Well they are casting the first wheel this falll
So im thrilled to see it take the first baby steps
As a native of the Appalachian coal fields, I can tell you that old-timers would hardly acknowledge PRB coal as coal; at least, not without calling it "brown coal" and comparing it to peat.
ChuckAllen, TX
One of the great reasons for the T1 project was to take up and where necessary solve the engineering challenges. But most of that work gets done long before the $10 million has to be spent. I already think that the drawing efforts (they are well on track to having the written blueprints restructured as modern CAD files) and the file repository already justify the Trust's efforts, and things are just getting started.
Personally, I think there are two 'debunking' new builds that ought to be made, neither of which is particularly excursion-service oriented. The first, which is almost cost-effective, is that earlier 'most famous locomotive in the world' the Buchanan 4-4-0 NYC 999. With the 86" drivers, the Cuyahoga cutoff, the whole nine yards. Put it on the dynamometer and spin it up, see if it can go as fast as railfan history indicates. Afterward you have a splendid example of Gay Nineties high technology.
The other example, a PRR example as it turns out, also involves a social aspect. The locomotive is only part of what's likely to be needful; it is of course the pre-modified 7002, built just the way it was when it supposedly ran 127+ mph between AY and Elida.
The social part of it is finding an engineer and fireman who are prepared to learn the secret lore of how to get the most out of such a locomotive design, and who develop the combination of pride and professionalism that would let them run it at 10/10ths.
Do I think it will go anywhere near 127 mph? No ... but it would be fun to find out, and the locomotive isn't embarrassingly huge and expensive...
For the record, several smaller designs, including the NYC Hudson, were proposed by others before I chimed in to agree. Frankly, I don't want to rain on anybody's parade. If any of these projects can be brought to fruition, I'm all for it. I'm simply pointing out the obvious: that the T1 would be a monumental undertaking, and there are other potential projects that might be less costly, more useful on a variety of routes, and less prone to present engineering challenges. Nonetheless, I'd love to see the T1 project succeed, just as I'd love to see one of the two Mohawks run again.
Tom
ACYBut those aren't new-built locos, and that was the original topic.
The relevance is there. The issue was that someone - I think you - proposed a new-built Hudson made a better project than the T1 the Trust is building. I simply made the point that you get almost the same 'bang' for far fewer bucks by restoring 3001.
It's not April Fools, so I will not bring up the $1 million matching grant from Rexall to restore the Mohawk at NRM/MOT with a replica Vanderbilt shroud...
Call me an apostate, but I like the NYC's Mohawks better than the Hudsons!
But not by much.
Steam, glorious steam!
Thanks for that link kgbw49! One could weep for what's been lost.
http://www.columbusrailroads.com/new/utility/slideshow.php?file=live%2F05Steam_Railroads%2F13New_York_Central%2F06Passenger_Steam%2Fhome.txt&num=
Doc, I think you are singing from this sheet of music!
See Slide 5 - I think David P. Morgan would approve.
Wislish,
Good and heart-felt post on NYC Hudson 5344!
NYC 5344 did indeed carry the "magic lantern" of Hudson mojo and it was a most followed steam locomotive in its day as it yet remains today.
NYC 5344 was first built as a standard J1e Hudson with Walscharts valve gear - then suddenly streamlined as Commadore Vanderbilt in black shroud with number boards hidden. Then suddenly restyled as one of the silver Dreyfus "Roman Gladiator" Art Deco streamline Hudson jobs - aliebet with modifications for its lack of combustion chamber, non barrel boiler, differing running boards and roller bearing side rods.
NYC Hudson 5344 was finally returned to its un-streamlined form but as a modified J1e with Baker valve Gear. Always unique, always a drama queen and always a Hudson - and made all the more famous of course because she was chosen as the model for LIONEL TRAINS.
Joshua Lionel Cowen owner of LIONEL always receving criticism for historic accuracies in his models chose NYC Hudson 5344 I believe because she was NEW and MODERN and shortly to be STREAMLINED effectively hiding any error of detail that the very famous LIONEL would have had.
NYC Hudson 5344 remains today on the fireplace mantle of many American homes as LIONEL 700E, LIONEL 763E and Post War LIONEL 773.
And of course NYC 5344 runs within the dreams and sacred memories of many boys grown up to be men. 5344 remains dear to their hearts also.
Wislish - I of course expect that upon your fireplace mantle is the exoticly rare model of a Pennsy T-1 Duplex 4-4-4-4.
