CSSHEGEWISCHWhat folly?? Sticking with an overdesigned steam locomotive in an attempt to make up for lost time caused by ignoring improvements not originated by PRR?
You have to put the folly in context. F units were demonstrably better than anything PRR had in the steam-development pipeline, and most of the first-generation follies involved taking nearly-untried competitive approaches (244-engined FAs being one that comes to mind more forcefully than any four-axle Baldwin power, interestingly enough) that were not built following EMD's design and quality paradigms. So the argument isn't dieselization -- that was established definitively by 1949 by the economic forces only becoming evident by about 1947 -- just incompetent dieselization forced by "the market".
Although I often moan about it, PRR fixed this problem pretty definitively in 1963, when they bit the bullet and got rid of all the old 'orphan' units, even those that were running reasonably well in service or had 'rebuild potential' (the BP-20s in particular as I've noted offering some interesting possibilities). It is difficult to imagine working a railroad with steam, any steam, as well as it could be worked with SD40s, let alone SD40-2s ... and we need not go much more modern than that. There are reasons not one of the modern-steam-revival programs, including those I participated in, went much of anywhere, and those reasons only get stronger each year.
That doesn't mean that losing All That Steam so quickly isn't a shame for all us non-railroaders at trackside. Tracksiders pay few bills and incur few responsibilities, but they know what they like.
.
Just as a heads-up: At the beginning of this thread, back in 2018, Peter Clark was going to look up PRR S1 6100 in Reuter's Rekord-Lokomotiven. I don't remember what the actual result of that check was.
Perhaps if Mr. Clark is away from the references, or if someone else wants to comment on this, here is the amazon.com listing for the book. (There are of course other sources; it's not a 'rare book' yet.)
Overmod That doesn't mean that losing All That Steam so quickly isn't a shame for all us non-railroaders at trackside. Tracksiders pay few bills and incur few responsibilities, but they know what they like.
Overmod I suspect the major contribution of the Q2s to the Korean War (which started in 1950) was the alloy steel and other metals in their composition. Were any even seriously running at that point?
I suspect the major contribution of the Q2s to the Korean War (which started in 1950) was the alloy steel and other metals in their composition. Were any even seriously running at that point?
This is probably the truth, Mr. Overmod. Although most of them were not retired by 1953. The S2, Q1 and the Q2 phototypes were all dropped from the roster in Jan 1952. Compared them to other freight engines in the PRR system, steam, electric and diesel, Q2's contribution to the Korean War were negligible. I think it was discussed many times before but it would be nice to review the history of railroading during the Korean War if our forumer could share with us their first-hand experience or research.
I wonder how much money would have saved if PRR chose the N&W Class J instead of the duplexes. It can be calculated since the total cost of all of the duplex engines was recorded. The Js could have been the successor of both K4s and M1s, the best dual-service steam engine ever made. But sometimes the reality is a playground of no-fun-allowed, this is why I still love Q1 and Q2 better than the Js (both N&W & PRR).
Too perfect for *me!
OvermodIn my opinion, had there been no turbines we might have seen some attempt to de-sow's-ear the Q1, probably involving a switch to smaller drivers and perhaps some rebushing of the cylinders to adjust the cyclic water rate upward to suit (and perhaps some application of RC poppet gear in a reverse T1a change to three-valve Franklin type C as on ATSF 3752, but I doubt it). At this point I am tempted to speculate a bit and note 'what if we put a welded boiler and better firebox on the chassis, and geared in a couple of smaller V1-style turbines with the full-proportional version of the Q2 slip control' which still wouldn't have solved the lethal water-rate problem but would give us a highly interesting testbed... just don't expect Baldwin to build the pieces. I suspect much of the correspondence over the design options here would make interesting reading
I suspect much of the correspondence over the design options here would make interesting reading
That would have been a fascinating major rebuild. Though I strongly believe that it wouldn't be an economic and flexible engine which could challenge the diesel F units, it would have been a very cute white-elephant. A Q2 size welded boiler, a chassis long enough for 4-10-4 or 4-10-6, V1-style turbines, alloy steel rods, 70+ inches drivers with the best balancing, roller bearings here and there, anti-slip control, an attractive semi streamlining.
I am still obsessed with the 6-wheel truck design. If the 4-wheel trailing truck of the Q1 could be replaced by the 6-wheel truck, it would have had more space for a larger firebox or provided more room for a completely new firebox design without sacrifice the room of the cab. But that means my fantasy white elephant would have been as gigantic as the S1 (Cool!). Yes, I admit that the duplexes of Pennsy were white-elephant outside my fantasy world. It wasn't because they had a bad design, but there wasn't a strong need to build such a powerful engine after the war in the PRR's network, in hindsight once again.
However, I think they were not powerful nor fast enough in my fantasy world!
A GTW 4-8-4 with one more pair of the driver
OvermodPRR was, according to some of the notes at the Hagley, proud of the way it handled the steam'pipe and snifting valve arrangements at the rear of the Q1 to avoid the kinds of problems B&O had on their locomotive. If you look at it from pure engineering, they did a pretty good job. Just that nobody told the steam, and the dirt, and the things in casual collision with items located near the limits of the loading gage, about how to respect products of superior intellect ... as it were.
I am delighted to know that PRR Motive Power actually knew what they were doing when designing the Q1 since many critics Pennsy repeated the same mistake of B&O's N-1. Even though it was not good enough to be mass produced, but in Baldwin's eyes, the Q1 was at least a symbol of Pennsy's bargaining power, a potential competitor to Baldwin's ill-fated duplex product.
With the help of our forumer Reed, I have the chance to read the 7-page article about the S1 in Milepost's back issue of 1992. It seems that the wheel slip problem, probably mostly occurred at high speed, wasn't solved. There were so many wheels and drivers needed to be replaced during her short service life. I can see the author also noted that the S1 was *probably built exclusively for the World Fair, (the whole construction progress was unnaturally kept as a secret) but he couldn't find any solid evidence to back up this point.
The idea of the duplex, a by-product of the competition between the New York Central and PRR, was one of the most expensive, overbudget drama in NA's railroading history. If Pennsy low key constructed a 4-8-4s base on the N&W Class J or their own M1s or K5, Pennsy would have had won hands down.
Overmod...Baldwin, seeing its own future more than a little closely aligned with that of Steins et al., decides to implement its own 'hush-hush' design effort to end-run around the Steins patents ... the result of which comedy was (as no one I suspect will be surprised to learn) the C&O M-1 turbines. (In case you were wondering why there were three, and so little testing was done to debug the first one...) This essentially threw down the gauntlet to PRR Motive Power in a way that makes it potentially easier to see why no further direct-turbine work was undertaken at that critical time that turbine steam power was the wave of the future... and the compound-expansion answer to the whole double-maintenance problem of the duplexes at a stroke...
