Flintlock76I can't help but wonder how much money they wasted trying all those different makes and models, when they should have exercised a little patience and stuck with GM, maybe some ALCO orders to take up the slack.
You're forgetting what it was like in the late '40s when reliable diesel-electrics were still in the undiscovered-country future. One of the better analyses is in the Kiefer report on motive power (which is like a snapshot both of 'best practices' and marketing strategy in the period from late 1946 into 1947 when the report was readied for printing). PRR of course thought they had a working arrangement with online customer and co-Philadelphia institution Baldwin ... perhaps not recognizing that after the Westinghouse takeover there was a serious evolving rivalry over the future of steam-turbine motive power, and certainly not noting the various lethal assumptions Baldwin made in optimizing their postwar offerings. Why they would buy much from Alco, supplier to 'the enemy green team' in Schenectady, is less clear; it does seem though that they got their money out of them. The actual turning point, I think, was between Baldwin and EMD in the mid-Fifties (really after Westinghouse had shot BLH in the foot by deciding to get out of the railroad electrical business) and it doesn't take much hindsight to see that PRR would not have been better off with a large order of Baldwin hoods instead of GP9s.
Although to be fair, maybe the PRR felt the same way others did, that is, considering GM to be an upstart, and when the REAL locomotive builders like Baldwin and ALCO started building road diesels post-war they'd "show" the upstart what a road diesel should be.
I have to wonder if at least some of it was the perceived great price point of EMD and its arrogant support. Certainly Baldwin started with a bang with the Essl modular high-speed locomotive, which would have been fascinating with 412s and was good enough still with 408s -- had the costs worked out, PRR could have standardized entirely on smaller prime movers for all its first-generation needs, not just the 120mph locomotives. With optimized service uptime using the same general engine-repair principles as seen in RDCs
Baldwin couldn't quite make up their minds about building high-speed diesels with expensive articulated frames or high-speed diesels with light structure on A-1-A trucks like 'everyone else at the time'. They certainly built a whole bunch of ghastly Gerties in figuring out the way to the BP-20, and equally certainly no other railroad was interested in the BP-20 by the time it was available, even as they were going to E7s, 8s and 9s in droves.
At least the N&W profited by their example and took a "wait and see" attitude.
I give them no credit here. They didn't consider first generation diesels seriously at all, even as switchers (look at the weird extent they went to with tha M2 automatics) for reasons having nothing to do with relative 'goodness' or capacity: they were steam bigots. Then when Porky-Pig-at-the-ice-show Saunders threw the STE development under the bus and buffaloed into diesels, they bought a whole bunch of things that really made little sense compared to the steam optimization -- they may have run well, but metalflake paint on Geeps and leased E units in someone else's paint on passenger? Grab bag of units just as in the '40s, just with a decade newer offering. To me the absence of TrainMasters in new purchases (they did get some via mergers, later) was a prime indication the noobs didn't really understand what they ought to be getting.
Baldwin Sharks? If what I've read is true they were actually pretty good, both passenger and freight variants, but by the time they came along it was too late, the race had been lost.
They were hobbled by inherently slow-speed engines with limited first-generation horsepower limits, a design almost impossible to look out of for safe reverse operation, and largely incompatible throttle and MU arrangements; on top of that was the different (and less effective) support and parts provision. In any case the RF16 would have been no less obsolescent than the F9 as the industry went to more capable and larger 'road-switchers' ... look at what Baldwin was proposing for the Really Big PRR Order; that's their wave of the future, and notable in part for having utterly no second-generation development potential without extensive new mechanical innovation. I do suspect that a more 'Baldwinized' PRR would have had less reason to weed out older locomotives in 1963 that were still providing perfectly good service in niche markets -- the Jersey Coast service for the BP20s and even BF16s being one notable one -- but it wouldn't have been long before the second-generation higher-horsepower units would have been seen there too (remember PRR tested 2400hp Alcos very successfully on commuter trains as early as 1957 ... there was just no money to throw at such improvements in that era. As governments came to assume responsibility for commuter capital purchases, after 1966, there would likely be little place for legacy Baldwins no matter how good...