----------------------
So Wake UP! Mayor Dick Moore! of Elkhart, Indiana! all those American boys grown to men are coming after you! for their stolen prize NYC Mohawk 3001! And you can't keep it forever!
Doc
No question. I'd be onboard for the 3001. Or even the 2933, which is the freight version.
But those aren't new-built locos, and that was the original topic.
Dr DI appreciate your candor but cannot understand what your comment about the Dreyfus Hudson "...if a Hudson replica project built a J3 at all, instead of building 5345 (with modern improvements) as God would intend justice be done..." With respect to the Almighty - Why is 5345 to be singled out as the heritage of the great NYC Hudson fleet, and why the J3 when most observers feel the J1 was the beauty queen of all NYC steam production?
Oh, for God's sake, do your numbers. What was the most famous of all the Hudsons? And if we follow the numbering convention used for Tornado ... and for the replica T1 ... what number would be used for a new build of an improved J1e?
Frankly, one reason I don't like J3s is I don't like their proportions compared to the J1s. I don't care whether or not they were better fleet locomotives than the earlier ones, or benefited from the rapid evolution of reciprocating-locomotive design and technology between the mid-Twenties and the mid-Thirties. What we would be building is an invocation of esthetics (and only afterwards, and as a kind of afterthought, a reliable and easy-to-maintain locomotive -- that stuff is just due diligence for an engine design with this famous a 'past'). And we would be righting the awful wrong that was cutting up 5344, which of all the Hudsons was the one with the richest history and the most general 'magic'. In my opinion.
Now, both esthetically and technically, if I can't have 4-8-2 3000 (with 72" drivers like the L4s, but non-Frankenstein smokebox esthetics) to play with, the next best thing is 3001. Dr. Leonard and others have pointed out that this might have been a better design than a Hudson for most of the services NYC actually ran (much as it can be argued that a good 4-8-4 design, even the postwar turbine locomotive Westinghouse had in mind in 1947, would have done everything the PRR needed on the services it ran). It is certainly going to be more flexible and more capable than a Hudson in most fantrip service. And, perhaps most importantly, all the millions of dollars of planning and building are already done.
All that remains is the propaganda effort to establish that 3001 is 'as good' as a Hudson. That's a real uphill battle for a lot of railfans at present ... but I think it is a battle well worth waging and then winning. As I said, even though I deeply wish to see a J1e built, I'd want any dollars that would go toward that project to go to 3001 instead until she is runnable, and perhaps even after that to assuring her operating and preservation infrastructure in or around Elkhart.
I appreciate your candor but cannot understand what your comment about the Dreyfus Hudson "...if a Hudson replica project built a J3 at all, instead of building 5345 (with modern improvements) as God would intend justice be done..."
With respect to the Almighty - Why is 5345 to be singled out as the heritage of the great NYC Hudson fleet, and why the J3 when most observers feel the J1 was the beauty queen of all NYC steam production?
Are we really going to work a reproduction NYC Hudson to the levels that the advantages of a J3 would be of any usefulness? In the world of antiques often the older and antiquated equate to more interesting and more valuable. With graphite, polish, pinstripe and serif Roman lettering of course!
ACYI'd love to be on board for this project, but I have to say the Hudson idea seems to be better in terms of general utility.
It probably is. Completely aside from its being one of the most famous locomotives in the world. If the idea of a restoration is to produce a 'fan' locomotive, even something like the 5AT project might not be as "useful".
The T1 is a different thing entirely, and it has 'spun off' a couple of significant results already, including the ability to design and fabricate lightweight rods. Even if the project produces nothing more, in the short to intermediate term, than a full set of modern engineering CAD files and the materials science behind using them, it will have been well worth the relative time and effort spent on it. The modeling and measurement knowledge is even more icing on the cake. And the result, as Firelock said, is apparently instantly attractive to a very wide demographic, far more than the number of people who would appreciate a Hudson for what it is.
(Just for the record, while a Dreyfuss Hudson is kinda sorta in the same recognizable science-fiction appearance category, and of course is an industrial design icon, it is NOT in the same league as the T1. And I would be very disappointed if a Hudson replica project built a J3 at all, instead of building 5345 (with modern improvements) as God would intend justice be done...
Does it matter? The T1 boys have a dream and they're trying to go for it. And maybe if and when they get it built other 'roads may invite them to operate it. Maybe.
At any rate, something that looks as futuristic as a T1 would be a great attention-getter for any 'road that wants some attention. Anything's possible.
