..- er-hm .. 70 ins ...
( and , yes , me too , I believe diameter was ok for N&W , yet too small for PRR Crestline - Chicago racing ground ;
it's a whole different matter to stage one short burst attack at top-max hyperated speed the engine was juuust able to attain - or to run such speeds continuously sustained for miles on end and in regular service day by day ; ( I believe , what the N&W wanted to make sure was their 4-8-4 had an ample reserve of speed potential above daily demand - first for 'just in case' performance reserve and , second for lower stress / lower wear in actual daily service , which perfectly made sense )
that said , diagram showed indicated power output line started to decline above a comparatively decent speed and that would have made sustained running at 90 - 100 mph rather inefficient , even if published ihp diagram profile was true - which is quite unlikely since it would propose there was a certain degree of steam flow throttling building up at a certain rate above , say 70 mph , only to fade out at higher speeds for no reason explained , which would violate physics of gas flow without presence of some indeed very special effects ..)
= J =
As I recall, the PRR thought well of the N&W J, but believed that 72-inch drivers were simply too small for fast passsenger service.
Dear Firelock76:
You're thinking of Alfred W. Bruce. Mr. Bruce was more than a journalist; he was Director of Steam Engineering at ALCo. Yes, his book is one of the standard references on the subject. I keep my copy close at hand.
In writing from memory, I made an error in accrediting some information to Dr. Kaye Lamb. He IS an accomplished rail historian. However, the book I was referring to is by J. Parker Lamb. Dr. Lamb retired as the Chair of the Mechanical Engineering Dept. at the University of Texas, Austin. He has a lifelong interest in the steam locomotive. His Perfecting the American Steam Locomotive, Indiana University Press, 2003, is, in my opinion, THE contemporary study of North American steam. His book begins with a survey of the history of the American locomotive, examining its development in the 19th Century. He carries this through with a more detailed history of the technology developed by the Big Three and railroad shops in the 20th Century. Finally, he discusses the reasons the highly developed steam locomotives could not compete with the Diesel. While Bruce primarily described what is, Lamb gives more insight into how and why things developed. I found it gave me better insight into the types of choices that had to be made in high-end steam locomotive design. It is a well-illustrated survey intended for the interested layman rather than Bruce's comprehensive work for the railroad professional. I think the two books complement each other and recommend them both to any student of the steam locomotive (or, as it was once called in its earliest days, the "aeropteron").
With regard to balancing I'm sure you know the larger the drive wheels, the easier they are to balance. Once a reliable design of stoker made truly large locomotives possible, the increasing revolving and reciprocating masses had to be compensated by better than "rule of thumb" mechanics. Although it used to be "common knowledge" the maximum speed of a locomotive was the driving wheel diameter times 1.1, this rule went out the door with the 57-inch drivered 2-10-2s and heavy Mikados of the WW1 period. Anything over 30 mph would kink the rails horribly. What Lamb refers to as the Third Generation steam locomotive -- characterized by high horsepower, high speed capability and four-wheel trailing trucks -- required the first intensive scientific studies of wheel balancing. Eventually, cast driving wheel centres helped distribute the balance weight better. (Also, cast driving wheels did not fracture or get bent out of shape like spoked wheels could under maximum load!)
Concerning dynamic augment, or "pounding", I read an interesting book published in 1952 called "The Steam Locomotive" by Albert Bruce. It wasn't a "gee-whiz" railfan book but a pretty scholarly study done by the author of a system of motive power that he knew was on the way out, and as a journalist Mr. Bruce just wanted to tell the story.
Anyway, Bruce mentioned high-speed motion pictures shot of locomotive drivers undergoing tests, and the "pounding" didn't occur until a certain speed was reached, keep the engine under that speed and the pounding just didn't happen. Of course, balancing had a lot to do with it but it seems if you pushed the engine too hard you were asking for trouble.
Mind you, I'm not a mechanical engineer, just a student of history. It used to be military history until I got tired of reading about people killing each other and switched to rail history, just as fascinating and a lot more positive, if you know what I mean, "con-structive" as opposed to "de-structive".
