Are there any Pensylvania RR T1 still surviving, or have they all been scrapped?
How many were originally built? They are my favorite steam locomotive, aside from the Y6a.
Thanks! Acela
The timbers beneath the rails are not the only ties that bind on the railroad. --Robert S. McGonigal
None were preserved...they all came apart chunks at a time under the cutter's torch.
According to this source, my only recourse on the subject, two groups of 25 were produced.
http://www.steamlocomotive.com/duplex/
-Crandell
You need to read W. A. "Bill" Gardner's account in Trains about delivering the first two E7As to the Pennsy. The E7s kept making the daily runs from Altoona to Detroit while the T-1s became overnight shop queens.
A total of 52 T-1's were built, 6110-6111 (Buck Rogers and Flash Gordon) and 5500-5549.
And, not to be a picker of nits , the Pennsy was one of the railroads that didn't use a hyphen in its model designations. So, it has K4, J1, T1, and not like the Chessie that had H-8..and so on...
" Buck" and "Flash" were put in service in 1942 as experimental prototypes. The Pennsy liked them well enough to order fifty more slightly modified versions that came on line in 1945-46. Once the whole fleet was operating there were lots of maintenance issues leading to high operating costs that had not been so obvious with the two originals. When they were in good working order and manned by a skilled crew they did a fine job but they needed too much TLC which was fatal with diesels coming on.
You need to read Gardner's account with a large grain of salt. It's a glaring example of the myths surrounding T1 mileages. It shows how unsupported hearsay can get much wider distribution and have more influence than dry, dusty old facts. I’ve found considerable reason to question the quoted T1 mileage during the time from Sept 1945 through April 1946, the 6-month period mentioned in article. During that time, the E7's ran 69,000 miles, about 11,500 miles per month. The author was told that the highest mileage T1 during that period ran only 2,800 miles. According to mileage reports I have which were internal correspondence from PRR Chief of Motive Power’s office, 5504 was the highest mileage T1 at the time, posting 40,642 miles since its in-service date of 12/5/45. This is an average of about 8,294 miles/month. For the month of April 1946, it posted 10,793 miles, only slightly less than the E7's at that time. Also during April, 5512 posted 11,442 miles and 5508 posted 10,942 miles, also about the same as the E7's. Maximum mileage figures for the T1 fleet stayed in this range until March 1947. I could never understand where the 2,800 mile figure came from. It’s certainly not supported by any existing data.
Caveat lector.
It doesn't really matter how many miles the T1s were running. According to steamlocomotive dot com most T1s were laid up by 1949 and all were scrapped by 1953. The Pennsy wasted its money on 50 obsolete machines that never should have been built. If depreciation was set at 15 years the Pennsy at best got four years out of most of these locomotives.
feltonhill You need to read Gardner's account with a large grain of salt. It's a glaring example of the myths surrounding T1 mileages. It shows how unsupported hearsay can get much wider distribution and have more influence than dry, dusty old facts. I’ve found considerable reason to question the quoted T1 mileage during the time from Sept 1945 through April 1946, the 6-month period mentioned in article. During that time, the E7's ran 69,000 miles, about 11,500 miles per month. The author was told that the highest mileage T1 during that period ran only 2,800 miles. According to mileage reports I have which were internal correspondence from PRR Chief of Motive Power’s office, 5504 was the highest mileage T1 at the time, posting 40,642 miles since its in-service date of 12/5/45. This is an average of about 8,294 miles/month. For the month of April 1946, it posted 10,793 miles, only slightly less than the E7's at that time. Also during April, 5512 posted 11,442 miles and 5508 posted 10,942 miles, also about the same as the E7's. Maximum mileage figures for the T1 fleet stayed in this range until March 1947. I could never understand where the 2,800 mile figure came from. It’s certainly not supported by any existing data. Caveat lector.
Making inaccurate comparisons that distort history and are contrary to facts definitely matter. Gardner was misled by hearsay, took it uncritically as fact, published it in a reputable magazine, and there you have it - instant facts based on nothing. It's certainly much easier than doing years of research to find out what actually happened.
IMO, all steam locomotives built after WW2 were obsolete because diesel-electric technology was developing at a very rapid rate. The economics were obvious. At best, the finest steam locos were little more than stopgap measures to tide the railroad over until enough diesels could be bought. The T1 had no corner on obsolescence during the 1940s. They just had a bit more visibility, style and crankiness.
I agree, they weren't what PRR needed (or any other railroad for that matter). A nice reliable 4-8-4 perhaps similar to UP FEFs or ATSF 3776/2900 classes may have been a better choice in 1944.
Acela026,
Hope you're still following this. I looked at your bio and saw that you were a younger member of this forum and you deserved a better answer than I've given when addressing specific T1 issues. There are several T1 articles written for and published by the PRRT&HS in its magazine The Keystone. These articles are well researched by their respective authors over many years, and include first hand interviews with the men who actually ran the T1's in service. They present detailed information that you will not find anywhere else. Popular publications cannot present the detailed information because they must appeal to the general readership. Railroad historical societies are about the last place where thoroughly researched articles on a given locomotive class can be found.
