I suspect the engineers that hit the century mark between Lima and Ft.Wayne was in violation of the ETT track speed a practice that management overlooked until something went horribly wrong.
I read in Trains Magazine where a engineer departed Crestline 45 minutes behind schedule and arrived in Ft.Wayne on the advertised.
I suppose the real question is how many engineers would endanger their lives and livelihood by violating the ETT track speeds for passenger trains?
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
PM Railfan100mph probably so on good days with light trains and clear, level track. 110mph would be ultimately pushing it for the T1, and even a northern class such as alot of posters have mentioned the N&W J class doing.
And your basis for making these categorical statements is what, exactly?
There are dynamometer car records for 611 testing on PRR. This for a locomotive (admittedly one with particularly well-designed balance) with 70" drivers. And, as noted, marked top-heaviness ... when operated too briskly on a very curving line, in fog, where thinking you were one curve away from where you actually were could produce results comparable to those for Amtrak 188.
What on earth would make you think a divided-drive engine with better valve gear, exhaust characteristics, and good steam generation for its cylinder capacity would not reach the same speed? Now, it does have to be said that the speedometers on the T1s, like those on the GG1s, did only read up to 100mph, so any speed above that would have to depend on a watch and the veracity of its user. But there is little doubt that the T1 would be easily capable of reaching the same speed as a Milwaukee A (which no less an authority than Alfred Bruce said was easily capable of 128mph) let alone that railfan favorite the F7 Hudson (with less favorable rod dynamics).
Remember that the design spec for the T1 involved 880 tons at 100 mph. Now perhaps on the Pere Marquette you consider that to be a light train, but most others probably differ. Perhaps you also think that PRR was either too enthusiastic or too mendacious to actually build something that met the specified requirements (or faked the testing that substantiated it).
Now, the question of speeds over about 125mph is more as you indicate: every mph gain in that range is very significant, and if at any point there is a critical resonance, at that speed, you will not "power through it" as you could on an E6s (at lower speed, of course) or one of the Australian Garratt classes. So there is in fact no guarantee that translating ihp via a resistance formula into speed is a reliable guide, or that any of the tall tales regarding 130mph speed out of a T1 in regular service were accurate. One point to remember here is that even at reported speeds in the 115mph range the suspension behavior of cars in the train was much worse than anything observed on the locomotive, and this bodes extremely poorly for any supposed report of travelling at very high speed with actual revenue passengers behind you.
PRR had not gotten done working the bugs out of the T1 as a high-speed locomotive before 1948, and some of the better modifications that would have made very high speed more practical were, in fact, never implemented. That does not mean that the design was not physically capable of achieving those speeds, however, and I think this is one of the first things that will emerge as the T1 Trust refines its simulation models.
Then there is the prospect of 5550 on the Fast Loop at Pueblo. Perhaps not representative of PRR operations in the late Forties. But capable of establishing -- or disproving, as the case may be -- that the thing can be done.
The PRR T1...
Beautiful and unique locomotive. Enough to garner to some very interesting if not "TALL" tales. As in hitting 130-140mph for example
100mph probably so on good days with light trains and clear, level track. 110mph would be ultimately pushing it for the T1, and even a northern class such as alot of posters have mentioned the N&W J class doing.
But 130-140mph? Never happened. Then again, much like fishing, railfans need good caboose tales to tell. This is one of them.
PM Railfan
The Js biggest speed issue they were top heavy and many including the 611 ended on its side in the Tug Fork.I suspect the Ts was top heavy as well.
A side note.When the 611 rollover into the Tug the engineer was killed.The morning was foggy and the engineer sped into a curve along the Tug and over she went.
Thanks for the heads-up. That was fun!
One thing I don't understand, though: why get rid of the Wagner bypass valves? They're a valuable part of running a large engine effectively at high speed, and cost-effectively at normal speed, and even though requiring "special" maintenance the cost of removing them would pay for quite a bit of tinkering...
He also seems to think that the nose of the T1 was fixed in its length, like a one-piece Bowser casting, and so he winds up with heroic empty space ahead of the cylinders, looking remarkably Q-2ish. I am not sure the weight distribution of that locomotive 'as built' would work right.