And as far as slipping and adhesion is concerned, well we know too many roads had a bad habit of abusing equipment. Hang too many cars on the back of the engine and you're begging for a slip. The old RF&P here in Richmond Va. ALWAYS made sure to tailor the tonnage to the ability of the engine to pull it, as a two-track bridge line they couldn't afford to have any breakdowns or failures, they had to keep those trains moving, and were quite successful at it. A class act was the RF&P.
Just a side note, jobs on the Richmond Fredericksburg and Potomac were so highly sought after the locals used to say RF&P stood for "Relatives, Friends and Parents", meaning you couldn't get a job there unless you knew someone who worked there!
I freely admit my information was incorrect with regard to this incident. With regard to your points:
1) Agreed, although it is adhesion, not tractive effort that starts a train. Adhesion can vary from about one-quarter to one-fifth of weight on drivers depending on condition of rail and wheel (per Dr. Kaye Lamb, a professor of mechanical engineering).
As a general note, tractive effort -- proper name: Calculated Tractive Effort -- is the most over-used and over-rated determinant of what a locomotive can haul. It is useful as a comparative measure between locomotives, but the actual drawbar pull cannot be ascertained from use of CTE. Only road testing with a dynamometer car can do that. Further, CTE is not a precise figure, varying with the condition of the locomotive -- wheel wear, piston blow-back, back pressure, efficiency of steam passages, condensation and cooling of steam in windy/cold weather. Those who calculate T. E. to the last number are deluding themselves. Again, referring to the writings of another professional mechanical engineer, a figure to the nearest thousand pounds is quite sufficient. This explains why several railways opted to express haulage ratings in percentages, rounding the C.T.E. to the nearest thousand.
2) Agree, fully. I wrote my remarks re adhesion before reading your second point. I'll let my comment stand because of the reference to my source. I want our audience to understand I am trying to base my conclusions on reputable sources, although I, myself, am not one!
3) Agree, fully. C&O must have looked at the T1 as a bug under glass. They had no obligation to treat it kindly. N&W, being a property of the PRR, must have exhibited a different attitude -- externally, at least!
By the way, what did the PRR think of the N&W J it tested? I know I've seen it written up but I'll be darned if I can remember where or what issue.
Dear Juniatha
There is absolutely no doubt that the duplex drive's lesser individual piston loads reduced the hammer blow from the vertical thrust of the high piston loads of 4-8-4s. However, you do not discuss the fact the duplex has twice the number of main rods, alternately pushing down and pulling up on the main drive wheel. Therefore, the potential for reduction in total hammer blow is less than you assume. Weight of rods and reciprocating parts per side on the T1 were given as 4,576 lbs. The best of the 4-8-4s at the time weighed in at 5,050 lbs. per side although the worst were about 6,000 lbs.
"Logic" and "theory" do not necessarily work out in practice. My information states dynamic augment per wheel at wheel-diameter speed (80 mph) was 4,170 lb. At the time, many 4-8-4s had dynamic augments below 5,000 lbs. at wheel diameter speed -- admittedly about one-quarter higher but not beyond the bounds of the elasticity of track structure. Further, there is more to track damage than dynamic augment. 4-8-4s did not suffer the T1's reported problems on curves between Altoona and Pittsburgh, where the M1s were found to be easier on the track -- this, despite lateral play in the T1 of plus-minus 1.0 inch in the first and third drivers. Lateral adjustment was later modified, as was back-to-back flange distance on some of the T1s to try to remedy the stiffness on curves.
Allow me to again quote Brian Reed: "Repeated slipping at speed, even more than at starting; the regular in-and-out synchronization of the two 'motor' sets, which repeatedly upset drawbar pull [you addressed this]; and the constant adjustments and maintenance needed, especially to such items as cam boxes located inaccessibly between the frames hard up against steam pipes and cross braces, were now unleashed on 52 locomotives that were expected to handle practically all the passenger traffic between Harrisburg and Chicago.
"The performance could be magnificent. There are records of many a 'hundred', even with 1,000 tons, and at least one performance of around 1,150 tons made up of 16 passenger cars hauled at a pass-to-pass average of 100 m.p.h. over 69 miles of generally falling grades. But it was no joke at the back end when a performance of this standard was suddenly interrupted by one set of drivers beginning to slip, then the other, and then by a sudden pick-up of adhesion by one or both sets. Nor could such things occur consistently without fire-lifting and without equally constant work in depots and back-shops; and the continued strain of slip-expectancy in the minds of the crew was not eased by the whirling drafts that brought more than a trace of coal dust into the cab."
