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

29543 views
487 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    April 2018
  • 1,375 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Monday, July 30, 2018 4:54 AM

M636C
 

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

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

Peter 



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

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

UK and US 3 axles truck

  • Member since
    April 2018
  • 1,375 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Monday, July 30, 2018 3:19 AM
Overmod
 
Perhaps interesting, I don't think the DD2 classes were intended to make very high speed.  F units are still a better answer all round, don't require massive expensive improvements to the railroad, and have the same advantages to equipment-trust bankers that saw them prescribed for lost-cause NYO&W.


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

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

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

Fantasy M1 4-8-4

 

 

 

 

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

  • Member since
    August 2003
  • From: Collinwood, Ohio, USA
  • 9,466 posts
Posted by gmpullman on Monday, July 30, 2018 2:35 AM

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

That plot sure sounds familiar...

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

Regards, Ed

  • Member since
    April 2018
  • 1,375 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Monday, July 30, 2018 1:23 AM
Miningman
Well at least everybody's thinking here!
Overmod--161 mph? Wholeeeeee Makinaw. That's nuts.

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


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


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

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

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

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

  • Member since
    September 2013
  • 5,351 posts
Posted by Miningman on Monday, July 30, 2018 1:05 AM

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

  

 

  • Member since
    January 2002
  • 3,864 posts
Posted by M636C on Sunday, July 29, 2018 9:25 PM

Jones1945

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

PRR 2DP5 vs Gresley Bogie

PRR 2D-P5 and Gresley Bogie

 

 

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

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

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

Peter

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 10,063 posts
Posted by Overmod on Sunday, July 29, 2018 12:32 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Member since
    September 2013
  • 5,351 posts
Posted by Miningman on Sunday, July 29, 2018 12:26 PM

Well at least everybody's thinking here!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

  • Member since
    April 2018
  • 1,375 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Sunday, July 29, 2018 7:58 AM

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

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

Overmod

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

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

 

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

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

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

6103, a fantasy S1

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 10,063 posts
Posted by Overmod on Sunday, July 29, 2018 5:48 AM

If there is specialized Niagara testing at high speed, it would likely be covered by Tom Gerbracht (either in Know Thy Niagaras or via an appropriate e-mail to him via NYCSHS.

Some of this PDF may also be relevant: https://nycshs.files.wordpress.com/2014/07roadtestingniagaras.pdf

My guess would be that with the known problems of lateral buckling in the rods, there would NOT be any greased-rail slip testing, and in the absence of something like Wagner drifting valves a la ATSF (or some sort of Nicolai/Trofimov arrangement) no extreme high-speed instrumented testing. 

The Hudson test (about which there seems to be considerable old-wives'-tale story spinning) is recounted in Kiefer's motive power study of 1947.  This is a greased-rail test, I believe of a J3a, and the highest recorded "speed" (derived from rotational frequency) is just above 161mph.  Here is where some care needs to be interpolated: on firm track this produced no overt wheel 'bounce' (meaning that at that rps the vertical augment was less than the imposed weight via the equalization) BUT on track with less stiffness or damping in the vertical plane, effects could be seen in the low 100s -- so track stiffness was and presumably is a major factor in expressed augment and "all that that implies".

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 10,063 posts
Posted by Overmod on Sunday, July 29, 2018 5:07 AM

Jones1945
$35,000 in 1946 is almost equal to 100K today, not enough to buy a decent house in first tier cities, assuming S1 can keep in service for 40 years, doing Excursions, hauling special train for tourist or used for other creative business ideas, I believe it can bring more than $35,000 to PRR.

Once again, these are Bretton Woods dollars so it's appropriate to compare 'modern' value to the price of gold; that's a value of just under 1 and a quarter million.  Hard to justify that to the stockholders, especially when so little practical use of the locomotive could be demonstrated through the latter half of the Forties.  PRR had no place to run a very big, very fast locomotive like that economically, and some of its cost was likely still very much stuck on the PRR balance sheet.  The decision to cash the Big Engine in was not taken idly, but in a world of PRR losing money and deciding to dieselize fast there was little question which way it would go.

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

On the other hand, starting suitably long and heavy trains through complicated and possibly poorly lined and surfaced track arrangements was NOT where an unconjugated duplex, even with the exordinate FA the T1s wound up with, would be happy about.  Unlike transient loss of adhesion on a 4-8-4 over a low joint or frog, the same thing on one engine of a duplex caused prompt unloading of up to 25% of the available adhesion.  The lack of any kind of separate throttle for the two engines (and PRR's engine crew training, which as noted didn't emphasize careful handling for front-end throttles feeding poppet valves) made recovery from this difficult; the size and length of the locomotive made slipping, particularly of the forward engine, difficult to detect.