Interesting and amusing premise for how it worked out, though...
You specified the 1950's, when T1's were operating with the simplified streamlining. The bulbous nose would be out of place in that time frame. By the 1950's, T1's weren't likely to appear on first-line passenger runs such as the Broadway, General, or Spirit of St. Louis unless the diesels failed and there was an emergency substitution of power. Late photos (i.e. 1950's) tend to show T1's hauling trains that have heavy head end traffic. Remember, east of Harrisburg was electrified territory, and T1's were no longer normally operating Fort Wayne to Chicago or Indianapolis to St. Louis in 1950 and afterwards.
Westbound Mail & Express train 11 and eastbound train 12 operated between Pittsburgh and St. Louis with heavy head end traffic plus P70 and/or PB70 rider cars. Westbound 13, 93, 95, and eastbound 14 and 18, and 96, were equivalent trains east of Pittsburgh, with similar consists.
On the Harrisburg-Fort Wayne line, one additional likely train would have been the Admiral, train 70 Eastbound, and 71 Westbound. It carried heavy head end traffic, plus upgraded P70 coaches, a single diner, 3Cpt 1DR Bar-Lounge, and a mix of heavyweight and lightweight sleepers. Eastbound, it carried a 10-6 sleeper from the California Zephyr and a 10-6 from the SP/UP/CNW San Francisco Overland. Westbound number 71 was combined with number 9, the Akronite, from New York as far as Pittsburgh.
On the Panhandle, T1's in the 1950's might have handled M&E trains 11 & 12 mentioned above, plus such trains as the Metropolitan (no. 25 Harrisburg to Pittsburgh and no. 27 Pittsburgh to Indianapolis) or the Allegheny (no. 6 from Indianapolis to Harrisburg). No. 6 was essentially the Eastbound counterpart of 25/27. Both trains carried upgraded P70GSR coaches, a 12-1 sleeper, and an 8 section Buffet west of Pittsburgh, plus heavy head end traffic. East of Pittsburgh, accommodations were Spartan. Number 25 carried a diner and some P70KR rebuilt coaches. Number 6 terminated in Pittsburgh, with its head end cars being forwarded east on no. 18 (Mail & Express) and no. 46 The New Englander.
Consist information from Pennsylvania Railroad Passenger Trains, Consists and Cars - 1952 Volume 1, East-West Trains, by Henry Stegmaier, Jr. TLC Publishing, Lynchburg, VA., 2003.
Tom
dumbasapostWhat trains did the T-1 pull? Did it ever pull the Broadway Limited? What would a prototypical consist look like for a T-1 in the early 1950's?
Just a quick time-out from the technical T1 thread hijacking now in progress, to make sure the original poster's questions were answered:
As a little background, which we've alluded to but never quite fully discussed, PRR had three things going on up to the time the T1 became the follow-on to the multiple-builder S1 project. Consists were getting heavier, some cars were getting lighter, and peak speeds were expected to become faster. Meanwhile, PRR's last experiments with 'modern' power (the M1 and K5) came just at the point that modern balancing was having its revolution. It was assumed right up to the early '30s that an eight-coupled engine like a 4-8-4 would not be used for high speed (hence the plethora of high-speed Hudsons) and the experiments on NYC with 69" and then 72"-drivered Mountains were (to my knowledge) never applied to the M1s for passenger service before the mad-scientist duplex pitch gained the traction it did.
Many typical PRR trains were therefore too long and heavy for a single K4 (or, likely, even a single M1 modified for faster running) and were given doubleheaded power, which might be thought of as an 80"-drivered articulated locomotive with greater evaporation than an N&W A. (Had it been possible to MU two K4s, with the use of Franklin Precision air throttles as applied to the T1s and perhaps an improved version of the automatic cutoff control operational as early as 1922, this might have remained a better option for the longest single-train passenger-plus-M&E consists PRR could have, right up to the maximum stable speed a K4 would routinely operate ... but that still ain't quite 100mph.)