Oh yeah, the Pennsy's buying frenzy in the rush to dieselize. (Maybe "rush" is a poor choice of words, but I can't think of a better one right now. Only two cups of coffee in me so far, don't ya know.)
I can't help but wonder how much money they wasted trying all those different makes and models, when they should have exercised a little patience and stuck with GM, maybe some ALCO orders to take up the slack.
Retirements of the T1's started in 1949 and they were all withdrawn from service by 1952. It is quite possible that many had only 3 years of actual working lives. I suppose the later half of 1946 Aug- Dec and 1947 were their really only big mileage times. By 1948 they were all off the big passenger trains and assigned to secondary trains. I assume they spent an inordinate amount of time in the shops getting the bugs out and fixes. Perhaps Buck Rogers and Flash Gordon managed some mileage numbers having been around 4 years or so longer.
Considering you had a brand new locomotive as late as Aug 46 and pulled out for good as early as 1949, minus down time for repairs and major fixes and debugging then for sure something was going on.
Not that the Centipedes, 244 PA1's, Passenger Sharks, CLiners were any better at all but the E7's were and E8's certainly were. What a mess really.
Flintlock76Crews intentionally running engines to the breaking point? I don't know, that sounds a bit like what I call an "Old Husbands Tale." I'd say the lack of training and poor maintenance had a lot to do with late steam problems than any intentional crew abuses. I could understand intentional abuse of the new diesels by men whose jobs depended on steam, but I've never read of any evidence of that happening either.
One very specific reference is in Arnold Haas, Memories of New York Central Steam, where he describes the specific 'practices' that could only be by intent. This specifically includes running with ridiculously long cutoff (producing severe compression, among other things, which was lethal to the Timken lightweight rods) or ridiculously short cutoff leading to pounding or other inertial issues. I believe he also notes issues with lubrication to the piston valves, inducing accelerated wear and hence blow there as well as added propensity to stick or seize.
Now I would be among the first to acknowledge Haas is not the most, shall we say, truthful source regarding steam performance -- if not the source, he's the proximate cause of that silly German claim that the PRR 6100 ran the metric equivalent of 142mph on the Trail Blazer, and he famously discusses 120+mph running with both Hudsons and Niagaras as if this were a relatively commonplace occurrence. His claims for observing 'abuse', however, have more of the ring of actual observation to me, and knowing what I know about the 'hurry-up' abandonment of big steam on the NYC at that general time (engines 'failing on the road' not getting expensive shopping even for simple reasons) I wouldn't be surprised to find locomotives, especially the ones Staufer mentioned in Thoroughbreds as being poor runners, being 'helped along' to get them out of operating-pool misery.
Remember, this was a job, not an adventure, to a great many enginemen (and presumably their firemen, who had much to value in a diesel replacement!) While there were certainly many who valued locomotives almost as extensions of themselves ... there were certainly many who were happy not to have excitement of 'Set Up Running' horror trips any more.
Crews intentionally running engines to the breaking point? I don't know, that sounds a bit like what I call an "Old Husbands Tale."
I could be wrong about this, but I believe the enginemen on the PRR and the NYC were too professional to indulge in shenanigans like that. Mishandling a T1 due to lack of proper training in how to handle it? Certainly, it happened. Having to deal with a locomotive that's only getting enough maintanance to keep it alive until the diesel replacement shows up? Certainly that would be a problem, and it happened as well.
I'd say the lack of training and poor maintanance had a lot to do with late steam problems than any intentional crew abuses.
I could understand intentional abuse of the new diesels by men who's jobs depended on steam, but I've never read of any evidence of that happening either.
Could be wrong though. I wasn't there.