There are, of course, ways to get around this issue, ranging from the very simple (separate wheelslip lights) to complex but automatic (Deem-style conjugation with Ferguson clutch).  If you convert a T1 to type B-2, the rear nightmare box can be removed, which opens up a clear and easy path for shaft conjugation.  Use of Wagner throttles (look at the ACE3000 patent and understand that Porta couldn't spell very well sometimes) solves any tendency for the front end to break loose while the rear engine is still expected to make power; you can neatly and proportionally trim the forward engine to any percentage of the rear one without having to find space (and there really is none) to provide double front-end throttles in the available space.

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

The case of the Q2 'success' is worth looking at in this context.  Much has been made of the J1s being 'good enough' for PRR at vastly lower capital and maintenance cost.  But what I think is forgotten is that the Q2s were win-the-war locomotives, built for services that PRR could run faster than "normal" 50mph freight speed, and almost always sure of the opportunity of enough cars for a full train meriting nearly 8000 peak hp. when a train needed to be moved.  Once you go back to postwar density (in non-electrified sections where Q2s could operate) at typical speeds with typical maintenance and attention, the joys of the sophisticated duplex were no longer as applicable, but the double costs for running gear were still leveraged out on the bleeding edge of rising costs.

  • Member since
    April 2018
  • 1,375 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Sunday, July 29, 2018 4:05 AM

Overmod
However we may think of Arnold Haas for his tales about 142-mph Trail Blazer runs and 120+mph Niagara flights, I think we can take him at his word about various engineers taking special pains to work the remaining Niagaras to death with ridiculously short or long cutoff in their last years. 

 

I am not familiar with the history of Niagara, did NYC ever release an official speed record of it like what they did for the Super Hudson during road test? (IIRC its was 95mph)

For S1 speed, I tried my best to use the train simulator “TrainZ” (Please don’t laugh at me Stick out tongue), the only programme available to find the answer for me. Base on the figures in the config file of C&O 2-6-6-6 Class H-8 Allegheny, I adjusted all parameter for S1. Using realistic mode, it took more than 20 mins for her to reach 100mph hauling 1025 tons P70 consists on level track. It took her much longer to reach 110mph or above but never can surpass 120mph on level track. Another test was S1 hauling 1600 tons consists, it stuck at 60mph forever. 

The engine itself and the cars behind it will start shaking like a speedy boat once the speed excess 75mph, at 100mph plus, they looks like building in a magnitude 8 earthquake. S1 (in the game) can go as fast as 130mph only if it is hauling nothing behind her in the game, but as many pointed out, the gear would probably fallen apart in real life.

N&W J Class and PRR S1

  • Member since
    April 2018
  • 1,375 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Sunday, July 29, 2018 2:23 AM

Overmod

The "$35,000" is the thirty pieces of silver received as scrap value for the 6100.



Thank you very much Overmod, things I have learnt from you guys sharing is beyond expectation! $35,000 in 1946 is almost equal to 100K today, not enough to buy a decent house in first tier cities, assuming S1 can keep in service for 40 years, doing Excursions, hauling special train for tourist or used for other creative business ideas, I believe it can bring more than $35,000 to PRR. But PRR was never good at publicity stuff.

When NYCRR successfully turned the 20th Century and the Empire State Express into a fancy club and social networking platform for the elites, the only thing PRR did to their Broadway Limited was to redesign the interior of their new pullman trainset, there was no creative ideas and method to convert the underdog to the upper hand. They didn’t even tired to streamlining a few more K4s to haul their Blue Ribbon Fleet or maintain consistency of their named train’s livery. Milwaukee Road, NYC, Union Pacific, Southern Pacific and many smaller railroads did a much better job at building up a corporate image, PRR probably thought they were too big that they didn’t really need it. They did something but it always fell between two stools.

Good looking Yeah Reliable Yeah Fast and powerful Yeah Loved by the public  Yeah Not a PRR Train Oops

MILW F7 Hudson


Overmod
There is some evidence that PRR had solved, in principle, most of the operating issues with the T1 in 1948 (this being the Franklin type A poppet version, not wholesale conversion to T1a) including changes to the valves and seats to make them more resistant to damage at the higher 'debounce' closing pressure.  Unfortunately this couldn't make up for some of the design limitations like the 92' grate (an issue that has carried over into the T1 Trust parameters) and the reliance on what turned out to be an overripe tomato of a feedwater-heater system.

Personally, I have come to suspect a far more likely conspiracy than that alleged for NCL killing off trolleys in favor of GM buses in the abrupt changes made from 1948 forward.  There were enormous equipment-trust charges, going forward a substantial number of years, on All Those T1s, and the only way the bankers would let these go was if the locomotives proved to be hopeless, irrremediable dogs, engines that slipped all the time and broke repeatedly and could never, never be made to run reliably... oh wait, does this sound familiar to anyone?



