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

29213 views
487 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    April 2018
  • 1,368 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Thursday, January 9, 2020 1:09 PM

Overmod
The 84" drivers would be a colossal mistake on PRR, and would have been more so than on other roads with more 'necessity' for them.  There is no need for greater than 80" on a working PRR express locomotive; in fact, I consider there to have been adequate evidence that a properly-balanced 72" M1a variant would have been a far better thing for PRR to 'modernize' than any Pacific... for what PRR needed its locomotives to do most of the time.  

Thanks a lot for the thorough explanation, Overmod! Yes, the PRR S2 had 68" drivers, even smaller than N&W Js driver by one inch, but still capable to pull a 17-car train over a distance of 30 miles (level track) at a speed of 110 mph, so a properly-balanced 72" driver on M1a/b variant should have been adequate for express passenger train. But not only PRR's S1, MILW, CNW's, and ATSF's 3460 Class Hudson also had 84" drivers, I wonder why Alco, Baldwin, and RRs had blind faith on driver larger than 80" for their express passenger steam engine? 

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 9,946 posts
Posted by Overmod on Thursday, January 9, 2020 5:40 AM

Jones1945
... I am still looking for a trustworthy source about the mechanical stokers on the Loewy K4s #3768. I have seen some brass train models, some in HO scale some O gauge, having a dual mechanical stokers on the #3768, I mean stoker like this ...

I cannot get that link to display, but you're describing a Duplex stoker, which is not an uncommon design.  See this thread for some associated discussion.

http://cs.trains.com/trn/f/740/p/249407/2783285.aspx

This is not a 'dual' stoker so much as it is a dual-elevator stoker.  In most stoker designs there is one 'table' to which the coal is delivered, centered under the firedoor, and you can see the jet (or scoop or whatever) action by looking in through the door or peepholes.  The Duplex left the firedoor area clear, bringing coal up 'around' it to either side, which theoretically would allow a higher mass delivery of coal from the worm up to the table(s).  This would not have increased the capacity of a K4 any more than even the most primitive of the early stokers designed for it (see the detailed information and drawings of Street stokers available on line) as the grate limit was comparatively low on even the most modernized of those locomotives.

In hindsight, If PRR chose another path; upgraded the K4s, K5 like how C&O rebuilt their F-19 Pacific (in 1947), instead of design and built the T1, they would have saved a lot of resources.

But you'd still have a locomotive needing to be doubleheaded on any substantial PRR consist ... except now, improved with a bunch of expensive components to be even more overkill than before.

Imagine a K4s like #5399, not only had poppet valve gear and front-end throttle equipped but also with roller bearings on all axles, Baldwin disc drivers, light-alloy rods, all-weather cab... or simply built a K6 instead of T1; larger firebox, higher boiler pressure, 84" drivers... That would have been looked like a B&O Class V Hudson without the watertube firebox...

... or, perhaps a little more pointedly, like an E8 Atlantic stretched by one axle, exactly the sort of thing I expect the PRR did with the E6 and K4 back in 1914.

The 84" drivers would be a colossal mistake on PRR, and would have been more so than on other roads with more 'necessity' for them.  There is no need for greater than 80" on a working PRR express locomotive; in fact, I consider there to have been adequate evidence that a properly-balanced 72" M1a variant would have been a far better thing for PRR to 'modernize' than any Pacific... for what PRR needed its locomotives to do most of the time.  

Why in fact no 'M1b' was ever built with the front-end throttle and sine-wave superheater elements, etc. is a mystery, although I suspect much of it is just as much 20/20 hindsight as the ability to discriminate gains from the Franklin System from gains due to better superheat or steam-generation effectiveness.  An M1 with disc drivers and alloy rods, a good cast bed, full high pressure, capable passenger superheater, and a front-end throttle would have been every bit as fast -- practically speaking -- as anyone's 4-8-2, and with the relatively slight enhancement of N&W-style balancing woiuld give you 'enough' of a higher wheel to get rid of the machinery-speed concerns expressed over the class J wheel size as tested. 

 

Overmod
 If they attempted high-speed suspension modifications for better riding or lower augment, I do not see any evidence of widespread adoption.
  • Member since
    April 2018
  • 1,368 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Wednesday, January 8, 2020 9:59 PM

Speaking of PRR K4s' upgrades and stokers, I am still looking for a trustworthy source about the mechanical stokers on the Loewy K4s #3768. I have seen some brass train models, some in HO scale some O gauge, having a dual mechanical stokers on the #3768, I mean stoker like this: 

I wonder if other Streamlined K4s had the same treatment. Not even a gigantic show car like the PRR S1 nor the much more powerful T1 had dual stoker like this. 

