Gee, I hope I didn't scare off PM Railfan or hurt his feelings with my "you don't get around much, do you?" comment.
If I did, I apologize. Please don't take it to heart.
No Stukas, but they do use Porsches, BMWs , and Audis. Was passed by an Autobahn police officer in an Audi R8 while I was doing about 110 mph (170 kph) between Munich and Nürnberg. He was doing at least 140 mph - no lights, no siren. Just stay out of the way.
Overmod Deggesty I do have a question: I do not, at the moment, recall the exact wording of the signs that warn that traffic control is exercised through the use of aircraft, and I wonder how the control is carried out--if you are seen to be exceeding the speed limit, does the pilot descend and bump the roof of your vehicle to warn you to slow down? No, he clocks your speed while recording you on video -- did you see those little airplanes painted on the pavement, a tenth of a mile apart? -- and then simply radios the police to pull you over a couple of miles down the road. Texas is a bit more fun -- they have choppers with radar/lidar that come up off the nap of the earth at what seems like a couple hundred mph to 'surprise' you, and I wouldn't put it past them to land those aircraft in your way. We haven't quite gotten here in reality, but the signs get some attention anyway:
Deggesty I do have a question: I do not, at the moment, recall the exact wording of the signs that warn that traffic control is exercised through the use of aircraft, and I wonder how the control is carried out--if you are seen to be exceeding the speed limit, does the pilot descend and bump the roof of your vehicle to warn you to slow down?
No, he clocks your speed while recording you on video -- did you see those little airplanes painted on the pavement, a tenth of a mile apart? -- and then simply radios the police to pull you over a couple of miles down the road.
Texas is a bit more fun -- they have choppers with radar/lidar that come up off the nap of the earth at what seems like a couple hundred mph to 'surprise' you, and I wouldn't put it past them to land those aircraft in your way.
We haven't quite gotten here in reality, but the signs get some attention anyway:
I heard they use Stukas for traffic enforcement on the Autobahn, but I suspect my leg was being pulled.
I wouldn't want to find out though! Imagine hearing a siren coming from overhead instead of behind you where it's supposed to be?
DeggestyI do have a question: I do not, at the moment, recall the exact wording of the signs that warn that traffic control is exercised through the use of aircraft, and I wonder how the control is carried out--if you are seen to be exceeding the speed limit, does the pilot descend and bump the roof of your vehicle to warn you to slow down?
Firelock76Overmod, I can't imagine what PM's beefin' about concerning Virginia.
I'm sure he will tell us. I always thought of the Shenandoah Valley around Keswick/C'ville as one of the closest things to God's country, but tastes differ.
I don't drive in Virginia often, but the only trouble I have had while was difficulty getting from Washington to King George on a Friday afternoon last June, and getting around a wreck on the interstate when I was on my way to Norfolk the next day.
I do have a question: I do not, at the moment, recall the exact wording of the signs that warn that traffic control is exercised through the use of aircraft, and I wonder how the control is carried out--if you are seen to be exceeding the speed limit, does the pilot descend and bump the roof of your vehicle to warn you to slow down?
For the record, my father, along with many of his ancestors, was born in Lancaster County, and my maternal grandmother was born in Brunswick Country.
Now that we have restored the dignity of the Old Dominion, let us return to Steam!
Johnny
Overmod, I can't imagine what PM's beefin' about concerning Virginia. Traffic law enforcement? I haven't had any trouble concerning same. Or maybe because I haven't been caught yet.
Breaks my heart to say this, but if he thinks Ol' Virginny's bad he should try New Jersey for a year or two. I'm a Jersey guy myself and in my heart of hearts always will be, and man do I miss the food, but I'm not sorry I left.
Like I said, I don't think PM gets around much.
Enough, back to the topic.
PM RailfanComparing people to people when we recite names, you mentioned Stephenson, my info comes from Ed Layman (now deceased) for instance. Someone who actually had his hand on the throttle.
I did not know Mr. Layman, but I would like to read anything he has left us with. Can you provide me a source?
Just out of curiosity, what is it about Mr. Layman's experience with his hand on the throttle that makes him more of an authority than those other engineers (with their hands on the throttle, too) that were quoted about high achieved speeds in the various articles?