This is inspiring Overmod. One topic I seldom think about or never have a chance to study is Corruption between Railroad Company and their business partner in the past. I don’t really know how the equipment-trust charges works back in 40s, but I can understand that *if corruption (in any form) really existed between Railroads and businesses around them, Railroads like PRR, NYC would be one of the biggest hot bed of Corruption and crimes. Any new development, project, purchase of expensive equipment would have been a corruption opportunity for the criminals. Similar things still happen today. 
 
If this is the case, no wonder detailed information of some train are so hard to find, no wonder some leaders of railroad made so many silly or restless mistakes in the past. Take PRR S1 as an example, the construction cost was two times a T1 prototype, but Baldwin, Alco, Lima and PRR, with so many years of experience in manufacturing locomotive couldn’t even notice the clearance problem of it? Even a clerk would notice that problem if you let him place an O gauge S1 model on a sharp curve, it is too hard to believe. T1 had a lateral motion devices allowed them to negotiate 16-degree curves, S1 had the similar thing equipped according to a source from German, but at the end, PRR just told their shareholder it was too big to go through sharp curve outside Pittsburgh station blah blah blah……. I believe there are more stories behind all this. 
 
"We only have four of these, but we are too lazy to clean it"

A dirty streamlined K4s
  • Member since
    September 2013
  • 5,351 posts
Posted by Miningman on Saturday, July 28, 2018 11:41 PM

Yes that is logical and makes good sense and generally that is what happened. So here comes the but....but Donald Russell of the Southern Pacific kept hordes of steam of all sorts stored serviceable in Houston I believe. He did not believe that expensive Diesels should be idled during slower times so things were cut real tight. If there was an upturn somewhere along the system the steam was pulled out. 

Not everyone was on the same wavelength. 

This arraignment stuck around for quite some time. 

  • Member since
    July 2016
  • 677 posts
Posted by Backshop on Saturday, July 28, 2018 9:49 PM

The problem with keeping a limited quantity of steam locomotives around is that you also have to maintain the associated fueling and maintenance facilities, also.  That's why some railroads dieselized by division.  At one fell swoop, they could get rid of coaling towers, waterspouts and most divisional roundhouses.  Since the T1s were meant for long distance, interdivisional runs, that couldn't have happened.  Look at my username.  I have a special affinity for back/erecting shops and roundhouses.  I miss them but that's from a hobbyist's point of view.  From a practical, economic point, I understand completely why most aren't around anymore.

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 10,063 posts
Posted by Overmod on Saturday, July 28, 2018 6:44 PM

Miningman
By the way, putative can be defined as 'supposed'.

Precisely.  You will be familiar with the general GM arguments for adoption of first switching and then road power.  You are likely also familiar with Brown's paper (from 1961) discussing why some of the arguments "against steam" might have been exaggerated or even wrong.

Many of the arguments for first-generation dieselization didn't really hold up that well, as the preservation of the St. Clair 4-6-0s demonstrates in a number of ways.  Even as late as the second-generation locomotives with Flexicoil trucks a great deal of the 'advantage' in low track forces, effective train-handling, etc. was in the explaining and not in the doing, if you take my point; this is one of the reasons Ross Rowland notes 614T was recorded as producing less track-damaging force than contemporary diesel alternatives at the time of the testing in the '80s.  Alco and GM tried building better-mousetrap trucks in that period with dubious success.

Meanwhile, the great advantages of road-switcher power on the Pascack Valley and Northern branches were being brought out in the early-'50s trade press: no more water tower maintenance and filling, no more having to turn the power on a wye or table, no more keeping all the engines fired and hot all night under inspection to ensure they will be ready for a fairly short duty turn twice a day... etc.  You can examine the plant at the Hudson River terminal end of the runs and tell me where you're going to maintain steam for all the trains Erie and later EL wanted to run.  

Even with the fun of maintaining 244s all those years -- and they often got fairly tractorish in those last few, more endearingly than not -- the RS units ran those services effectively.  In a way that steam never possibly could and be cost effective.

  • Member since
    September 2013
  • 5,351 posts
Posted by Miningman on Saturday, July 28, 2018 6:08 PM

Well thank you Overmod for the reply and the info. At least the Niagara's , with the exception of 5500, got 10 years and fairly useful ones at that. The T1's half that. Maybe a bit more but used sparingly.

It is the fact that they were so modern and still new. They were not 'one of's' but whole fleets. Same goes for N&W J's, C&O 0-8-0 switchers , then N&W and VGN switchers,  CPR Selkirk's and on and on. 

Still boggles the mind though.there she goes, hook, line and sinker.

Wartime profits squandered away permanently and GM reaping a harvest of incredible wealth. 