MiningmanThis would have been a great time to assign a photojournalist to cover a story about T1s on assignment, that day, doubleheading from its very start, getting coal and water, crews arrive, coupling to its train, then throughout the day and its arrival as another crew takes over or its final destination.
I'd settle for that great sportsman S. "Kip" Farrington's account of a run with one; in fact, one of the things I wondered when I first read 'Riding the Locomotive Cabs' as a child was where his account of high speed on PRR T1s could be -- he had the access and surely had the interest both at the time of glory and in the age of decline.
Perhaps there are still accounts or stories out there ahead of 'the edge of history' that we will hear as the T1 research projects continue.
We do have what I consider very good evidence of the high-speed slipping phenomenon, from sources that include E.J.Harley and Dave Klepper; I based some of my 'solutions' for duplex operation at true high speed from the observed 'phenomena'. Short of instrumented testing with 5550, I doubt we will 'model' this adequately as there are so many relatively nondeterministic variables involved -- note that significant slipping propagation under these conditions was, apparently, not observed, contrary to many of the 'documentations' of low-speed slipping.
Any attempt to 're-create' a run might not be as fictional as that low-flying account in Trains with the "120mph car speedometer issue" but it would still be fiction, and likely include biases either pro or con. There's also the problem Arnold Haas demonstrated (with Niagaras) -- if you'd suggest to me that engine crews were intentionally running the engine wrong to wear it out or break it on some accelerated basis, I'd scoff ... but that seems to be almost endemic in some places in the 'late age of modern steam'... and I already presuppose that PRR had more reasons than most to engage in the practice... overtly or covertly, as it were.
Thinking the photographer had advance knowledge for this photo.
Which brings me around to wondering about this. This would have been a great time to assign a photojournalist to cover a story about T1's on assignment, that day, doubleheading from its very start, getting coal and water, crews arrive, coupling to its train, then throughout the day and its arrival as another crew takes over or it's final destination.
Something like that would have added greatly to the somewhat mysterious nature of them and how they were handled and performed.
I'm wondering if it could be written today as if it actually happened and if it could be accepted as an accurate account.
What was quality of the coal they actually used? What did the Hostler have to say, and the Engineer and Fireman? Were there problems with slipping? Did they doublehead well? The items a knowledgable journalist could have given us would have been invaluable.
Could a realistic account of that day be based on the real thing with what we know today, or would a lot of fiction, guessing and bias be introduced and continue the controversy.
Good discussion Mod-man, very enjoyable! My compliments!
Flintlock76Getting off-topic here, but just want you to know where I'm coming from where the term "replica" is concerned.
This is not getting off-topic, and the discussion is highly relevant. (And if I had a dollar for every time I went into Navy Arms, I could probably afford some fairly high-end firearms!)
As you note, the issue of 'replicas' that have to be distinguished from originals to preserve value (or prevent various kinds of fraud) is its own special consideration, and it extends into some surprising places (branded microstructure in synthesized gem-quality diamond and some aspects of classic-car restoration, for example, being interesting areas for study). I would argue that these don't apply to any large locomotive restoration or re-creation/replication, as there is little value 'lost' in copying 'historic fabric' that isn't historic except to whatever purists are concerned (and willing to pay for any compromise). Hence there is relatively little complaint if we use 'replacement' rod bearings with different size bronze sleeves, or special hard coatings on the variable cams in valve gear, or weld the boiler under the lagging, where nothing in the appearance of the engine is affected. Likewise there is little complaint when some of the specialized 'optimization' of operation is carried in decidedly non-historic support vehicles, or involves things like the self-powered transport cradle for moving the locomotive easily 'off its own wheels' with distributed track loading. Where you start to get problems is in changing key characteristics of engine performance or perceived operation -- one major one for the Trust being retention of all the coal-burning equipment rather than redesigning the firespaces for, say, torrefied wood or pressure oil firing. And changes that radically affect appearance, like cheek brakes, must be seen as necessary indeed before they'd be adopted.