Not someone who sits behind a drawing board. Both Stephenson and Layman I would say are very experienced, notable, and certainly worth quoting. I'm sure there are other 'scholars' who think differently than Stephenson, as I am sure there are others who would not believe Layman. In this case, we both have heard from two different sources on the same subject. Both are qualified, so who are "we" supposed to believe?
Neither, really: we listen to them, assess them using valid historiographical methodology*, and use the results together with those derived from other available sources to develop our own picture of what we believe.
As I said, I haven't read Layman so I have no good idea what he might have said -- I am sure you will fill us in, preferably in actual technical detail. [Note I avoid the rather obvious pun here, even though it was a pretty good one!] I would be surprised if the breadth and depth of his knowledge of the T1 matches that which Mr. Stephenson has acquired... often, I believe, from firsthand sources... but I now state categorically that I would be delighted to be so surprised.
... Given that there were places to test, and the probability that PRR would arrange to do so, a high speed record would only be 'more' proof the "engineering" aspect of the T1 would/could work. Railroads often made or paid for the 'conditions' to be right.
I suppose the difficulty I have with this is that PRR's desire to test out the potential of the T1, on the road, with a revenue train, is most probably very different from providing corporate widespread public disclosure of the result. (This was a different era from that where PRR claimed 127-plus mph out of a slide-valve Atlantic...)
Yes, that is a somewhat mealymouthed excuse; if I had been Martin Clement or Hal Cover, I would not have let wartime expedience keep me from, ahem, coming up with an excuse for fast running, coincidentally carefully documented, that could then be announced as competitive with world-record speeds. On the other hand, I think there were increasingly significant reasons, as the postwar years went on, to establish that the T1s were hopelessly-flawed dogs that no amount of engineering could cure, and demonstrating any sort of reliable high speed out of one would not 'further' such an approach very well.
I cannot say conclusively that 'it happened' [confirmable 120+mph running]. I was not there during the T1s' lifetime, and have not talked directly to any of the people who claim to have run them at high speed. On the other hand, I have spent considerable time in high-speed locomotive design and I think it is possible to state categorically that there is no engineering reason why a T1 cannot be operated well above 120mph where track conditions permit it. Others may, of course, dispute this, but I would appreciate their providing some technical basis for a contrary opinion.
Firelock, I suspect that one reason he thinks Virginia is bad to live in is the traffic-law enforcement. As I think Lord Acton said, people elect the democracy they deserve, and Virginians elected an attorney specializing in traffic tickets, who promptly passed "safety" legislation guaranteed to benefit his and others' practices. While decades ago it might have made sense to enforce statutory reckless driving at 25mph over the then "national" speed limit, it makes no valid sense to keep the number there now that the speed limit has been raised. If the speed limit is 70, statutory recklessness ought to be 95-over, particularly now that even cheap cars are capable of safe operation in the 80mph range. I now descend the soapbox.
*Yes, that is a legitimate term, and it would take many more words for me to say the same thing less concisely in English. PM me if either of the words in it causes confusion.
PM railfan
>> Some of her posts make sense, others make absolutely no sense at all. (no offense!) <<
Some see humor where others se no sense at all -
That's life
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIiUqfxFttM
( Franky-boy the one and only Sinatra )
and we still keep carrying on because ..
it's still a wonderful world
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2VCwBzGdPM
the man with the broadest smile singing
No offense intended - in return ; I guess it's just another matter of 'paroles' between women and men
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ifJapuqYiU
By the way : about 'return' :
A man presents himself before the ticket office
"One return ticket , please"
"Ok" says the office clerk " - and where to ?"
The prospective passenger with an air of indignation
"Well , over here , of course !"
Return , uhm , regards
Juniatha
Mister PM, you think Virginia's the worst state in the Union? You don't get around much, do you?
Well. OK, it took 'em ten years to get decent pizza after I moved here, and I'm still waiting for some old-style bakeries, but aside from that, no complaints.
Oh, Big Jim, I didn't lose any sleep over those N&W tests last night, I was so damn tired after I got home from work and running around like a maniac all day I didn't fire up the computer! Tonight may be another matter.
And Overmod's right, what's "best" depends on what's best for the application. I mean what's best, a Caddilac or a Chevy? Both'll get you where you want to go, how do you want to get there?
PM RailfanI think it [the T1] is one of the most unique looking, classicly stlyed, and modern loco design. I just dont see it as all it is being said to be. I certainly dont see some of the claims made here in this forum. Again, offer me what you folks are reading.