By the way, putative can be defined as 'supposed'.

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 10,063 posts
Posted by Overmod on Saturday, July 28, 2018 3:50 PM

Miningman
Aaaannnd....why were T1's and Niagaras's obsolete? I think they could have had a stand alone specialized usage for many years yet, somewhat akin to Nickel Plates Berkshire.

Yes but ... the standalone specialized use of the T1 involved sustained high speed, implicitly higher speed than the point that the 'conventional valves' on the T1a started to have their obvious effect on free admission and exhaust (somewhere between 85 and 100mph; it's in the Keystone material and the T1 Trust repository, including the comparative TE/speed curves).  No regular PRR train that wasn't better handled by diesels required (or could be given) that sort of speed cost-effectively, and as it developed, many of the PRR steam guys either had little interest in learning not to horse the passenger Duplexes or were to some degree willing participants or 'fellow-travelers' in the make-'em-fail effort.

The Niagara's whole raison d'etre economically was repeated use on long, fast passenger trains with effectively implemented maintenance.  Even by the time the Kiefer report was published, what there was of that traffic was being converted to 'Dieseliners'; all you really need to know about the follow-on experimentation with the type A installation rigged on 5500-the-Niagara was how quickly the locomotive was retired from service, please note while T1s were happily polishing the rails still.  And then came the great falloff of the Great Steel Fleet, very quickly to levels that effectively orphaned 6000hp locomotives whether or not they could be run effectively to lower levels of performance with careful sliding-pressure firing as the Niagaras could.

However we may think of Arnold Haas for his tales about 142-mph Trail Blazer runs and 120+mph Niagara flights, I think we can take him at his word about various engineers taking special pains to work the remaining Niagaras to death with ridiculously short or long cutoff in their last years. 

Ditto for Lackawanna 4-8-4's and Firelocks beloved Erie Berkshires.

Yes, the Poconos (and while we're there, the LV equivalents) as well as the big Hudsons had plenty of life in them, but notice that they went completely and early, and comparatively ordinary kinds of diesel replaced most of them.  It is possible that if Lackawanna had been associated with Nickel Plate, as the 1925 plan would have provided, it would form a kind of natural bridge route for high-speed freight that would make best use of Berks on the west and Poconos on the east. But ... better still with Fs and later things of that ilk.

Suspect Erie didn't have the money to withstand the putative diesel savings.  They were considerable on the Pascack Valley and Northern branches, net of all saving.

The firebox wrapper problem of the Niagaras could have been solved.

I thought it WAS solved.  Most if not all the Niagaras received new boilers fairly quickly when the problems with nickel steel were determined.  I haven't yet read the (likely definitive) account in Know Thy Niagaras, but suspect this was solved beyond dispute.  What would not be as easily solved would be the carryover problem due to the domeless separators combined with the ease with which the lightweight rodwork would bend laterally (and then quickly catastrophically!) with even heavy compression, let alone actual water through the elements.  One instance of such a thing would likely be a death sentence from the early '50s on.

  • Member since
    September 2013
  • 5,351 posts
Posted by Miningman on Saturday, July 28, 2018 11:19 AM

With exceptions! Nickel Plate, Grand Trunk Western in particular, Illinois Central, N&W. Of course N&W went quickly when it did and perhaps the others really are not East, I dunno, Chicago-Detroit-Buffalo, is that East?

Aaaannnd....why were T1's and Niagaras's obsolete? I think they could have had a stand alone specialized usage for many years yet, somewhat akin to Nickel Plates Berkshire. Ditto for Lackawanna 4-8-4's and Firelocks beloved Erie Berkshires. 

The firebox wrappers problem  of the Niagaras's could have been solved. 

This did not happen so I quess my thinking is all screwy but it could have happened quite easily and with not so much of a rush to ruin.  

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 10,063 posts
Posted by Overmod on Saturday, July 28, 2018 5:44 AM

The "$35,000" is the thirty pieces of silver received as scrap value for the 6100.

There is some evidence that PRR had solved, in principle, most of the operating issues with the T1 in 1948 (this being the Franklin type A poppet version, not wholesale conversion to T1a) including changes to the valves and seats to make them more resistant to damage at the higher 'debounce' closing pressure.  Unfortunately this couldn't make up for some of the design limitations like the 92' grate (an issue that has carried over into the T1 Trust parameters) and the reliance on what turned out to be an overripe tomato of a feedwater-heater system.

Personally, I have come to suspect a far more likely conspiracy than that alleged for NCL killing off trolleys in favor of GM buses in the abrupt changes made from 1948 forward.  There were enormous equipment-trust charges, going forward a substantial number of years, on All Those T1s, and the only way the bankers would let these go was if the locomotives proved to be hopeless, irrremediable dogs, engines that slipped all the time and broke repeatedly and could never, never be made to run reliably... oh wait, does this sound familiar to anyone?