I mean, how many steam locomotives are around that look like something out of science fiction?
So, if someone wants to build a new Hudson, let them get organized and start the fundraising. A new Hudson would ge a pretty cool thing to have around as well, although a project to resurrect one of the two existing Mohawks would probably be an easier undertaking.
True, "The T1 weren't no dog."
But what good will her qualities be on the Cuyahoga Valley Line or the line out of Owosso? This conjures images of a hobbled racehorse or a caged lion.
I'd love to be on board for this project, but I have to say the Hudson idea seems to be better in terms of general utility.
Uh, the T1 weren't no dog.
Now that my bad english has gotten everyone's attention, let me STRONGLY recomend Classic Trains special edition "Steam Glory 3." In it there's a superb article by David R. Stevenson which demolishes all the "old husbands tales" about the T1. I have to call them "old husbands tales" because old wives usually don't tell tales about steam locomotives.
Without quoting the article word for word let me say the T1 never really had a chance. Just as T1 production was getting rolling the Pennsy decided to dieselize passenger operations. The T1 just never had a chance to show what it could do in the hands of capable crewmen.
Get "Steam Glory 3," you'll love it!
CSSHEGEWISCHI can understand why NYC just scrapped the S2a, diesels were already showing their stuff, and even Kiefer's treatise showed that they were adequate for the demands of the service.
The thing Kiefer's treatise did not show was how good the E8s would be compared to the E7s. Reading between the lines, the Niagaras were optimized for long, very fast passenger trains operating with reasonable frequency. As soon as that service no longer 'paid', the high guaranteed mileage that went with the relatively high availability was no longer there. And without the high mileage, the substantial fixed costs attributable only to steam could more truly be seen. To me, the difference between 1947 and 1950 is shown up most dramatically by the fate of the S2a, even though Kiefer did not make the mistake of designing it for still more Brobdingnagian horsepower through the same already-tortured rods and main pins.
I also find it interesting to see Kiefer's evaluation of the different offerings just then coming 'on line' from the builders, and the stated reasons for their perceived advantages in that era, by comparison with the 'same' horsepower in EMD passenger power. We know now (for example) what a problem the Gravel Gerties would be; it's interesting that the NYC either didn't recognize or wasn't expecting the problems with them...
I can understand why NYC just scrapped the S2a, diesels were already showing their stuff, and even Kiefer's treatise showed that they were adequate for the demands of the service.
I don't have time for more than a quick set of comments now, but will have more this evening.
Dr DHistory has NOT treated the Pennsylvania T-1 4-4-4-4 Duplex drive favorably.
I am tempted to quote the famous Henry Ford quote about history in this context. It applies in spades.
The railroad itself seems to have come to the conclusion that the design went into production before the practical aspects of it could be entirely worked out.
That is very clear. Issues with the equalizing alone will establish that, even ignoring the very substantial list of changes made to the spring rigging on the 'production' locomotives. I will take up the Franklin type A issues later, except as noted briefly below.
Likewise history has lavished nothing but praise for the New York Central S1a - S2b Niagara 4-8-4 locomotives. New York Central seems to have been entirely satisfied with premere speed and economy and service life of the NORTHERN.
You seem to forget the mass boiler swap, the problem with bending main rods, and the likely issues with main-pin overloading (one of the things that the C1a design would definitively relieve!) Also how quickly the Niagaras disappeared -- according to Haas and some others, being essentially sabotaged in their operation to get them to break more quickly -- while PRR still had some of their T1s on the property. That is not to say anything about the Niagara design, other than it had, in its own way, just as much immediate obsolescence as an 'improved' (theoretically post-1948) T1 was likely to have
Paul Kiefer, who headed NYC locomotive design, felt the S2b with Franklin Steam Distribution through poppet valves was the high water mark of power and of successful passenger locomotive design in America.
This shows one of the dangers of 'history' -- you get this directly out of the 1947 report on motive power. But where is the subsequent report on the effectiveness of the poppet valve Niagara that he promised?
In my opinion, the S2a (there was no S2b) was designed explicitly to achieve no more than the power of the standard Niagara -- it already being as great as any working 'eastern Northern' needed to be -- on substantially less fuel and water. It did accomplish this, but at such a mechanical cost that it was retired early -- again, I believe, while T1s were still running -- and instead of being rebuilt was simply scrapped. In particular, note that there was not even an attempt made to do a rotary-drive conversion. That speaks volumes to me.