Haven't you read the sources that have been mentioned so far?
... if someone is gonna build a new modern age steamer, i dont think "I" would have chosen the T1 design. Especially because of the problems encounteered with the originals.
A very large reason for spending $10 million on a locomotive is to establish which of the problems were real and which were, to put it gently, "imaginary" or the result of circumstance.
It may well turn out that there ARE objective flaws in the four-coupled duplex concept. I myself think there might be (and have designed practical approaches to reduce or eliminate the foreseeable difficulties, in some cases). But until the mechanical modeling and multiphysics simulations are done, most of this will either remain conjecture or be subject to these 'he said/she said' discussions.
140? well were having a hard time convincing me of 120 for the old design. Lets wait and see if 120 is reachable first before we shoot for 140.
Just to reiterate: the figure of 142-odd mph for the S1 is almost certainly a fiction from Arnold Haas -- it is a suspiciously-exact conversion from a metric speed, which neither PRR nor the ICC would have used. I know of no reliable source that indicates any speed in this range was physically reached by a T1, and I would agree that it is unlikely this speed could be attained (with a 'stock' T1), even if the valve gear and mass flow would allow it, with the onset of dangerous critical-speed effects in the suspension and guiding being noted in the reports that mention speed in the low 130s. One of the things that needs to be established 'scientifically' is the effect of the rather large number of changes that were made in the spring rigging and equalization, sequentially over time, in the middle-to-late Forties; something else that follows on from there is what changes might then have to be made (the need for high-speed performance enhancement being essentially dropped by PRR at some time in 1948 at the latest) to improve the high-speed behavior.
Lets look at Firelock's last paragraph of a recent post.... "Last thing: The N&W finding a T-1 was better than a Class J? That's the first I've heard of that! Hard to believe at any rate, but then, I DO live in Virginia!" First Ive heard of this too. (I also live in the worst state in the union, Va.!) And this whole statement here is exactly like what i said in my OP. "Never heard of a T1 hitting 120". Never even remotely heard of this, nor read in any documented info on the subject. Nor rumor alluding to such either.
Huh? The results of the N&W testing of the T1, as well as the PRR testing of the N&W J, are available. Both rather clearly state where the designs have 'advantages' and perceived disadvantages. N&W acknowledged -- as I would expect good engineers to acknowledge -- that for sustained high speed, the divided-drive locomotive with 80" drivers is valuable. That certainly doesn't mean you can or would conclude that means the T1 design is "better" in some imaginary blanket sense, or for 'pissing rights' or whatever. PRR similarly discusses the strong points of the J design objectively. As has been previously noted, C&O found nothing in the T1 design they could use -- but then again, C&O was off with the Baldwin turbine for its 'modern steam' by the time of the tests, and it was fairly obvious they wouldn't be a suitable market for 'secondhand' as-built T1s. (Ask N&W about cheap switchers!)
More later -- duty calls this morning.
PM RailfanAs for comprehending what i read, im a mechanical engineer. I can understand the complexities of a rigid or non rigid frame. It may not appear that way, but i type in laymens speak because not everyone here can understand some of the things we discuss. We could get technical all day long, would it do us any better? Would those reading about this subject walk away understanding? Not likely.
Oh, please.
Why would you not include technical material in a technical discussion, rather than just making opinions phrased as if they were definitive fact. You are far from the only engineer on this forum, and I see no particular valid reason to pretend to condescend. Tell you what -- why don't you provide the technical information, and let the poor people who turn out not to 'understand some of the things we discuss' ask for an explanation in "laymens speak" if they want one.
And yes,I think it WOULD 'do us ...better' to 'get technical all day long', as far as I'm concerned, and I suspect as others on the forum are concerned, when technical issues are under discussion. Frankly, we need less ex cathedra assertion and more reasoned discussion. Have you actually read the Burrell articles, for example, and do you understand the difference between high- and low-speed slipping? These are not just nits to pick -- you seem strangely enamored of pushing your conventional wisdom and choice of source material as though it has to be true because it supports what you have chosen to believe, and dismiss other points of view because they don't. That gets old after a while, particularly when done in a contentious tone. I have no quibble with advocacy; I advocate plenty of things on forums myself. But I at least try not to dictate what I advocate as if it were objective fact, or claim something is self-evident when a very great deal of other material indicates it might not be so.