In hindsight, If PRR chose another path; upgraded the K4s, K5 like how C&O rebuilt there F-19 Pacific (in 1947), instead of design and built the T1, they would have saved a lot of resources. Imagine a K4s like #5399, not only had poppet valve gear and front-end throttle equipped but also with roller bearings on all axles, Baldwin disc drivers, light-alloy rods, all-weather cab... or simply built a K6 instead of T1; larger firebox, higher boiler pressure, 84" drivers... That would have been looked like a B&O Class V Husdon without the watertube firebox...

Overmod
 If they attempted high-speed suspension modifications for better riding or lower augment, I do not see any evidence of widespread adoption.

Would you mind explaining the difference between high-speed suspension and the lower-speed one on reciprocating steam locomotive? Do you mean using the high-speed pilot truck used on T1 and MILW's F-6 Hudson? Smile

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 9,946 posts
Posted by Overmod on Wednesday, January 8, 2020 9:16 AM

daveklepper
Regarding PRR  team-power acumen, look at the K4s in the Winter '19 issue,  pages 58 (1954) and 60(1941).  Count the differences, the modifications!

The chief problem I have with this hypothesis is that I don't think PRR ever really tried to 'implement real silk' fleetwide with what was increasingly a 205psi sow's-ear by comparison with everybody else's modern power.  You see them trying just about every version of disc driver (including Web-Spoke); they try lightweight rods and angle balancing; I think they even try engine beds.  They even get a taste of what a good sine-wave superheater and proper front-end throttle arrangements can do ... in the Lima-modified poppet-valve demonstrations ... and then attribute the gains to the valves and make no further attempt at either higher pressure or better superheat.  If they attempted high-speed suspension modifications for better riding or lower augment, I do not see any evidence of widespread adoption.

Government made them put those stokers on K4s, and as I recall PRR fought them tooth and nail over it.  It is hard to say that 'forcing' a K4 beyond what a good fireman could hand-bomb is necessary; long before that point PRR would just doublehead two together for the ultimate articulated passenger locomotive at suitable firing rate...  

The much better argument on stoker necessity involves the K5, which couldn't even remotely reach its potential without one, and the absence of stoker firing in that design makes the comparison between PRR's people and Kiefer even starker.

None of this meant to indicate that the K4, especially with slightly larger piston valves, wasn't a spectacular engine, dramatically ahead of its time (as was the E6) and remaining relevant as a high-speed locomotive all the way into the Fifties.  Just that there were very, very many ways they could have been improved over the years, some proceeding to the point of actual construction and experiment, but never quite applied coherently.

Admittedly, the [visible] ones do not make much difference in performance, just maintenance and ability to operate through snow.

Might make sense to list the important mechanical differences, as I suspect I still have something to learn about this era of K4 service.  If some of the mods were associated with decreasing coal quality (after the era from about 1948 to 1950 of emphasizing higher-quality washed fuel), that would be highly interesting.

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 15,594 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Tuesday, January 7, 2020 10:19 PM

Regarding PRR  team-power acumen, look at the K4s in the Winter '19 issue,  pages 58 (1954) and 60(1941).  Count the differences, the modifications!  Admittadly, the visual ones do not make much difference in performance, just maintenance and ability to operate through snow.  My memory tells me that I was informed that the K4s' real capability on the road was only realized after mechanical stokers were installed.

 

9,

  • Member since
    April 2018
  • 1,368 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Sunday, December 15, 2019 4:28 PM

Thanks Dave for your support and Overmod for another thorough reply! A lot of questions came to my mind, I am gonna share with you guys when I feeling better (no big deal, just caught a cold, hopefully not flu!)

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 9,946 posts
Posted by Overmod on Sunday, December 15, 2019 12:35 PM

Meanwhile, we have to ignore the parallel development line on mechanical turbines in order to do this hypothetical 4-8-4 thing -- there clearly being at least some interest in pursuing the design of the S2 for freight and M&E along the same lines as the S1 becoming the T1 design.  I have little real hesitation in saying that a debugged direct turbine with either Ljungstrom configuration and a reversing gear rather than dedicated turbine or a Bowes drive would have been a better answer than any reciprocating engine for the presumptive purposes PRR would have had for a 4-8-4.