Turns out that a reasonable power allocation to a heavy PRR consist would be two E6s Atlantics (rather than K4s) and putting the two four-coupled engines under a common boiler -- with corresponding smaller-than-usual grate area -- would provide the combination of additional power and free-running performance that PRR wanted. So, the answer to your first question was that the T1 would be expected to pull the sort of train seen with two K4s.
As lightweight "Fleet of Modernism" consists began to come in, but with them the additional loads coming with more axle-powered generators for lighting and AC, etc., you would adjust the consist accordingly. The original T1s were designed to pull 880 trailing tons at 100mph, and I think the design was overbuilt enough to achieve better performance than that. Single consist was probably at that point limited more by station-platform length than by number of cars that the engine could pull.
There are, I think, published pictures of both 'Buck Rogers' and 'Flash Gordon' on the Broadway - I'd expect these to be more than just publicity shots. However, a couple of the design issues with the suspension, in particular the idea of using the long beam equalizer under the rear cylinder block to equalize all four driver pairs (which turned out not to be good) might have kept those prototypes out of regular assignment to premier trains.
I also expect you'll find a number of pre-'47 shots of T1s on the major trains. A problem was that, due to a combination of poor coal, the effects of the smaller grate size, and the relatively poor smoke lifting of the high-efficiency exhaust and streamlining, the T1s tended to be dirty engines; whether that governed some of their assignments I don't know for sure.
Post '48 the T1s were reassigned to secondary consists, more and more so as the various orders of passenger diesels came in. One problem here is that these tended to be maximum tonnage, sometimes on poorer rail and under less favorable environmental conditions, and involve plenty of starting and stopping -- these not being favorable to the T1s design even if the high-speed slipping were redressed. In this connection it is important to read what Dave Stephenson has said about the C&O tests (which in 1948 implicitly included at least some of the suspension fine-tuning modifications). Do not trust the railfan reports of these tests, as quite a bit of outright mendacity has entered in. But do observe the problems involved with starting a heavy train upgrade with a very short stroke for the driver diameter. The reported issue was stalling, not slipping (and C&O's own answer, as seen on the J3a 4-8-4s, was a good high-speed booster).
A prototypical consist for a T1 by the early 1950s would be a secondary train that still needed (or would benefit from) higher-speed operation in places where that could be attained. There are numerous pictures from that era that, analyzed by people familiar with PRR consists, would give you detailed information; there are also people on the PRR-FAX list who have exact consist sheets for particular trains on particular days, and it would not be difficult to sort these on the basis of locomotive number to get a breakdown on what T1s were pulling (or expected to pull).
There is little doubt that a good 4-8-4 providing about "5/4 the performance of a M1a at medium-high speed" (which was the stated design objective of the Q1) would have been more useful to PRR after 1948 than the divided-drive engines were. This was especially so after ICC 29543 restricted high-speed operation and some of the characteristics of diesel power allowed reduction of end-to-end times with much reduced need for pure high-speed capability. However, this might have likely been a downsized turbine and not a reciprocating locomotive, or a V1 articulated-chassis turbine, in the short period PRR would still be designing and building new steam. Sadly (to me) the devices that made mechanical turbine drive practical on large American power were described for PRR just past the point it was recognized that dieselization was a 'better answer' -- as, indeed, they were in important respects even for steam with N&W/NYC-like service reliability.
See the current RMC for one guy's take on a possible PRR 4-8-4. An improbable scenario, just for fun.
selector My guess would have been near 125-130 mph. While it may have been adequately balanced, and even had a good steaming ability to go somewhat beyond that upper limit, the lubrication of the fast-moving piston and valving above it would have been the Achilles heel.
Kiddo, all the Tis were built with Franklin poppet valves for this reason, and any 'Achilles heel' issues involving improper spring or seat combinations causing broken valves were either fixed or addressed in principle (e.g. through better material or centrifugal casting) by 1948. GThere is some evidence -- it cuts both ways -- that the type A valve gear, which allowed continuous cutoff without the wear issues of cam-shifting, but still oscillated with mass reversal, was better suited to practical high speed operation - we won't reqally know until the T1 Trust does the multiphysics modeling, and even then there are more compelling reasons to use rotary-cam (as in type B) with outside drive.