I really don't understand the transaction between C&O and Baldwin for the M-1 turbine electric, I can understand why Baldwin rushed the fubar M-1 before PRR's "Triplex" can be built, but for C&O's management led by Robert Ralph Young, it was probably one of the most reckless decisions ever made by the leader of a class I railroad in the western hemisphere. I won't be surprised if all three of them were actually gifted to (or 70% off) C&O but I am just assuming and do not want any people getting offended.
When we read about the history of many class I railroads which survived the decline, they seldom or never introduce any experimental steam engine during the transitional era, that was a tough time for the whole industry, steam and diesel engine development were struggling (except EMD), traffic is declining, trackage and engine worn out, passenger had way more travel options than before, risky investment was not a normal option, but somehow, the fubar M-1 was born in this era.
Jones 3D Modeling Club https://www.youtube.com/Jones3DModelingClub
Jones1945I wonder how much money would have saved if PRR chose the N&W Class J instead of the duplexes. It can be calculated since the total cost of all of the duplex engines was recorded. The Js could have been the successor of both K4s and M1s, the best dual-service steam engine ever made ... Too perfect for *me!
But you are forgetting the most important lesson imparted by the high-speed testing: the class J just didn't fit enough of the PRR. Boiler was too big, for example, to run anywhere near Chicago.
Likewise you couldn't start with a Q2 boiler less one course; that was at clearance limit with only 69" ... not even 70" ... drivers.
So a putative PRR 4-8-4 would likely be more like a Niagara's running gear with a slightly downsized big Belpaire boiler that would 'just fit'. We can't use the T1 trailing truck as it's only sized for the 92' grate and structure; if you want we can modify the Q1 casting design. While it doesn't help that Baldwin, not Alco, is the 'design partner' it does have to be said that the experience with Timken rods and bearings ... and with the #4 driver pair extended crankpins cracking on the PRR-controlled N&W ... would have produced the equivalent of NYC's 6000-hp driveline right through to the hollow piston rods, probably with centrifugally-cast pistons using the 1948 T1 valve improvement techniques.
Take the cab design off the 2-10-4 for a start; if you adjust it, do so based on crew needs rather than outside aesthetics. (But keep those semilune windows!)
You have the same issues for the smokebox and front as with the Niagara, avoiding the Frankenstein "outer door" arrangement but of course preserving the 'beauty treatment' generator and headlight swap... perhaps with the two-light vertical Pyle treatment as applied to one of the T1s (to me it looks pretty good). I leave it up to you whether it gets smoke deflectors, as I personally think a Niagara looks a bit like a mobile package boiler plant without them, and this is a comparable shape.
The drivers are the fun part. Remember that 72" is M1 country and a Fleet of Modernism 4-8-4 had better have more potential; remember also that 75" on a Niagara was throwing away money and even with Central's uber-restricted loading gage they couldn't get 79" (the NYC equivalent of 80") high wheels on it fast enough. The 77" of the Q1 would (based on documents like the review of the N&W J) be about the minimum Cover et al. would have tried; the good news here is that repurposed T1 driver centers wouldn't have worked because of the designed-in short stroke, so you have a clean slate picking high-wheel cast centers or even Web-Spoke if you swallowed ... I think Baldwin had a finger in that pie ... the Fla-Vor-Aid of that approach on the non-main wheels. There is a sweet spot at 76" (see the H class and the aborted Lima 4-8-6s) and I'd be sorely tempted to exploit it with lightweight gear ... BUT it would leave you just that little notch down on the NYC for perceived high speed, with little or no true incremental gain over the Niagara in any aspect of running gear (since Alco already optimized it a bit too far)
That [a double-turbine Q] would have been a fascinating major rebuild. Though I strongly believe that it wouldn't be an economic and flexible engine which could challenge the diesel F units, it would have been a very cute white-elephant. A Q2 size welded boiler, a chassis long enough for 4-10-4 or 4-10-6, V1-style turbines, alloy steel rods, 70+ inches drivers with the best balancing, roller bearings here and there, anti-slip control, an attractive semi streamlining.
As a side note: you need neither the high drivers nor the 'best balancing' on one of these turbines, as the drive is almost entirely balanced and there is of course no overbalance surge. There are a couple of ways, including a modification of the Langer balancer, to get around the quartered augment of the side rods used; as you probably know, the S2 originally had coupling rods only on the outer pairs, but very quickly acquired a full set, so we know more about the gear arrangement than history lets on, so we design from the start for full rod beams per side plus thin Timken bearings, run as close inboard as we can make them. That's really good enough for any practical PRR working speed, which was over 90mph for the 68" drivers on the S2, especially since much of the mass advantage from the duplex principle carries over to conjugating rods in a lateral direct-drive turbine layout.
You likely wouldn't use V1 style turbines (unless the V1 design was jiggered by Westinghouse to be usable in the transverse configuration, which at the least would require some interesting exhaust-plenum design). From what we know, those were axial-flow and fairly long, with lots of room at the LP end for good exhausting. What you would want to use instead would be something like a paired-turbine arrangement (symmetrical around the main pinion in the center) -- HP admission inboard, with relatively short and inflexible HP branch manifold that easily clears the spring rigging, and large outside plena and exhaust trunking. Since you have what are in essence four blade nests, they can individually be very small; of course they are in two sizes but most of the blading itself will be common.
Reverse in this design is NOT via a separate geared turbine, it would be via an interposed idler in the main gearbox and bath. Since this would not move other than 100% from forward to reverse, it is unlikely to require either 'sprung' construction or heavy shock-tolerant mounting; it will be as high up in the gear train as possible to reduce tooth and stress forces (which is fine because we care little about how fast the idler will have to spin). Important for a dual service engine: you have the same torque, responsive to the same throttle adjustment, in reverse as you do in forward; if you want to design the engine for bidirectionality (with, for example, FM-TV from the end of the Castor/Aphrodite project for vision off the tender) you certainly could. The main implication is for the trailing truck: it will need to be stable in guiding in both directions, which a normal Delta trailing truck really isn't. I leave this as a solution for the alert reader.
I am still obsessed with the 6-wheel truck design.
Don't be. Unless you have to -- and I suspect with the more 'efficient' firebox and chamber construction you will have to.