There are alternatives, of course, for reciprocating engines, perhaps the most interesting of which would be a 'new' 4-8-4 design circa the state of the art in the era of the '47 Cyclopedia.  This might be approximated, to start, by looking at something like a WM Potomac and putting RC poppet-valve gear on it.  But you could get to it another way, which is to tinker slightly with a Q2 to produce a 69"-drivered eight-coupled sharing as many components as possible with 'regular' Q2s.  This would be an obvious candidate for refitting with lightweight rods, and it might be a highly interesting thing to compare with the N&W J design.  I'd expect to see a Langer balancer tested to reduce the surge component of any overbalance; I'd like to think the PRR motive-power people recognized the value of keeping overbalance in the main to a minimum.

Still a step backward both in dynamic augment and in power per unit from a Q2, so you'd have to look to shopping and maintenance concerns, especially those that 'double' on a four-cylinder simple engine, for a good reason to go with such a 4-8-4.

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 9,946 posts
Posted by Overmod on Sunday, December 15, 2019 12:21 PM

Jones1945
Pennsy probably would have tried, and compared the performance of a "Steam-powered R1" with a T1. It would have been a battle between Lima and Baldwin, just like what happened on the R1 and GG1 (BLW/Westinghouse Vs. GE/PRR)...

This is a highly interesting thing, but the parallel really goes the other way: the R1 was the tested 'invented here' alternative rather than the imported GG1 approach, and its design philosophy was not particularly apt.  

It's interesting to consider a 'simple T1' as a test article, but perhaps notable that if such a thing were ever considered there is no record of it, and no mention in any correspondence I have seen (or anyone else appears to have seen).  1940 was still the era ATSF was feeling out how high-speed large 4-8-4s would be built; it was by no means clear that augment could be reduced to the degree PRR would need for the engines to operate at "perceived T1 speed" and therefore comparatively little likelihood that the prospective very real improvements in expensive track maintenance for high-speed operation -- representing far, far more over time than the savings in tech on a nonduplex locomotive -- could be realized.  By the time of the N&W J testing, PRR had clear evidence of the value of lightweight rods on an eight-coupled locomotive; if they understood this, it appears to have been thrown out along with the too-low-wheel-for-express-locomotive opinion rather than embraced for M1 follow-ons.  Which is really the great road not taken in this era -- a M1a refitted with disc or Web-Spoke drivers and given lightweight rods might have been a highly interesting testbed.  One might even argue that across much of the PRR system, a boiler-improved M (say, with Snyder preheaters, better circulation, and more reliable feedwater-heat arrangements) would have done as much of the business as PRR needed or could actually use, comparable to how NYC found the latest Mohawks suitable.  (We might remember that the Niagara success was largely predicated on its ability to produce high sustained passenger speed with axle-driven air-conditioned consists with fast turnaround and guaranteed utilization, something that rapidly got leveraged out after the late Forties as everyone's passenger-centric steam designs became obsolescent).

In history, Pennsy wanted more than just a perfect Northern type...[/quote]

The real question, though, is what a 'perfect Northern type' only a few years later would have looked like, especially if WWII had not intervened and enforced the development of the Q2s and then their operation 'as intended', with long consists and allowed high speed.  It is possible that the PRR people would be watching the rebuildings of the 3751 class to see the advantages of an actual high-speed 4-8-4, but again I see little proof this influenced their design development or even measurably affected their design process.  NYC certainly came late to the party, even smart enough to recognize that high drivers could be a 'thing' and allowing adequate frame spacing, Kiefer had the locomotive built and initially tested with the 75" drivers from the corresponding designs, as if it were nothing more than an incremental capacity improvement on a 4-8-2.

, thus they "innovated" and jumped to the Q1, and then the Q2. It was quite obvious that PRR wanted to build the next-gen Super-Superpower all by itself (why not), and there was probably some discussion and negotiation between Lima, Baldwin, and PRR when they noted Pennsy was building the Q1 by its own, a dual service engine that was powerful and fast enough to handle both freight and (maybe secondary) passenger train. If the decline and dieselization never happened, all freight engine (Q2) and 50%+ passenger steam engine (T1s) would have been built by Pennsy itself (or 100% 1f Q1 was a successful dual service design). That is not something Baldwin and other steam engine builders wanted to see.[/quote]

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 9,946 posts
Posted by Overmod on Sunday, December 15, 2019 10:32 AM

daveklepper
And why not?  I think you are denigrating PRR's engineering abilities.