There are some steam-port configuration issues and even steam momentum effects (as on the Q2) that may come into play at very high speeds -- again, we won't really know until all the parameters are modeled.
When the Pennsy tested an N&W J, they ran it so fast (near 100 mph if memory serves) that one of its valves ran out of lube and they had to shut down the event. So much for 70" drivers.
The actual speed was above 110mph - there is some argument on exactly how much above 110, with individual mph being very significant for this design in this speed range; I think the 'right' answer is between 112-113 without having the dynamometer results or any of the review article material at hand. If Dave Stephenson (feltonhill) reads this, he may care to comment as he probably knows this material better than anyone else.
The damage was likely due to consequences of excessive superheat rather than some 'inadequate lube problem' - what was observed was heat bluing of the valve, which indicated to me that some combination of expansion of the valve spool and deterioration of the oil tribology caused the observed seizure. Again, this was the engine being run at the upper limit of its design balance, far in excess of where the mass flow through the superheater was expected - Ross Rowland and others can attest to what happens to superheat temperatures on these large modern engines when run at very high speeds for sustained periods. It is likely that any "PRR J" used for high-speed service would have been equipped with poppet vaqlves, or have the valves and gear designed according to the principles used for the T1a conversion (which I will take up in a moment).
The N&W assessment of the T1 test results (in 1948, I think) has survived and been reported on repeatedly, including in the Trains Magazine forums. The PRR assessment of the high-speed J testing has also survived (in the Hagley) and is interesting reading. Specifically mentioned is that a 'higher wheel' was understood as necessary for PRR purpose (and would have been provided in any subsequent adaptation of a large 4-8-4.) Meanwhile -- and again, I think Dave Stephenson will have definitive knowledge -- even with 70" drivers the J was outside PRR clearances for a number of key places, including the approach to Chicago, and this is one reason the high-speed testing didn't produce any "J orders" with higher wheels, as the modeling crayonistas seem to think is a mod as easy as switching the Niagara prototype from 75" to 79"
Much of the T1a design has been covered in sources like the Keystone, and there are also discussions of it (and the implied compromises) in the material at the Hagley. One very specific understanding is that the high-speed efficiency falls off exactly in proportion to the "inprovement" noted by Franklin for the poppet-valve K4 testing; the locomotive was fine past the low 100mph range but would be substantially hampered in reaching even the 120mph range. (I have seen the comparison for "DBHP at speed" as PRR plotted it for the T1 vs. T1a, but don't have a copy.)
The T1a conversion was in part an admission that the PRR of the late '40s was never going to be a railroad making much use of very-high-speed reciprocating steam, but was still very much in need of single locomotives that could do the job of doubleheaded K4s to run trains at doubleheaded-K4 speeds. So an engine that reliably ran at 85mph with high speed to, say, 110mph was a perfectly good solution ... in fact, a good enough solution to warrant an expensive (and patented!) process to eliminate high-speed slipping and other maintenance woes associated with type A poppets by providing good piston valves and conventional valve gear. (I find it interesting that PRR used Walschaerts rather than long-travel Baker here even though they had access to data for by far the best Baker designs in the business (and a fairly good idea of how Baker arrangements could fail at high speed!) through the N&W 'connection'.)
For anyone interested, the relevant material is all in the T1 Trust repository.
There is no question that a 70" drivered N&W J could and did operate in the 100 mph range when pushed; but normal operation called for more modest speeds in the 70 mph range. PRR wanted higher speeds in the Crestline-Chicago territory and probably would have gone for the tallest drivers practical.
As I said, it's all theoretical, since the final decision not to build a PRR 4-8-4 or 4-8-6 was made 70 years ago.
ACY Top speed of a T1? That's anybody's guess. You may not be able to count that high. Tom
Top speed of a T1?
That's anybody's guess. You may not be able to count that high.
My guess would have been near 125-130 mph. While it may have been adequately balanced, and even had a good steaming ability to go somewhat beyond that upper limit, the lubrication of the fast-moving piston and valving above it would have been the Achilles heal. When the Pennsy tested an N&W J, they ran it so fast (near 100 mph if memory serves) that one of its valves ran out of lube and they had to shut down the event. So much for 70" drivers.