Given that there were places to test, and the probability that PRR would arrange to do so, a high speed record would only be 'more' proof the "engineering" aspect of the T1 would/could work.
It would appear that the PRR test people did not agree with you, at least not enough to have reported any dynamometer-car testing at very high speeds. On the other hand, I will admit that I have not gone carefully through, say, the surviving material at the Hagley to see what evidence of either organized 'top-speed' testing or reliable second-hand reports of high-speed performance might be there. I can think of several reasons why PRR might not want to publicize actual high speed records from the T1s (first during wartime, and then after Clement's decision to dieselize the first-line trains), but the internal motive-power files might be a different story.
Sorry about the wait for my reply, it seems the Kalmbach forums are having problems tonight. Took me for ever to find this page again! Without further adieu, let me respond in the manner in which posts came in....
Big Jim - firstly, I would love to read the info that you posted, Thats all i said in my post (i dont know everything), so all I need is more info. And thats what I am asking.... Show me. Just an open request for you fellow railfans to let me see where you are getting your info from. I to emplore you folks to do the same and open up a little and read more about the T1, and the life she lived.
As for Juniatha's posts, I been trying to read those but you need an hour or two for each one! I cant say I agree with some things there, and some things i do agree with. Some of her posts make sense, others make absolutely no sense at all. (no offense!)
I wholeheartedly admit I have spent way more time on the C&O obviously than the PRR (or N&W for that matter). Reading their info on the testing is what is making me look biased, and non appreciative of the PRR T1. I assure you, that isnt the case.
I have no clue where Juniatha is getting her info from. Doesnt match what Ive read. But then it seems most of my info is different that yalls concerning the T1. And I know 'we all' are reading from info that is generally accepted as factual. (see Firelocks statement on T1 compared to J).
I think it is one of the most unique looking, classicly stlyed, and modern loco design. I just dont see it as all it is being said to be. I certainly dont see some of the claims made here in this forum. Again, offer me what you folks are reading.
S Connor - See, this is all I need to be corrected. Havent seen the video you posted. Not in its entirety for sure. However, for the one video you posted, i could post 5 showing the T1 slipping her way down the line. Now, i can say.... I have been corrected. (however, the opening scene shows no slipping, there is another video of this same one where a little further down the track she does!).
I am in total agreement with your statement, run steam! No matter what it is. But if someone is gonna build a new modern age steamer, i dont think "I" would have chosen the T1 design. Especially because of the problems encounteered with the originals.
But here we are, this is what we get (hopefully!), so more power to them i hope the new version gets the problems solved and we have a new ultra modern steamer that is actually capable of hitting 120.
Please do not think i am dead set against this class. I know you folks dont believe it, but I actually think highly of the T1. Just simply, i know she slips (alot), and just cant get my head around her doing 120. Otherwise, I am extremely happy we had this loco class, than not.
Lets look at Firelock's last paragraph of a recent post....
"Last thing: The N&W finding a T-1 was better than a Class J? That's the first I've heard of that! Hard to believe at any rate, but then, I DO live in Virginia!"
First Ive heard of this too. (I also live in the worst state in the union, Va.!) And this whole statement here is exactly like what i said in my OP. "Never heard of a T1 hitting 120". Never even remotely heard of this, nor read in any documented info on the subject. Nor rumor alluding to such either.
Overmod - You said....
"And this from the guy who claimed the power stats for an AMC Berk were massively understated?".
That statement is what made me think that.
As for comprehending what i read, im a mechanical engineer. I can understand the complexities of a rigid or non rigid frame. It may not appear that way, but i type in laymens speak because not everyone here can understand some of the things we discuss. We could get technical all day long, would it do us any better? Would those reading about this subject walk away understanding? Not likely.
Comparing people to people when we recite names, you mentioned Stephenson, my info comes from Ed Layman (now deceased) for instance. Someone who actaully had his hand on the throttle. Not someone who sits behind a drawing board. Both Stephenson and Layman I would say are very experienced, notable, and certainly worth quoting.
Im sure there are other 'scholars' who think diffrently than Stephenson, as I am sure there are others who would not believe Layman. In this case, we both have heard from two different sources on the same subject. Both are qualified, so who are "we" supposed to believe?
