I would think that pencil sharpener was the inspiration of the ray-guns used in the likes of Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers.
Jones1945 Hermann @Jones1945, I found a pencil sharpener in the form of an S-1. Are you jealous now? It depends on the quality of it. Loewy's pencil sharpener:
Hermann @Jones1945, I found a pencil sharpener in the form of an S-1. Are you jealous now?
@Jones1945,
I found a pencil sharpener in the form of an S-1. Are you jealous now?
It depends on the quality of it. Loewy's pencil sharpener:
Jeez, that's some pencil sharpener!
It looks like if you crank the handle a death ray is going to shoot out of the pencil!
I hope anyone who used that thing made sure no-one was standing in front of it!
DeggestyIs that a steam-powered pencil sharpener?
But the faithful rendition of the twin stacks makes up for it...
... and we know in principle now how to implement the ditchlights.
Overmod Hermann OK, you won! Adding insult to injury -- and perhaps as an awful unintended consequence of the Lionel 3768 Torpedo scam -- item SK-3280 is labeled a "K-4" (yes, Virginia, with the hyphen) on its box and in its description.
Hermann OK, you won!
Adding insult to injury -- and perhaps as an awful unintended consequence of the Lionel 3768 Torpedo scam -- item SK-3280 is labeled a "K-4" (yes, Virginia, with the hyphen) on its box and in its description.
Johnny
HermannOK, you won!
Jones1945It depends on the quality of it. Wink Loewy's pencil sharpener:
OK, you won!
Mine is made in China...
Jones 3D Modeling Club https://www.youtube.com/Jones3DModelingClub
HermannOnly in Summer 1945, the first derailment took place in Pittsburgh. Then, just one month after delivery of the first serial T1s, 5502 derailed on December 1, 1945, and another serial T1 the very next day. Did somehow, tragically, the two prototypes have the edge over the 5500s in curves?
If I remember correctly, the problem was caused at only one switch location; I dimly and perhaps imperfectly remember it as a double slip switch. It is possible that the 'problem' was created by track maintenance of some kind, but I think the situation is more likely what Hermann notes.
Thw two original engines had radically different equalization arrangements from the 'production' engines -- for, I think, very good objective reasons. It's been known since around the turn of the century that equalization of eight-drivered locomotives is better if the equalization is interrupted or 'tied' between the second and third driver pair, with the lead truck equalized with the forward sets and the trailing truck with the rear ones. This, with some progressive improvement in snubbing and auxiliary springing, is what was done with the production engines right up to 1948. The original design had a prominent walking beam carrying the equalization from front to rear engine, and this was thought to be causing some of the riding and slip issues -- I have not read the surviving correspondence and source material on this, but it is very clear that substantial changes were made to the arrangement during the war-years testing.
Now, something that is interesting when you look at the T1 spring-rigging arrangements is that a great amount of tinkering went on with the permitted lateral of the driver pairs, sometimes on the order of sixteenths of an inch -- there is a long list of emended numbers, perhaps notable in that by late 1947 there was free lateral on all four driver pairs. I find it highly suspicious that this would be done on a high-speed locomotive with lateral-motion devices unless it were intended to permit a certain amount of float, at low speed, over the kind of obstacle resulting in derailment in terminal trackage. (Note that this is very different from the reported issues with T1s losing critical adhesion over frogs and low joints when pulling long consists out of station traffic.)
Now, it would be one thing if Glaze-style stiff lateral compensation on lead and trailing trucks were applied to T1s to keep their required overbalance low (or, in fact, zero, which is a condition likely necessary for T1s to reach the speed their steam generation and valve gear would allow). That never, apparently, became the case; the assumption seems to have been that the long effective rigid wheelbase and duplex kinetics would keep nosing/hunting minimized. Interestingly the very large tenders might likely have minimized in-phase surge, too -- so a certain amount of overbalance might have been tolerated that 'shouldn't have been'. (The effect of increasing augment on propensity to high-speed slip should be no mystery to anyone following along with T1 history!)
There are stories from the Crestline history that describe how much of a penchant 6100 had for derailing (usually somewhere in the driver wheelbase, if I remember correctly) while being run around that servicing point. To my knowledge that situation was never satisfactorily worked out, even by restricting the engine to particular tracks and stalls. It would be interesting to examine experiments, if any, with lateral motion on the driver pairs to see what did and didn't help with that.
daveklepperI rode behind a T-1 on the Trail Blazer on my way to work for EMD in late June 1952 into Chicago. Do not kbow if it came from Hattisbutg, Pittsburg, or Cteatline.