Thank you feltonhill! I looked at the link, and it was very helpful and interesting. You were right, graphics would have made it easier to follow, but I think I got the gist of it. I have changed (much to my parents disliking) our home screensaver to a photo of a T1. But they changed it back. DARN!
Acela026
I sent you an e-mail based on this site. Did you get it? I have a spare copy of one of the articles I cited.
SSW9389It doesn't really matter how many miles the T1s were running. According to steamlocomotive dot com most T1s were laid up by 1949 and all were scrapped by 1953. The Pennsy wasted its money on 50 obsolete machines that never should have been built. If depreciation was set at 15 years the Pennsy at best got four years out of most of these locomotives.
You are probably correct about the T1 and how it should have never been built, but I got to see them run and they were very exciting to see.
Our last T1 on the St Louis main was in 1951 and the K4's took over again until the summer of 1954 when the coaling tower was removed west of town. I have many memories seeing several T1s on trains at speeds that you would not believe in Illinois. They would run once they got the train moving. Starting a train for them without spinning their front set of drivers was almost impossible. The PRR did have 52 of them including the first two test locomotives. None were preserved and no Q2's or J1's were preserved. It is a shame that the PRR even purchased diesels since they did not save the PRR like the ads for the diesels presented to railroads how great the savings would be.
The PRR made a lot of mistakes and spent a lot of money of duplex steam, but all steam went out the door when the diesels eliminated the coal, water and maintenance stops. I consider the greatest of mistakes of the PRR to be the day they became the PC.
CZ
They were wonderful locomotives to see and ride behind, and I would not give up the memories. But still, the PRR would have been better off with a good 4-8-4 that would fit its clearances (not the SP, UP, or AT&SF, which would not fit eastern clearances) such as the NYC Niagra or N&W J, the latter possibly with slightly larger drivers. Of course it would have a Belpair firebox!
While everybody seems to obsess over the checkered history of the T1, does anybody even know the track record of the other duplex-drive, the Q2?
CSSHEGEWISCH While everybody seems to obsess over the checkered history of the T1, does anybody even know the track record of the other duplex-drive, the Q2?
I got to see one Q2 in Chicago near the roundhouse under steam but did not get to see it run. All of the books I have on the Q2 seem to point to a duplex that was much better than any of the other PRR trial and error locomotives, but was not ready for prime time against the diesels.
This information is from the Pennsy Q class book: PRR Classic Power
The Q2's had an electrical controlled anit-slip device, a unique applicaiton of an electrical control to a steam locomotive. The control device was developed by Rosser L. Wilson of American Brake Shoe (ABEX) and it utilized a differential switch which was driven by small wheels running on the treads of the #2 and #3 drivers. When this switch sensed a speed difference, it suplied air to butterfly valves in the steam lines of the slipping engine. When the drivers equalized in speed again, the steam was returned to that set of cylinders. They did not work that well after a short time in service. It was a failure also since they would not reset immediately and the thottle had to be shut off to get them to reset if one of the set of drivers did spin.
It was a great locomotive that broke records in the HP range on the test plant, but was too expensive to maintain since the new diesels just passed up every water stop, ash cleaning and coaling tower. The article goes on to say that this butterfly steam valve problem probably could have been solved by modifications to the butterfly valves but the diesels came way too soon for that fix.
The Q2 was assigned to the Crestline to Chicago run only. They were eleven feet wide and this was a line that could handle the size. If you look at the drawings of the Q2 or the BLI model, you will see it had a blind flange on the third driving axle also. This is correct.
Mike C.
OK My question is were they built on a straight frame or were they articulated, I cannot really tell from any photis dont laugh please Larry
All of PRR's duplex drives were on rigid frames, not articulated. This would make the T1 a divided-drive 4-8-4 and the Q2 a divided drive 4-10-4.
I wonder if any other readers also actually rode passenger trains behind a T1? The reason I ask is that I remember a gentle oscilation motion at about I think 55 mph that seemed as if some drawbar along the train, possibly between engine and tender or tender and first coach, was underdamped. It was gentle and not very annoying, but still noticable, somewhat like a similar motion I notoiced when flying in Lockheed Electra turboprops much later. It came on only at a particular speed. And this was after the T1's were on the road about one or two years, not when they were new.
Is this a variation in speed that was cyclic over, say, one or two second intervals, or was it a swaying motion, Dave? I have ridden behind diesels and steamers, and don't recall a tugging action of any kind, except I have noticed it on the Sky Train in Vancouver, BC, when it is accelerating.
My guess (and that's all it is) is that if the two engine sets got in exact phase, there would be a noticeable variation in the drawbar pull because of the inherent variability of the tractive effort over one revolution of the drivers. The variation was about plus/minus 20% of average. At 55, a T1 would be getting onto its DBHP curve, so the variation may have been what you felt. Wish I could have been there!
It was only a for and aft motion, not swaying side-to-side. It was gentle, but noticable. The above explanaition makes sense.
