Although some here have lamented the PRR for not preserving the S1, they actually did a decent job of preserving examples of their better known, bread and butter steam locomotives.
Interesting thread with many branch lines!
Anyone have any thoughts on how record setting freight and passenger transport translates into a loss when the year previous ( which was surpassed) shows a $49 million profit ...aaannnnd not only that but they enjoyed their recieved 17.6% increase in freight rates!
Everything in the article seems to conflict.
If you recieved a whopping 17.6% hourly pay increase on top of a banner year of hours worked that even beat your last extremely profitable banner year and revenues exceeded expense, but you lost all the money and dipped into last years, then I can only conclude you went to the Casino ... a lot!
It has been my understanding that Pennsy had a sort of military structure, no one at each lower level would dream of questioning those at the next level. I think this makes it easier for secrets and info withheld level to level.
The 1943 proposal is likely a version of the infamous 'Triplex' which led to so much controversy between Carleton Steins and Raymond Loewy. This is amusingly associated with the secret crash development program at Baldwin to produce the C&O M1 turbines 'outside' Steins' patents before PRR made turbines of its own ... there is loving, if potentially highly one-sided documentation of this in some of H.T. Cover's correspondence at the Hagley. Some of the specific points of failure in the M1 design are more comprehensible when you know how they came about...
The spec for the T1 was dialed back to 880 tons at 100mph, a far more reasonable number for a locomotive with four-coupled engines especially in light of the lack of boosters for starting (you will remember that one of the prototype T1s was built with a booster, but had it removed in spite of the ghastly unloading problem created by the long equalizing beam between the engines, which was thankfully purged from the production suspension). This is just about platform limit length of high-speed lightweight coaches for something like a Trail Blazer. There is a certain optimism in designing Pullman trains for 100mph or faster operation over much of PRR where a considerable amount of high speed would involve projection out of one's berth, a consideration that factors amusingly into some of the anecdotes about high-speed running with the T1s.
It's not that Jawn was "too big", it was that he lacked meaningful horsepower for his size, and that characteristics of his electrical transmission made some of Baldwin's claims (the 65mph speed in particular) little better than ill-qualified lies. Something burned out all those motors in no more than three years of testing, and trust me, it's hard to kill a hexapole even intentionally.
Note that a steam-turbine electric today requires a practical continuous horsepower of 8800 or greater just to remain competitive with conventional diesel power, even as it combines all the inefficiencies of mobile Rankine-cycle with water as the working fluid with electrical conversion and drive using truck-mounted motors. It's possible there will be niches for such a thing; I am helping develop them. But it's not very effective as a one-for-one replacement for a class A locomotive, or a properly improved Y-class either.
Boeing as you may know was involved heavily in transit car manufacture at one point (out of the Vertol helicopter plant in suburban Philadelphia). I toured the plant as the first LRVs were coming off the line, and had great hopes for how the future would be. Likewise United Aircraft (which was Sikorski) voluntarily perfected Allan Cripe's train as a showcase for PT6 turboshafts and then made a reasonable show of promoting it -- the 1967 proposal to NYC with detailed timing calculations made by computer is a dramatic positive example. Of course Bombardier the snowmobile company became involved in aircraft production as well as diversifying into high-speed rail production, but that's not really the same. The real problem is that, as for TGV with LGV, new routes optimized for very high speed are required to make true HSR practical. Where that's not the case, it's far better to build to 110mph or 125mph specs, where the costs are not yet ridiculous or weight-saving quite so dramatically required, as in Britain where the HSTs were successful but the APTs (for a nominal top-end advantage of no more than about 25mph) were certainly not.
And as done to death on various Trains fora, there are comparatively few services outside identifiable (and fundable) corridor services where 125mph service enhancements will pay their way.
OvermodIn parallel, the evolution of the V1 into what became Jawn Henry is an interesting and valuable thing to observe. The 4-8-0+4-8-0 became a span-bolstered C-C+C-C, which turned out to roast a set of hexapole motors beyond reasonable repair in just a few years of testing. How much of that was attributable to drop damage in the main generators and how much of that was overloading may never be thoroughly known.
When I was much younger, I want to own a model of C&O Chessie. I admit I am obsessed with big machines.
V1, or Jawn Henry both have at least one thing in common, they are too big! Jawn Henry was even bigger than S1. I can understand that S1 was *probably built for the 39 World Fair to represent America (without PRR's stockholder's approval), so it was unnecessarily massive, heavy and *expensive.
Overmod the problem being that few if any people designing then seemed to understand the profound split in costs and infrastructure involved in operation to 125mph as opposed to 150 or higher. The French figured this out, right down to the required power infrastructure, and so they've gone from success to success and have pervasive true high-speed rail
Overmodlook at the 'mission' difference between the S1 and T1 spec, and tell me realistically what sort of passenger consist needs to weigh 1000t in a single train that fits real-world platforms, especially from the Forties on as demand for multiple sections starts falling away.
Overmod If you want a reasonable starting point for a PRR "next-generation M1" 4-8-4, I would advocate starting with a "late" C&NW zeppelin H, with or without duplexing, and put a double Belpaire boiler on it
Jones 3D Modeling Club https://www.youtube.com/Jones3DModelingClub
As to the 'follow-ons' for the electric district, the answer is actually historical (and verifiable from a variety of sources) -- rectifier/Ignitron locomotives using diesel-style bogies with relatively low wheels and independent-axle traction motor drive (with DC, not universal, motors). This was clear on PRR by the time of the 'experimental' classes ordered in the early Fifties, and culminating in the vacuum-cleaner E44s ordered in the early Sixties. All these predominantly for freight, of course; passenger needs were covered by the wartime GG1s (in what might be considered a reprise of too many K4s in the Twenties) so no New Haven 'Jet' analogues, but that's what you would have seen had the passenger electrification been taken up at a reasonable point after the War.
In parallel, the evolution of the V1 into what became Jawn Henry is an interesting and valuable thing to observe. The 4-8-0+4-8-0 became a span-bolstered C-C+C-C, which turned out to roast a set of hexapole motors beyond reasonable repair in just a few years of testing. How much of that was attributable to drop damage in the main generators and how much of that was overloading may never be thoroughly known.
Anyway, as I mentioned before, the Federal government didn’t want to see the development of the nation’s Aerospace industry slowed down by High speed rail, thus we have what we got today.
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
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
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.
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.
Sorry I think I messed up the format of my post......
Jones1945I 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
Miningman Well at least everybody's thinking here! Overmod--161 mph? Wholeeeeee Makinaw. That's nuts.
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.
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?
("My owner paid $16,640,000 to build us and dumped us all 7 years later", help me!)
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.
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. :PPRR 2DP5 vs 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.
Jones1945It 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!)
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?
OvermodThe 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.
OvermodThe 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……
OvermodThe 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 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.
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".
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.
OvermodHowever 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.
Overmod The "$35,000" is the thirty pieces of silver received as scrap value for the 6100.
The "$35,000" is the thirty pieces of silver received as scrap value for the 6100.
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?
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?
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.
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.
MiningmanBy 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.
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'.
MiningmanAaaannnd....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.
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.
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.
Jones1945Roller 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
M636CThe 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
RedwardsSome 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.
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. :PPRR 2DP5 vs 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.
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?"
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 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". PRR S1 and LMS Coronation Class in a video game.
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 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".
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
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.
PRR S1 and LMS Coronation Class in a video game.
Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more!
Get the Classic Trains twice-monthly newsletter