Hi Daveklepper,
as to Charlie Meyers reports, your train should most probably have been powered Harrisburg - Pittsburgh by a T1, Pittsburgh - Crestline by a double set of K4s and Crestline - Chicago by a T1.
After the Pittsburgh derailments in summer/december 1945 and about March 1946, some design changes were made to get a bit more lateral movement on the driving axles so that the T-1s could go into Pittsburgh, but still could not pass the curve west of the station safely. Ironically, the curve was relaid after the T-1s were gone.
And late June 1952, you were lucky to have a T-1 on your train.
I rode behind a T-1 on the Trail Blazer on my way to work for EMD in late June 1952 into Chicago. Do not kbow if it came from Hattisbutg, Pittsburg, or Cteatline.
And, then, which I now find was rare, behind a GP-7 to La Grange. I think I was able to rent a shower room at Union Station before boarding the Q's scoot, which had the GP-7, generatr car, and two Budd galleries.
All trains were on-time but for arrival in Chicago a few minutes early.
Or is it possible that the track was not as well maintained?
Jones1945The S2 also hauled lots of crack trains that the S1 seldom pulled, like the Broadway and Manhattan limited. I read somewhere that people saw the S2 once appeared in Pittsburgh, the "forbidden city" of the S1. On the other hand, I have seen pics of the T1 phototypes powered the Trail Blazer.
Hi Jones1945,
interesting thing that for three long years, the two prototypes ran into and through Pittsburgh without any reported troubles.
Only in Summer 1945, the first derailment took place im Pittsburgh. Then, just one month after delivery of the first serial T1s, 5502 derailed on December 1, 1945, and another serial T1 the very next day.
Did somehow, tragically, the two prototypes have the edge over the 5500s in curves?
Hermann Yes, and/but from March 26, 1945, the S-1 even got a competitor in 6200, which usually ran the Trail Blazer east and the Admiral west.
Yes, and/but from March 26, 1945, the S-1 even got a competitor in 6200, which usually ran the Trail Blazer east and the Admiral west.
The S2 also hauled lots of crack trains that the S1 seldom pulled, like the Broadway and Manhattan limited. I read somewhere that people saw the S2 once appeared in Pittsburgh, the "forbidden city" of the S1. On the other hand, I have seen pics of the T1 phototypes powered the Trail Blazer.
Jones1945S1 stayed in the shop quite often, but whenever she was "recharged," she exclusively hauled some of the most important named trains of PRR (General, Trail Blazer, Golden Arrow) instead of "lower tier" passenger trains. PRR made the best use of her, unlike the T1 and Q2...
The 100mph locomotive is the Kantola J1e as rebuilt with the "100mph" Timken rods (and disc drivers and carefully-done balancing).
Note that it would have been a 100mph capable engine unstreamlined; the speed was in the relative absence of augment.
Note that PRR really did little more than toy with this prior to the T1s; the duplex principle and year made Milwaukee A style lightweight rods the 'done thing' on the S1 as built, and it was ridiculous to expect more than low-90s real-world speed out of a K4 chassis.
As noted it would have been fun to see a leaf taken from N&W practice and a set of Timkens with disc main put on a M1 or M1a ... with the sine-wave humongo superheater scaled to fit in the latter case. You'd get 100mph out of that with a little care with equalizing snubbing, and it would do it with gusto with fairly minimal acceleration run... of course it would also top out proportionally above the J, say about 115mpg if the lubrication tolerated that... and by that time PRR had something with both higher speed and nominally-available HP at that speed, and far better guiding and suspension, in the pipeline...
"Boiler ticket" is the pre-Part 230 thing now rolled into the 1472-day inspection. Quarterly inspection is denominated in 92-day increments (imho for the same kind of enforcement 'legality' that produces 79mph Esch Act based speed) and four quarters times four years means... time to check the boiler metal carefully inside and out. Which implies pulling all the tubes to be able to see the surface... and hence an effective full boiler rebuild, in practice.
Hermann Hello Jones1945! Did you buy them all?
Hello Jones1945!
Did you buy them all?
If only I had more money, time and space, I would create a fleet of S1 in my display cabinet! I only have one HO NJC Brass full-skirted and an O gauge Sunset 3rd Rail full-skirted S1. I have been looking for an unskirted version of it, but it is extremely rare. I love how those 84" Baldwin Disc drivers fully exposed under the modified "mini-skirt." But at the end of the day, the skirted version was Raymond Loewy's original design that looks unbelievably futuristic.
