120 MPH T1

13368 views
140 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    November, 2003
  • From: Rhode Island
  • 2,288 posts
Posted by carnej1 on Tuesday, January 31, 2017 11:53 AM

 I apologize if this question has been asked previously on this forum (possibly in an older thread) but did PRR ever consider modifying the T1 fleet with the electro-mechanical wheelslip control system used on the Q2's? I read on the T1 trust site that they have considered such a system for their design..

"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock

  • Member since
    May, 2003
  • From: US
  • 12,719 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Tuesday, January 31, 2017 11:54 AM

daveklepper
Miningman, please be just a bit more tolerant of spelling and punctuation errors.  Sometimes they represent lack of time for checking, typos, and a triumph of impatiance over accuracy.

As well as not having a working spell check on this particular version of forum software.  Prior versions did and many other organization's forums currently have spell check.

         

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

RME
  • Member since
    March, 2016
  • 2,073 posts
Posted by RME on Tuesday, January 31, 2017 6:46 PM

carnej1
did PRR ever consider modifying the T1 fleet with the electro-mechanical wheelslip control system used on the Q2's?

I have never seen any indication of this, including when reviewing the extant documentation at the Hagley.  That's not to say it wasn't discussed, only that no evidence of adapting the equipment or re-engineering the system to passenger standards was made.

In a couple of respects it was apparently well-understood that the system needed major redesigning -- first, the system was virtually useless using its original 'bang-bang' implementation logic, and second, the bearings and pivot arrangement for the butterfly valves were neither reliable nor maintainable in service.  (These two issues may be related; the original electromechanical design would have been easy to implement proportionally, but sticking valves would have thrown that operation off badly, leading to full excursion 'by default' as the only operational choice...)

I consider it highly unlikely that any attempt at mechanically valving the steam would be desirable -- the Wagner throttles are not only much less visually obtrusive, they work properly at any degree of superheat and need little if any calibration as they age in service.  And in any case a mechanical traction-control system acting on the wheelrims directly is a better form of quick implementation and release for borderline slip conditions, and this as an adjunct of independent brake is much easier to control.

My understanding concerning Juniatha was that she was working too hard to be posting to this forum extensively.  Perhaps that will change in future, or she will take a periodic interest in things that happen here.

  • Member since
    September, 2014
  • 19 posts
Posted by LAWRENCE SMITH on Thursday, October 26, 2017 9:06 PM

I've read this entire thread - no one mentions the article in the Keystone in Fall 2014 called "90 MPH and beyond". The author has done significant research to help dispell cliams made by the brits of the world steam locomotive speed record. Much of his findings involve the T-1 on the Ft Wayne Division. Much is documented - some is not. The Franklin Valve story is told in detail especially what the Franklin engineering teams found when they timed T-1 speeds in the loco cabs in daily operation - 140 mph was not uncommon but exceeded the warranty speed of 120. They had to use stopwatches as the speedometers weren't metered high enpough. This and other stories are told in rich detail and is a must read for anyone with interest in the T-1. (My favorite is the alleged elapsed time of the military special during WW2 from Crestline to Chicago.) No wonder the T-1 Trust people want to establish the absolute steam locomotive world speed record once and for all.

  • Member since
    July, 2006
  • From: Matawan, NJ
  • 119 posts
Posted by Redwards on Friday, October 27, 2017 4:59 AM

Out of curiosity, who is the author of "90 MPH and beyond"?  I have a few back issues of the Keystone with T1 related articles but not Autumn 2014.

Edit: Looks like it was Neil Burnell, and I do have it.     

--Reed

  • Member since
    June, 2002
  • 13,279 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Thursday, November 23, 2017 4:11 AM

[quote user="BigJim"]

The point is, if the train was timetabled, it cannot leave a station before the time stated.

 

[/quote above]

Yes it can,  if it is an "Advanced Section" of the train.  Which the PRR did regularly with many NY - Washington expresses during WWII.   Once rode from Washington to NY in 3hr 5min.

The data may have been from an Advanced Trailblazer or Advanced Broadway.

This was common practice on both the Pennsy and the Central.