Just as a point: the six-wheel truck costs. In the first place, for construction and fabrication with additional mass and casting complexity. In the second place, with 150% additional tread and brake-rigging wear. You lose length, have increased swing, need better steering and weight-transfer accommodation at the rear, and all for what? the ability to blow through water faster and have to make more stops. The only real advantage is the weight-bearing capability ... and weight minimization is always a good idea on modern power, especially toward the rear; you can use every pound for better auxiliaries or better circulation.
The point here is that a good modern boiler will have some version of Snyder combustion-air preheaters, which are like coils of brake-air 'radiator' pipe in weight, and a full Cunningham circulator, which involves saturated-water manifolding nearly the length of the water legs with multiple ports and vanes into the waterspace. Consider this all (on a PRR 4-8-4 design) completely aft of the rear drivers for weight-distribution purposes.
If the 4-wheel trailing truck of the Q1 could be replaced by the 6-wheel truck, it would have had more space for a larger firebox or provided more room for a completely new firebox design without sacrifice the room of the cab.
Something I guarantee you will NOT need or want is a "larger firebox", at least larger in terms of grate area. That needs to be about 100 to 104' ... but... you have the thermodynamic gains from the air preheat and then the enhanced radiant-section circulation, each accounting in tests for about a 10% increase in boiler steam-generation efficiency and neither affecting much of the potential gain from the other. Add to this the practicality of operating with sliding-pressure firing while maintaining full superheat to the turbines and you wind up with little need to go to enormous, heavy, water-filled structure or increase the actual radiant uptake surface dramatically to try to take advantage of the higher grate limit from a larger box. Fuel costs; if the additional fuel is used to boil 'more' water, the water costs; delivery of both to an engine in service is the chief rock that sank big advanced turbine steam on PRR in the first place.
But that means my fantasy white elephant would have been as gigantic as the S1 (Cool!).
Cool, yes. Necessary, no. You will note that none of the Lima six-wheel-trailer proposals had need of equally long structure at the smokebox end; in fact, the more advanced ones were only 2-8-6s (in part to gain back the length and reduced siding capacity imposed by the six-wheel rear truck). Since the firebox improvements are mostly spring-borne by the trailer arrangements and only secondarily equalized with the drivers, there are no implications other than some inertial-accommodation issues with having relatively little weight forward of the third driver pair compared to the rear, even at high speed.
Now PRR for reasons of its own will insist on a pin-guided leading truck. In my opinion what you'd get on a converted Q1 (which of course no longer has its cylinders to require low truck sideframes or outboard clearance) would be an adapted T1 outside-frame engine truck. If you wanted to have some fun here, I suspect you could easily hang one of the air compressors per side neatly in the space where the front engine cylinders had been, giving you all the accessibility needed and involving only slight adjustment to the brake piping. Then if you wanted to see if an ACFI heater arrangement works better than, say, Worthington you have room for it on the pilot beam.
Even in a fantasy world, you have to remember the implications of basic physics and the assumption (in part driven by your stockholders) to get the greatest revenue (long-term, too) from a given capital investment. That means picking the least cost per reliable horsepower, and efficient operation over the range of loads and speeds that your railroad's profile and anticipated trainload characteristics impose.
The good news is that a PRR 4-8-4 or 4-8-6, turbine or otherwise, is unlikely to be more than a M&E 'dual service' engine; it specifically can be designed to spend a high percentage of its service life at or close to design speed with an appropriate load behind it -- the same criterion that made the Niagaras so famous and so able to run up high reliable mileage. Now, if we utilize some of Voyce Glaze's balancing conventions in a relatively high-wheel 4-8-4 we begin to have an engine PRR had little practical need for ... but was beginning to look at definite applications for. By the mid-Fifties this would have been right in the sweet spot for passenger-trucked TrucTrain consists ... run 'em as fast as the trailers will take. This in the same timeframe the Nickel Plate could make Berks pay with conventional interchange car trains. Makes you think, doesn't it?
With the help of our forumer Reed, I have the chance to read the 7-page article about the S1 in Milepost's back issue of 1992. It seems that the wheel slip problem, probably mostly occurred at high speed, wasn't solved. There were so many wheels and drivers needed to be replaced during her short service life.
Now this is important: did he say "drivers" or "driver tires"? And note that the enormous inertia of the locomotive, and the long distance from the truck pivot to the leading driver flanges, didn't make it easy for slip forces to be accommodated when (not if) they developed.
Are there answers? Yes, and many of the ones developed for the T1 are applicable on an S1. Even if we treat the 84" drivers in Golsdorf fashion and make no expectations of speed above the 110mph of the speed recorder, we need nothing more than proportional steam throttling off the Q2 analog-computer mechanism and lateral-acting rim brakes to solve the issue definitively. Just that there's no point in optimizing a 140' engine that weighs as much as a Big Boy to pull just one money-losing train.
I can see the author also noted that the S1 was *probably built exclusively for the World Fair, (the whole construction progress was unnaturally kept as a secret) but he couldn't find any solid evidence to back up this point.
The best evidence, to me, is that all the major locomotive builders conspired in the construction process. That means the engine was intended as a kind of Four Aces on steroids, a proof of the duplex 'concept' that was over the top in the same way many show cars with over-1000-horsepower quad-turbo engines are. It just happened that PRR wanted such an engine, and nobody else did. So they got the demo built to their particular wishes.
The idea of the duplex, a by-product of the competition between the New York Central and PRR ...
That is almost certainly not what it came out of. You will note that little B&O started building theirs not long after the idea was first floated, and NYC based most of theirs on PRR's second-generation design ... only to abort the whole idea before any metal was even cut or cast to make one.
Think of the duplex as the last gasp of '20s-style design, aimed at increasing practical horsepower and capacity through multiple cylinders while reducing old-school augment force on the track, and keeping all the cylinders and presumably their valve gear nicely outboard and familiar to maintenance forces. For 1933 it was a marvelous innovation; the point was that better ways to achieve high horsepower out of a 4-8-4 were only just being practically tested out -- with one glaring failure still almost a half-decade in the future.
The biggest thing PRR did with duplexes, in my opinion, was how to get four rear-facing cylinders accommodated with minimal impact on the rigid wheelbase. In a cast engine bed. The solution on the Q2, and it was a very conscious and experienced solution, was so good that its rigid wheelbase, for almost 8000hp at high speed, is actually less than an ATSF 5011-class 2-10-4 of markedly lower capacity. But, of course, unless you have an actual need (and commensurate bottom-line return on investment) for that kind of power, you're better off providing yourself with...
Pennsy low key constructed 4-8-4s based ... on their own M1s or K5...
