Sorry for the delay; I don't read this forum much, and have only just found the post.
Point #1: The T1 isn't intended to recoup its cost, or earn its keep, in excursion service, or on some dedicated railroad service. The 5AT people made a considerable point out of how they 'rightsized' the power to what they considered a 'heritage' service could use -- hence the 4-6-0 with relatively small tender.
The Trust intends 5550 is a technical and historical exercise, a proof that the concept and execution were not the failures so many railfans seem to think they were. Actual operation of the locomotive is secondary, a fringe benefit, and would be tailored to the characteristics of the locomotive rather than 'the other way round'.
Point #2. Notwithstanding the 5AT people's decision to concentrate on the small-by-American-standards 4-6-0, much of their design approach (including the whole FDC methodology) and many of their people's experience and connections could be useful resources for the T1 design effort. Even if no money changes hands (and I, for one, think supporting the 5AT consultancy is a good thing to accomplish) I think the 5AT people can give the T1 Trust principals some very good advice on many aspects of steam locomotive technology, including how to present their ideas effectively.
Point #3. One good example already: the Trust has found out how and where to have lightweight main and side rods forged (at Lenape), and has started working with Timken to find best approaches for designing or adapting bearings for those rods. Another example: welding and lost-foam casting technologies that optimize cost-effective design of frames for large replica locomotives. A great many of the technologies that will go into designing and then constructing the T1 will make subsequent locomotive construction of that kind, and on that scale, considerably easier and less expensive -- but of course would not do so if the locomotive were not actually designed and then constructed.
Point #4. Yes, I meant NYC 5344. Thaniks for reminding me; it is certainly easy just to preface the number with the roadname (or type).
Prof O,
may I quote some again :
1 .
>> The project is NOT intended as a way to produce an effective locomotive for running enthusiast fantrips (which is one of the explicit design considerations for the 5AT, and perhaps an even more pointed one for the 8AT/T) <<
??
2.
>> I am expecting the Trust to work carefully with some of the 5AT organization's people <<
how does (1) interact with (2) ?
3.
>> In a number of respects, I expect that the 'work product' of the T1 Trust will prove useful to both the preservation community <<
how does (3) relate to (1) ?
4.
>> 5344 having been so disgracefully scrapped <<
Although I'd agree with you , should you have had the very locomotive in mind I'm thinking of - which again I have no way of knowing - US steam loco numbering generally , with exceptions of *some* (!) x-thousand classes on *some* certain RRs , did not provide information as to the loco type or class , nor were numbers ever meant to identify one certain locomotive over more than just the very RR which ran it - in other words same # could and did reappear on differnt RRs as different type of loco .
Thus , while with certain well known surviving locos we may have a good guess , it is vital for clarity always to write *name of RR* preceeding *number* of loco at question
or - at least that's the way I see it .
Regards
= J=
( gee - suddenly I'm in the old format of the forum again and individual color choice is back ..)
This project is something of a special case; there are a number of reasons for undertaking a T1 rather than 'something else' which all have somewhat synergistic effect.
The project is NOT intended as a way to produce an effective locomotive for running enthusiast fantrips (which is one of the explicit design considerations for the 5AT, and perhaps an even more pointed one for the 8AT/T). That does not mean I won't happily ride excursions the locomotive pulls... just that it's rather obviously not designed for that purpose.
As noted, most of the 'improvements' are to make the locomotive better and/or easier to run under modern conditions, or to take advantage of more modern experience or materials than were available in the '40s. At present, the general thinking is to preserve the historical construction of the locomotive as much as possible, keeping the improvements as invisible as possible.
I am expecting the Trust to work carefully with some of the 5AT organization's people in a number of respects, not least in applying Mr. Wardale's FDCs to the design first as a check against the historical engineering and then as a framework for analysis and improvement.