  • Member since
    May, 2003
  • From: US
  • 12,719 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Thursday, November 23, 2017 7:52 AM

BigJim
The point is, if the train was timetabled, it cannot leave a station before the time stated.

Carriers can have trains do what they need or want them to do - to wit a possible train order.

FIRST NO. 1 ENG 5501 RUN 1 HOUR ADVANCE FORT WAYNE TO CHICAGO.  

This would require trains that had to protect against NO. 1 to protect against this train one hour in advance of NO 1's schedule as printed in the Timetable. 

The reality is, on a multiple track railroad, such a order would not be necessary and the PRR from Fort Wayne to Chicago was a double track primarily current of traffic signaled railroad.  

In today's world of railroading Amtrak's Auto Train routinely operates from orign in advance of the scheduled 4 PM departing time from the terminals at Lorton and Sanford.

         

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

  • Member since
    February, 2005
  • 1,673 posts
Posted by timz on Saturday, November 25, 2017 3:20 PM

BaltACD
Carriers can have trains do what they need or want them to do - to wit a possible train order. FIRST NO. 1 ENG 5501 RUN 1 HOUR ADVANCE FORT WAYNE TO CHICAGO.   This would require trains that had to protect against NO. 1 to protect against this train one hour in advance of NO 1's schedule as printed in the Timetable.

Carriers "can" do that (i.e. God wouldn't incinerate them with a thunderbolt, probably) but they never did, and safe bet they don't now.

  • Member since
    April, 2016
  • 490 posts
Posted by Shadow the Cats owner on Saturday, November 25, 2017 3:44 PM

Way back when you would be amazed at what carriers did way before Lawyers made this society so afraid of being sued into oblivion for the smallest thing that they force compliance over service.  My boss has always run a very safe operation yet way back in the 80's and up to the mid 90's his drivers knew if they had to push the book so to speak to get that load there then the boss and his father had their backs.  My late father in law told me countless times of how he threw his logbook in the bunk in the 70's to get loads thru for his boss.

  • Member since
    June, 2002
  • 13,279 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Sunday, November 26, 2017 1:55 AM

I rode such trains in the NY -Washington corridor.  Believe me, both the PRR and New York Central did.   And Amtrak can if it wsnts to in the corridor, but they usually simply assign a temporary train number and issue a temporary schedule.

  • Member since
    May, 2003
  • From: US
  • 12,719 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Sunday, November 26, 2017 2:01 PM

daveklepper
I rode such trains in the NY -Washington corridor.  Believe me, both the PRR and New York Central did.   And Amtrak can if it wsnts to in the corridor, but they usually simply assign a temporary train number and issue a temporary schedule.

Multiple track territory was normally not operated under Timetable & Train Orders method of operation - with that being the case Schedule times were of limited to no importance.

         

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

  • Member since
    February, 2005
  • 1,673 posts
Posted by timz on Sunday, November 26, 2017 4:43 PM

daveklepper
I rode such trains in the NY -Washington corridor.

Guess you mean, trains that passed stations ahead of schedule when they were not scheduled to receive traffic at those stations. That was legal in PRR Rule-251 territory-- no train order needed.

  • Member since
    June, 2002
  • 13,279 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Sunday, December 03, 2017 2:21 AM

I meant advance sections of regularly scheduled trains, most frequently the advanced Congressional, later renamed the advanced Afternoon Congressional.

In other words, both the Central and the Pennsy, instead of running a second section ten minutes behind the schedule train, ran an advanced section ten minutes earlier.

But I also rode trains meeting your description, the northbound Silver Metior, Souterner, East Coast Champion, and Flordia Special frequently arrived at and left Philadelphia, Newark, and New York as much six or seven minutes ahead of schedule.   Probably also true of the Broadway Limited, Trailblazer, Jeffersonian, etc, substituting N. Phill. for Phill.

And the northbound Crescent was a special case.  At one point the Southern public timetable showed times in the corredor that were probably correct for times when the train ran as an entire train north of Washington.  But all times that I rode it, a string of rebuilt P-70's with a PRR diner was attached, it ran as a regular Washington - NY hourly train, with times earlier than those shown in the Southern timetable.