Hermann Charlie Meyer mentioned in Milepost Jan 1992, that WWII actually prolonged S-1's life due to the need for passenger engines. As unreliable as the S-1 was - only 161.000 miles in four years - it is no wonder to me that the S-1 disappeared from passenger service as soon as the more reliable T-1s arrived in Crestline from November, 1945. IIRC, Crestline was the first shed to get serial T-1s.
Charlie Meyer mentioned in Milepost Jan 1992, that WWII actually prolonged S-1's life due to the need for passenger engines. As unreliable as the S-1 was - only 161.000 miles in four years - it is no wonder to me that the S-1 disappeared from passenger service as soon as the more reliable T-1s arrived in Crestline from November, 1945. IIRC, Crestline was the first shed to get serial T-1s.
Exactly. I have been looking for a complete monthly mileage figure of the S1 from Dec 1940 to May 1946 (5 years and 5 months), but I will have to go to Hagley. S1 stayed in the shop quite often, but whenever she was "recharged," she exclusively hauled some of the most important named trains of PRR (General, Trail Blazer, Golden Arrow) instead of "lower tier" passenger trains. PRR made the best use of her, unlike the T1 and Q2...
Hermann One main drive behind the construction of the S-1 was a letter by J.F.Deasy to Fred Hankins, saying basically: "the Pennsy guys are building a 100-mph-locomotive".
One main drive behind the construction of the S-1 was a letter by J.F.Deasy to Fred Hankins, saying basically: "the Pennsy guys are building a 100-mph-locomotive".
PRR's Vice President of Operations J.F Deasy wrote to Chief of Motive Power Fred Hankins on May 1936:
"I wish you would have somebody get to work designing a fast passenger engine of even greater capacity than now established.
You will observe that the New York Central is advertising that their new engine is capable of making 100 miles per hour.
Keep me posted on the progress of the work."
I don't know which 100-mph locomotive Deasy referred to because I really doubt that the streamlined Mercury K-5 Pacific or the Streamlined Hudson Commodore Vanderbilt could make 100 mph, but this was probably how NYC advertised the Mercury train! IIRC, even the Dreyfuss Hudson couldn't make 100mph, and there was no need to. As we discussed before that overnight long-distance train's time schedules were very well designed base on passenger's pace of life, and the quality of sleeper services. The average speed of all NYC-Chicago overnight trains were way below 100mph.
If the Sam Rea Line was built, and the entire route allows high-speed passenger trains running at 100mph or above, there would have been a few day trains leaving NYC and Chicago in the early morning, so that business person could have arrived both cities within the working hours (leaving at 6 am, arrive around 3 pm). But base on various research, a 900 miles or above high-speed rail is unprofitable even in today's standard. The Sam Rea Line would have been a better stage for the S1, T1, or even the streamlined K4s to show off their capabilities, but I agree with Overmod that even a 9-hour high-speed train ticket wouldn't sell well.
Hermann In an interview in the late 1970's, Andre Chapelon spoke of conspiracy of the diesel producers as he said that there had been failures by diesel locomotives, "but they would be kept secret.." So unless other data comes up, I personally think the end of the S-1 may just as well have been set by the boiler ticket running out....
In an interview in the late 1970's, Andre Chapelon spoke of conspiracy of the diesel producers as he said that there had been failures by diesel locomotives, "but they would be kept secret.."
So unless other data comes up, I personally think the end of the S-1 may just as well have been set by the boiler ticket running out....
Interesting point about the boiler ticket! I can't find much information about boiler ticket in the States, and I wonder what the regulation was. Please enlighten me. : )
Quite right David, you remember correctly, the S1 was labeled "American Railroads" at the World's Fair.
As a matter of fact, several years ago O Gauge model maker MTH put out an S1 model in two versions, one labeled "Pennsylvania" and one labeled "American Railroads" after the World's Fair display. Beautiful models too, but I couldn't afford 'em!
Here's a six minute video of one of the models. Probably more than anyone wants to see, unless you're like me and Mr. Jones!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exKL1L7VOBc
By the way, I've never read anything concerning the S1 and mechanical issues. As I understand it the problem was it was just too big! Too big for any of the Pennsy's turntables, and almost too big for any of the wyes. Turning an S1 on a wye required "kid glove" handling, and even that was no guarantee against derailing, which the S1 did frequently.