With regard to the Q2's problems with slippage, and the operation of its slip arrestor system: "This system could be in operation a large part of the running time out on the line though various causes, including small differences in tread diameter between no. 2 and 3 pairs; and it did not prevent slip, it simply checked a slip that had developed. In the Q2 engines the disturbances from slipping and checking were often supplemented at speeds below around 40 m.p.h. by a serious fore-and-aft surging when both groups were in phase, due to large unbalanced masses, as only 28-1/2 per cent of the reciprocating weights were balanced in the wheels. This effect died out as speed rose from 40 to 50 m.p.h."
With regard to steam distribution, this refers to the Q2 when tested at Altoona: "The pressure drop between boiler and steam chests was always 8-10 per cent greater at the rear end due to the long pipes."
As I have written before, I am not a mechanical engineer. These quotes are from a man who is, and who was actively involved in the design of steam locomotives. Among his information sources he credits C. P. Atkins, John E. White, Jr., Harold H. Harwood, Jr., Bob Lorenz and Fred Westing. Considering the pedigree of these men as rail and locomotive historians, I have to assume he obtained information that was accurrate and generally from primary sources.
GM's claims of no track damage due to dynamic augment were countered by the fact the high weight and low centre of gravity of the semi-sprung traction motors tended to push the outside rail out of alignment on curves. Further, the higher concentration of weight plus the change in weight distribution to the ends of the frame made the rebuilding of some bridges necessary. The shift to weights of rail from an average of around 90-115 lbs/yard to 120 lbs. plus also came with the Diesel. (CP's 2-10-4s, although light by U.S. standards, got along on 90-lb. rail.) I don't know whether this was coincidence or a necessity, but there is no doubt that at least some of the Class One railroads "prepared" for the Diesel with a significant upgrading of their track structure. In 1940, with all but a few of the heaviest steam locomotives already in service, about one-third of rail on Class One railroads was in the 90-99 lb. range. Only 11% exceeded 119 lbs. With the steam locomotive vanquished in 1958 -- and still somewhat before the preponderance of the heavy freight cars of today -- 25% of rail was 120 lbs. or heavier, and 50% was 110 lbs. or lighter.
You may draw your own conclusions.
Quote:
>> By the way, I don't think the C&O was all that impressed with the T1, especially when it stalled with a train normally handled by a 4-6-4. <<
That repeats an old myth , yet , if you may excuse my saying what’s wrong will always remain wrong .
Al lot could and should in fact be remarked upon these so called ‘test runs’ – presently I neither have time nor nerve for it .
In a nutshell (1) – that train was overload , a C&O 4-6-4 couldn’t any better have started it , full stop . The proceedings were questionable , too . The report said the engine stalled , never slipped , not even when reverse / forward jolt starting was tried , which should have made most any regular 4-8-4 spin wheels - so question must be asked if boiler pressure really was on the red mark ( yes , says the report - I doubt it , I say , for : if so , where then did t e get lost between cylinders and wheel rims ?)
In a nutshell (2) – successful train traction has always depended on and will always continue to depend on proper tailoring of engine and train load to line profile and schedule , there has never been a case of misalignment working out to best advantage – Duplex or not . Why , this even applies to present day hyper-energetic synchronous electric locomotives effortlessly putting down an equivalent of 10000 hp onto rails – yet if drizzling rain in an autumn night brings adhesion down to a minimum as a Bo-Bo Taurus sync electric heading an express to Venezia winds up the ramps of the Semmering pass across viaducts , through curves and tunnels , all of the abounding power built into it can’t help speed from falling to no more than 30 mph , regular speed of a 2500 ihp 214 class 2-8-4 heading the same load on the same ramps some 50 years before – to name just one example that I have witnessed last year . Still , no one would question value and success of the Taurus family of locomotives . So what does it really tell if this-one T1 stalled that day at that spot on that trainload ? Misjudgment by those who arranged the trip .