  • Member since
    September, 2003
  • 4,346 posts
Posted by Overmod on Sunday, December 03, 2017 10:32 AM

daveklepper
But I also rode trains meeting your description, the northbound Silver Meteor, Southerner, East Coast Champion, and Florida Special frequently arrived at and left Philadelphia, Newark, and New York as much as six or seven minutes ahead of schedule.

I was given to understand that at least part of the reason for 'detraining passengers only' at some of these later stops was to avoid issues with early onward departure -- not just keeping the hoi off the Pullman trains.

 

 

  • Member since
    February, 2005
  • 1,673 posts
Posted by timz on Sunday, December 03, 2017 4:56 PM

daveklepper
northbound Silver Metior, Souterner, East Coast Champion, and Flordia Special frequently arrived at and left Philadelphia, Newark, and New York as much six or seven minutes ahead of schedule.

So presumably the employee timetable showed them as discharge-only at Philadelphia and Newark, and they didn't appear in the Form 12 and Form 79 public timetables at all.

  • Member since
    June, 2002
  • 13,279 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Sunday, December 10, 2017 11:14 AM

Most of the years I rode them, they did not appear in the Wash - NY and Phila - NY PRR public timetables.  I did ride them though, on occasion, Wash - NY, with a conductor that did not mind.  Very useful idea when the regular hourly trains were crowded.  I suspect he gave my ticket stub to a regular NY - Wash conductor to hand in, rather than have to answer questions.

  • Member since
    September, 2003
  • 4,346 posts
Posted by Overmod on Sunday, December 10, 2017 11:35 AM

timz
So presumably the employee timetable showed them as discharge-only at Philadelphia and Newark, and they didn't appear in the Form 12 and Form 79 public timetables at all.

I am informed from a different source that some Amtrak trains were given official permission to leave stations early; they were said to be denoted in timetable with code "L".  I do not have material to substantiate this, but I suspect timz does.

  • Member since
    February, 2005
  • 1,673 posts
Posted by timz on Sunday, December 10, 2017 4:33 PM

"L" meaning they weren't supposed to board passengers at that stop? If the station was between NY and Washington, that was enough to make an early departure legal.

Most other RRs in, say, the 1970s and earlier had rule 92, which flatly forbid leaving any station ahead of time. Nowadays I think many? all? dispatchers are allowed to authorize passenger trains to leave early-- tho there would rarely be any reason to do that.

  • Member since
    May, 2003
  • From: US
  • 12,719 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Sunday, December 10, 2017 6:14 PM

timz
"L" meaning they weren't supposed to board passengers at that stop? If the station was between NY and Washington, that was enough to make an early departure legal.

Most other RRs in, say, the 1970s and earlier had rule 92, which flatly forbid leaving any station ahead of time. Nowadays I think many? all? dispatchers are allowed to authorize passenger trains to leave early-- tho there would rarely be any reason to do that.

There is no longer a Timetable and Train Order form of operation which relies on time and other factors for movement authority. 

From the Dispatchers view point today, he or she really doesn't care if a passenger train leaves in advance of the scheduled departure time.  Authority for movement is given via either Signal Indication or Track Warrant Control - neither of these means of authority are time related.

         

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

  • Member since
    February, 2005
  • 1,673 posts
Posted by timz on Sunday, December 10, 2017 6:27 PM

Yes, the dispatcher doesn't care if a passenger train leaves early-- but if it picks up passengers at that station, Amtrak usually doesn't want it to leave early. If a following train can pick up the passengers in a few minutes, the dispatcher can apparently authorize a train to leave ahead of its public-timetable schedule. (Presumably he'd have to radio the conductor and engineer and give them the OK.)

  • Member since
    May, 2003
  • From: US
  • 12,719 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Sunday, December 10, 2017 7:43 PM

timz
Yes, the dispatcher doesn't care if a passenger train leaves early-- but if it picks up passengers at that station, Amtrak usually doesn't want it to leave early. If a following train can pick up the passengers in a few minutes, the dispatcher can apparently authorize a train to leave ahead of its public-timetable schedule. (Presumably he'd have to radio the conductor and engineer and give them the OK.)

All that is in the hands of the passenger operator.

         

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy

Search the Community