This is NOT to deprecate the mighty J. It was purpose-built, and did it's job with flare in addition to being highly adept. Full props to the designers of that engine.
7j43k ... And PRR DID buy those 2-10-4 copies. Perhaps N&W didn't care to build J's for the Pennsy. ... Ed
... And PRR DID buy those 2-10-4 copies. Perhaps N&W didn't care to build J's for the Pennsy.
...
Ed
The PRR did test a J Class, but burned a valve in it at high speed. So, they would have had to redesign it for the speeds the Pennsy needed.
As for the C&O's T-1 2-10-4, they needed to get something off the shelf since the War Production Board would not permit new designs. They realized the need for heftier haulers, tested the T-1, and decided it would do what they needed it to do. It had a different pilot, the cast pilot, and different headlight position if I recall.
ACYThe whole discussion is theoretical anyway since it never happened and never had any serious likelihood of happening.
You might be surprised. Westinghouse had a clearly recognizable "4-8-4 version" of the S2 direct turbine in one of their promotional brochures of 1948...
Something to remember is that PRR actively researched a number of the issues with the T1, notably the breaking valves, and had fixes for them by 1948. At that point the decision had effectively been made not to use the T1s as first-line passenger power, but there would have been no point in going to a heavier, slower eight-drivered passenger steam locomotive at that point.
What would have been used is probably the follow-on version of the V1 turbine that Loewy did the fancy passenger design (I believe in 1947) for. This would have had the Bowes drive, perhaps to make higher 'passenger' gearing practical, and while I think the "9000hp" rating PRR tied onto the locomotive was ridiculous (look at the water rate alone that would have been required!) the design is even more optimized for 120+mph than the Centipede/Essl undercarriage. (And, had the double Belpaire proven itself as a desirable chamber structure, the V1 chassis would have allowed it without loading-gage compromise of any kind.)
There's a reason PRR never went to a reciprocating 4-8-4 even though it's the logical 'next step up' from an M1, and they had the Niagara both at 75" and 79" for comparison. (Meanwhile, NYC ran over 22 pages of study on the C-1a, so go figure...) By the time there was a possibility of a non-divided drive (and non-turbine) passenger locomotive, the advantages of E and F units had been very well demonstrated, and the perceived and actual need for very high-speed performance on PRR's trains outside the electrified district had dropped to what reliable diesels could comfortably accommodate (with much less rigmarole).
Note that the Niagaras, commonly touted as among the most successful big steam locomotives built, outlasted the T1s by no more than half a decade.
I suggested PRR would have preferred 80" drivers on the hypothetical Double Belpaire 4-8-6, but I agree that probably wasn't achievable due to the limited space under that Double Belpaire. The whole discussion is theoretical anyway since it never happened and never had any serious likelihood of happening.
JOHN BRUCE IIIThe T1 was ideally designed for projected 100 mph passenger service, the J1 for 70 mph, which the N&W never meant to exceed.
Where railfans get some of this stuff, I'll never know.
Voyce Glaze clearly described that the J was intended to have a 100mph 'dash' capability (for making up time) and that the locomotive was therefore balanced for a speed safely above that. (Hence the PRR testing the locomotive with impunity at speeds greater than 110mph, with valves being the 'point of failure' restricting achievement of higher speeds).
No double-Belpaire locomotive on PRR would have had "80" drivers"; there was only room in the clearance diagram for 76" (as documented at Lima) due to interference of the lower two 'lobes' of the chamber with the rear driver-pair flanges. Of course the combination of lightweight rods and better balancing that revolutionized many older designs in the '30s would easily allow speeds well above 100mph with drivers that size, although Franklin type B (or "C", as planned for the 4-8-6 Lima intended to build) might have been needed to allow free running at very high cyclic rpm.
There were two kinds of 'slipping problem' with the T1s, the usual railfan one being the low-speed slips due to frogs, low joints, oil on the rail and the like, as seen in so many videos. That was not the critical one. Remember that the T1 was sized to pull the length of train commensurate with its higher horsepower (880 tons at 100mph) and those trains, at high speed in uncertain weather, could provoke high-speed slipping (which had to be corrected with the throttle and not the valve-gear control linkage, and this was relatively difficult because there was only one throttle valve for both engines, but easier than it might seem because the throttle was a proportional air servo and not a long jointed linkage against the variable and often heavy resistance of nominal 300psi steam).