In a number of respects, I expect that the 'work product' of the T1 Trust will prove useful to both the preservation community and other efforts to restore or replicate historic steam. A couple of examples might be fabrication of lightweight rods, and spec of replacement high-end roller bearings. I;m sure that many readers of these forums are familiar with a person who was making good progress on having new steam built to order in China -- ready to spend millions, only to find how cheap the inevitable 'knockoffs' (essentially financed and costed-down at his expense) were going to be. Much of the Trust's work, and the work that will be done on its behalf by suppliers, will greatly facilitate large-locomotive design, construction, and improvement work that needs to be done in the future. (Including, I might add, locomotive 5345, which ought to be a national-scale priority, 5344 having been so disgracefully scrapped...)
What is central purpose of this project?
Is is mainly a Jurasic Park, to bring back the last and mightiest of the steam dinosaurs?
Or is it a serious effort to bring back one of the more capable steam locomotives as a platform for renewing work on improved steam locomotives a la ACE 3000 or Wardale's work on improving the QJ class in China?
The talk about adding conjugation between the two drives suggests there is an element of making this a test platform for improved steam? A what-might-have-been?
If this project has a return-to-new-steam component, even if focused on tourist or enthusiast trains, would something smaller be a better approach?
In The Red Devil and Other Tales of the Age of Steam, Wardale suggests that ACE was way too ambitious with the ACE 3000 design, and maybe they could have imported a late-period British locomotive and converted it as a demonstrator for a low-pollution combustion system (cyclonic Gas Producer Combustion System, micronized coal, coal-water slurry).
Wardale and others were recently party to the 5AT project. There was a successful "mixed traffic" Ten Wheeler type (4-6-0) called the "Black Five" in England. I believe the model number was 5P5F, meaning it was a freight and passenger service locomotive with a "5" rating in either service. I am thinking "5AT" stands for something like "5 -- Advanced Technology", and Wardale wrote in his book about selecting such a 4-6-0 for the Chapelon/Porta/Wardale improvements.
Could this project join forces with the 5AT people to get that project restarted? Is the 5550 project wedded to the T1 because that is what fires up everyone's imagination, or could people be open to what those Brits have to say?
The focus of the 5AT project is/was developing a new locomotive design, based on the Stephenson principles, incorporating up-to-date knowledge of combustion, steam circuits, running gear, and mechanical detail design, compatible with modern day railroad operations, to serve the tourist/enthusiast/excursion market with an alternative to the restoration of old steam locomotives that gets more difficult with the passage of time. Is that the goal here, or is it something else?
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
To my knowledge:
None of the 501(c)(3) officers is salaried. All the expenditures I am aware of have gone in some way either to set up the organization or to further the purpose of researching the T1 drawings or the technologies to build it.
As far as I am aware, that will not change as development proceeds. While I expect the Trust will need to build up significant reserves later in the development/construction schedule, those would not be subject to 'diversion' for anyone's personal use, far less gain.
If the project fails, or is suspended, the work product and any assets (including monies) would be dispensed as appropriate for a railroad 501(c)(3), probably going to some combination of Pennsylvania-centric entities such as RRMPA, and known resources for PRR scholarship such as the Hagley. I do not know the precise arrangements, but I do presume they would be responsibly made and handled.
Just a few questions.
How much of the proceeds goes into the project? What is the salaries of the officers of the trust? What would be the disposition of monies if the project fails?
Forgive me for asking but in this day and age it is hard to be trusting.
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!
Firelock76If someone squawks, say it's a "T1-A"!
I can't say that -- there's already a T1a, the one that was converted to piston valves.
Interestingly enough, the one getting the type B poppets didn't get a changed class designation. The revised engine (original specs except original Baldwin-proposal dimensions for the firebox) may qualify as T1b or T1x (I'm angling toward the latter to establish that it's an experimental testbed, for far more than just locomotive technology)
I had considered using the suffix 't', as for 614 during ACE testing, but the result is somewhat... ah, unfortunate. For a family forum.