As you noted, we need a different word for a "T1" that has been redesigned (as some versions of the 5AT were supposed to be) as a touring/excursion powerplant or specialty passenger engine. This would be no more a 'replica' than one of those abortions from Golden Rock, even if many of its proportions are shared with the historical engine; I'm not sure what the correct technical term 'ought' to be.
Thing is, 'continued production' is just wrong unless (1) it is in fact commercial production of some kind, and (2) you're producing to satisfy a perceived market of some kind (whether or not you actually sell whatever it is for a profit. Once you start changing the design, with different parts as with the firearms, or by putting special labels or markings on the underside as with toy trains, you're not 'continuing' production; you're making a new production that is explicitly differentiated from 'older' versions, which often sinks or swims as its own special collector's item ... we need a technical term of art for this.
Good thoughts Overmod.
See, I take kind of a different approach when the term "replica" comes up. Having worked for Navy Arms Company (as you know) back in the 80's I became very familiar with the replica firearms market.
With replicas of historic firearms certain liberties are taken with the product, that is, there are slight dimensional changes made so the piece can't be easily faked into a bogus original. (Although it HAS been done, so watch out!) Look at a replica of a Colt 1851 Navy and you say "Oh, it's a '51 Navy!" But put the replica next to an original and the differences pop right out at you. The parts won't interchange either. Hence my suggestion that 5550 wouldn't be a ''replica," it'd be the real thing, just not 70+ years old.
There was one series of Civil War reproduction rifles that quite frankly we thought was unfair to call replicas. These were Pattern 1853 Enfield rifle-muskets (and variants) made by Parker-Hale over in the UK using the original Enfield patterns. These guns were exactly the same as their predecessors make in the 1860's, even the parts would interchange. As far as we were concerned they were continued production pieces, not replicas.
At the time original P1853's weren't going for much more than the Parker-Hales, so nobody cared about faking.
Getting off-topic here, but just want you to know where I'm coming from where the term "replica" is concerned.
Anyway, "replica" or "continued production," who cares what 5550's called? Just as long as it gets built!
Flintlock76Well, you can't replicate something that's never been built. A C1a would be just that, a brand-new production model steamer.
Did I ever say different?
The point is that a great deal of the 'new-build' C1a detail design, including many of the patterns and coring that would be used for the cast beds, matches components of the T1, and consequently the actual fabrication cost of a C1a net of all research and parts can be expected to be less for those reasons. Of course the cost of the boiler would be essentially the same as for a Niagara project, as the T1 boiler architecture is nothing like the Niagara's, and the necessary modifications to the bed would have to be made...
Aside from that, I'd sooner see a Hudson reproduced, or even better and easier, one of the surviving Mohawks resurrected.
Why we have not in fact seen this is one of the great mysteries of railroad enthusiasm. It is hard for me to believe that the only reason the replica project from Datong (or wherever) was abandoned was because the follow-on copies effectively subsidized at great cost would be so cheap. But there you have it, and to this day there the matter rests, despite any number of wealthy 'railfans' or bored oligarchs who could finance the necessary project very simply.
There is a long and occasionally acrimonious discussion that erupts periodically on RyPN regarding 3001 in Elkhart (which is the only serious contender for operational restoration). Apparently the most effective thing anyone might do is to move to Elkhart and win the next mayoral election. In my opinion it's not much more difficult than restoring 576, with a much more 'famous' result ... but are there enough remaining NYC fans to foot the bill and volunteer to do Dr. D's jobs to git 'r dun?
Here's a little exercise in semantics. Would 5550 be a replica, or a continued production model?