In a nutshell (3) the C&O may not have been impressed with the T1 – for sure I wasn’t when finally I got to read the story of these , let’s call it ill-concepted loco exchange runs . For sure the runs lacked a lot to qualify as properly setup test runs and maybe they weren’t intended to , at least IMHO there are a number of indications between the lines C&O mainly wanted to see the last of it and if they cared at all they were quite content with the way it all turned out . Mind , that in these years each RR was fast convinced just and only locomotives of their own especially designed for their lines could do the job and PRR steam at the same time was on fast decline . Who on earth would have expected a neighboring RR would be prepared to buy – pressure by some in the management or not – a surplus number of unconventional poppet valve gear equipped locomotives built to foreign standards and with foreign standard auxiliaries , all in dubious mechanical condition ( prove to the point : the very engine on loan failed only within days and had to be replaced ) Seen from a C&O locomotives dept. viewpoint it might have been understandable and expectable if the test engineer concerned may have been asked “Now , has it failed already or how much longer will it take ?”
Regards
Juniatha
Quote jpp452
>> But the dynamic augment could be, and was, reduced to virtually the same level in several 4-8-4s of the time by use of lightweight rods. The piston load argument proved a non-factor. The top horsepower 4-8-4s of the time worked hard, but they did so well within maximum design limits. <<
First -- By all logics : if you can reduce reciprocating mass of each side of drive in a 4-8-4 , then you can also reduce reciprocating mass same in a 4-4-4-4 . Since by default , the divided drive design has principally but half the piston force to start with ( by simplified consideration assuming same stroke and wheel diameter in both engine types ) the result of mass reduction will show the same relations : with both engines having 'light rod design as with both engines having 'heavy' rod design , each the Duplex has but half the piston forces and since that is the core and cause for each and everything in drive train design and masses it also has (approximately !) half the reciprocating masses , logically then has half the amount of hammer blow compared drive wheel per drive wheel and thus offers more than twice (!!) the potential for high degree balancing of reciprocating masses ( because there is a track limit to admissible hammer blow the Duplex has a larger margin within to design for best balancing )
Since inevitably there was a considerable degree of over-balancing ( vertically ) necessary to attain an acceptable percentage of reciprocating balancing ( longitudinally , incl cross balancing to avoid nosing ) and this became worse with longer con rods as well as with larger angle of attack as caused by longer stroke , an engine like the Duplex then again had an advantage over the conventional eight-coupled type since each its con rod was shorter and stroke could be and was also reduced . That meant , both track pounding was reduced and still balancing could have been increased . A major design flaw of the T1 seems to have been Baldwin's idea of reducing percentage of reciprocating balancing in an incomplete view on behavior and effect of respective mass inertia on the locomotive frame : it was believed since each the mass inertia induced by a con rod was low in comparison with that of a 4-8-4 con rod , it was not necessary to balance to the same , let alone a higher percentage , to arrive at still lower hammer blow . Independent running of the two drive sets was considered to help effectively counter-balance at least partly ( while there were mass inertia forces acting on drive axle boxes thus acting to press / pull in main frames the resultant mean force causing longitudinal oscillation of loco frame would remain very low for most of the possible relative positions of front to rear drive unit pin positions over wheel turn .
In practice this proved an ill-conceived concept since the drive sets tended to synchronize ( there was a discussion on this in this site ) - a thing which although it could have been known from simple expansion Mallet types was not foreseen in the Duplex . As drive sets synchronized so did the combined reciprocating masses and logically lower factor of balancing must then made itself noticed in a fore-and-aft movement - exactly what has been remarked upon by some users in this discussion .
Second -- By all logics the same applied to steam flow which - as good as it ever may have designed in a 4-8-4 two cylinder engine , applying the same level of perfection and the same principal design of valve gear to a Duplex must by default result in a vastly better steam flow since resultant reduction of resistance to gas flow ( superheated steam behaved much like as gas ) was square of increase of cross section relative to mass volume of gas , i.e. e breaking individual flows to cylinder sides by two resulted in 1/4 of throttling effect if mean effective cross sections ( actual cross section by form factor ) through valve gear had remained the same as in compared 4-8-4 - which of course it was not , in spite of as much as because of multiple poppet valves , not to mention abortive effects to steam distribution and flow by valve gear developing defective valve events with progressive wear .
