The Pennsy wasn't the only road that stuck with an "armstrong automatic stoker" longer than they should have. Those big fat 2-8-0's the Delaware and Hudson ran were also hand-fired, The roads president, Leonor F. Loree believed in a days work for a days pay, and how! Loree was good for the road for most of the years he ran it, but he got a little too conservative toward the end and quite honestly stayed around too long.
I ahve to agree that the Milwaukee's A's were a more succesfful locomotive than the CPR's 4-4-4's, but I guess I just liked the looks of the Jubalees a lot better! The A's would probably have lasted until Amtrak except for dieselization. They did their job on lightwieght trians in fairly level territory for which they were designed and would ahve been at home on a still steam Manahttan Transfer - Washington run with probably up to ten lightweight cars.
It looks like the T1 will be the subject of an article in the upcoming, recently announced, "Steam Glory 3" special issue. Looking forward to it.
--Reed
"Steam Glory 3" does sound like something to look forward to, especially the T-1 article. Hopefully it'll be a serious appraisal of the locomotive as opposed to a collection of "old husbands tales".
At any rate, all the "Steam Glory" issues have been great!
Now you have my attention. How did the names Buck and Flash for 6110-6111come about? Sounds like a good story if anyone can expand on it.
Presumably from "Buck Rogers" and "Flash Gordon" due to the futuristic appearance of 6110-6111.
- Erik
I really have to wonder if "we" are not the ones writing the real history of the PRR T1 right now..especially in light of the information made available in more recent years. The pool of intelligent conversation covering this topic just in this thread alone stands in huge contrast to the jibberish that we've seen on this subject over the last fifty years. As Al Stauffer once commented....something about this whole T1 story just doesn't compute .....! Well, as we've begun to note, the die was already cast in the early '40s, while the two T1 prototypes were being debugged. NYCS sent out a questionaire to their travelling clientele concerning just how they would like to see their post-war passenger service configured. One question among the many, concerned the type of motive power they would prefer to see on their trains....steam. Diesel, or electric. Now anyone with half a brain would have known that NYCS was never going to wire, or third rail the system all the way to Chicago, so the real choice was betwixt steam or Diesel power. IMHO, this was a sop to the travelling public, as I'm sure 90% of them would have chosen Diesel power. I believe that by this date, NYCS was already going Diesel for passenger service, for at least a portion of their total passenger commitment. Diesel superiority was clearly established by this time, with competitor B&O cleaning up with both EMD EA / EB and E6 units in daily service, over a wide variety of terrain. PRR already had a stalled order with EMD for a pair of E6A units for the South Wind service with L&N. This order was revived, and additional Diesel power requested from EMD and eventually other builders, not because of what the T1 was or wasn't...but rather to give the Penn a better opportunity to compete for passenger market share with NYCS. The Central was already pouring huge sums into postwar passenger car orders, and would soon have the most desirable power to whisk them on their way...over routes where the Penn was big, and sometimes only, competition. In retrospect, we can look back and realize that no matter how great the T1 might have been, she wouldn't have saved the Penn for more than a few minutes. The entire motive power structure west of Harrisburg was in a shambles after the war, and really, not all that great even before. Fifty two T1s and 125 J1s couldn't save Pennsy steam ; it was impossible. The infrastructure was rotten from the inside out.
As for the early demise of the T class, one item I seldom hear mentioned, is the parts make-up of the T1 compared to other, earlier PRR steam classes. The T1 was a heavy user of highly sophisticated...by PRR standards...hot-rod steam parts; virtually all of them coming from outside suppliers. The biggest items here had to be the FRS poppet gear and all the unique pieces required to keep the locomotives running. I have no real idea as to the date that Lima/ FRS would have thrown in the towel of these parts as a regular production item, and relegated them to special order status. And what effect would the Baldwin takeover of Lima Hamilton had on this ? Couldn't have been good for anyone operating steam with this type of gear, once the bottom came out. Note that NYCS dumped their #5500 Niagara in 1951, which might have had something to do with this development....or mebby not. PRR had fifty T1s around to strip parts from as they broke down beyond economical repair. The last T1s were removed from revenue service in late '53, or possibly early '54. The last were sold for scrap in Dec. '55, and headed for Sharpsburg a month or so later. Without the dependence on all the aftermarket goodies, they may have lasted a good bit longer, but the Hancock turbo FWH, poppet valves and other items were not going to be made at Altoona without licencing in place. With the dual purpose FP7 order delivered, the big T1 really was out of a job. Waaay too bad; can you imagine what they would have looked like on the NY&LB with a fifteen car P70 commuter train, racing though the big "S" curve at Elizabeth....in do or die competition with a CNJ Train Master on similar varnish !