This issue was actually taken up in the early days of the Trust effort. Baldwin has been out of the domestic steam-locomotive business for nearly three-quarters of a century, and its plant to make them is long gone. Likewise the specialized GSC facilities in Granite City. I doubt many of the tools and fixtures at Juniata have survived -- they certainly weren't there when things there were checked a few years ago. Even the owning railroad is gone beyone recognition. Actual "production" involves sequence production, with the implied economies of scale, and while it can be cute to use, say, sequential Cobra serial numbers for modern replica cars being built for a collector market, there's no intent to build large numbers of the 'replica' for any purpose; in fact, I think it would be extremely premature to do so even after the multiphysics virtual models are exhaustively exercised and perhaps -- remembering PRR's own experience -- after some stationary-rig or road testing of the locomotive itself.
Same with a new Hudson.
Alco in Schenectady is now gone, too. Having a tender at Steamtown and a trailing truck somewhere in upstate New York doesn't change this.
In my mind, a replica T1 would be a big fiberglass dummy with spinning wheels and machinery with smoke and sound effects that just sits there and does nothing.
I am tempted to note that with substitution of the word 'aluminum' this might be said of some of the production locomotives.
Seriously, though, 'replica' has taken a bad hit semantically from some aspects of the enthusiast-automobile market. What the term means is an exact copy of an original, functional as well as aesthetic, and that is essentially what the T1 Trust effort is doing. There was some discussion about 'fixing' all the actual and perceived problems with definitive tech, which was and is possible, but you then have the problem of many 'replica' cars which look something like the original, but have some more or less expedient tinkering to make them cheaper to produce, more reliable as transportation, etc. etc. etc. About the greatest extent of the issue with 'nonstandard' changes involves the substitution of drive-arm RC valve gear for the original, and it is 'always possible' for the original type of drive to be installed if there is either a reason or a demand for strict rivet-counting historical accuracy that is willing to pay for it.
Well, you can't replicate something that's never been built. A C1a would be just that, a brand-new production model steamer.
Here's a little excercise in semantics. Would 5550 be a replica, or a continued production model? Same with a new Hudson. In my mind, a replica T1 would be a big fiberglass dummy with spinning wheels and machinery with smoke and sound effects that just sits there and does nothing.
Not sure how many of us old wobblies gonna make it to 2030 but if you're looking past that date then do this first instead.
Then if the Duplex can stay on the rails you can replicate a never before built C1a. I'm certain there will be bugs with a T1.
Besides with a Hudson you could recreate the great T1/Hudson race, somewhere that could represent Englewood.
Flintlock76I'd imagine that the T1 Trust team can't go too far with any improvements, if they do, then it's not really a T1. Maybe a T1-A?
Keep in mind T1a is reserved for the piston-valve conversion -- PRR took great pains to make this a 'production' modification, including patenting the welding method to join the new valve chests onto the cast beds, and that is why the conversion has its own 'subclass' while the type B-2 RC conversion doesn't.
There was some discussion on what a follow-on to 5550 would be in the first couple of years of engineering-committee feasibility planning. Some interesting possibilities ranging from mild to 'wild'. Note that the cost of any 'second' engine would be orders of magnitude less than 5550, as so much of the work, the connections, and the fabrication tooling will have been done. Amusingly it may be cheaper to build a C1a than a Niagara.
I'd imagine that the T1 Trust team can't go too far with any improvements, if they do, then it's not really a T1. Maybe a T1-A?
Certainly any improvements to ease maintanance and improve the life of the locomotive would be understandable.
OvermodThat's likely too many fines (slack) in the coal. See how well-defined the roils are? I think you're seeing the 'end' of a similar smoke show by the trailing engine (which has reduced throttle or firing rate for some reason); not the falling end of the 'plume'. You can easily see the pernicious effects of expecting 6400hp out of a locomotive with a 92' grate.
I think you're seeing the 'end' of a similar smoke show by the trailing engine (which has reduced throttle or firing rate for some reason); not the falling end of the 'plume'. You can easily see the pernicious effects of expecting 6400hp out of a locomotive with a 92' grate.