In one plan, all the full-tilt mods are held off for 5551 (which would be a T2, much closer to the S1 in capability, but with the high-speed valve and running gear), and 5552 would be the 'historical' T1 for the purists, built with all the economies of scale and preferred-contractor 'overrun' and experience derived from the project.
(It will also be remarkably cheap to build the 'next priority' locomotive for someone who values the best in American steam -- and her number will be 5345... but that's not a Trust matter...) ;-}
Overmod, don't worry about the purists, do what you have to do to get it to run and run well. If someone squawks, say it's a "T1-A"! There's been a lot learned in the past 50-plus years, it'd be foolish not to make use of that knowledge.
Civil War re-enactors try to be as historically accurate as possible, but there isn't one of them who isn't relieved to see an EMT truck over on the sidelines, "just in case."
NorthWestYou are looking at fixing the slip issues? I think we had a discussion on the issue a while back. (Shhh! Don't let the purists hear!)
In my opinion, even though there is some evidence the 'slip' issue was tremendously overrated in terms of a modern operating context, the Trust need to make ONE HUNDRED AND TEN PERCENT SURE that there is no likelihood of the engine slipping 'destructively' at any speed. (Remember that high-speed slipping is a different phenomenon than low-speed and starting slips). I think of this as just the kind of overspecification that's characteristic of the better Swiss rack locomotives and railcars (which might feature five independent kinds of brake, each in itself capable of stopping and holding the consist...)
Yes, there are purists, and yes, some of the solutions I favor would change the appearance of the locomotive, at least one fairly drastically (even though the physical changes to implement that solution are comparatively slight). It will be a comparatively long time (at least a year, at present planned critical path) before the actual simulation designs are advanced enough to begin testing the different approaches.
Note that the Deem-style conjugation approach is virtually invisible on 5550, which uses outside shaft drive to the camboxes. The shaft and clutches go through the transom between the rear-engine cylinders, where there is at least 12" of clear structure even if a fully-historical cast frame is used; the conjugation is between the main driver of the forward engine and the lead driver pair of the rear engine. I think it is a safe assumption that the type A camboxes will NOT be a feature of the reproduced locomotive!
OvermodOne potential issue, the cutting of large, precise ring gears for one version of the conjugation system, was solved when capacity was developed for the wind-turbine industry.
You are looking at fixing the slip issues? I think we had a discussion on the issue a while back. (Shhh! Don't let the purists hear!)
Me too! Don't misunderstand, I wasn't trying to be a "wet blanket" with my earlier comments.
Great! I'm looking forward to the success of the project.
Several design phases; all in progress. Locomotive drawings are now being collated, and will be converted to 3D CAD models (probably in Dassault SolidWorks), then roughly optimized for CAM and process.
Before design is finalized, multiphysics simulations of the 'key' areas, in particular slipping, valve-gear integrity, suspension, and combustion, will be undertaken, and the results incorporated into the design. Proof of concept will be assured before major construction is undertaken.
The key point is that there is no fixed or required 'timeline' for the project. On the other hand, it will be fully organized and tracked by ANSI standards (PMI PMBOK 4th edition) and the funding will also be under professional management and stewardship.
Yes, all the support and maintenance costs, and equipment, are factored into the design and construction estimates. A preliminary location for the locomotive's "base" has been chosen (it is not the facility NS is constructing for 611, although 5550 could be serviced there). Part of the expenses for the 'base' include test-plant equipment that can also be used to run the locomotive stationary if desired
The same approach toward trackwork integrity planned for 611 (modified track-geometry car to ensure full operation; smaller vehicles to do pre- and post-checking of geometry and other aspects) are of course applicable to 5550, and would be used for any operation. Neither dynamic augment nor the slightly extended rigid wheelbase of the duplex are expected to be showstopping complications.