One thing I might be able to contribute to this discussion is a question:
Is it my imagination, but did not the S1 carry the lettering:
AMERCAN RAILROADS
at either or both 1939 and 1940 Worlds Fairs, instead of the in-service
PENNSYLVANIA
??
The request to put the S-1 in freight service may be just the pragmatic intention to use her as long as her boiler ticket runs, with affecting the schedules of passenger trains the least possible.
One main drive behind the construction of the S-1 was a letter by J.F.Deasy to Fred Hankins, saying basically: "the Pennsy guys are building a 100-mph-locomotive". So as to the end of the T-1 about ten years later- there may have been a conspiration or not - probably all these known factors, plus the coal strikes, have been met by the same pressure from the competitor about a decade before, now in the form of the motto:
"The Pennsy have bought diesels!"
BigJim Overmod but how crews avoided getting into trouble with a match between key contacts of the "speed recorder" equipment. All this makes for good Railroad Magazine stories, or for bull sessions in the caboose Supersonic speeds aside, this practice was not "story", but, was actually used by enginemen. All of the old heads knew how to beat the speed recorder!
Overmod but how crews avoided getting into trouble with a match between key contacts of the "speed recorder" equipment. All this makes for good Railroad Magazine stories, or for bull sessions in the caboose
Supersonic speeds aside, this practice was not "story", but, was actually used by enginemen. All of the old heads knew how to beat the speed recorder!
And N&W enginemen would also make time in selected areas between Roanoke and Bristol.
.
Miningman The Fix. Stick with what you know , stand by with unflinching loyalty to your troops, get every top notch lawyer across the system and a few good real slippery ones to fight the local, State and Federal governments like a crazed weasel. Push for Government funded research into next generation intercity rail resulting in beating the Japanese to the punch with the Bullet Trains. Go into partnership with cities on commuter services, retaining ownership of the rails and operations while assured of a reasonable rate of return. Keep all steam for at least ten years, maybe 15 or 20. Work with GM, Alco and Baldwin on those next generation intercity trains, don't buy what they are offering. If the bombed out Japanese and French can do it then surely to heck we can do it 5 years earlier. Fund everything with higher gasoline taxes and chill out. Now I realize all of what I have written here can be blown away by 'rational' thinking and ' you don't get it' or 'you're nuts' but there is the spiritual side, the human side, something you can't grab and show, something we all know but don't acknowledge as 'rational thinking'. I believe that was all overlooked and never considered. Think we are doing better though.
The Fix. Stick with what you know , stand by with unflinching loyalty to your troops, get every top notch lawyer across the system and a few good real slippery ones to fight the local, State and Federal governments like a crazed weasel. Push for Government funded research into next generation intercity rail resulting in beating the Japanese to the punch with the Bullet Trains. Go into partnership with cities on commuter services, retaining ownership of the rails and operations while assured of a reasonable rate of return. Keep all steam for at least ten years, maybe 15 or 20. Work with GM, Alco and Baldwin on those next generation intercity trains, don't buy what they are offering.
If the bombed out Japanese and French can do it then surely to heck we can do it 5 years earlier. Fund everything with higher gasoline taxes and chill out.
Now I realize all of what I have written here can be blown away by 'rational' thinking and ' you don't get it' or 'you're nuts' but there is the spiritual side, the human side, something you can't grab and show, something we all know but don't acknowledge as 'rational thinking'.
I believe that was all overlooked and never considered. Think we are doing better though.
I love your ideas. We have more than enough points and content to make a very good Hollywood movie base on your ideas. If it would be a sci-fi movie, let's call it "Morning Broadway Limited" or "Fleet of the 20th Century".
T do not have the knowledge to contribute to this discussion, but I d find it the most fascinating and interesting on the website. Hats off to all of you!
Jones1945The S1 was assigned to haul a 90-car freight train for testing before she was officially put into service. James M. Symes requested to make it a freight engine due to her unstable performance (probably caused by constant over speed), but PRR HQ rejected it. She was retired from passenger service around May 1946, and there was no photographic evidence showing she was put into freight service after May 1946. Maybe Arnold Haas had found some evidence that no longer existed, maybe some people have mistaken S1 for Q1, just as people confused the K4s 3768 with S1 6100.
Probably Symes just wanted to take the S-1 out of passenger service now he had enough T-1s and he just looked for another occupation for that rather unreliable (look at her mileage..) single-piece just as long as her boiler ticket ran. Some of the first serial T-1s, delivered nov/dec 1945, were assigned to Crestline.