The problem is, as a perusal of the contemporary trade press starts to show, that the costs involved with even the best steam power in the East were starting to balloon uncontrollably in the late '40s as other areas of the economy began to expand again.  This is most notable in just the period between 1947 and 1948 that the drive to produce advanced steam on PRR goes bottom-up: you see an almost violent switch in motive-power assessment regarding not only the T1s but the mechanical turbines (both the 4-8-4 S2 followups and the V1 'centipedes').  There is something of a scam associated with Yellott's development of coal turbines at BCR, which factors into that part of motive power options increasingly during the early Fifties, but that and the potential of free-piston gas generation are more associated with diesel-type operation than high-overhead Rankine-cycle steam with staybolted fireboxes and chambers.

One sad detail normally overlooked is that the difference in calendar years between PRR giving up on the T1s and NYC effectively giving up on the Niagaras is no more than about 5 years.  And this shows the dramatic changes in various costs and issues that led to steam being removed everywhere in the Northeast in the Korean War period, the demand for scrap being really little more than a situation that made it possible to unload large numbers of now-obsolescent locomotives expediently.

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 10,063 posts
Posted by Overmod on Saturday, July 28, 2018 5:21 AM

Jones1945
Roller bearings can reduces the friction between the wheels and the axles or the trucks, but won’t affect the weight and friction between the engine and the rail track, does that mean a steam engine with roller bearing equipped can use less power to move the engine itself thus it have more power left to tow the cars behind it, compare to another steam engine which is not using roller bearings and towing a consist with the same weight? Does that mean roller bearing can improve the starting time of a passenger train but cannot ease wheel slip problem since the weight and friction between the engine and the rail remain unchanged? Thank you very much!

First, there is a distinction between rollers on the axles and rollers in the rods and valve gear.  Most of the advantages for the former have little to do with reducing running friction, as a good hydrodynamic plain bearing will do fine at much less cost and complexity.  One advantage (which really requires Franklin wedges or something like them) is 360-degree support for axle forces,  A plain bearing only provides between journal and brasses, and very seldom allows any loadbearing support to arrest downward motion of the axle relative to the brass.

Difficult to keep oil-lubricated roller bearings running happily in some designs of trailing truck, where there is close contact with blowdown water, grate and ashpan heat, and various kinds of cinders and dirt.  You sometimes see locomotives with rollers on all axles ... except the trailing truck.

Note that some devices like Hennessy lubricators were supposed to provide much of the theoretical benefit of fancy rolling-element bearings at a tiny fraction of the expense.Note that the early Reading T1s were built with plain main bearings, but the last order (of which 2124 is the only surviving representative) was built with rollers -- that probably speaks well of the practical superiority.  The great advantage of rollers was in maintenance (see NYC and N&W practice for some of the more thoroughgoing and professional applications).

There might have been some 'advantage' in rollers maintaining low friction and precise alignment on drivers spinning up to high rotational speed, for example by allowing quick acceleration up to the range where inertia made re-establishment of adhesion difficult in quick response.  Likewise a lower machine friction might make breakaway a bit more likely when operating at speed and power otherwise close to the adhesion limit (as is likely to be the issue with T1s experiencing classical high-speed slipping), but other factors including valve performance are likely to be far more significant.

  • Member since
    April 2018
  • 1,375 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Saturday, July 28, 2018 4:31 AM

Miningman

Well a 65,000,000 dollar investment in duplex drives and they worry about $35,000  and destroy the best public relations tool they had? Not for the bottom line, no way. 

Thank you for your deep sharing, Miningman. English is not my first language; would you mind telling me what is the $35000 was about? Anyway, PRR was a quitter of their “duplex movement” when their president Martin Clement announced to remove all steam engine from through passenger trains west of the electrified territory in 1948. At that time, they had 78 (T1s+Q2) brand new, next-gen duplex engine waiting for fine-tuning or modification in 1946 which would have allowed them to continue serving for 20 more years+ (1966) but they choose to ditch these brand new T1 and Q2 like trash.

 In a long run, EMD's diesel might have saved a lot of money for PRR, but tons of money already spent on the duplex. The total investment cost for Duplex’s plus Diesel (to replace Steam engine) and the money saved by 
dieselizing offset each other. Not to mention The PRR bought some problematic early Diesel from Baldwin and Alco with tons of money, even more money was wasted. In hindsight, if PRR used their money to further improve the performance of their Duplexes like applying the Franklin Type B Poppet Valves on both T1 and Q2 or other steam locomotives instead of buying this and that, we might have seen a much “romantic” ending. :P 

Miningman

It was image, dirty, smokey steam was outdated now, old fashioned, ridiculed, and Pennsy wanted a progressive image for the future. Besides it was all part of the brainwashing that had started, see the thread of 'Commander E. Jay Quinby's 1945 warning", and culminated with Ike's warning of the 'Military-Industrial Complex'. Big auto, big rubber and big oil won. 