The T1 is a fascinating subject, and its story is very complicated. However, it's worth the time to read.Please notice that it takes considerable effort to find out what really happened in railroad history. Summary sources such as steamlocomotive.com try to get it right, but their limitations are significant. Wes Barris is dependent on his contributors for good information. Their competence varies considerably.The PRR T1is a good locomotive to have as a favorite. You can learn a lot about railroad history from studying it. It wasn't all good and it wasn't all bad. Mixed bags are more fun than black and white!
Thanks for your post. I am one forum member who got to witness the T1 in action both at speed and starting trains. They were wonderful to watch and I never saw one start a train without a spin or two. They simply did not have a sufficient amount of weight on the front engine for the HP they could produce. At speed east of our town on the main at 80mph plus, they simply glided along without much fuss or noise. The K4's double heading with the same type of train would really put up a fuss.
I got to get on the deckplate many times as a kid while watching trains at the station and they were exciting to see and to experience. They were pulled from service early to mid 1951 from the St. Louis main where I was raised as a kid in Illinois.
Excuse the quality as the little box camera was the only one we had at that time.
CZ
There is a photo in one of the more recent PRR softcovers showing T1 #5500 hauling the Cincinnati LTD. in late 1951. This is pretty late to have a T1 on a Blue Ribbon limited....but then 5500 was no ordinary T1 !
Again, as been said before, a good engineer who really cared could start a heavy train with a T-1 without slipping. A gentle touch on the throttle was required. But most engineers were so used to the K4, where you could simply yank the throttle out and rarelly worry about slipping, that they forgot to treat the T-1 differently.
There is an analogy with the old K-type drum streetcar controller. Start the car by rotating the controller handle too fast and wham goes the circuit breaker and you have to shut off, whack the braker on (often just within reach overhead) and start winding up again.
I also had the privilege of seeing the T-1 (and Niagras) in action, and riding behind them.
This would appear to be the right place to ask this question, as I'm seeing T1 photos as never before ! I'm hoping someone can post a photo or two of PRR 6110 or 11 in their modernized form. As such, they are without doubt, the meanest looking of all PRR steamers. Hoping also that somebody will do this variation in model format sometime. The Feibelmann book on Pittsburgh has one such photo, and IIRC, there is another somewhere in circulation.
"You mean PRR had no operational need of modern, effective, SUCCESSFUL steam locomotives? "
Just because a design is successful on one road doesn't make it automatically successful on another. Pennsy tested an A in the 40's and had a number of earlier Y's assigned to it during the Great War. In both cases PRR found them to be too slippery in road service due to the sharp changes in grade the Pennsy mainline has at each interlocking and curve. These grade changes are used to "compensate" the grades so that the effective resistance of the curves and switches at the lesser grade is the same as the steeper grade. The Pennsy's vertical curves are sharp enough to cause the front engine of an articulated to lose much of its weight and start slipping when entering a compensated stretch. This also caused problems with the Duplexes but not to the extent experienced with the articulated. I suspect that the vertical curves on the PRR main were designed with the H classes in mind and thus were too abrupt for large power.
feltonhill IMO, all steam locomotives built after WW2 were obsolete because diesel-electric technology was developing at a very rapid rate.
IMO, all steam locomotives built after WW2 were obsolete because diesel-electric technology was developing at a very rapid rate.
This statement is very true . . . with the advantage of 20/20 hindsight. You must remember, however, that the decision makers were accustomed to having to live (or die) financially with their decisions for decades. While Diesel-electric technology looked good in the late Forties, it was not as yet proven as reciprocating steam was with it's nearly 100 years of ever improving performance. And Golden Parachutes had not yet been invented.
ChuckAllen, TX
jaygee The last were sold for scrap in Dec. '55, and headed for Sharpsburg a month or so later.
The last were sold for scrap in Dec. '55, and headed for Sharpsburg a month or so later.