The fact 4-8-4 cylinders , valve gear and drive units did live up to expectations was as much due to technical improvements as it was to relative size of these locomotives in relation to demands and to general acceptance of high impact of these locomotive on track - a level of impact having become intolerable for regular service as soon as improved drive mass suspension designs became available with traction motors in electrics and diesel-electrics .
The Duplex drive was the right idea for making the classic concept reciprocating steam locomotive fit for increased speeds and improved riding - the fact it was aborted was a consequence of steam traction in total being doomed for abandonment within about a year or two since construction of the Duplex group of locomotives . This clearly bore no relation to success or not of these engines .
Much more could be said about this , on some points I have remarked earlier , as for now I've got to leave .
jpp, thanks for the great history lesson! National prohibition as a war measure act? Must have done WONDERS for morale!
Hi Firelock76. I'm going close my end of this discussion here. You can find more info online.
Canada's first prohibition act was passed in 1864 when it was still a British colony. However, it and the Canada Temperance Act of 1878 allowed prohibition to be voted on at municipal levels. Despite a national referendum in 1898 narrowly endorsing prohibition in every province except Quebec, no national prohibition was brought in until during WW1, under the War Measures Act, effective 1 April 1918. Prior to this, PEI had enacted prohibition in 1901, Ontario and Alberta did so in 1916. Although the consumption of alcohol was banned (except for religious ceremony or "medicinal purposes"), PRODUCTION of wine, spirits and beer was not, "for export." Smuggling became a major industry, especially to the U.S. Canadian breweries and distilleries made great fortunes smuggling their products across the border starting in 1920.
As in the U.S., the law was unenforceable. Also, the provinces realized they were missing potential excise revenue. Most provinces repealed prohibition in the early 1920s. Instead, they brought in various Liquor Control Acts which, with modifications, tightly control the sale of liquor today. PEI was the last to repeal, in 1948. Municipalities still have the right to vote themselves "dry", as they have since 1864, and some still are.
In the U.S., the 18th Amendment went into effect in 1920 and was repealed in 1933.
OK, I'm back on topic! I just watched the film clip of building a T-1, the link to which locoi1sa posted. It's from a Pennsy promotional film called "Clear Track Ahead", done by the PRR in 1946. It's also part of a two DVD set called "Railroads- Tracks Across America". I've seen this set for sale at Barnes and Noble, also at Target and Wal-Mart stores. Price is about $9.95 and it's a good deal, I've got it myself and bought sets for some friends. 36 railroad promo films on it, film to video transfer is pretty good, considering these films really weren't meant to last. You won't be disappointed should you purchase it.
To jpp452: Canada had Prohibition as well? (Sorry for going off-topic again folks, but this is interesting). I didn't know that. And about 10 years before the US? What brought that about? I know here in the US it was brought about by the bluenoses gaining the upper hand when those in elected office should have known better. Did it have something to do with the First World War?
By the way, one of the best beers I've ever had was a brand called "Trapper" from Saskatchewan. Light, crisp, great flavor. It was imported here in the US for a while in the 80's, then disappeared. Pity.
Wow, thanks for sharing the film. Nice to see the T1 when they were considered 'the power to pace the future."
To Firelock 76 - ALSO OFF TOPIC (sorry) -- Correction: Canada had Prohibition a decade before the U.S. We also got rid of it before the U.S. Small breweries also virtually disappeared until the 1980s when the craft breweries gradually started appearing. Up here, you only had the choice of Molson's, Labatt's or Carling-O'Keefe products for years. They each made several types but it was all the same swill.
Just found this on the web. Building and testing a T1. http://www.criticalpast.com/video/65675073413_railroad-building_casting_driving-wheels_prepare-molds_locomotive-test-plant_test-run
Enjoy.
Pete
I pray every day I break even, Cause I can really use the money!
I started with nothing and still have most of it left!
I posted many different sources of T1 info on the first page of this thread. Take a look and see which ones suit your interest best.
From there, the only source you need to find is this for the C&O and N&W tests:
“PRR T1 Tests on C&O and N&W” The Keystone, Summer 2009, Vol.42, #2 , pp35-66.