A very brief glimpse of a future that never happened, or better yet, was not allowed to happen. The T1's were soon sabotaged with bad coal, poor training, corporate wink and nod. GM standing on the sidelines with their expensive Diesels and easy peasy credit. Buy now, pay later. Baldwin, Lima, frantically abandoning steam and going down the drain. Took a bit longer to kill off Alco, and they retreated up here to Canada, a niche market. 



The murder of the Fallen flags were some organized crimes, similar things is still happening here and there…….

How many forum members still remember this clip? ( Starting from 19m22s)


  • Member since
    September 2013
  • 5,351 posts
Posted by Miningman on Friday, July 27, 2018 12:26 PM

Well a 65,000,000 dollar investment in duplex drives and they worry about $35,000  and destroy the best public relations tool they had? Not for the bottom line, no way. 

It was image, dirty, smokey steam was outdated now, old fashioned, ridiculed, and Pennsy wanted a progressive image for the future. Besides it was all part of the brainwashing that had started, see the thread of 'Commander E. Jay Quinby's 1945 warning", and culminated with Ike's warning of the 'Military-Industrial Complex'. Big auto, big rubber and big oil won. 

A very brief glimpse of a future that never happened, or better yet, was not allowed to happen. The T1's were soon sabotaged with bad coal, poor training, corporate wink and nod. GM standing on the sidelines with their expensive Diesels and easy peasy credit. Buy now, pay later. Baldwin, Lima, frantically abandoning steam and going down the drain. Took a bit longer to kill off Alco, and they retreated up here to Canada, a niche market. 

I think there was a brief time when highly qualified wise elders were in charge of running the freight, passenger and motive power departments, you know, the guys that got them through the war, but a new group came in shortly into the post war years and a real duality existed but not for long. 

A way of life started to disappear quite rapidly and now we have what we have today. 

Overcrowded airports, overcrowded and dangerous highways, no rails to small towns, folks arguing about peanuts spent on Amtrak long distance, everyone clamouring for High Speed Rail that costs a trillion bucks. Double stacks of defective Chinese junk that end up in yard sales for 0.25 cents going from the West coast to the East coast and the East coast to the West coast. 

I firmly believe we could have had the best of all worlds but we abondoned too much of one thing... local rail, intercity rail, downtown to downtown, freight and passenger. 

  • Member since
    April 2018
  • 1,375 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Friday, July 27, 2018 8:32 AM

M636C
The closure of 39 World Fair was in October 1940(From Wikipedia) The fair was open for two seasons, from April to October each year, and was officially closed permanently on October 27, 1940

Peter



Sorry for my late reply Peter. I missed your post! So there was a 5 months break between two seasons of the fair. I bet PRR just left the "big engine" there instead of moving this giant back to the system. Please correct me if I am wrong. : ) (Edit: I was wrong, according to the picture posted by forum member Miningman, "6100 shrugs off an early Chicago winter snow storm as it pauses at Englewood Union Station with the eastbound Manhattan Limited in November 1939." Which mean PRR did put S1 back to the system between the break of 39 World Fair. PRR ordered two T1 prototype from Baldwin in mid-1940, I believe they did think that the idea of duplex is practicable base on the operating result of S1 during the break. (assuming that the date of the photo is correct)

Another topic I just started studying recently is the use of roller bearing of steam locomotive. According to Timken's advisement during the 39 World Fair, Timken's roller bearings were equipped to the crosshead pins, all engine truck, driving axles, trailer truck and tender trucks on S1. I wonder if the use of roller bearing had any effect on the wheel slip problem of S1 or not? did it ease the problem, made it worse or had no impact?

Roller bearings can reduces the friction between the wheels and the axles or the trucks, but won’t affect the weight and friction between the engine and the rail track, does that mean a steam engine with roller bearing equipped can use less power to move the engine itself thus it have more power left to tow the cars behind it, compare to another steam engine which is not using roller bearings and towing a consist with the same weight? Does that mean roller bearing can improve the starting time of a passenger train but cannot ease wheel slip problem since the weight and friction between the engine and the rail remain unchanged? Thank you very much!  