Would have been nice to ream out important gage restrictions on suitable main lines to make larger engines possible. In particular had the stack revolution started at the end of WWII instead of waiting until the '70s, the additional clearance could have made a high-wheel class J a practical thing. Of course it would be impossibly top-heavy and head for the ditch every chance it could take, but that's another story...
It is interesting to consider what an improved Mountain could have offered PRR -- or more precisely what you'd get by putting a modern welded boiler together with Snyders and Cunningham on an M1a with a lower back-pressure front end. Remember the extra axle for carrying? Now you have a locomotive with appropriate cylinder capacity needing only the lightweight running gear to thrive ... and how many of them had PRR (over)bought by the Depression era?
And disc mains on 72" with the lightweight gear is all the improvement needed for balancing up well past 110mph...
Just no fun even thinking about streamlining one, let alone a fleet of them. Could be done, of course, but it's a waste of the weight, much like the Blue Goose shroud slated for ATSF 3765.
I really don't understand the transaction between C&O and Baldwin for the M-1 turbine electric...
It's really simple: Baldwin essentially lied through their teeth to get C&O to buy in to their project for a 6000hp single-unit turbine. Probably pointing over at the idea of N&W getting modified V1s, which is still one of those inexplicable road-not-taken stories of the mid-1940s.
Now, I'd thought (from reading the story on the Chessie in Trains) that one of the ideas behind that train was that it would be a rolling palace, something like 32 cars long assembled outside its origin station and disassembled and multiple-switched into adjacent tracks on arrival. A train that size going over C&O's grades needs a steam-turbine electric of that size to avoid double-heading or worse, even if we ignore all the slipping and other limitations of 2-cylinder simple steam locomotives doing that job.
It turns out that the plans were scaled back (and nearly everyone could get C&O ordered cars for a good price up to a couple of years later!) and of course nobody really needed a supertrain to Cincinnati (just ask B&O and N&W, who actually geared up for the potential competition in this period but to my knowledge didn't make anything much out of it) so it wound up being the capacity to take a train quicker over the mountains that could then be handled by, say, a 490-class streamlined Hudson on the flatter portions. And I really don't doubt that Baldwin told them the same lie they told N&W over the 'final solution' TE-1 design: that it was capable of high horsepower at 65mph or better.
Which of course it wasn't -- neither of them was. The turbine is relatively fixed-horsepower as designed, if it has to exhaust to atmosphere; even if it weren't, the output is pegged by generator capability. And by traction-motor limitations. Even in the absence of conductive and abrasive coal dust and liberal amounts of moisture and high sulfur in some of the coal... and so on.
A full-welded boiler, already becoming a trade possibility as the M-1s were being assembled, might have helped the design. But little in the driveline was going to 'thrive', and practical alternatives would have involved technology that really didn't mature until this century.
I'd like to have seen a destreamlined version of the M-1 run, though. That would be cool.
... for C&O's management led by Robert Ralph Young, it was probably one of the most reckless decisions ever made by the leader of a class I railroad in the western hemisphere.
I don't know if the Leader class then a-buildin' in Blighty technically counts as being in the Western Hemisphere (it would of course be very close even if not) but that makes an M-1 look like a gold-edged bond by comparison. And this was FAR from the wackiest thing the little weasel inflicted on C&O, or NYC for that matter -- by the way, you have him more or less directly to blame for why there are no preserved Hudsons or Niagaras. Just so you and Vince know.
I won't be surprised if all three of them were actually gifted to (or 70% off) C&O but I am just assuming and do not want any people getting offended.
You know, I never even thought about that angle.
My guess is Baldwin got full price both for 'development' and construction, as C&O was a cash-rich 'sucker' with only incidental exposure to more than conservative motive-power development up to that era. More interesting is that even an 'improved' J-3 type Greenbrier wouldn't have been capable of the turbine's anticipated performance; it's difficult to imagine any eight-coupled doing the work or any ten- or twelve-coupled making the time.
What I find reprehensible is how quickly Baldwin left C&O twisting in the breeze after all the showstopping problems turned up. But by then the diesel revolution and the free-piston extravaganza were in full swing there, and the finances going swiftly to hell.
When we read about the history of many class I railroads which survived the decline, they seldom or never introduce any experimental steam engine during the transitional era...
Oh, there were many; they were just stillborn and then their records were lost or disposed of. You'd have seen quite a bit more interesting steam in the late '40s and perhaps into the early '50s had GM not bought EMC and Winton in the early Thirties and then turned those talented people loose on commercializing large road power. I for one would have liked to see exactly what LV planned to do with a Q2-style duplex in a world where Alco and Baldwin weren't spurred to diesel production and Lima wasn't castrated in a merger-of-convenience.
Overmod-- " by the way, you have him more or less directly to blame for why there are no preserved Hudsons or Niagaras. Just so you and Vince know."
Well thank you for that. Have read much the same previously but no details. He certainly was an innovative and forward looking character but a victim of the times and his own addle minded visions. Did not survive the stock spiralling downward of the New York Central.
As the adage goes " there but the grace of God go I".
Interesting to speculate and arm chair quarterback motive power and make the necessary adjustments. A more cautious approach would not have stopped much and 1960 was just around the corner.
Way way too much to say about that. It's in my book!
Thanks a lot, Overmod and Vince! I am busy handling some people's emergency situation right now (no worries, we are ok) I will write a response to you guys later!
Overmod Just as a heads-up: At the beginning of this thread, back in 2018, Peter Clark was going to look up PRR S1 6100 in Reuter's Rekord-Lokomotiven. I don't remember what the actual result of that check was. Perhaps if Mr. Clark is away from the references, or if someone else wants to comment on this, here is the amazon.com listing for the book. (There are of course other sources; it's not a 'rare book' yet.)
Overmod,
Could you indicate what aspect of the S1 you wanted information about from Reuter's book? I'll be back home some time next week.
I can recall pulling the book out and checkng it last year, but I may not have answered your request.
I've been showing another Trains forum member around much of New South Wales, if that is an excuse...
Peter
M636CCould you indicate what aspect of the S1 you wanted information about from Reuter's book?
This was really more of a 'bump' than an actual request for something. Anything that 'jumped out at you' as being valuable, say to Jones1945 who loves this particular locomotive, would probably be useful.
One "emergent" thing I'd like to see on 6100, although it almost certainly isn't in Rekord-Lokomotiven, is the set of acceleration curves taken with that reported 73-car freight train. Particularly in the region above about 35mph (where the T1 was reported to 'come on the cam', as it were...) There ought to be a 'sweet spot' in between low-speed and high-speed slipping where the engines can develop high torque with relatively little instability, and if the engine were worked strictly in this region it might have realized some of the expected potential.