It's available through PRRT&HS back issues program if you don't want to wait for a show.
feltonhill The T1s "home" was anywhere west of Harrisburg. The high-speed exploits were generally credited to the Fort Wayne Division. C&O test two T1's in 1946 (5511 & 5539 IIRC) and N&W tested 5511 in 1948. Both events have been written up in detail in PRRT&HS magazine, The Keystone. N&WHS magazine the Arrow carried the T1 test on N&W and C&O's magazine C&O History carried part 1 of the C&O tests. Part 2 is in The Keystone.
The T1s "home" was anywhere west of Harrisburg. The high-speed exploits were generally credited to the Fort Wayne Division.
C&O test two T1's in 1946 (5511 & 5539 IIRC) and N&W tested 5511 in 1948. Both events have been written up in detail in PRRT&HS magazine, The Keystone. N&WHS magazine the Arrow carried the T1 test on N&W and C&O's magazine C&O History carried part 1 of the C&O tests. Part 2 is in The Keystone.
To Feltonhill: Would you happen to remember when the issues of those magazines came out? I'm going to try looking for them at the trainshows I visit, those T-1 tests on the C&O and N&W sound VERY interesting.
To JPP: Well, I've got a relationship with bock beer that goes back a LONG way (everyone not interested can tune out for a bit, this has nothing to do with the T-1, Rule "G" you know), at least 50-plus years. When I was growing up Dad always enjoyed a glass of beer with dinner, still does as a matter of fact. When I was four, maybe five years old Dad poured himself a glass and instead of being yellow, this time it was BROWN! "Daddy, what happened to your beer?" I asked. "It's BOCK beer," Dad replied, "They only make it this time of year." As I remember it was right after New Years, and yes, back in the 50's American breweries only made bock from around January to early March, after that it was back to lager. Mind you this was long before the rise of the custom breweries and micro-breweries we have today. I've been fascinated with bock beer ever since.
Canada never had this problem of course, but prior to 1920 here in the US there was nothing unusual about small, independant breweries, just about every neighborhood in American urban areas had their own. Prohibition killed them off, they didn't have the capital to convert to other beverages that the big brewing companies, Anheuser-Busch for example did, and so they went out of business.
OK back to the T-1!
To: Firelock 76
How did you guess? Doppelbock, if I can get it. Porter or stout at other times. Some wonderful craft brewery porters and a bock in this neighbourhood (North Vancouver BC). Hop on a train and visit!
[quote user="jpp452"]
And, of course, it is a COAL stove. Discussions usually tended to get lubricated by a foamy brown fluid, not oil or pop, admistered in occasional, moderate amounts.
[/quote
A foamy brown fluid? Ah, you sound like a bock beer man!
Thank you for your reply. Yes, I'm familiar with the builders' histories. Lima didn't become a big-time builder until after its bankruptcy and sale to Franklin Railway Supply. FRS enticed Will Woodard from ALCo, where he was learning at the knee of the greatest boiler designer of his generation, Francis J. Cole. Cole's tables of boiler ratios were used, with little need for adjustment, to the end of the steam era.
Woodard was assigned by FRS to turn Lima into a big-time builder. Like his mentor, he worked out of the New York office. You will note the various locomotives he produced for Lima always were packed with appliances sold by Franklin Railway Supply unless the railroad specified differently. Lima's preference for the two-wheel leading truck on fast freight locomotives when ALCo and BLW were building 4-8-4s may have been because it could use its own patents.
With regard to locomotive prices, I think your information re the I1s may be incorrect. As of 1941, Trains Magazine reported that both the UP Big Boy and the C&O Allegheny cost their owners 22 cents per pound apiece. Amazing what you could get for 22 cents in those days. "I'll have two pounds of Big Boy and, oh, the Allegheny looks really fresh today -- I think I'll have five pounds."
JPP.
The PRR and Baldwin had a good working relationship. Baldwin was a very good online customer that had parts and raw material brought in to their facilities via PRR rails and finished products shipped out on the same rails. Mechanical engineers and draftsmen would correspond and actually work at any of the major locomotive builders shops.
Baldwin was one of dozens of independent locomotive builders at one time. Lima didn't come along until the 1870s and they were mostly small industrial loco and geared loco builders before the super power campaign. Alco is a consolidation of several smaller loco builders and they turned out some great products for all the in fighting of the early years. The Pennsy's own shops could build any locomotive asked of them. Altoona and Juniata turned out some odd locos such as the S1, HC1, and the first I1s, and also the Q1 and Q2. J1 and other notable locomotives.