We know PRR's motive power department considered the N&W J to have too low a wheel for an express locomotive at a later date than this design, and I know of no organized plan to improve an M1 or M1a as NYC did with the two test Mohawks (and then of course the improved L3/L4) to get true high speed out of them.  The Q1, delightful as it is, was an utter blind alley in most respects regarding steam distribution, rod design, and a variety of other details if the goal was to produce a 'better M1' (which was a stated objective of the project) and of course this was greenlighted October 1940, so in a sense can be considered exactly PRR's in-house 'engineering ability' response to Woodard's proposal.  I don't think the detail design of a freight or M&E locomotive would have involved the Timken light rods, and without them the new design would have been reasonably good, but not extraordinary.

If the locomotive had been built with type A gear, which is certainly what NYC's had (when everyone knew far better about it, too) it would have been less a success than the T1s, and probably less a success than the NYC engine which in every other respect shared in her sisters' running gear and, of course, did not have the valve gear drive imbalance.  Practical Franklin rotary-cam gear and three-valve layout didn't come about until postwar (as stillborn type C), and any conversion of a steam R class to RC would have been made as B-2, with the same bridges and keeping the same high-maintenance four-valve-per-cylinder-end layout as the older system.  With eight-coupled layout there would have been less high-rpm slip breaking valve spools, but all the other fun would have been present; it would be fair to say that any results of the the 1948 proposed improvements would apply to such locomotives too but that presupposes the mass production of T1s that would have been R2s or whatever.  It also presupposes that the NYC locomotive would have been a technical success had dieselization not ensued, which is a far more dubious thing considering 5500's post-testing history.

The problem here is that it's difficult to assess, even with hindsight, what technical changes in the technology (which was very fast evolving at that point) would have taken place after Woodard's design would have been greenlighted for blueprinting and detail design.  It is also difficult to assess PRR's needs had the Second World War not intervened, spawned the ability to design and build Q2s for service that no peacetime PRR would ever use or value, and of course go through the entire painful exercise in re-redlining drawings that ultimately gave them the J1a.  It's pure 20/20 hindsight to invoke the comparison between Q2 and J1a postwar as giving lessons that 'could' have been used to produce a better 4-8-4 starting in 1940.

Now, this is right in the era that the AMC had moved on to the Alleghenies, and some of the detail design there might have been useful in formulating an 'upsized M1' for the mail and express.  Any K4 replacement in that era would have been duplex and there's little getting around that; it would also have had 80" drivers 'no matter what' and there's little getting around that; if designed as Baldwin wanted it would have had a sensible grate area and less tetchy valve gear, but still had relatively short stroke -- even the C1a retained that, and that detail shows more than almost anything else how even Kiefer viewed the evolution of high-speed power as late as April 1945).  So we're looking at a 50 to 70mph engine, likely on no more than the 77" drivers of the Q1, and so we come to the stroke question.  By that time I'd expect Woodard to be firmly in the small bore/lavish stroke era we'd see in the later Berkshires, so he'd likely call it something like 26 x 34 (and we'd have found out firsthand whether the type A OC gear facilitated or hampered practical cutoff precision and control on such a layout).  Whether PRR would follow this philosophy and increase stroke so radically in 1940 is less clear to me; it seems to go against the grain of their thinking since as early as 1933.  Control dimensions and construction-- take them as close to those used on the Q1.  Appearance very similar to it, too, which should give no end of joy to Jones1945.  

Now, in hindsight, the very obvious course of events would be that PRR would see the success of the lightweight arrangement on the Niagaras and duplicate some part of that (using the experience on their subsidiary N&W and perhaps some of the rod-eye dies) and what you'd get then would be no less, and perhaps more, effective than the Niagaras.  It would have been an interesting counterpoint.

On the other hand, had PRR wanted to preserve effective M1 performance in a new locomotive, they had the J as an example, and even tested it to show the prominence.  The question of whether it would have been a 'better M1' appears not to have been considered; only its use as a T1 alternative seems to be reflected in the test memos and policy discussions that have survived at the Hagley.  Just as PRR didn't replace K4s with superior K5s in the prewar era that 'mattered', I doubt it would replace M1as with something better -- were the engineering decisions to change, Depression conditions and the emphasis on electrification that would have gone to Pittsburgh made the necessary funds less likely.