Your last paragrapgh is almost spot on. And most of it i agree with (which makes me wonder now, why we are opposed on this topic). Given that there were places to test, and the probability that PRR would arrange to do so, a high speed record would only be 'more' proof the "engineering" aspect of the T1 would/could work.
Railroads often made or paid for the 'conditions' to be right. My mentality doesnt come from 'ole railfans' ideas of what worked and didnt. It simply comes from the fact, if it happened.... more than just us folks here in this forum would know about it. I dont see that.
I hope I covered everyones response here. Im not even sure if the forum will get this post due to the site problems today. I am seeing pages listed as -1 -2, and user ACY said he couldnt edit a post earlier. So I hope you folks get this post.
Well , well folks –
Lest on one grey and cold winter day in some remote corner of Altoona works , in a shed long forgotten , now finally bound to be torn down to make way for a new special shop , they’ll find , hardly noticeable at first , in the dim light and dust covered with a layer of dirt and debris the contours of the back end of what suspiciously looks like a huge steam loco tender with curved-in coal compartment turns up , and not before a lot of clearing out of incredible amounts of old stuff it appears there is a locomotive to go with the tender , too , almost hidden behind a heap of scrap including a nearly complete engine from an 1849 Mississippi side wheeler . And by Jove ! doesn’t it look darn much like a T1 ? all familiar to the old timers turning up as news spread , as it were with valve gear covers missing and work holes roughly torch-cut into the somewhat loose and battered streamline casing still muffled by a stuffy whiff of cinders . In the cab , on the floor before the open firehole and spoiled with a tread by a workman’s boot there lies a half torn works certificate still telling the boiler had been overhauled , passed and fire dropped thereafter – Crestline had never cared to call the locomotive back ; the cylinders turn out to be complete with pistons and valves , inspection reveals under a thick and sticky cover of black , old grease become doughy with time no camshaft is missing ..
Oowwh , folks – can’t go on , have to lean back and ..
… imagine …
Oh , and just to take away some of the graveness , look-a-here for a fast get-away with a veritable wheel spin at speed – if just in a trice – uhm not too tightly about Duplex engines , although two engines are concerned :
American Scream Machine challenging (yep) Italian Aristocrap ( scusi , errore d’ortographia , mi dispiace )
– who’s won ? See
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6sXkDIeymg
Regards
The test figures have been published and the N&W did find that after a certain high speed the T1 was better than the J. I hope this doesn't disturb Mrs. Firelock's sleep tonight.
.
August 1993 Trains Mag, article titled "Last Chance", page 56.
"According to your times by Estry and Adams, it took you all of 17 minutes to cover 27 miles. Now my math is nothing to brag about, but that averages out to something like 95 miles per hour, and that from a station stop."
If you assume, for ease of figuring, that it was a linear acceleration and linear deceleration from stand-still to 5 miles out, and a modest braking from 22 miles to stand-still, you come perilously close to 115 miles per hour for the steady speed portion. It isn't definitive, nor the 120 mph we are discussing, but who could doubt that the T1 could reach 120 if given her reins for maybe 15 minutes on level track with winds below 2 m/s?
Firelock76 Last thing: The N&W finding a T-1 was better than a Class J? That's the first I've heard of that! Hard to believe at any rate, but then, I DO live in Virginia!
Last thing: The N&W finding a T-1 was better than a Class J? That's the first I've heard of that! Hard to believe at any rate, but then, I DO live in Virginia!
But shhh, don't let the folks at Fire Up 611 hear, they may have quite a shock!
PM RailfanBerkshires: Show me what evidence you have that disputes my claims about the AMC Berks. Bear in mind, I have made a lifes work studying the AMC Berks alone. Id be really fascinated to hear what you have to say to dispute this.
What would make you think I'm "disputing" anything? I have higher regard for the AMC and its locomotive designs than for most others. The point I was establishing is that, while you seem so eager to debunk the "established" HP numbers for your favorite classes, you are downright obstinate in continuing to make the (by now thoroughly debunked, by some of the best scholars in the business) old railfan claims about slippery, defective, unworkable T1 problems. On the other hand, I see no particular evidence that you comprehend what some of the actual advantages and problems with the duplex design are, particularly with respect to high-speed running. Or, I think, what the actual results of testing on the C&O were; Dave Stephenson certainly thinks differently about it, and frankly I will take his scholarship over yours.