A very good reason for the PRR to turn to Baldwin to build locos is that their own shops were already too busy and running at capacity. Why they chose Baldwin over the others is simple economics. Baldwin was the only independent online builder so they got charged for shipping the material for their own locomotives. I read somewhere that the 475 I1s locomotives built by Baldwin for the PRR turned out to a cost of $40 per pound of each loco.
Collusion in the locomotive industry was the norm between builder and roads.
The T1 was home on the Fort Wayne division. They ran regularly from Harrisburg to Chicago. I am not positive but I think the N&W tested one on their road.
Well, I'll throw another shovelful of coal in.
Do you recall what division the T-1s ran on? I doubt they ever ventured too far out of PRR territory, if at all. But I've been wrong before.
More coffee, anyone?
The timbers beneath the rails are not the only ties that bind on the railroad. --Robert S. McGonigal
To JPP: Yes it is fun to sit around the "hot stove" as you call it and talk steam and such. Too bad we can't do it for real. say the stove in the station, some good hot coffee and some pipe or cigar smoke to go with it. You know as an aside, one writer in the now defunct "Locomotive and Railway Preservation" magazine said nothing complemented each other so well as a steam locomotive, a cigar, and a hot cup of coffee.
Thank goodness for the Forum, it's as close as we'll ever get!
To DaveK: I just read you comment that you rode behind GG-1's at 100 mph. Really! This is the first I've heard of it, never read it was done in any of my books, but you know what, it doesn't surprise me. Thanks a lot, it sure pays to have someone around who was THERE, and who's more than willing to share his experiences. I'll tell you, you've got a lot of people out here green with envy! Maybe "Brunswick Green"?
The PRR never had any provision not to run the Broadway in sections. In the early 1900's, like the Century, the Broadway was generally limited to nine cars, if additional sleepers were required they would add up to three more, once the third additional car was filled they then seperated the train into sections. This why you may see sections running as little as seven cars. They did this so passenger's could go to the diner and enjoy their meal, not being rushed. It also kept lounge cars more acessable and less crowded.
Prior to the depression to see both trains running in sections was not umcommon. The Century set the record on Jan 7, 1929 when it ran nine sections. Early depression years seen westbound traffic for the Broadway falling fast, so the PRR's advertising department developed the theme of the Broad Way to the West, to intice more westbound travelers, particularly in the Philly area. This was the basis for the assumption of the Broadway Limited being named for the Broad Way of the four track main. The train was infact named for Broadway in New York and was confirmed as such by a memo in 1913 from Frank Barksdale the PRR advertising head. The name expanded on Penn Stations theme of being "one block from Broadway".
After struggling through the depression years the Broadway (aka Deadhead Limited) did improve, but the PRR ran other cheap fare trains between the same cities thus giving sort of an internal competition, the General and Trail Blazer. These three trains as a group did very well in the NYC/CHI market, the latter two especially. During holidays the Broadway did on ocassion run additional section. The Trail Blazer and the NYC Pacemaker were very popular trains. The NYC also tried a Century II but later dropped the idea.
Give the NYC advertising department the kudo's, they did a great job and kept the glamour of the Century in peoples minds. These were two great trains, they were very identical in their make up, color schemes being the biggest difference, the competition of the two makes for some interesting reading. In the early 1900's jumping on the name 20th Century was also a great move.
jpp452, you brought up some interesting points in your reply, I agree with your assertion that despite everything any railroad was trying the diesel would reign as the king. Shame, we missed out on some great steamers.
I can tell you that I rode behind GG-1's doing 100mph many times, too many to count. During WWII the Advanced Congrressional usually ran DC - NY in 185 minutes with stops in Philadelphia and Newar. And GG-1's legally ran 100 mph when subsituting for defedtive Metroliner mu equipment.
I also rode between Fort Wayne and Chicago behind K4's at 100 mph at spots, but not consistantly. I think one of those trips might have been a T-1..
I also got to see 136 mph on a mu Metorlienr speedometer and 110 mph on a UA Torbotrain speedometer.
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