A 4-8-4 designed in the mid-Forties might look very different, for example if able to share dimensioning and detail design with the Q2 development.  Imagine for example a locomotive built as a shortened Q2, with appropriately strengthened passenger rods but still on common stroke for 69".  

 

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 15,594 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Sunday, December 15, 2019 7:47 AM

I'm with you on that, a good analysis.

  • Member since
    April 2018
  • 1,368 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Sunday, December 15, 2019 5:02 AM

Overmod

The sad part is that I don't think more than a preliminary sketch of the modifications was made.  The detail design of this would be the interesting part.  

Remember this would still not be to build a high-speed alternative to T1s ... that part of the picture 'hadn't been invented yet'.  Woodard would have been designing something for the same general envelope as the Q1: a marginal improvement on the capability of the M1 design itself.  As such, the likely driver diameter would have been comparable to that in the Niagara design 'as built', not more than 76", and the immediate question becomes whether PRR would fit lightweight Timken rods of heavier non-duplex section and do careful high-speed balancing.  My guess is that at that date they would not, and the engine that resulted would not be a Niagara-grade full success.

This left a roomy space for the imagination! The PRR #5399 was so successful that it was seen hauling the Trail Blazer after the production T1 was put into service, it is not hard to imagine a "Northernized", Franklin poppet valve gear equipped M1 would be a success. As you know it wasn't rocket science to upgrade the M1 to something capable for higher speed, Pennsy probably would have tried, and compared the performance of a "Steam-powered R1" with a T1. It would have been a battle between Lima and Baldwin, just like what happened on the R1 and GG1 (BLW/Westinghouse Vs. GE/PRR)...

In history, Pennsy wanted more than just a perfect Northern type, thus they "innovated" and jumped to the Q1, and then the Q2. It was quite obvious that PRR wanted to build the next-gen Super-Superpower all by itself (why not), and there was probably some discussion and negotiation between Lima, Baldwin, and PRR when they noted Pennsy was building the Q1 by its own, a dual service engine that was powerful and fast enough to handle both freight and (maybe secondary) passenger train. If the decline and dieselization never happened, all freight engine (Q2) and 50%+ passenger steam engine (T1s) would have been built by Pennsy itself (or 100% 1f Q1 was a successful dual service design). That is not something Baldwin and other steam engine builders wanted to see.

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 15,594 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Sunday, December 15, 2019 3:18 AM

And why not?  I think you are denegrating PRR's engineering abilities.

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 9,946 posts
Posted by Overmod on Sunday, December 15, 2019 2:32 AM

Jones1945
That would have been one of the top five best 4-8-4 ever made in America.

The sad part is that I don't think more than a preliminary sketch of the modifications was made.  The detail design of this would be the interesting part.  

Remember this would still not be to build a high-speed alternative to T1s ... that part of the picture 'hadn't been invented yet'.  Woodard would have been designing something for the same general envelope as the Q1: a marginal improvement on the capability of the M1 design itself.  As such, the likely driver diameter would have been comparable to that in the Niagara design 'as built', not more than 76", and the immediate question becomes whether PRR would fit lightweight Timken rods of heavier non-duplex section and do careful high-speed balancing.  My guess is that at that date they would not, and the engine that resulted would not be a Niagara-grade full success.

  • Member since
    April 2018
  • 1,368 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Sunday, December 15, 2019 1:34 AM

A GENERAL CHRONOLOGY

OF THE

PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD COMPANY

1940

 http://www.prrths.com/newprr_files/Hagley/PRR1940.pdf

 

"July 1940 William E. Woodard of the Lima Locomotive Works, Incorporated, prepares preliminary plans for rebuilding a PRR Class M1a 4-8-2 into a poppet valve equipped 4-8-4. (Hirsimaki)

A few weeks later:

July 30, 1940 PRR orders two T1 4-4-4-4 duplex passenger locomotives from Baldwin Locomotive Works; modification of a Baldwin design; shorter and more practical than the S1; are designed to haul eleven 80-ton cars at 100 MPH on level tangent track; to run Harrisburg to Chicago with only one stop for coal at Millbrook, Ohio, with a tender containing 41 tons of coal and 19,500 gallons of water. (Trains, BldwnLocos)"

Too bad that It never happened. That would have been one of the top five best 4-8-4 ever made in America.