This is a screenshot from a video (available on YouTube) of S1 leaving Englewood in Winter, early 1946, She was hauling the standard 14 cars consist The Trail Blazer, sand was applied when it was leaving the station. No wheel slip can be seen in the short video. 
S1 at Englewood, 1946
  • Member since
    April 2018
  • 1,375 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Friday, July 27, 2018 2:35 AM
Redwards
Some years ago Feltonhill had recommended the following article on the S1:
 
"The S1's history was covered in a 7-page article by the late Charlie Meyer in the Jan 1992 (Vo.10, N0.1) issue of Milepost, a magazine published by Friends of the Railroad Museum of Pennsylvania. I believe they're still in existence, maybe out of Strasburg, and this is available as a back issue. It's well worth trying to get. It's probably the only detailed account written at this point."
 
I managed to find a copy on eBay and as he states, it's the most detailed account I've seen on the S1. 
 
--Reed 

 


Thank you so much, Reed! This is exactly what I am looking for!

Overmod
 Very sharp crossovers, probably 20mph crossovers.  Taken at what was supposed to be about 57mph.

I am still not quite sure how the train made it through this, hunting oscillation playing a comparatively small objective role in the kinematics.  But certainly very clear it was that a great deal of the crockery didn't.  Certainly stopped any great tendency for the superior four-cylinder LMS Pacifics to be raced up to compete with Mallard later.

As I recall this was mid-1937.

This reminds me (IIRC) a story about the PRR S2 #6200 steam turbine engine, during a test run, when the train reached 110mph, the engineer slowed it down before it was about to reach a crossover because of the regulation. Its seems that LMS and LNER would stop at nothing for a speed record, risked the life of their crews and guests!

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

PRR 2DP5 vs Gresley Bogie

PRR 2D-P5 and Gresley Bogie

Miningman

The two 4-6-0's in St Thomas, much beloved, and very late in the game to be retired in the Spring of '57, were scrapped for $4,928.57 in scrap value. The only engines that still existed that were built for CASO/Michigan central/NYC in the St. Thomas erecting shops.

Obviously, the $4,928.57 did not save the mighty Central, but I'm sure it bought some nice cigars and Bahama yacht vacation for a couple of the swells. 

Same darn thing for the S1 and any other of at least one duplex example. There is zero justification. Setting the table for the crooks like Saunders to follow. 

Very well said! The thing hasn’t changed since then I believe; many transportation companies are still running by “elites” who have no feeling about their fleets, it’s just a job, a business and dollar sign for them. I don’t know if “elites” is an appropriate term to describe the Leaders of PRR and NYC during post-war period; NYCRR bought 700 lightweight cars for their “Great Steel Fleet” to lure passenger back from Airplane and their own fancy cars…… PRR hired Raymond Lowey to design the shrouding of their most important express steam engines in order to set up an outstanding image for the company but allow the work forces to torn them apart like trash (PRR HQ didn’t even order the work forces to keep the shrouding of at least one streamlined engine, maybe S1 or T1 6110, remain intact! )……

"Did you hit something, my friend?"

T1 with damage on front end


gmpullman
Jones1945
(another one is S2 #6200 turbine)
 The Vol 45, No. 3 Keystone has a pretty decent article about #6200 if you don't already have that issue.
It is still available as a back-issue:http://www.prrths.com/estore/keystone_magazine.html#2012
 Regards, Ed

Thank you, Ed. One of my friends have a copy of this, it is a must read for everyone who interested in #6200! I don’t know why there is no article about S1 #6100 on Keystone, they are one of the most reliable sources.

M636C

Between 1937 and 1939, two significant records were set by locomotives of the Coronation class. Before the introduction of the Coronation service, No. 6220 headed a special train of invited guests from London Euston to Crewe on 29 June 1937.

Peter


Thank you very much for your sharing, Peter. I wonder if there was any guest puked or felt unwell during the special run Stick out tongue I studied about the Coronation Class and Coronation Scot like 10 years ago, the engine and LMS used to be one of my favorite, even though it was no longer the fastest steam locomotive after the duck "gone downhill". Wink

PRR S1 and LMS Coronation Class in a video game.

PRR S1 and LMS Coronation in the game TrainZ

  • Member since
    January 2002
  • 3,864 posts
Posted by M636C on Thursday, July 26, 2018 8:39 PM

Oh no, the story is FAR more amusing than that, and someone should provide a link to one of the contemporary accounts as they contain some fun Britannic prose.

This is the internet version:

Between 1937 and 1939, two significant records were set by locomotives of the Coronation class. Before the introduction of the Coronation service, No. 6220 headed a special train of invited guests from London Euston to Crewe on 29 June 1937. Just south of Crewe, the train (disputably) achieved a speed of 114 miles per hour (183 km/h), narrowly beating the previous British record for a steam locomotive (held by the London and North Eastern Railway (LNER)). Insufficient braking distance had been left before entering a series of crossover points at Crewe, and although the train held the rails, much crockery in the dining car was smashed.

THe LMS invited Cecil J Allen...

http://www.steamindex.com/library/allen.htm

which was something like coupling a dynamometer car to the train...