I only wish I could be there too.
Dear Overmod and Peter, I have Reuter's book, but I can only giving short replies right now. Once everything settles down on my side, I will write a thorough reply to you guys. Thanks a lot!
"I wish you would have somebody get to work designing a fast passenger engine of even greater capacity than now established.
You will observe that the New York Central is advertising that their new engine is capable of making 100 miles per hour.
Keep me posted on the progress of the work.
J.F Deasy
May 22, 1936 "
Overmod But you are forgetting the most important lesson imparted by the high-speed testing: the class J just didn't fit enough of the PRR. Boiler was too big, for example, to run anywhere near Chicago. Likewise you couldn't start with a Q2 boiler less one course; that was at clearance limit with only 69" ... not even 70" ... drivers.
Sorry for the late reply, what a week! I really have forgotten the clearance restrictions in PRR's network, Mr. Overmod! Even the M1s were not allowed to operate on part of PRR's network. When Pennsy was designing the new prime steam power to rival the newly design NYCRR 100mph engine, later the S1, clearance was an important factor and Pennsy did pay a lot of attention to it. Turn out it is still exaggeratedly long and heavy. I think we discussed before of a 4-8-4 base on the K5 and M1b, it was fun!
Overmod With the help of our forumer Reed, I have the chance to read the 7-page article about the S1 in Milepost's back issue of 1992. It seems that the wheel slip problem, probably mostly occurred at high speed, wasn't solved. There were so many wheels and drivers needed to be replaced during her short service life. Are there answers? Yes, and many of the ones developed for the T1 are applicable on an S1. Even if we treat the 84" drivers in Golsdorf fashion and make no expectations of speed above the 110mph of the speed recorder, we need nothing more than proportional steam throttling off the Q2 analog-computer mechanism and lateral-acting rim brakes to solve the issue definitively. Just that there's no point in optimizing a 140' engine that weighs as much as a Big Boy to pull just one money-losing train.
The Author, Charlie Mayer said that after the S1 racked up 161,000 miles, Pennsy "dropped at least 18 pairs of driving wheels, removed trailer wheels 8 times and engine truck wheels 4 times (within 4 years). " I suspect that the heavy loading on all axles with a bad weight distribution of the rigid frame of S1 caused both driving wheels and tires worn out or broken within a short period of time. It is hard to believe that an engine designed by the three largest steam engine manufacturer of America made an engine that "impracticable".In hindsight, the PRR #5399 was the best answer to J. F. Deasy!
The Author also mentioned that a railfan named David A. Hill observed front engine slipping in 1944 and wrote a letter to Pennsy. His theory was that the center of gravity of S1 was higher than the drawbar line caused the engine "to rear up on its hind legs", David suggested increasing the relative weight of the front engine. Pennsy's ME replied to him patiently explaining why the problems were not easy to be solved. I wonder if this was the reason why Pennsy enlarged the sandbox on the S1 which was the only thing they could do to increase a little bit of weight on the front engine. I am looking forward to a 3D computer model of S1 which could simulate and demonstrate how slippy she was!
Overmod I can see the author also noted that the S1 was *probably built exclusively for the World Fair, (the whole construction progress was unnaturally kept as a secret) but he couldn't find any solid evidence to back up this point. The best evidence, to me, is that all the major locomotive builders conspired in the construction process. That means the engine was intended as a kind of Four Aces on steroids, a proof of the duplex 'concept' that was over the top in the same way many show cars with over-1000-horsepower quad-turbo engines are. It just happened that PRR wanted such an engine, and nobody else did. So they got the demo built to their particular wishes.
I love the metaphor of Four Aces on steroids. It was so obvious that S1 was built for the global event, the 1939-40 World Fair. Oversized, overpowered, over-modded. According to the Milepost magazine, one of the things Pennsy concerned a lot when designing the S1 was the clearance of the new engine which makes me believe that Pennsy and the related department of the World Fair wanted to build a steam engine which could wow the public but also could have been operating in PRR's network instead of a completely useless white-elephant.
OvermodThe idea of the duplex, a by-product of the competition between the New York Central and PRR ... That is almost certainly not what it came out of. You will note that little B&O started building theirs not long after the idea was first floated, and NYC based most of theirs on PRR's second-generation design ... only to abort the whole idea before any metal was even cut or cast to make one. The biggest thing PRR did with duplexes, in my opinion, was how to get four rear-facing cylinders accommodated with minimal impact on the rigid wheelbase. In a cast engine bed. The solution on the Q2, and it was a very conscious and experienced solution, was so good that its rigid wheelbase, for almost 8000hp at high speed, is actually less than an ATSF 5011-class 2-10-4 of markedly lower capacity. But, of course, unless you have an actual need (and commensurate bottom-line return on investment) for that kind of power, you're better off providing yourself with...
Another careless mistake of me. I should have said "the idea of S1 and T1". It would be interesting to see a chart comparing the operating cost of PRR Q2 and ATSF 5011, their TE was close but the Q2 had almost an extra 3000hp more power output than the 5011 class. In actual operation after WWII, the PRR Q2 probably seldom needed to be pushing to their limits. But I don't have the figures.
Speaking of B&O's N-1, I read somewhere that one problem of it was the extra heat of the firebox affected the lubricant in the rear cylinders. I am not sure if it was the case and if the lubricant was affected, did Pennsy find the solution four years later when they were designing the Q1.
OvermodI'd like to have seen a destreamlined version of the M-1 run, though. That would be cool.
OvermodI don't know if the Leader class then a-buildin' in Blighty technically counts as being in the Western Hemisphere (it would, of course, be very close even if not) but that makes an M-1 look like a gold-edged bond by comparison. And this was FAR from the wackiest thing the little weasel inflicted on C&O, or NYC for that matter -- by the way, you have him more or less directly to blame for why there are no preserved Hudsons or Niagaras. Just so you and Vince know.
OvermodWhat I find reprehensible is how quickly Baldwin left C&O twisting in the breeze after all the showstopping problems turned up. But by then the diesel revolution and the free-piston extravaganza were in full swing there, and the finances going swiftly to hell.
OvermodOh, there were many; they were just stillborn and then their records were lost or disposed of.
Overmod M636C Could you indicate what aspect of the S1 you wanted information about from Reuter's book? This was really more of a 'bump' than an actual request for something. Anything that 'jumped out at you' as being valuable, say to Jones1945 who loves this particular locomotive, would probably be useful. One "emergent" thing I'd like to see on 6100, although it almost certainly isn't in Rekord-Lokomotiven, is the set of acceleration curves taken with that reported 73-car freight train. Particularly in the region above about 35mph (where the T1 was reported to 'come on the cam', as it were...) There ought to be a 'sweet spot' in between low-speed and high-speed slipping where the engines can develop high torque with relatively little instability, and if the engine were worked strictly in this region it might have realized some of the expected potentials. I've been showing another Trains forum member around much of New South Wales, if that is an excuse... I only wish I could be there too.