The discussion we are having is not so much about whether there were "documented" instances of 120mph+ operation -- whatever you consider fair 'documentation' to be. It's about whether or not the engineering would allow those speeds -- and, to an extent, whether the duplex locomotive is capable of reaching high speeds more safely than, say, a Hudson of similar driver diameter and piston thrust per driver axle would. Certainly there were few if any places on the PRR of the mid-Forties where 120mph speed would be particularly useful, even if 'making up time' or whatever, and in all probability few passenger consists that would not themselves have cars that would ride alarmingly poorly in that speed range. PRR had no particular 'organizational' reason to conduct documented high-speed testing that fast, and didn't spend the money (or invent some pretext about, say, high-speed brake testing to justify running equipment-trust collateral up to inconvenient speeds) That's not to say that the physical design and construction of the locomotive won't achieve high speed under better conditions than prevailed then.
Are we havin' fun or what?
For those who didn't see it, let me recommend the "Trains" special edition of "Steam Glory 3". There's a VERY good article in there concerning the T-1 where the author does a good job of busting the myths and "old husbands tales" about the poor old T-1. I won't quote it chapter and verse but it's well worth the purchase price of the issue. It's still available through Kalmbach.
Juniatha, thanks for the kind words! And you really know your stuff!
Mr Connor, thanks for posting that interesting video. You're right, lots of T-1s and no slips, as a matter of fact some VERY clean stacks as well.
Mind you, that seems to be the only thing about those engines that seems to be clean. Considering how filthy some of them are it kind of reinforces the fact that the T-1 never really had a chance. I mean, an image-concious 'road like the PRR not even TRYING to keep them presentable? Says something, to me at least.
PM Railfan Heck show me a youtube video (or other) in which the T1 DOESNT slip. And dont blame it on the engineers handling either.
No slips: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hgKcGnEihc
Remember, the T-1 being "Constantly and Uncontrollably Slipping" should not hold it back. It appears to me that this slipping thing is masking a lot of the T-1's highspots; the T-1 had incedible effiency, for one.
What does it matter if the original T-1 had slipping problems, this is a new one, and a new chance to learn what it was realy like.
Who cares how a steamer runs so long as there is one running, anyway!
(I know I'm quoting someone here, but I like the line):
"Let's make this the best T-1 Ever!"
Refering to Juniatha's post, the laws of physics mean that there will always be a "sweet spot" of traction before the drivers start to slip. It's just a matter of keeping the engine in this "sweet spot" during startup. Most engines have a large "sweet spot" making them seem to stick to the rails.
The T-1 just had a small sweet spot, this does not mean that it cannot be kept within that zone, it just means that, (suprise, suprise,) it takes one fine engineer to keep it within the sweet spot while starting a train.
Some engineers may have blamed it on the engine bacause they didn't want the admit they weren't skilled enough to keep in the sweet spot. This doesn't mean they were bad, it means the T-1 was very touchy on startup.
PM Railfan And dont blame it on the engineers handling either.
And dont blame it on the engineers handling either.
Maybe people use this as an attack on the T-1 because their image of an engineer in the day was one of a man who could control any iron horse.
Some horses were not meant to be tamed.
It seems to me someone is just dead set againt this particualar class.
PM RailfanAnd in 40 yrs of locomotive study (and i still dont know everything), I have never heard this before.
You also would do well to pay attention to the part of Juniatha's post above about testing on the C&O and N&W.
Overmod PM Railfan I am just going to have to bow out on this one. Just isnt possible IMHO with a T1. And in 40 yrs of locomotive study (and i still dont know everything), I have never heard this before. Not that this could ever happen now, but I would have to be in that cab with a pocket Waltham to verify this one! And this from the guy who claimed the power stats for an AMC Berk were massively understated? Will you please be more specific about why you think the T1 is not capable of reaching 120 mph? And what specific historical grounds you have for saying the T1 "failed miserably" on C&O, when the actual, researched material says otherwise? (You'll get your first shot at seeing the capability of a T1 when the virtual model is developed at the T1 Trust. God willing, you will see the capabilities of the 'improved' T1 when it has been built and starts to undergo testing. Be sure you have your Vanguard wound.)
PM Railfan I am just going to have to bow out on this one. Just isnt possible IMHO with a T1. And in 40 yrs of locomotive study (and i still dont know everything), I have never heard this before. Not that this could ever happen now, but I would have to be in that cab with a pocket Waltham to verify this one!