History has NOT treated the Pennsylvania T-1 4-4-4-4 Duplex drive favorably. The railroad itself seems to have come to the conclusion that the design went into production before the practical aspects of it could be entirely worked out.
Like wise history has lavished nothing but praise for the New York Central S1a - S2b Niagara 4-8-4 locomotives. New York Central seems to have been entirely satisfied with premere speed and ecomomy and service life of the NORTHERN. Paul Kiefer, who headed NYC locomotive design, felt the S2b with Franklin Steam Distribution through poppet valves was the high water mark of power and of successful passenger locomotive design in America. I am not sure that New York Central ever fully realized what had been developed in this locomotive.
I also realize the Pennsylvania Duplex with two 4 coupled drive sets has inherent power producing potential over that of the standard American 8 coupled drive - but was this ever a practical design? - history seems to think not. So just what is it you would see achieved in a reproduction of the T-1 design that has not already been searched out by the Pennsylvania Railroad?
The Pennsylvaina RR seemed much more satisfied with their Duplex Drive 4-4-6-4 Q-2 freight engine that the Duplex Drive T-1 passenger engine. When comparing the Q2 Duplex Drive to the similar 4-10-2 Texas M-1 design - Pennsy concluded the operating costs of the Duplex did not merit the 1000 horsepower performance increase it offered.
Had Pennsylvaina bothered to develop a 4-8-4 to compare to its 4-4-4-4 would they not have come to similar results? Finding the power increase not merited to the expense? And so why not just build the never done Pennsylvania NORTHERN 4-8-4 using the T-1 design as a pattern? Was not this what the poppet valve 4-8-4 New York Central Niagara came to be? That would be an interesting comparison NYC Niagara to the Pennsy Northern. Surely these questions must have been raised before the T-1 reproduction group decided to go to all the trouble to attempt the build this massive new T-1 locomotive?
Possibly you could share some of your passion for the T-1 as most of us are REALLY IN THE DARK concerning "Why does the world need another Pennsy T-1?" - for the fun or for the glory or for a top speed championship run?...or because the T-1 represents the avenue approach not taken in most steam locomotive designs?... or because its just such a cool steam locomotive and we all want to see it run again?
You have been talking up this T-1 build project for quite a while, and been shy of any real criticism of it - and I have really been wondering why?
I think for all of us the T-1 project is a curiosity - and that if anyone could reflect on a good case for "building a reproduction the T-1" you would!
CSSHEGEWISCHI firmly believe that the T1 Trust (or whatever they call themselves) believes that they have all the engineering worked out but seem to have neglected some important matters.
"Neglected" is an awfully strong word - are you qualified to judge their supposed ignorance? Perhaps you would be so kind as to list the areas that you think have been ignored, and why you so firmly believe the engineering will not have addressed them.
While some of the early assumptions made by the Trust were overexaggerated, there is no doubt that there will be places to run the locomotive. I for one think that the low-augment design, and the perhaps overemphasis on design-for-maintenance that the Trust's engineering committees are using, will make it reasonable for the replica T1 to run anywhere a steam locomotive of comparable size would. (If I recall correctly, all the size dimensions for N&W 611 are larger than the T1 except nominal rigid wheelbase, and the 611's system of low overbalance increases lateral stiffness beyond what the T1 design imposes).
It may well turn out that the T1 design is a 'dog' net of all the corrections and improvements, including those that correct and improve mistaken 'conventional wisdom' and railfan fairy tales. If it does, the likeliest source will be high-speed slipping (and there are fixes for that which don't involve radical redesign or constructional 'do-overs'). A number of T1 problems were characteristic of conditions and problems in late PRR revenue service, and wouldn't apply on a 21st-Century replica being run in excursion service by people specially trained in the 'ways' of sophisticated duplex-drives. A number of other T1 problems are at least addressed, and probably solved, with better materials and fabrication techniques.
CSSHEGEWISCH Assuming that they can get their toy assembled, where will they be able to operate it?
Assuming that they can get their toy assembled, where will they be able to operate it?
Check their website:
The question most asked to the T1 Trust is, "Where will it run when complete?". We are pleased to announce that the Trust has received three letters of invitation to operate on various railroad lines around the country. We have received formal letters from Steamtown National Historic Site in Scranton, PA, the Steam Railroading Institute in Owosso, MI and the Cuyahoga Valley Scenic Railroad in Independence, OH. All three organizations have a long track record of handling mainline steam locomotives and can easily support the T1 locomotive operation when complete.