 

 

  • Member since
    April 2018
  • 1,368 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Friday, November 8, 2019 7:19 PM

Taken by Bliss B. Straight Jr. around 1941.

South Shore Gauntlet Bridge (South Shore - Penn-Wabash Bridge), Gary, Ind. 

I guess the train was the Eastbound Liberty Limited with mixed heavyweight and lightweight cars, including the baggage-lounge and a Budd coach. (But the real question is: who was on the train?CoffeeSurprise)

 

https://bridgehunter.com/in/lake/bh61275/

  • Member since
    April 2018
  • 1,368 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Thursday, October 31, 2019 6:29 AM

Overmod

Nothing as late as 1942 is likely to have had much impact on actual development of the Q1, which likely began in advance of the 1940 'greenlighting' date and contained just about as many blind-alley approaches to locomotive design as any other engine.  

While it is somewhat less implausible that the testing helped with design of the Q2, a far more successful design, I think that any data would have been negative rather than positive: establishing, for example, that a higher FA, a shorter rigid wheelbase, and the smallest practical driver diameter were all valuable considerations for a working duplex-drive locomotive.

Yes, I remember it wrongly that the Q1 was built in 1943 instead of May 1942! But another question arises: since it was probably not an official record of the PRR, did people mistake Q1 as S1?! Not everyone attended the 1939 World Fair and it is possible that people who were not interested in locomotive told railfan that they saw a big streamlined steam engine was hauling freight train at Plymouth; and we know how rumors spread. Although I inclined to believe that it really happened and related information still can be found in Hagley...

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 9,946 posts
Posted by Overmod on Thursday, October 31, 2019 6:10 AM

Jones1945
If it is not a fabrication and really happened in 1942, I believe the test result contributed useful data for the design and construction of the PRR Q1 4-6-4-4, which made 70mph when hauling 125 freight cars (10000 tons) at 40% cutoff.

Nothing as late as 1942 is likely to have had much impact on actual development of the Q1, which likely began in advance of the 1940 'greenlighting' date and contained just about as many blind-alley approaches to locomotive design as any other engine.  

While it is somewhat less implausible that the testing helped with design of the Q2, a far more successful design, I think that any data would have been negative rather than positive: establishing, for example, that a higher FA, a shorter rigid wheelbase, and the smallest practical driver diameter were all valuable considerations for a working duplex-drive locomotive.

  • Member since
    April 2018
  • 1,368 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Thursday, October 31, 2019 5:47 AM

More details about the freight train lead by PRR S1 can be found in the book "The Pennsylvania Railroad, 1940s-1950s" By Don Ball, P.185, the author says the PRR S1 "roared through Plymouth, Ind., with ninety freight cars at 73 miles per hour! A local law officer took to the parallel highway to confirm suspicion and the mayor of the town called Philadelphia! Engineer of tests, Lloyd "L.B." Jones, was onboard enjoying the Pullman-like-ride until arrival in Fort Wayne!"

VP of Operation, Jim Symes also requested PRR to assign the S1 to freight trains, which might have prevented breakdown caused by high-speed operation (or probably wheel slip at high speeds) of passenger trains, but the PRR insisted and rejected his request. 

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 9,946 posts
Posted by Overmod on Tuesday, October 29, 2019 6:20 PM

Well I'll be jiggered!  Window washing -- but it makes sense.

  • Member since
    May 2012
  • 3,895 posts
Posted by rcdrye on Tuesday, October 29, 2019 1:40 PM

Overmod
Suspect that 'cowl' at the end of the car is intended as an air scoop, taking the slipstream and perhaps boundary layer over the top of the train (where the air is at least nominally least dusty) and using some presumable ram air effect to aid ventilation.

Think car wash.  With the roof scoop on the observation car, the rear windows were kept clean by airfow, a nice competitive feature (contemporary MILW beavertails were notoriously dirty.)  On-board AC would have been more than adequate for ventilation.

Incidentally, C&NW's diners built for the "400" seated 56 - the highest capacity in a single unit car.  Except for a few built to UP specs for Overland or City service, all of C&NW's diners had that density.