Would that be Sharpsburg, PA just up the Allegheny from Pittsburgh? I grew up in the Pittsburgh area and remember the huge scrap yard there very well. I had not known that the T1s were cut up there but that would explain my memory of seeing T1 tenders (sans locomotives) lined up near Island Avenue. Any idea why they would have been separated before being scrapped? There must have been a good reason because separating the tenders from the locomotive would have made both more difficult to move.
cefinkjr jaygee The last were sold for scrap in Dec. '55, and headed for Sharpsburg a month or so later. Would that be Sharpsburg, PA just up the Allegheny from Pittsburgh? I grew up in the Pittsburgh area and remember the huge scrap yard there very well. I had not known that the T1s were cut up there but that would explain my memory of seeing T1 tenders (sans locomotives) lined up near Island Avenue. Any idea why they would have been separated before being scrapped? There must have been a good reason because separating the tenders from the locomotive would have made both more difficult to move.
Some carriers did not scrap the tenders at the same times as the locomotives account having alternate uses in mind for the tenders. I don't know if the PRR may have done this for the T1 tenders.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Yes, thats the same Sharpsburg and it was a huge scrap operation (Lauria Bros.). If you seen tenders lined up along Island Ave, they were probably waiting their turn due to differing scraping procedures, seperated from the locomotive after arriving. Some of the PRR tenders extended their lives as MOW equipment. Modified for use as water cars.
There are lots or pictures around of T1s at Sharpsburg, including 5531, in the recent Kalmbach Steam issue. A friend of mine tells a story of going over there years ago and coming away with part of a T1 side rod. Most of the photos I've seen show the front radiator cut open prior to scrapping to remove the copper piping of the aftercooler unit.
Found an interesting thread developing on OGR-Real trains.....the PRR T1 trust. Does it have a leg to stand on ? That will depend largely on who gets behind it and who's exercising the leadership ! I've always known that something like this could be done, but it won't be done by a bunch of basement foamer types. OTOH, we've had the Gold Spike and AFT in the past.....it's not impossible. If you can rebuild the RMS Titanic, you could rebuild a PRR T1 !
Well, nobody's actually rebuilding the "Titanic" yet, all I've heard is talk. Be cool if it happens, though.
Be even cooler if someone builds a T1.
This may be considered off-topic in this thread - yet if you pardon me :
I'd opt for long tall Sally-One - the one and only 6-4-4-6 ,
the most incredible and daring piece of machinery put on rails in America
- and in this case that *does* spell ".. in the world" !
Full st.. - uhm , no
go-ahead
of course!
Regards
Juniatha
That big engine would be most cool, but just a tad impractical. Too much chooch, and where to run it?
There will be more than enough challenges in getting a T1 built , OTOH, an S1 Duplex operating on Horse Shoe Curve would be staggering to say the least !
Juniatha's hit it on the head again, why not an S1, then a T1? After all, the only problem with the S1 was turning it around at the end of the runs. Otherwise, no problems, it ran beautifully from what I know.
We need daveklepper to sound off on this one, he SAW the S1 at the 1939- 1940 New York Worlds Fair.
I saw the S-1 several times, maybe even as many as ten or twelve times, at the '39-40 NYWF, but I actually RODE behind T-1's. At least twice. And enjoyed the train rides. And watching the engine change at Harrisburg. Case closed. And the looks of the T-1, even without Juniatha's very intelligent improvements, don't bother me. Better than any bathtub. Better than the unmodified Dryfuss J3a. The T-1 is a fitting companion to the GG-1. And I truly hope to see one of those in operation again, rebult with modern interior technology but with overhauled quill-drive motors - which can run on dc, incidentally. It could use the electrical stuff from two scapped dc AEC-7's.
I have to agree with Juniatha that the S-1 is a better design of streamlining, however.
Hi Dave! Thanks for the feedback on your seeing the S1. Saw it ten or twelve times? Sounds like your parents had their hands full dragging you away from it!
That's a good idea of restoring a GG1 to service by replacing the innards with the guts of AEM-7's. The purists probably wouldn't like it but so what? If you want to see a GG1 run again some compromises would have to be made.