Charlie Meyer mentioned in his Milepost-article, that WWII prolonged the life of the S-1.
Haas surely must have known a lot, but as he mixed up or exaggerated so much so often, none of his information can be seen as credible unless confired by official sources, leaving all of his speed claims as "hearsay". "Fake news" is not a new invention, and the style of his writing tells a story about a guy who liked to show off.
You kind of wonder if anyone was really thinking straight. I still say a lot of post war trauma ran through all of society and that combined with rapid changes all around made it difficult day to day to understand and make solid decisions, but I say they did not recognize that.
A lot of ' give me those money saving Diesels' thinking was the order of the day in the entire industry. Legions of layoffs ensued. The loss of steam lost a lot of jobs, friends, people that won the war. This had to have an effect on morale at the railroad. That had to be bad. Was any of that considered? The romance and charm disappeared from the public and quickly.
Now these men at the top of the PRR were not immune but I think they thought they were. It's like the story Overmod told of the British Upper Crust fellow who thought Syphilis was a disease of the 'lesser' and injected himself to prove it and died.
There was a rush to judgement and damn the consequences. It all just added to the chaos and trauma.
Many first generation Diesels from several builders soon proved unreliable adding to the pool of confusion. The difference between 1950 and 1960 was incredible, shocking and unforeseen. Governments turned their back on the railroads and an aggressive campaign of 'railroads are old fashioned, but a Chevrolet isn't' by Madison Ave. ... and they meant the trains not just the steam. Then GM sold the Diesels to those very railroads ... in effect the railroads took their own poison.
They must have been slapping themselves silly at GM HQ.
Did the men at the top have a clue? Did they think rationally, or were they chasing their own tail. Did they see a dim very soon to be future?
No NYC Hudson was saved , not the S1, all the T1's were scrapped far too early and to put a cherry on top they tore down the greatest symbol of the PRR .. the Pennsylvania Station.
This was not rational thinking by the better men and leaders of society and in Railroading.
This thinking added to their own demise.
The S1, S2, T1's, Q2's Hudson's , Niagara's , the rest of the East, fell victim to group think... and they were swindled and betrayed .. never saw it coming.
Part of the reason I bring this up is because an awful lot of the motive-power correspondence in those years survives ... and is accessible from friendly people ... at the Hagley in Delaware. I spent some time researching the V1 turbine and, incidentally, saw quite a bit of the correspondence regarding the S1 and S2 in the postwar years, including the detailed correspondence about preservation and the ultimate failure thereof.
It certainly looks as though I need to spend a coupla days in there about what was done year by year in the postwar period. I don't have the impression PRR thought it was going to get anywhere near its money's worth out of the big girl after the War, became increasingly resigned to it, and may have resorted to excuse in getting the hellish allotted expenses blotted off the books -- perhaps a dry run for doing something similar with the T1s?
Syme's request is mentioned in the article "The S1 - Biggest of them all" by Charlie Meyer, but the specific reason is not well documented. A reasonable estimate is that Symes wanted to get rid of the S1 for the reason you stated, but since PRR HQ insisted to keep using the S1 between Crestline and Chicago, he had no alternative but to settle for the second best by requesting the HQ to put S1 into freight service. That means the S1 could have been operated within the speed limit of the freight train and that would have prevented her from the constant breakdown on the route caused by wear parts and over-speed operation. I don't think Syme thought that S1 was an ideal engine for freight service.
According to The Keystone Magazine Volume 39, Number 2, Syme's complaints on the S1 are well documented. The author couldn't find any complaints on the Q1.
I would have to see very specific correspondence from Symes indicating his intent to continue this locomotive in service but restrict it to 'freight only'.
I am not quite certain from first principles why anyone, on or off PRR, would think that a comparatively short-stroke engine with 84" drivers would have effective adhesion at relatively low speed, let alone proper train-starting characteristics with divided drive, let alone the ability to make reasonable horsepower in the appropriate speed range for PRR peacetime freight.
Presumably at least part of the 'instability problem' involved improper starting procedure with an engine using a front-end throttle (in other words, much the same problem that was reported, well after mid-1946, for the T1s) but again, unless by 'freight operation' is meant generally leisurely operation with fairly restricted consists, it's difficult to see why Symes in particular would be trying to wring additional ton-miles of this kind of service out of a locomotive in which PRR had invested so very many hundreds of thousands of development dollars. It is also nearly impossible for me to see what advantage to PRR could result in seeing the World's Fair Famous Future of Passenger Trains engine plodding along like some 70'-drivered incarnation of 999 on milk trains.