And this from the guy who claimed the power stats for an AMC Berk were massively understated?
Will you please be more specific about why you think the T1 is not capable of reaching 120 mph? And what specific historical grounds you have for saying the T1 "failed miserably" on C&O, when the actual, researched material says otherwise?
(You'll get your first shot at seeing the capability of a T1 when the virtual model is developed at the T1 Trust. God willing, you will see the capabilities of the 'improved' T1 when it has been built and starts to undergo testing. Be sure you have your Vanguard wound.)
I will take the bait.
Berkshires: Show me what evidence you have that disputes my claims about the AMC Berks. Bear in mind, I have made a lifes work studying the AMC Berks alone. Id be really fascinated to hear what you have to say to dispute this.
PRR T1: Show me the proof a T1 DID hit 120. Especially as many times as claimed. Surely that has to be recorded by a believable, unbiased source "IF" it actually happened. Funny, not even a mention of a T1 in ANY speed record books. Id say 120 should atleast have gotten the T1 an 'honorable' mention. Not even that! I cant dispute something that never happened.
Also, show me the proof in which the testing (on the C&O) wasnt a failure. I do not recall in all the C&O literature I have of the C&O taking anything (idea or otherwise) from the T1. What railroad would want a slippery locomotive????? Especially in the topography the C&O had. Heck show me a youtube video (or other) in which the T1 DOESNT slip. And dont blame it on the engineers handling either.
Read this thread more closely, there are a few more than me that doubt the T1 hit 120. You show me what proof you have, then we will discuss it. Until then, 120 for a T1 is still a rumor, and 3000hp for an AMC Berk is still an underating. Dont let your desire of a favorite railroad or locomotive affect your knowledge. Study the facts!
As said in my op, im bowing out on this because i know a T1 hitting 120 is just conjecture.
(I wasnt interested in the T1 Project (new version) until now. And I will be watching, eagerly. Vangaurd wound and ready!)
The crews running the T1's were the top passenger hogheads and those engines would slip on any startup even if the engineer was careful. I probably am one of the few on this forum that actually watched them in service and they were beyond slippery, but beautiful to see. The front engine was seemed to be worst at slipping or first in many cases, but no engineer could get them up to speed without some slipping. They probably needed a lot more weight on the drivers.
The PRR crews would say the T1's would really run once they got to speed and rumors of 120 plus were talked about in those days also.
Larry
S. Connor I edited my above post. "They have permission from someone to run on a high-speed test track." Just trying to report what the Chainman said, misguidance was not intended, I don't want to satart any rumors. It is my mistake, and I am sorry.
I edited my above post.
"They have permission from someone to run on a high-speed test track."
Just trying to report what the Chainman said, misguidance was not intended, I don't want to satart any rumors. It is my mistake, and I am sorry.
The point is permission is not required just $ and a safety case. My point is that "permission " should not be taken as a token of the value of the project. The Business Development guys out there are pretty good. So there is no creditability given to the project by this. And note that the T1 project guys will not be at the throttle, TTCI guys will, so throw in the cost of training them.
But the elephant in the room that never gets mentioned is that testing at these speeds almost always requires ( by the FRA and TTCI) the use of an instrumented wheel set (IWS) on the "critical" axle. The critical axle is usually determined using a vehicle dynamics model such as NUCARS or Vampire. I don't know if either of these or another vehicle dynamics model has ever been used or verified on a steam locomotive. Even running the model with an expert is costly.
If the critical axle is in the leading or trailing truck probably not too much of a problem as there are "in stock" IWSs that might fit the bill. But if it's a driver the picture totally changes. Anyone familiar with the production of an IWS can only cringe at the cost of the precision machining, strain gauge placement and calibration of the wheelset (not to mention the cost of building a calibration rig for a wheel that size). This probably knocks high speed testing out of the ball park.
PM RailfanI am just going to have to bow out on this one. Just isnt possible IMHO with a T1. And in 40 yrs of locomotive study (and i still dont know everything), I have never heard this before. Not that this could ever happen now, but I would have to be in that cab with a pocket Waltham to verify this one!