M636C Could you indicate what aspect of the S1 you wanted information about from Reuter's book?
One "emergent" thing I'd like to see on 6100, although it almost certainly isn't in Rekord-Lokomotiven, is the set of acceleration curves taken with that reported 73-car freight train. Particularly in the region above about 35mph (where the T1 was reported to 'come on the cam', as it were...) There ought to be a 'sweet spot' in between low-speed and high-speed slipping where the engines can develop high torque with relatively little instability, and if the engine were worked strictly in this region it might have realized some of the expected potentials.
I forget to mention about Reuter's book. The author says a speed record of S1 was made in March 1946 when the S1 was hauling a Trail Blazer trying to make up time. The S1 hit 141.2 mph in this run according to an ICC official's estimation. I think we heard about this story or myth too many times.
I couldn't find too many "new" material about S1 in the book. Many passages are about PRR's brief history, the idea and the development of the duplex steam engine, B&O's N-1; the design, construction, operating history of S1 and its capabilities, the specification of S1, comparison of the BR 05 to S1 from a German's point of view, T1 phototypes and Q2's brief history...etc,.
The only interesting thing I found in this book is that the indizierte leistung of the S1 was ca.5890kW (8000 PS), which I don't know where and how the figure was obtained by the author. According to the formula used by ALCo, the power output of S1 was around 7200hp. I posted a pic before, showing how accurate the formula is.
I think Reuter got his information from Arnold Haas -- probably thinking Haas was as 'expert' on PRR as he was on NYC. The 141.2 is obviously a translation from metric (as you can quickly determine based first on the 110mph speedometer, and second on the timing precision you'd need to discriminate tenths of a mph with any stopwatch from mileposts at that speed ... one of those things that trips up a good story, like T1s with 120mph speedometers just like cars.
"Indizierte leistung" is just the German translation of ihp, the horsepower that a device called an 'indicator' calculates from characteristics of the valve gear. (You can get a good idea what the device looks like, and how it works, from the Internet better than I could describe it)
The point here is that ihp, while a good theoretical number, is usually exaggerated over directly-measured wheelrim or dbhp. Angus Sinclair had some amusing comments back in the day on how locomotives with perfect indicator diagrams sometimes failed to perform better than those with diagrams resembling 'a small leg of mutton'...
Overmod "Indizierte leistung" is just the German translation of ihp, the horsepower that a device called an 'indicator' calculates from characteristics of the valve gear. (You can get a good idea what the device looks like, and how it works, from the Internet better than I could describe it) The point here is that ihp, while a good theoretical number, is usually exaggerated over directly-measured wheelrim or dbhp. Angus Sinclair had some amusing comments back in the day on how locomotives with perfect indicator diagrams sometimes failed to perform better than those with diagrams resembling 'a small leg of mutton'...
Exactly where did you study engineering?
An indicator is far from theoretical.
The indicators I was taught to use were small cylinders which rotated against a spring using small cables connected to the piston rod at the crosshead end. The stylus operated vertically against spring pressure measuring the pressure in the cylinder.
So the diagram was far from theoretical, being based on actual piston travel against actual pressure in the cylinder. However, there was plenty of room for errors of various kinds in producing a diagram, particularly on a moving locomotive.
But experimental error does not make a measurement theoretical. It is just harder to draw the correct conclusions from the data.
The best examples of indicator diagrams which clearly show the power output are Chapelon's diagrams showing high and low pressure for the P-O Pacifics before and after his modifications. The high pressure diagrams were similar, but the low pressure were entirely different.
The power is measured by calculating the area inside the indicator diagram, so the "thin" and "flat" diagrams represented low power.
The main difference between indicated and drawbar horsepower is the internal resistance of the engine itself and the power required to move its own weight. But it is an actual measure of engine power, just not the same as drawbar horsepower.
Crosby Indicator on 600 HP Snow Pipeline Compressor Engine
The indicator: 08:40
The Story of the Steam Engine Indicator
https://www.farmcollector.com/steam-traction/story-steam-engine-indicator
M636CAn indicator is far from theoretical.
It does not measure mass flow, only secondary characteristics. If steam were more like an ideal gas, this might be less significant, but it is not.
That said, I'd certainly rather have a set of cards from a well-calibrated indicator than not.
Overmod M636C An indicator is far from theoretical. It does not measure mass flow, only secondary characteristics. If steam were more like an ideal gas, this might be less significant, but it is not. That said, I'd certainly rather have a set of cards from a well-calibrated indicator than not.
M636C An indicator is far from theoretical.
I am happy to agree that the indicator does not provide every parameter desirable for evaluation, but it does measure real locomotive characteristics and pressure against piston stroke is pretty useful.
The indicator diagrams of Paris Orleans 3566 show pretty clearly the effect of Chapelon's modifications when comparisons are made between the before and after diagrams. The differences in the indicator diagrams were reflected in tests of the locomotive's performance on the main line. While additional data might have shown more clearly which characteristics were influenced by which changes, The P-O were able to determine this by making changes to critical parts of the steam circuit without the costly poppet valves on other locomotives which showed less heroic performance improvements.
The indicator was able to measure critical parameters and provided the best information available at the time (the late 1920s). And it was always true experimental data.
M636CThe indicator was able to measure critical parameters and provided the best information available at the time (the late 1920s). And it was always true experimental data.
You will never hear me saying either that indicated data are worthless or that running a properly-calibrated indicator as an integral part of a test program shouldn't be done.
There is a bit of a fundamental issue here, in that a steam engine is less a "heat engine" than a pressure engine, but we call it that because heat energy is what makes the pressure that actually performs the work. The difficulties start when people start making decisions about Rankine efficiency and heat balance based on pressure data, without doing the necessary thinking. (This is part of why thermodynamics went to 'entropy', which has caused so many generations of students to tear their hair wondering "WHY???" without ever having it explained to them).
If you wonder, for example, what became of the French experiments with ether bottoming circa 1850... not all pressure represents the ability to do much work. In my opinion it becomes difficult to understand what a pressure measurement denotes when you are studying compression in an engine running at 9rps or higher, as the peak measurement (while of considerable importance!) is taken in such a short time interval that other effects may interfere. [Yes, I think that this or something similar is related to what I consider the grossly-excessive dead space in the PRR Q2s and some other designs - so far as there is in fact a rational basis for it.]