In any case, the fix for the 'unstable' divided-drive performance would be relatively more simple than for the T1, due to the more limited distribution at higher mass flow in the Walschaerts gear; something no more complicated than the divided proportional application of independent rigging we propose for T1 5550 would have done the job even without implementing 'trim' (or separate throttling) of steam distribution or reverser positioning to one of the engines.
Now on the other hand Symes would have had no reason whatsoever to 'make a freight engine' out of the Q1 because it had explicitly been one since its inception, albeit one intended more for heavy fast M&E on a railroad where passenger traffic was handled with full double Atlantics. Here the situation was complicated by the fact that F units would outperform the Q1 in almost any respect in practice; if there was going to be a future for the M1 legacy on PRR outside what diesels could do better, it would be in 5/4 scale updesign of Berkshires instead of Mountains, in other words via the 70"-drivered J1as PRR already had in such numbers. Those might not be able to reach anywhere near the theoretical speed of a Q1, or offer the low peak augment promised ... but they could be relied upon to run any heavy train otherwise involving doubleheaded M1s about as fast, and of course with far less consternation and overhead maintenance and potential for various and relatively spectacular failures. And of course there were turbines waiting in the wings to replace any reciprocating locomotive with augment ... and F units better than the turbines almost from the beginning.
The problem I have with Haas from the NYC side is the same I have with him claiming ridiculously high metric speed for the S1: I suppose what it really comes down to is that I've never really forgiven Freeload Cubbard and his ilk for having taught me from a very early age that PRR had locomotives that ran the Pennsylvania Special from Alida to AY at over 127mph.
There is a distressing tendency elsewhere in the United States to think that just because something runs a certain speed, with a little hot-rodding you can 'obviously' go much faster. And if a locomotive is just a bigger car, with a little superior knowledge (in America) or Stakhovite effort (in Russia) a faster and faster performance will result. Only much later, and usually by banging up firsthand against the cruelty of the physics and materials of 'the world as it is', do people begin to appreciate just what is required to achieve the higher speed. Certainly wishful thinking was not going to get Hudsons regularly well over 120mph, but Haas went beyond that and talked about it as if it were commonplace ... but underremarked. Stan Repp not only went on about testing speeds on ATSF up to 150mph, but how crews avoided getting into trouble with a match between key contacts of the "speed recorder" equipment. All this makes for good Railroad Magazine stories, or for bull sessions in the caboose ... but one strongly suspects that actually producing these results out on the railroad was a different story, and one much more difficult in its 'telling'.
Now, something that might be interesting and fun at the same time would be to model the ROW from Lewistown west over an improved Sam Rea/Ohio cutoff line, with its low grades and minimum curves allowing greater sustained speed and perhaps better duplex train-handling, and see just what would have been required for an S1 run in its proper context. I have the grim suspicion that electrics would still have been 'better' all the way west of the Alleghenies, and of course the S1 already had level-playing-field advantage from Crestline all the way until almost into Chicago.
Hello and welcome, Hermann.
Speaking of the S1 painted red, I found this brass model from the bay a few months ago:
I thought the model was painted like that on request by the model's owner, but now I understand why it was painted red.
The S1 was assigned to haul a 90-car freight train for testing before she was officially put into service. James M. Symes requested to make it a freight engine due to her unstable performance (probably caused by constant over speed), but PRR HQ rejected it. She was retired from passenger service around May 1946, and there was no photographic evidence showing she was put into freight service after May 1946. Maybe Arnold Haas had found some evidence that no longer existed, maybe some people have mistaken S1 for Q1, just as people confused the K4s 3768 with S1 6100.
And there were ten Pennsy K4's painted Tuscan Red at one time to match the new Tuscan Red passenger cars, but how long they kept that color I don't know.
I found some color footage of the "America's Railroads" exhibit from the 1939 New York World's Fair, including "Railroads on Parade." No sound though.
Some good shots of the S1, but the color footage doesn't tell us much. It certainly looks like it was "Brunswick Green," you know, "Two parts black, one part green?" But not even Kodachrome was right 100% of the time.
No, there's no shots of a young railfan named David Klepper running wild through the railroad exhibits with his exasperated parents chasing him. Sorry.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NySKJczYKUQ
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