Cecil J Allen was a Civil Engineer who worked for the LNER and inspected rails prior to delivery. His hobby was timing trains and he had a pass that allowed him to travel all over Britain as part of his job. The photo in the link above shows him sitting next to Sir Nigel Gresley on the trial of the LNER train Coronation not to be confused with the LMS locomotive of the same name being discussed here.

Forty nine years ago next week I celebrated my 21st Birthday. Of the presents I received from friends, three were books by Cecil J Allen, in cluding his autobiography.

In the autobiography he comments on the LMS trial.

All I can recall offhand is the words "Coronation rode through the crossovers like the great lady she is..."

I'll try to find more - I still have the books, of course.

Peter

  • Member since
    September 2013
  • 5,351 posts
Posted by Miningman on Thursday, July 26, 2018 8:30 PM

Beautiful covers on the Keystone. They truly capture the spirit of the Pennsy.

Overmod states " A considerable effort was made to preserve the S1 'Big Engine' for the collection, it being arguably the most famous and recognizable PRR engine aside from 7002 and 460.  In the end it was the sheer (over)size of the project that tipped the balance; PRR was still having balance sheet problems and had prioritized acquiring more diesels stat, and the scrap value of the engine was over $35,000 (considerably more impressive converted to modern dollars).  Again much of the correspondence on this survives at the Hagley and it might make an interesting article for Classic Trains."

Well isn't that just lovely that a bunch of executives can send each a whack of memos to cover their butts regarding scrapping. Maybe that's a bit harsh but a billion of dollars company is showing their greed and quite frankly, stupidity. There is no justification, you can play the Northhumberland Card, or the Diesels Now Card, poverty Card is ridiculous, but none of it justifies just a bunch of greedy yes men all lined up to prove how old fashioned steam was. What brave men!

Just as bad the New York Central Hudson's and Niagara's. New sheriff in town I guess, dumb and insensitive. The two 4-6-0's in St Thomas, much beloved, and very late in the game to be retired in the Spring of '57, were scrapped for $4,928.57 in scrap value. The only engines that still existed that were built for CASO/MichiganCentral/NYC in the St. Thomas erecting shops.

Obviously the $4,928.57 did not save the mighty Central, but I'm sure it bought some nice cigars and Bahama yacht vacation for a couple of the swells. 

Same darn thing for the S1 and any other of at least one duplex example. There is zero justification. Setting the table for the crooks like Saunders to follow. 

  • Member since
    August 2003
  • From: Collinwood, Ohio, USA
  • 9,466 posts
Posted by gmpullman on Thursday, July 26, 2018 6:07 PM

Jones1945
(another one is S2 #6200 turbine)

The Vol 45, No. 3 Keystone has a pretty decent article about #6200 if you don't already have that issue.

It is still available as a back-issue:

http://www.prrths.com/estore/keystone_magazine.html#2012

 

Regards, Ed

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 10,063 posts
Posted by Overmod on Thursday, July 26, 2018 3:25 PM

Jones1945
I remember I read a story that in UK 1938, when the streamlined "Coronation Scot" reach 113mph, all the foods or drinks carried on the plate by the waiters in the dinner car were thrown all over the place (haha), and many China in the kitchen car were broken because of the hunting oscillation effect !

Oh no, the story is FAR more amusing than that, and someone should provide a link to one of the contemporary accounts as they contain some fun Britannic prose.

As I recall the story, the 114mph (to beat Silver Fox) was attained running downgrade, within a couple of miles of Crewe station, where it then developed (somewhat astoundingly when I first heard the story, and somewhat astoundingly still) that for some reason the Press Run Coronation Scot had been lined across not just one but several crossovers to put the train several tracks off any sort of straight line through.  Very sharp crossovers, probably 20mph crossovers.  Taken at what was supposed to be about 57mph.

I am still not quite sure how the train made it through this, hunting oscillation playing a comparatively small objective role in the kinematics.  But certainly very clear it was that a great deal of the crockery didn't.  Certainly stopped any great tendency for the superior four-cylinder LMS Pacifics to be raced up to compete with Mallard later.

As I recall this was mid-1937.

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • From: Matawan, NJ
  • 125 posts
Posted by Redwards on Thursday, July 26, 2018 3:21 PM

Some years ago Feltonhill had recommended the following article on the S1:

 
"The S1's history was covered in a 7-page article by the late Charlie Meyer in the Jan 1992 (Vo.10, N0.1) issue of Milepost, a magazine published by Friends of the Railroad Museum of Pennsylvania. I believe they're still in existance, maybe out of Strasburg, and this is available as a back issue. It's well worth trying to get. It's probably the only detailed account written at this point."
 
I managed to find a copy on eBay and as he states, it's the most detailed account I've seen on the S1. 
 
--Reed 

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