into the 1472-day inspection.  Quarterly inspection is denominated in 92-day increments (imho for the same kind of enforcement 'legality' that produces 79mph Esch Act based speed) and four quarters times four years means... time to check the boiler metal carefully inside and out.  Which implies pulling all the tubes to be able to see the surface... and hence an effective full boiler rebuild, in practice. 

[Jones1945]

Hermann

Hello Jones1945!

Did you buy them all?

If only I had more money, time and space, I would create a fleet of S1 in my display cabinet! I only have one HO NJC Brass full-skirted and an O gauge Sunset 3rd Rail full-skirted S1. I have been looking for an unskirted version of it, but it is extremely rare. I love how those 84" Baldwin Disc drivers fully exposed under the modified "mini-skirt." But at the end of the day, the skirted version was Raymond Loewy's original design that looks unbelievably futuristic.  

 

Hermann

Charlie Meyer mentioned in Milepost Jan 1992, that WWII actually prolonged S-1's life due to the need for passenger engines. As unreliable as the S-1 was - only 161.000 miles in four years - it is no wonder to me that the S-1 disappeared from passenger service as soon as the more reliable T-1s arrived in Crestline from November, 1945. IIRC, Crestline was the first shed to get serial T-1s.

Exactly. I have been looking for a complete monthly mileage figure of the S1 from Dec 1940 to May 1946 (5 years and 5 months), but I will have to go to Hagley.  S1 stayed in the shop quite often, but whenever she was "recharged," she exclusively hauled some of the most important named trains of PRR (General, Trail Blazer, Golden Arrow) instead of "lower tier" passenger trains. PRR made the best use of her, unlike the T1 and Q2...

 

Hermann

One main drive behind the construction of the S-1 was a letter by J.F.Deasy to Fred Hankins, saying basically: "the Pennsy guys are building a 100-mph-locomotive".

PRR's Vice President of Operations J.F Deasy wrote to Chief of Motive Power Fred Hankins on May 1936:

"I wish you would have somebody get to work designing a fast passenger engine of even greater capacity than now established. 

You will observe that the New York Central is advertising that their new engine is capable of making 100 miles per hour.

Keep me posted on the progress of the work."

I don't know which 100-mph locomotive Deasy referred to because I really doubt that the streamlined Mercury K-5 Pacific or the Streamlined Hudson Commodore Vanderbilt could make 100 mph, but this was probably how NYC advertised the Mercury train! IIRC, even the Dreyfuss Hudson couldn't make 100mph, and there was no need to. As we discussed before that overnight long-distance train's time schedules were very well designed base on passenger's pace of life, and the quality of sleeper services. The average speed of all NYC-Chicago overnight trains were way below 100mph. 

If the Sam Rea Line was built, and the entire route allows high-speed passenger trains running at 100mph or above, there would have been a few day trains leaving NYC and Chicago in the early morning, so that business person could have arrived both cities within the working hours (leaving at 6 am, arrive around 3 pm). But base on various research, a 900 miles or above high-speed rail is unprofitable even in today's standard.  The Sam Rea Line would have been a better stage for the S1, T1, or even the streamlined K4s to show off their capabilities, but I agree with Overmod that even a 9-hour high-speed train ticket wouldn't sell well. 

Hermann

In an interview in the late 1970's, Andre Chapelon spoke of conspiracy of the diesel producers as he said that there had been failures by diesel locomotives, "but they would be kept secret.."

So unless other data comes up, I personally think the end of the S-1 may just as well have been set by the boiler ticket running out....

Interesting point about the boiler ticket! I can't find much information about boiler ticket in the States, and I wonder what the regulation was. Please enlighten me. :  ) 

[Flintlock76]

Quite right David, you remember correctly, the S1 was labeled "American Railroads" at the World's Fair.

As a matter of fact, several years ago O Gauge model maker MTH put out an S1 model in two versions, one labeled "Pennsylvania" and one labeled "American Railroads" after the World's Fair display.  Beautiful models too, but I couldn't afford 'em!  

Here's a six minute video of one of the models.  Probably more than anyone wants to see, unless you're like me and Mr. Jones!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exKL1L7VOBc  

By the way, I've never read anything concerning the S1 and mechanical issues.  As I understand it the problem was it was just too big!  Too big for any of the Pennsy's turntables, and almost too big for any of the wyes.  Turning an S1 on a wye required "kid glove" handling, and even that was no guarantee against derailing, which the S1 did frequently.

[daveklepper]

One thing I might be able to contribute to this discussion is a question:

Is it my imagination, but did not the S1 carry the lettering:

AMERCAN RAILROADS

at either or both 1939 and 1940 Worlds Fairs,  instead of the in-service

PENNSYLVANIA

??