I have a suspicion, without yet seeing the reference, that the 'steam flow indicator' is not actually related to event indicators at all; could it be part of the drifting arrangements on that locomotive? I will check and confirm later.
Some concept drawings by Raymond Loewy I found recently:
Click on the pic to enlarge
The draft on the bottom was probably the concept of "modern" 4-4-4-4 Camelback.
Draft on the bottom likely related to the direct-drive turbine, with coal bunker leading. It is interesting to me that he does not bring up the 'Triplex' layout at all here.
Amusing how he points out the difference in 'covering up' the two things. We could easily extrapolate this to 1947, the year we got the C&O streamlining ... and Bikini testing...
Gotta love the svelte Gallic curve of that question mark!
Overmod Draft on the bottom likely related to the direct-drive turbine, with coal bunker leading. It is interesting to me that he does not bring up the 'Triplex' layout at all here. Amusing how he points out the difference in 'covering up' the two things. We could easily extrapolate this to 1947, the year we got the C&O streamlining ... and Bikini testing... Gotta love the svelte Gallic curve of that question mark!
Working with Loewy's team in the 1930s must be a fun thing, but even the most talented industrial designer at the time couldn't foresee things like racing swimsuits aka competitive swimwear. (at least not in the drawing posted) Though I can understand that nude beach probably was a better fit to Loewy's lifestyle (No offense intended!) and that is a wonderful, slender question mark.
The draft of the direct-drive turbine looked so much better than the finalized proposal given to the Pennsy and the C&O M-1. It is interesting to see that so much effort was put by Loewy to cover up his secret weapon... I mean his "Triplex".
Some patent drawings of the proposed PRR Unit Train designed by Raymond Loewy:
Background history of the PRR Unit Train (From PRR Chronology):
Jan. 1935
PRR establishes the "Unit Train Committee" of representatives from Pullman, Loewy, GE, Westinghouse, and Gibbs & Hill to consider developing lightweight articulated streamliners for New York-Chicago (13 cars) and New York-Washington (14 cars) routes similar to those being adopted on western railroads. (possibly very late Dec. 1934) (CMP)
Mar. 4, 1935
VP C.D. Young for PRR engages exclusive railroad services of industrial designer Raymond Loewy for $20,000 per year plus expenses; Loewy is to design for no other railroad or railroad equipment manufacturers without PRR's consent and PRR is to have use of all Loewy's railroad designs; PRR not to employ another designer; Loewy's first big assignments are to streamline a K4s and work on the New York-Chicago Unit Train. (SMPE)
June 1935
Unit Train Committee also explores possibility of converting surplus P70's into high-speed (90 MPH) MU cars to be operated in combinations of 2- or 3-unit articulated sets; eventually rejected as requiring expensive modifications; also consider high-speed MP54's for use between New York and Trenton and Baltimore and Washington; Raymond Loewy does styling for both proposals. (CMP)
==============
Jan. 7, 1936
Unit Train Committee makes report with design of a 14-car articulated train of aluminum construction capable of operating between New York and Washington in 3 hours; estimated cost $715,000 each for 2 units; special locomotive similar to City of Denver (of Union Pacific) is replaced by GG1; plans are displayed in Philadelphia for private viewing by selected industrialists and civic leaders. (VPO)
Mar. 29, 1936
Unit Train Committee reports on alternative scheme for 14-car Congressional of modernized heavyweight equipment; cost put at $717,000 for 2 trains vs. $1.43 million for 2 unit trains; leads to Loewy commission for modernized P70s; better flexibility in high-density corridors with wildly fluctuating demand. (CMP)
Oct. 26, 1936
Unit Train Committee presents plan for new deluxe New York-Chicago coach train consisting of 6 rebuilt P70's, baggage and dining cars. (CMP)
Nov. 17, 1936
Unit Train Committee reports on proposal for a fast coach train between New York and Chicago to cost $228,800; will require rebuilding 12 coaches, 2 baggage cars and 2 diners for 2 trainsets; to be similar to Union Pacific's Challenger and operate as advance section of Golden Arrow on 17:40 schedule; to use Scheme 3 rebuilt P70's with 360 seats, with one car reserved for women and children and to carry stewardess and porter; should be placed in service as soon as possible; plan results in the Trail Blazer of 1939. (CMP)
Dec. 17, 1936
Unit Train Committee reports on 90 MPH truck tests between Fort Wayne and Valparaiso; also tests lightweight and rebuilt heavyweight cars from Milwaukee, Union Pacific, Santa Fe; tests continue into early 1938. (CMP)
Mar. 27, 1937
Motive Power Dept. committee submits report on modernizing The Congressional in place of the Unit Train of 1936; calls for a 14-car train of modernized heavyweight equipment, which can be reduced to 11 cars in periods of light traffic; total cost $717,200; includes two diners and cafe-coach. (CMP)
Aug. 3, 1937
Raymond Lowey and Warren R. Elsey of PRR patent the design for the streamlined electric locomotive and observation car from the never-tobe-built Unit Train. (CMP)
Nov. 23, 1937
Memo to Chief of Motive Power F.W. Hankins notes that Raymond Loewy is developing a new exterior color scheme for both lightweight Pullmans and Budd diners; becomes distinctive two-tone red "Fleet of Modernism" scheme with Futura sans-serif lettering first used in 1938. (CMP)
The "Unit Train Committee" dissolved in 1937, after the much more practical and economical new brand "Fleet of Modernism" that consisted of about 400 new and rebuilt cars was established.
Raymond Loewy signed a contract with PRR since 1935, presuming Loewy worked with PRR until 1948 and his salary increased by 15% each year on average, PRR spent around $410,000 (equal to $7,357,537 in 2019) on Loewy, excluding expenses. Somewhat reasonable price compared to a golden handshake of multinational corporations' CEO nowadays, though Loewy kept working after he ended his business relationship with the PRR. Was money well spent? I think there was plenty of room to maximize the influence of Loewy's works. Like the "battle" between PRR, NYC, and B&O in the New York to Washington D.C., Chicago passenger trains market; besides a new livery and streamlining or the cars, Pennsy could have done more to change the overwhelming domination by New York Central. The F.O.M brand; the fleet needed more than one streamlined K4s to lead them west of Harrisburg. The fleet of GG1 was streamlined, good looking and popular, but they were not exclusively built for a named train and somewhat not as distinctive as the Dreyfuss Hudson or steam engine like the Daylight GS series. The Broadway Limited needed not only more windows on the dining car but also more gimmicks and talking points of the train's service and hardware.