The thing that fixed the effective top speed of a T1 was neither boiler nor cylinder capacity. It was likely (and I expect the T1 Trust modeling to show this fairly early) critical resonant frequencies in the suspension. which if manifesting at any speed much above 120mph would produce the effect of very hard riding that could not be sustained until the locomotive power accelerated it through the resonant speed. Several possibly apocryphal accounts describe this behavior between about 132-135mph, which I think represents a fairly hard limit.
(The "140mph" number is actually a little above that -- and it does not concern T1s. It was Arnold Haas' number for the speed supposedly achieved by S1 6100 on the Trail Blazer in the postwar years (before the ICC restrictions kicked in after 1950). Hass of course was infamous for overestimating of NYC steam (120+ regularly achieved by Niagaras, for instance) and the speed he gave (complete with decimal point) corresponds to an exact multiple of km/h (he was European).
When choosing a T1 model, it might be worthwhile to be aware of the detail differences. The first two engines, numbers 6110 and 6111, had sharper, more pointed prows than the fifty production models of 1945-46. They were all delivered with bulbous housings on the pilot deck, but that was changed by about mid-1948 to a design with stairs flanking a smaller rounded housing. Some sheet metal was cut away from the tender at this time to facilitate servicing. Both streamlining treatments have been offered in HO brass and by BLI. Most or all represent the fifty production models. I don't know whether anybody ever released a correct model that represented the pointed prow of 6110/6111. (Maybe Gem?). BLI has models of the fifty production models, both before and after revision of the streamlining.
Which version you choose will depend upon your own aesthetic preferences and/or the era you model.
Looks like there might be a T1 in the future.
If the point of a 6 wheel trailing truck on a 4-8-6 was to allow a larger firebox, I'll note that the T1 had a pretty small one. Which would get me thinking they wouldn't have gone with a 6 wheel.
Now, NP apparently liked a large grate area for their, uh, inferior coal. Seems THEY might have considered it.
Anyone else out there that had high speed running and a penchant for large grate areas????
During the period from 1944 to 1947, Lima did design work on a Double Belpaire 4-8-6, and that seems relevant here. PRR probably would have preferred 80" drivers over Lima's proposed 70"; but otherwise the Lima design was probably close to what a PRR 4-8-4 would have been. PRR made the decision to dieselize passenger service about the time Lima finalized its designs, so the project never went any further than the drawing board, plus a 1/6 full size model of the boiler, which is said to still exist at the National Museum of Transport, in St. Louis. No potential customer ever expressed any serious interest in Lima's 4-8-6. It simply came along too late.
If the 4-8-6 wheel arrangement had been adopted by PRR, they would probably have not used the R class. They would probably have used some other letter like U, V, etc. Class F would have also been a possibility, since that was the vacant class letter for 2-6-0's, which were all retired. FF1 electrics were retired as of 1940, and FF2 electrics were not in the picture because they weren't obtained until 1956.
tomikawaTT Reportedly the Pennsy was leery of the low drivers, which is why I suggested a redesign to 80 inch drivers (as well as a Belpaire firebox.) The resulting R1 class would almost certainly have been a supurb locomotive. Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - track speed limit 43.5mph)
Reportedly the Pennsy was leery of the low drivers, which is why I suggested a redesign to 80 inch drivers (as well as a Belpaire firebox.) The resulting R1 class would almost certainly have been a supurb locomotive.
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - track speed limit 43.5mph)
Would not have been an R1 Class, that was already taken by one of the PRR Experimental Electrics, would have been the R2 Class.
Rick Jesionowski
Rule 1: This is my railroad.
Rule 2: I make the rules.
Rule 3: Illuminating discussion of prototype history, equipment and operating practices is always welcome, but in the event of visitor-perceived anacronisms, detail descrepancies or operating errors, consult RULE 1!
ACYIf you want a bloody nose & perhaps to lose a few teeth, just start an argument about this among a few SPF's.