It's kind of like the talk about a new "Titanic". While it wouldn't be a problem building a new ship with the profile of the old one, realistically under the skin the new "Titanic" wouldn't have much in common with the old one. Propulsion, navigation, passenger accomodations would be a lot different from what they were in 1912. Especially passenger accomodations. Most people don't realise that only the most expensive first-class cabins on the original ship had their own bathrooms, everyone else had to make do with lavatories at the end of the halls, just like a 19th Century hotel. Unacceptable nowadays. In fact, there were only two bathtubs for all of third class. Makes you wonder what the builders of the "Titanic" thought about the steerage passengers.
Wayne
The exact restoration of a GG-1 would prevent it from operating on any of the NEC (which eventually would be the whole NEC converted to 60Hz from 25 Hz, and asbestos and other contamenants, particularliy transformer flued, would be outlawed today. So going with AEM-7's means parts availabity and flexibility in operation. Should be a great and useful locomotive, possibliy equalling the original in tractive effort and horsepower and top speed. Rewinding the motors with modern insulation is possibly the most expensive part of the project.
Take the shell of a GG-1, and put over components that may be used?
As tot he Titanic, I would hope that the hull would not be made of high-sulphur steel; I understand that the use of this steel, which becomes quite brittle at low temperatures, made it possible for the iceberg to rupture the hull as it did.
Johnny
Hi Deggesty!
I do want to put to rest something here. It was poor seamanship that killed the "Titanic", not poor matierials. The poor old girl was built of the best stuff available at the time. Up to the standards of modern ship steel? No, but it wasn't sub-standard by the criterions of the time as some have suggested.
As the folks in Northern Ireland say, "There was nothing wrong with the 'Titanic' when she left Belfast!"
Not entirely correct. The shipbuilder had substituted a poorer grade of rivets, iron instead of steel, for some of the rivets for riveting the panels that failed when the iceberg was struck. He could not get delivery of the steel rivets in time, and it was the owner's decision to go with the iron rivets to make up the lack of steel rivets throughout. But obviously proper seamanship would have avoided the iceberg. One of my USA Rabbi-teachers made a sermon out of this! (Have the best material in your deeds of life when you approach the Eternal!)
The iron rivits failed. The steel panels survived.
Reusing DC-AEM7 stuff inside a rebuilt GG-1 makes sense. The available brand-new equipment is all-AC and would require building custom new motors for the GG-1 which would be a very very expensive proposition indeed. The old AEM7 material would not be the material that shows wear, just somewhat technologically out of date, but appropriate to supply dc to the quill-drive commutator-and-brush motors that are a worth-saving aspect of the GG-1 design. (Even though with all my knowledge and familiarity with GG-1's, including a New Haven - PennSta cab ride, and the same degree wtih the similar NYNH&H "motors", I have never actually figured out how a quill drive works!
Dave,
It might be simpler just to a multi-voltage transformer with some sort of rectifier to provide DC for the existing traction motors. Being series motors they should happily run off DC.
The quill drive isn't that complicated, the quill looks like a spool that surrounds the axle with springs connecting the ends of the spool with the wheels. The motors are geared to the quill, which remains stationary with respect to the motor (but free to revolve) and the axle is free to move a short distance inside the quill.
P.S. I've also read the argument about the rivets, though one version had the wrought iron rivets being used due the need to "hand rivet" the ends of the hull.
Don't forget that the throttle on a GG-1 controlled taps from a many-many tap transformer, and that is why the AEM7DC approach is the simplest. In other words, what you say is exactly what is essentially the AEM7 system does, but also included is a better form of speed control then cutting out sereis resistors and going from series to parallel motor connections etc, as in classic dc designs. it is available equipmen. To try to duplicate, for example, the innnards of an EP-5 would be more expensive and require greater maintenance. Amtrak should be willing to sell the AEM-7DC innards, including plenty of standby componants, at reasonable prices once all are retired.
I noted earlier that the GG-1's ac-commutator motors can run on dc. It would be very foolish to try to convert 60Hz to 25 Hz on the locomotive, and would serve no real purpose. The GG-1 motors are not all that different from those used in the NYNH&H EP-2, EP-3 and EP-4, which were happy running off dc third rail power into GCT. But in dc mode they used the classic speed and power control approach, which both requires contactors, a maintenance item, and is wasteful of power lost in resistors. In the ac mode, I believe they used the same type of control as the GG-1. In fact, the PRR tested an EP-3 thoroughly before designing the GG-1.
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