A 92 foot grate sounds rather large!
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Very famously Baldwin recommended somewhere between 100 and 104' for the duplex grate. The New York Central C1a was to have essentially the same boiler as the Niagara (just over 100').
Apparently the nature of the 'double Atlantic' design was to be sufficiently light and economical that a smaller grate would produce the necessary radiant heat release. You may remember some of Juniatha's discussion about a 2-8-2 doing the effective work of a common 4-8-4 when all necessary thermodynamic 'improvements' were applied -- the smaller grate and the use of the Turbo-Inspirator were both consequences of what was considered an 'efficient' design for the size.
Dave Griner, who did the initial detail-design calculations, concluded that to change the 92' grate would involve significant changes to the form of the cast bed as well as the boiler and its seatings. (I suspect much of the trailing-truck design and equalization would require substantial and probably easily 'visible' difference.) In any case, the 'principle' behind the T1 Trust is in part to replicate the 'actual' design as far as possible, and increasing the grate area and also the required waterspace to suit it best would require very substantial changes for which there is no historical basis or real equivalent.
Fortunately, there should be little difficulty obtaining reasonable good washed fuel of satisfactory rank for the locomotive in testing or service. (There is no particular reason why the boiler as designed cannot be adapted for reasonable pressure oil firing, either, although this is not a particular design priority.)
In my opinion, at least part of the remarkable performance of the T1 on test might be attributable to the proportions of the firebox and chamber around that relatively smaller grate (it put up perhaps the best water rate per developed hp of any American prototype, which to me indicates in part optimized heat transfer through to superheated steam). While the T1 is one of the most powerful of "4-8-4s" it is very far from being the largest.
Ok, so harmful effects due to a 92" grate... is this being increased for the 5550? Or mitigated somehow?
It seems to be a rather expected result at least mathematically in its design. Surely ( I'm not calling you Shirley) Baldwin and the Pennsy must have had an idea?
Was it a deliberate decision they chose to live with and damn the torpedoes?
That's likely too many fines (slack) in the coal. See how well-defined the roils are?
All that smoke? Normally that would have gotten a head-end crew called on the carpet for wasting fuel, but there could be other reasons.
The tender might have been loaded with an incredibly bad load of coal (it happened, and the fireman had to make the best of it), the locomotive could have been WAY overdue for servicing (and if this is toward the end of the T1 series' life they were probably only doing just enough maintanance to keep them alive), they MIGHT have been "hamming it up" for a photographer's camera, or maybe-possibly the fireman just hadn't gotten the hang of firing a T1 yet.
Lots of possibilities.
It DOES look cool though! Real "burning of Rome" smoke effects, as the late lamented Lucius Beebe would have called it.
Don't know about PRR M&E trains, but I do know that B&O M&E trains could grow to 30 cars or more. Many B&O M&E trains were double headed in the day. Don't know why PRR wouldn't do the same, even with T1's. Big trains need big power.
Dave Klepper has stated in previous threads that he was quite certain that there was never an organized excursion involving the T1 or multiple T1's.
Now the photographer here must have known something ahead of time, (but then again maybe not). The trailing T1 appears to have a clear stack so perhaps it is not under steam.
The lead locomotive looks in good shape, not all beat up and grimy but the full streamlining is gone and that would place it squarely in the Mail and Express secondary trains era and bumped off the premier passenger service.
I'm a bit taken just by the picture, imagine being there to see 2 of them.
Do we suppose that it was on the occasion of a roll-past during an excursion of some kind? I don't know why there'd be that much ill-used fuel otherwise, or a second duplex to boot.
So there you are one fine day standing trackside and low and behold here comes along a T1... but wait, it can't be, not just one but TWO! What a sight to behold for some lucky people that day. Volcanic stack rising high, seems well clear of the cab ventilators, a heavy seemingly endless Mail and Express behind the locomotives. What a sight and surprise this would have been to witness.
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