Remains me of the proud P company men that hated the very idea of merging with the NYC-a long time rival.
PRR bought two experimental T1's from Baldwin in April and May of 1942 and put them into service on their first-line passenger trains. No more passenger power was bought until after the war.
The road made a half-hearted foray into diesel power with the purchase of their first passenger diesels, E7 AA set 5900-A and 5901-A, in September, 1945. These were assigned to the Harrisburg-Detroit segment of the Red Arrow. Most observers think PRR motive power officials thought of the E7's as a novelty, not to be taken seriously.
PRR's really heavy investment in T1's came in the form of 50 T1's from Baldwin and their own Altoona Shops November, 1945 through August, 1946, numbers 5500-5549. These were immediately assigned as first-line passenger power for the road's most important mainline passenger trains between Harrisburg in the East, and Chicago, St. Louis, and Cincinnati in the West.
When diesel efficiency and maintenance economics became too obvious to ignore in the late 1940's, PRR began buying passenger diesels from all four builders. By about 1950, the road had decided that they preferred EMD over the other builders. After that, PRR's passenger purchases were almost all E8A's, with a few FP's and SG hood units.
In 1950, the T1's were all still on the active passenger roster, but were mostly handling secondary trains and serving as protection power. In May of 1950, T1's were no longer running into Chicago, Cincinnati or St. Louis, but they were still assigned to all of the other Divisions of their original territory. The Keystone Crossings web site says at that time the 52 T1's were distributed like this:
Middle Division, Harrisburg - Altoona 19 engines
Pittsburgh Division, Altoona - Pittsburgh 5 engines
Eastern Ohio Div., Pittsburgh - Crestline 4 engines
Fort Wayne Div., Crestline - Fort Wayne 6 engines
Panhandle Div., Pittsburgh - Columbus 9 engines
Columbus Div., Columbus - Indianapolis 9 engines
Most T1's were taken out of service in 1952-3, and the last ones were stricken from the roster in 1956.
They were outstanding locomotives, with incredible beauty, power, and speed. They could be slippery and temperamental, but they were superb when operated with the right "touch" in appropriate service on appropriately engineered track. Their downfall was maintenance. They didn't do too well on severe grades.
If you want a bloody nose & perhaps to lose a few teeth, just start an argument about this among a few SPF's. I've said about enough to maybe get me in trouble, so I'll bow out now.
(edited, corrected, expanded)
tomikawaTT As for why other roads didn't buy N&W Js (or build their own) - the J was designed to be a HEAVY locomotive, which was no problem on the N&W but would have raised havoc on routes laid with 115 #/yd or lighter rail. Reportedly the Pennsy was leery of the low drivers, which is why I suggested a redesign to 80 inch drivers (as well as a Belpaire firebox.) The resulting R1 class would almost certainly have been a supurb locomotive. Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - track speed limit 43.5mph)
As for why other roads didn't buy N&W Js (or build their own) - the J was designed to be a HEAVY locomotive, which was no problem on the N&W but would have raised havoc on routes laid with 115 #/yd or lighter rail.
So merging the GN's S-1 and S-2 would have been a great idea. 80" drivers and a Belpaire firebox. Apparently, the GN declined to Belpaire the S-2 because of the added weight. Maybe, I suppose. But considering their previous "elite" passenger engine, the P-2, was also missing a Belpaire firebox, perhaps management was of the opinion that Belpaire fireboxes weren't appropriate for the high-class passenger engine.
Uh. I would disagree.
Larry,
In the Wikipedia article on the T1's, there's a claim by a guy who said the T1's had hit 140 MPH. More than once.
I know that "claims by a guy" are REALLY open to question. We do it here sometimes.
But.
7j43k My belief is that the T's were excellent locomotives. They, perhaps, demanded more of their operating and maintenance crews than they could deliver. Ed
My belief is that the T's were excellent locomotives.
They, perhaps, demanded more of their operating and maintenance crews than they could deliver.
Ed,I read in books and magazines and heard stories the Ts would hit 100 mph West of Lima. The Ts sounded like good engine born in the wrong decade.
Sadly wasn't for WWII diesels would had started replacing steam earlier and there may not have been any Ts built.