A more detailed timeline will evolve out of the project-management system when some of the initial work is completed. However, several key concerns (siderod fabrication and some questions about frame and suspension fabrication) have been solved far earlier than anticipated, and 'emerging' technology in other areas (for example, pointcloud scanning at high accuracy, and laser welding) has made a number of fabrication issues far less 'sticky'. One potential issue, the cutting of large, precise ring gears for one version of the conjugation system, was solved when capacity was developed for the wind-turbine industry.
It's real. It's on.
I've missed this until now. Sorry!
Do you have an estimated timeline for the project?
For a dream to come true some-one has to dream it to begin with. I won't say this can't be done, get enough money together and you can accomplish anything.
I'm wondering just where this locomotive would be allowed to run, as it wouldn't make sense to spend ten million building it just to roll it a mile or so up and down some museum track. Union Pacific? No, they allow no-ones steam on their lines but their own. CSX? Not them, they allow no antique railroad equipment on the 'road at all, replica or other wise. BNSF? Maybe. they seem to be amenable to steam operations as long as it doesn't interfere with their own freight operations. KCS? Don't know about them. Canadian National? Possibly. Canadian Pacific? I don't think so.
The only Class One left is Norfolk-Southern. As they consider the Pennsylvania to be a predecessor 'road they seem to be the only place where a T1 could operate in "full cry." Good possibility there.
In the meantime keep dreaming, sometimes dreams are all we have to keep us going.
Where does this goup originate and any idea where all this would be taking place?
I hate to rain on anyone's parade but building a T1 from scratch seems to me to be a fiscal impossibility. It would require not one but several million $ and I think it highly unlikely that such funds can be raised. It's not like rebuilding an existing locomotive where most of the components are still intact and usable. Virtually every single part of a new T1 would have to be custom made and the cost would be tremendous. I'd love to see this project become a reality but I'm afraid it is just wishful thinking to ever see a T1 running again.
Mark
Cool!
Advisory.
Et tu Overmod, are you involved with the 5550 group?
I know; I only came over here to read Dave Klepper's post about the psywar initiative that occupied the SAL main line, and look what happens ...
Firelock76A bit of advice, you've got to publicize this more in the rail press. I read "Trains", "Classic Trains", Classic Toy Trains", "O Gauge Railroading", "Railfan and Railroad", "The Railroad Press", and, when I can find it, "Railpace." This is the first I've heard of your group, so you've got to get more aggressive in getting the word out if you want to meet the goal.
Major announcement is waiting on formalization of important elements of the organizational structure, and preparation of a formal feasibility plan and a preliminary operating plan.
It's important to establish right from the outset that the organization knows the magnitude of the task, including the operation, maintenance, and 'stabling' of the locomotive after construction, and can substantiate that it has proper planning and project-management methods, change-management, CAD/CAM and multiphysics simulations, and other aspects firmly in hand. There is little point doing mass publicity on building a T1 if the general reaction is "it's a bunch of foamers dreaming, and it'll never happen." Things may be very different if the impression is that everything will be done 'professional grade'.
http://thet1trust.com/
I really should come over to this site more often.
Mr. Noble, if Juniatha becomes part of your engineering committee it'll be as if God sent you an angel from Heaven armed with a slide rule! Do whatever she says! I think she knows more about the T1 than the men who originally built it!
A bit of advice, you've got to publisize this more in the rail press. I read "Trains", "Classic Trains", Classic Toy Trains", "O Gauge Railroading", "Railfan and Railroad", "The Railroad Press", and, when I can find it, "Railpace." This is the first I've heard of your group, so you've got to get more aggressive in getting the word out if you want to meet the goal.
Do mechanical engineers still use slide rules?
Oh, and where are you planning on running it?
@ Bradford Ross Noble
O-M-G - thank you !
With best wishes for success
Juniatha
IN China, Russia, India?
There's a big difference in scale from an LNER A1 to a PRR T1. I doubt that much of the manufacturing capabilities required to build a T1 from scratch exist anymore.
I think this it truly great and hope to make a modest contribution.
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