S. Connor I spoke to one of the directors of the T-1 5550 project. -They have permission from the FRA to run on their test track in the southwest to see just how fast they can get it to go. (If the T-1 ever gets off the ground) -An interesting point (Probably mentioned numerous times in this thread) is the poppet valve gear, the director was orbiting around it and how efficient it was, since it was constantly in motion, rather than stopping and reversing backwards like conventional valve systems. -The slippage problem he wrote off as a rumer that grew bigger over time. He desribed it as a small problem, exagerated overtime, and was mostly due to human error. Like taking an engineer out of an old VW bug (Pennsy K-4), and putting them in a ferrari(T-1) (His description). They just weren't used to the preformance. Also, at first, the sandpipes were missing the tracks entirely. -The T-1 was tested by N&W, and outpreformed the J-class, even on the winding mountain tracks. They were GOOD engines, even if they couldn't do 140 mph, and were a bit sensitive. Could a T1 do 120mph? I'm not sure. I wouldn't doubt it doing 100mph, but they have their reasons saying it could do 140 mph. We'll just have to wait and see. Remember, if the T-1 was really that bad, why would this team invest millions in it, when they could do something better? (*cough*,*cough* NYC Hudson) They aren't crazy. They're being held back by people who think they are.
I spoke to one of the directors of the T-1 5550 project.
-They have permission from the FRA to run on their test track in the southwest to see just how fast they can get it to go. (If the T-1 ever gets off the ground)
-An interesting point (Probably mentioned numerous times in this thread) is the poppet valve gear, the director was orbiting around it and how efficient it was, since it was constantly in motion, rather than stopping and reversing backwards like conventional valve systems.
-The slippage problem he wrote off as a rumer that grew bigger over time. He desribed it as a small problem, exagerated overtime, and was mostly due to human error. Like taking an engineer out of an old VW bug (Pennsy K-4), and putting them in a ferrari(T-1) (His description). They just weren't used to the preformance. Also, at first, the sandpipes were missing the tracks entirely.
-The T-1 was tested by N&W, and outpreformed the J-class, even on the winding mountain tracks. They were GOOD engines, even if they couldn't do 140 mph, and were a bit sensitive.
Could a T1 do 120mph? I'm not sure. I wouldn't doubt it doing 100mph, but they have their reasons saying it could do 140 mph. We'll just have to wait and see.
Remember, if the T-1 was really that bad, why would this team invest millions in it, when they could do something better? (*cough*,*cough* NYC Hudson)
They aren't crazy. They're being held back by people who think they are.
Sorry but FRA cannot give these guys permission to run on their test track. FRA has granted CARE, CUSTODY, and CONTROL of the facility in 1982, first to the AAR and later it's subsidiary company TTCI. Testing of any safe rail vehicle is possible if it's paid for at cost +. Bring $ and saftey case anything is possible.
Its statements like this, if reported correctly, makes one wonder how well this group understands the current railroad environment.
Firelock ,
you said it and well , too .
About the C&O and N&W 'tests' there would be a lot to remark , yet suffice it for now : they were anything but technically sound test procedures . There are a couple of questions that yet remain to be answered about some points in runs of scheduled , although wilfully overloaded trains – for example the N&W even added a string of coal laden gondolas to an already beefed to the max passenger train when bound to attack their ever-inevitable test bench Christiansburg hill climb . What was the idea ? I'd have asked if I had been at Symes position . I might have phoned saying “you guys probably thought it has two sets of drives , so it must be a freighter , so lets load on anything near and see what it can do up the hill” . The Chessie somehow managed to have a full head of steam – at least so they put it down in their notes – yet produce but around 3/4 of nominal starting tractive effort at full boiler pressure – now , how was that ? At least , both railroads noted *no* more tendency to slipping than with any of their conventional classes of steam locomotive . And that alone leaves a couple of question marks with stories of notorious and untameable slipping on PRR . At least , on youtube you can see one driver starting out with a passenger train , T1 front engine slipping and him not acting in any way until the engine unit regains adhesion all by itself – no throttle closing at all . This was a careless and in fact very rude sort of driving . Well , by this sort of engine handling *anything* could happen and *nothing* can be said about what that engine could do when properly handled .
Sally-One
Edit
Oh , and now that I see it , S Connor you are right about the T1 trust , that much is for sure , further , you might just have found the missing formula : while it is not sure at all the T1 would attain 120 mph , they might as well just skipped that official speed limit by going for 140 directly - gee, that's cute , I like it !
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.