Much of this riding was in what were probably the most comfortable long-distance coaches ever built, the Juniata-built 44-seat cars specifically for the Trail Blaizer, Jeffersonian, and Red Arrow. These rode like a dream, the reclining seats were extremely comfortable, and the washrooms spacious. The next best thing in my opinion were the AT&SF double-deck El Capitan cars. But the Juniata cars rusted out quickly, and were scrapped after only about 10 year use, with their trucks and possibly other equpment going to rebuilt P-70's which then rode better than they had with the PRR peidstal trucks. The Budd equipment on the NYC was OK, and so were the rebuilt P-70's, and so were the AT&SF single-level cars and the UP's postwar coaches. With the PRR pedistal trucks though, sometimes when going around a curve, it seemed like there was absolutely no spring between your seat and the rail!
OK One final question on my part, Being that they were on a rigid frame were thes T-1s limited or restricted to certain division on the PRR? Seems to me that there had to be restrictions on clearances on tunnels and weight on bridges and overpasses Just wondering Larry
The T1's were assigned to all PRR east-west mainlines Harrisburg west. They ran to both Chicago and St. Louis. There were some early problems at Federal Tower in Pittsburgh (turnouts on a 13 deg, IIRC) but that was largely resolved by changing the driver back face to back face dimension on several of the locomotive axles and careful attention to the geometry of the turnouts.
In overall weight, they were about the same as a large 4-8-4. As far as maximum axle load, they ranged from 67,500 lbs to 69,990 lbs, somewhat below a large 4-8-4 and not much more than some of the K4's. They were only 15'-6" high and 10'-0" wide. They could clear the high level platforms in the Pittsburgh suburban district (east).
In contrast, when N&W J 610 was tested on PRR in 1944, it was restricted to Crestline-Chicago. It was 16'-0" high and 11'-0" wide, too large to operate on many PRR lines without changes to stations, other structures and track centers, which were too expensive to implement for a short-term test.
IMHO it is a mistake to characterize the T1's as being "obsolete" at the time they were built and one can come to the conclusion they never should been built only with the benefit of hindsight. Remember, until the mid-1940's the Pennsy was committed to steam motive power (just like the N&W was even a decde later). The T1 was designed to replace the double headed K4's on their heavier trains and they were admirably suited for that service. When the T1's failed to live up to their capabilities it was as a result of one or both of two factors neither of which were the fault of the engine or its design.
1. The T1's came into vogue at a time when proper maintneance was being deferred and/or short cut in order to get motive power on the road to handle the surge of WW2 traffic. If anything PRR maintenance declined even further following the war. And,
2. Many enginemen never bothered to learn how to operate the T1's and continued to run them like the K4's they were used to operating. This was the primary reason for their reputed "slipperiness". As Feltonhill well knows, given a bit of sand and a light hand on the throttle when starting, a T1 could walk away with the heaviest PRR passenger consist without slipping.
I had the good fortune to see T1's running at track speed on the PRR main line east of Valpariso, IN and believe me they were an awesome sight to behold.
Mark
Mark,
How fortunate you were to actually see these locos in action. They were out of service before my time trackside.
What is little known, but was documented in both the Altoona tests and the N&W tests in 1948 is that the T1's had a superior steam circuit. There was little pressure loss from the boiler to the steam chests,and the deliverery pipe volume was very large. All this gave the T1 a starting TE of something like 68,000 lbs, well above the rated 64,500 or whatever it was. Part throttle was sufficient to get the maximum force to the rail under normal conditions. Any gross throttle opening was a invitation to disaster unless adhesion was ideal.
They were a locomotive to be reckoned with, but as you noted, maintenance during their lifetime was on the decline. Unfortunately they required everything to be almost perfect to realise their potential. Good example of the ideal being questionable in real life.
Sure would have liked to see one of them go by at 100 or so (and maybe still accelerating).
I will certainly have to defer on this. My memory is simiply not good enough to recall having seen the diaphragm in all cases or whether there were exceptions. Probably was too excited to see the locomotives and know that I would ride behind them to notice!
An uncle of mine who once worked for the PRR ( Pitt-Harrisburgh) told me that diaphrams were removed in summer month's for better in-cab ventilation. He also advised of a similar situation to the canvass curtains hung on the back part of the cab, these were closed to help keep heat in during the winter and tied back in the summer. He also stated the dog houses on the tenders had to be better ventilated in summer month's or ice cooled.
Another reason for diaphrams being removed was due to maintenance guys who were increasingly getting fed up with all the shrouding and cosmetic's on the T1 and the time wasted taking it off to do even minor maintenance, then put it all back on. In time and with the company's permission much of it was never replaced taking some of the T1 personality with it.
A side note, my uncle left the PRR because he kept falling off the tops of rail cars in the winter as they rounded the Horseshoe Curve or the many curves along Sugar Run when he was setting or releasing brakes. One fall too many and he was out of there.
Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more!
Get the Classic Trains twice-monthly newsletter