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 9,946 posts
Posted by Overmod on Tuesday, October 29, 2019 12:30 PM

That's not at all what I see for the car end adjacent to the engines in the picture.  Roof makes 'square corner' vertically with top of end bulkhead; grabirons adjacent to what has to be a door in the front corner, no outside end window where there is obviously a huge visible swath of yellow.  Find the forward end of a 400's baggage car and I'll bet you get a closer match.

(Incidentally, either somebody's got a heavy hand with the touch-up brush or those full-width diaphragms really, really match the roof color!)  

Suspect that 'cowl' at the end of the car is intended as an air scoop, taking the slipstream and perhaps boundary layer over the top of the train (where the air is at least nominally least dusty) and using some presumable ram air effect to aid ventilation.

  • Member since
    April 2018
  • 1,368 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Tuesday, October 29, 2019 1:22 AM

Overmod

...With regard to the car question:  Do I not clearly see the top of a vestibule door with the top left corner of a window on the side of 'whatever it is'?  That ought to be a reasonable spotting feature for C&NW fans... 

From:Brasstrain.com

Is that extra streamlining on the rear-end roof a feature for an observation-leading consist? 

Overmod

 

The number I saw recently, and I have to go back and find it again, was that the full amount that went to Baldwin on the S1 project was over $3 million.  That was real money back then! 

$3,000,000 in 1939 equals $55,415,611.51 in 2019! Very expensive indeed......

  • Member since
    May 2012
  • 3,895 posts
Posted by rcdrye on Sunday, October 27, 2019 7:41 AM

Overmod
Interesting point about the potential MU incompatibilities.  It would be interesting to see (although, perhaps, impossible by now) the original order contract to see if the Alco engine was ordered with specific EMD pinout compatibility; I'd suspect that it would be if intended to work with EMDs. It's also possible that the engine was ordered as a 'test' and only wartime expedience required its use as part of a multiple-unit combination.  We seem to see it leading a mixed consist as well as trailing, so whatever the modifications they produced at least working compatibility in more than just trailing-unit control with 8-notch governor logic.

EMC and GE control systems were pretty compatible.  The main difference would be the jumper socket - the modern 27-pin socket wasn't universal until the late 1960s.  Early EMCs used a 16-pin socket, Alco(-GE) used a two-socket setup with 12 and 21 pins.  Either the DL109 had a 16-pin socket (not crazy) or the C&NW shop crews made up a jumper with different plugs on each end.  More important were compatible brake hoses - the hoses required for MU seem to have been standardized fairly early - probably since almost all brake systems were produced by WABCO or under WABCO license.

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 9,946 posts
Posted by Overmod on Saturday, October 26, 2019 8:31 AM

Interesting point about the potential MU incompatibilities.  It would be interesting to see (although, perhaps, impossible by now) the original order contract to see if the Alco engine was ordered with specific EMD pinout compatibility; I'd suspect that it would be if intended to work with EMDs.

It's also possible that the engine was ordered as a 'test' and only wartime expedience required its use as part of a multiple-unit combination.  We seem to see it leading a mixed consist as well as trailing, so whatever the modifications they produced at least working compatibility in more than just trailing-unit control with 8-notch governor logic.

Certainly the mixed consists wouldn't have appeared in publicity pictures if not acknowledged as both working and railroad-preferred.  (There may also be a consideration of 'promoting' both locomotive builders as valued)  

We might remember that the City of Denver consists continued on this run until 1953, even as elsewhere on UP more modern lightweight postwar consists were being implemented, so it is at least possible that postwar publicity shots might feature them.

With regard to the car question:  Do I not clearly see the top of a vestibule door with the top left corner of a window on the side of 'whatever it is'?  That ought to be a reasonable spotting feature for C&NW fans...

  • Member since
    January 2002
  • 3,856 posts
Posted by M636C on Saturday, October 26, 2019 7:22 AM

Weren't E-6's and DL-109's both manufactured pre-War - 1940 ish.

 

I think - CNW painted the ends of their cars to match how the sides were painted.  Can't think of a reason that the 400 Observation car would be coupled next to the engine consist.

Having checked with Scribbins' book, the four E-6 and the single DL109 arrived att the same time, in 1941. My concern was the ability to run the Alco and EMD units in multiple, since in those days different control voltages and different control cable pin arrangements were used. I know that ATSF were able to run their Alco #50 with EMDs by the end of WWII. So I suspect this photo was towards the end of operation of M 10003 type units on the City of Denver.