I firmly believe that the T1 Trust (or whatever they call themselves) believes that they have all the engineering worked out but seem to have neglected some important matters. Assuming that they can get their toy assembled, where will they be able to operate it? NS seems to be amenable to steam operations, but that can change after Wick Moorman retires. None of the other Class One roads are too big on steam operations by outsiders and beyond Iowa Interstate, not too many regionals may permit it, either. Also, what if the re-incarnated T1 turns out to be as much of a dog as the originals?
Dr DA reproduction of a New York Central Hudson 4-6-4 would be eminently more practical and technologically on a par with the British Tornado reproduction. Its a do-able project.
The only difference, really, is that the T1 people are motivated and active. There was at least one 'Hudson' development effort that involved the Chinese, which was said to have been cancelled when the American developer found out what the Chinese would be selling the second copy for after he'd paid for all the re-engineering, tooling, etc. (Personally, I think all that would be money well spent, even if I made profit only for people I disliked ... but that's another story entirely!)
I do think, though, that rebuilding 3001 is a priority over any Hudson new build. Dollar for dollar.
A reproduction of a New York Central Hudson 4-6-4 would be eminently more practical and technologically on a par with the British Toranado reproduction. Its a do-able project.
Several NYC Hudson 4-6-4 locomotive designs were developed J-1 to J-3. The first NYC Hudson 5200 J-1 used a locomotive frame built up from structural steel members which were bolted together as opposed to being constructed upon a large single pour steel casting used in later locomotive designs.
- The NYC Hudson was one of the worlds most famous passenger engines pulling the Twentith Century Limited, Lakeshore Limited, Empire State Express, Chicago Mercury, Detroit Mercury, the New England States etc. just to name a few.
- The New York Central operated the Hudson locomotives across Massachusets, New York, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois and Michigan. Most of the Eastern United States would be home to railfan excursions and branch line tracks.
- The NYC Hudson was fully capable of running branch line service and turning out heroic performance at speed with full passenger loads. This engine was the major passenger power for the NYC for twenty years and the number of locomotives constructed was in the hundreds. It is for this reason it would be a worthy reproduction project - and also because the loss of all the originals is a lamented historic event.
- A Hudson tender exits today in museum inventory, and possibly a rear locomotive engine truck with booster steam engine still exists in the bottom of the Mohawk River in Lake Falls NY.
- This locomotive would be a huge draw for railfans because this was one of the worlds most famous locomotives of which none exist today. It is entirely repairable within the common limited technology and loose tolerances used in its design. Boiler pressure 225 psi, Walscharts valve action, choice of roller bearing main and bronze bushing drive rods.
- Some Hudson engines were streamlined in several designs which could be added as optional styling for a reproduction locomotive without compromizing historical authenticity.
I met the boys from the T1 group at a trainshow weekend before last. Had a fun conversation with them too. All mature men and not "pie-in-the-sky" dreamers. Frequent Forum poster "Feltonhill" was one of the group and it was a thrill to meet him!
Bought a T1 T-shirt and a pin too!
Ha I was right! There is a group building a new PRR T-1. Look it up, not hard to find.
Bob.
My God, "Leviathan" looks more like a piece of exquisite jewelry than a locomotive. Just stunning! Well, you know what they said in the 19th Century: Anything that works well, looks well, because beauty and utility are one in the mind of God.
Here is the linl to "Leviathan" and it's builder David Kloke:
http://www.leviathan63.com/
daveklepper And the very fastest steam locomotive in design in North America. I agree. Either it or a Pennsy E-6.
And the very fastest steam locomotive in design in North America. I agree. Either it or a Pennsy E-6.
Any project that could be built would have limitations running on any mainline rails today. Amtrak can run specials with steam, but most other railroads do not favor running steam on their mainlines.
BNSF just turned down the 3751 to run one excursion train this summer to Chicago. They did this even after the 3751 has completed many great trips in excursion service but it requires service stops and this takes time since most stops are on the main line. Any new locomotive would have to run on branch or museum type rails most of the time. Why built a 100 mph locomotive for a 10 mph railroad.
We have many other locomotives in parks that could be rebuilt for a total cost of about $1,000,000.00 and we have trouble raising that type of money. Most new projects would run about 4 to 5 M. The A-1 in the UK cost over 2M and it is a rather small locomotive in size when compared to modern US steam locomotives.
How many of us out there have contributed to the 261 or 2926 fund lately? They both need money to complete their back shop work.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.