At the time, the 400 cars all had full width diaphragms which show up as black in B&W photographs, but it appears the leading end of the combine was painted green and yellow. I found a photo in Scribbins' "400 Story" that confirms this.

It had occurred to me that they might have coupled locomotives onto the rear of a 400 for this obviously posed photo, but this was not the case.

Peter

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 17,735 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Friday, October 25, 2019 7:18 PM

M636C
 
Jones1945

  

Any idea of the date of this photo?

How early were C&NW running E6 and DL109 in multiple?

Is that the "400" observation car just behind the DL109?

Peter

Weren't E-6's and DL-109's both manufacturered pre-War - 1940 ish.

I think - CNW painted the ends of their cars to match how the sides were painted.  Can't think of a reason that the 400 Observation car would be coupled next to the engine consist.

  • Member since
    April 2018
  • 1,368 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Friday, October 25, 2019 6:20 PM

M636C

Any idea of the date of this photo?

How early were C&NW running E6 and DL109 in multiple?

Is that the "400" observation car just behind the DL109?

Peter 

Judging by the extra mars light installed on the Union Pacific "City of Denver", the photo should be taken between 1948 to 1953. I am not sure about the "400" trains (some photos of the C&NW E6 and 5007A in MU: please click here )

  • Member since
    January 2002
  • 3,856 posts
Posted by M636C on Thursday, October 24, 2019 9:29 AM

Jones1945

 

 

Any idea of the date of this photo?

How early were C&NW running E6 and DL109 in multiple?

Is that the "400" observation car just behind the DL109?

Peter

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 9,946 posts
Posted by Overmod on Thursday, October 24, 2019 7:47 AM

Jones1945
According to an article in the back issue of the Milepost, when all Baldwin bills added up, the final book value of the S1, including construction, had more than doubled to $669,000 in 1938


The number I saw recently, and I have to go back and find it again, was that the full amount that went to Baldwin on the S1 project was over $3 million.  That was real money back then!

  • Member since
    April 2018
  • 1,368 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Thursday, October 24, 2019 4:57 AM

Overmod

But look at the numbers for the aggregate amount PRR paid on the S1 project from inception through the great number of apparent 'change orders' Baldwin came up with.  I think the total is well north of $3 million (!!!) which was amplified in both effect and opportunity cost substantially by the Depression.

If that money had to be 'kept on the books' while the asset was intact, it wouldn't be surprising to see the now-inevitable taking its course...

I think it's documented that Symes disliked the S1 because of its impact on regular operations, and that includes its tendency to go on the ground at the least provocation when hostling.  That perception may be a Chris Baer artifact, but I suspect he's looked at the issue more than anyone else.

Yes, the S1 project went over budget for so many times. According to an article in the back issue of the Milepost, when all Baldwin bills added up, the final book value of the S1, including construction, had more than doubled to $669,000 in 1938 (= $12,182,395.11 today), as expensive as a Bugatti Centodieci 2019. But the locomotive was supposed to be the highlight of the 1939 1940 World Fair when the staff in the Juniata Shops didn't even know how the engine looked like until the components were sent from Baldwin one after another, so I think it worth the money and effort.

Baldwin probably knew that the S1 was not going to work well on any railroad, but someone or a group of people in power probably asked Pennsy and Baldwin to build something "Great" enough to WOW the pre-war world, including many honorable guests from the UK. Your insight into Chris Baer's interpretation of the "relationship" between S1 and Symes is interesting. I wish I could visit Harley in person to find out things that "non-Pennsy fans" may miss.  Chris Baer mentioned the name of S1 in the interview of this article about Harley's PRR historical records. ( http://www.prrths.com/newprr_files/Hagley/salvaginghistory2005.pdf )

Overmod

Note the stylistic 'bullets we dodged' in not adopting the more highly 'styled' versions of the PRR duplex 4-4-4-4.  We'd see that ribbed stainless nose love patch again on the Olympian Hi's Erie-builts ... but it worked there.  (I do have to wonder whether Old Man Thunder was thinking of that other one when designing the nose of the first-generation Shin Kansen trainsets...)

Yes, the ribbed stainless nose on MILW's Erie-builts was extraordinary, I see them as a transformation of the "wings" on the MILW's Class F7 and Class A's nose. I don't and I won't believe that the design of the first generation of Shinkansen (0 Series) wasn't inspired by any American's diesel engine like the Erie-Builts and UP's M10003-6.

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