The design of the patented Unit Train itself is not that impressive, to be honest, it might look great in real life, but I think Loewy could have done better than those drawings. Yes, he did a magnificent job on S1 6-4-4-6 and T1 4-4-4-4 after the Unit Train project. They were unforgettable and symbolic, but unfortunately, the S1 engine itself was a "concept car" showpiece instead of something practical and built ready for smooth daily operation. The fleet of "passenger shark" had the potential to be a perfect full stop of Loewy's business with PRR, but once again, the fleet was problematic...
https://digital.hagley.org
Some new historical photos of the construction of PRR 6110, 6111 uploaded to rrmuseumpa.org:
The poppet valve gear cambox?
All the pipes were stuffed under the streamlining side skirt. Can you see the "unaccessible cambox" in this pic? I can't... : )
PRR 6111 was the only T1 installed with a booster engine on the trailing truck.
PRR 6110 and 6111 had a longer service life than the production T1s.
Thank you.
Yes, that's the forward-engine cambox. See the two 'shafts' to either side, with sufficient diameter that torsion won't affect their angular precision? Those go to the actual cams, with followers that move the valves. On this engine there are four of them, one for each valve position (exhaust outside, inlet inside, as you see in the cylinder-block pictures) and they rock (OC) rather than rotating as you might think.
You know, I think you might actually see the corner of the 'upright' rear-engine cambox in there. I'll have to look at the drawings when I can to confirm it would be visible from that position.
These are among the first pictures I remember seeing on the Web that show the layout of the actual cam housings and associated lubrication without the cylinder casing applied.
I now understand a bit better why more of these locomotives didn't have boosters, even though (in my opinion) they needed that sort of assistance badly...
Overmod Yes, that's the forward-engine cambox. See the two 'shafts' to either side, with sufficient diameter that torsion won't affect their angular precision? Those go to the actual cams, with followers that move the valves. On this engine there are four of them, one for each valve position (exhaust outside, inlet inside, as you see in the cylinder-block pictures) and they rock (OC) rather than rotating as you might think. You know, I think you might actually see the corner of the 'upright' rear-engine cambox in there. I'll have to look at the drawings when I can to confirm it would be visible from that position. These are among the first pictures I remember seeing on the Web that show the layout of the actual cam housings and associated lubrication without the cylinder casing applied. I now understand a bit better why more of these locomotives didn't have boosters, even though (in my opinion) they needed that sort of assistance badly...
I remember the prototype T1 once stuck before leaving the station and require a helper to push it, and the booster on 6111 was removed later due to the unloading problem caused by the long equalizing beam between two engines. Baldwin wanted to sell the duplex to other railroads like Atlantic Coast Line, if PRR's T1 had a very smooth operation track record, they might have found some buyers besides the PRR (And NYC/C1a). When I was looking at these pics, I feel like looking at a very successful steam engine installed with all the state of the art goodies...... the rest is history. :P
I found this recently: from C&O Historical Magazine May 2006 (Available for download for free). Somebody has enough time can make an animation base on this one.
Link: https://cf.cohs.org/repository/archives/web/cohm/cohm-2006-05.pdf
Please put up the exact URL you used to get these, as it's been impossible to reach the old C&O Magazine issues Dave Stephenson used to reference for a few years. (The 'actual' accounts of the T1 testing on C&O are also available there, which should interest and enlighten those who read them).
This is the first time I've heard that the reason for the 'booster delete' was associated with the equalization-conjugation beam. The odd thing about that as a reason is, of course, that the beam was undesirable for further reasons, and was appropriately removed (and snubbing ties at the center of the driver wheelbase substituted) in all the production engines. So it would have been logical to at least consider limited application of some kind of boosting to the engines, particularly as the slipping problem began to appear critical.
That is, unless the cost would be 'good money after bad' ... or the slipping were somehow important to getting rid of the locomotives quicker rather than later...
Personally, I never quite agreed that Stauffer's comment about boosters on Niagaras -- that they needed a clinkety booster about as much as a Christmas tree sticking out of the stack -- quite applies to T1s, which were poster children for auxiliary locomotives for being short-stroke engines alone, never mind all the other low-speed uses an added low-slip driving axle equivalent ... or two, now that you mention it... might furnish.
Those drawings you have are probably for the RC Franklin as applied to the L-2 Hudsons, judging by the cam profiles. OC cams, as on most of the T1s (and I think 490 and her sisters had them on C&O) would be largely symmetrical relative to the followers. Note that the drawings show neither nested counterwound 'snubber' springs to return the valves, or any kind of progressive winding to control debounced unporting and seat or spool breakage simultaneously. That would indicate they're either 'oversimplified' for the press (cf. that 'Simplified for Clarity'), or purposely not drawn to show 'trade secrets' in design... that is, if we assume Franklin knew what they were doing, something that has been disproved repeatedly in the history of poppet-valve gear in America.
You know boys, I look at those construction photos of the T1 and all I can think of is...
"All that design genius, all that foundry work, all that machine shop artistry, all that sweat, patience, and probably a little blood, and then wrapped up in a Raymond Lowey gift-wrap, gone for scrap, like it all meant nothing. Nothing at all."
What a shame. Like trashing the "Mona Lisa" because her hair and dress are out of style.
Flintlock76"All that design genius, all that foundry work, all that machine shop artistry, all that sweat, patience, and probably a little blood, and then wrapped up in a Raymond Loewy gift-wrap, gone for scrap, like it all meant nothing. Nothing at all."
And if you think THIS was something ... look at the outlay (in pre-Bretton Woods dollars, no less!) PRR made on the S1. That was real money.
To an extent, though, these were the high-maintenance women of the railroad world. And, not to put too much of a point on the metaphor, these were ladies who had to work for a living with little proper attention, an increasingly poor diet, and the wrong sort of johns entirely. When they failed to produce, they were let go...
And, truth to tell, when you've had enough of the prima-donna or diva issues, and you've had a better offer from a sturdier or more down-to-earth gal, you might come to a point where enough's enough, and less drama for the 'hit' on your wallet might be better... when you come right down to it, PRR got much better use out of braces of E8s than they ever would out of T1s, for far longer, and well into the decline into dotage of the railroad itself. Can you imagine trying to run T1s in the late '60s ... let alone under Penn Central?
At least the harm is being redressed, in part, by the Trust. We'll see the effect of one again.
Well hey, they could have run a T1 or two in the steam-starved 60's and called it a ride, not transportation. I'll betcha that would have gotten some "butts in seats," as the airlines say!
But as John Lennon once said, "You can call me a dreamer, but I'm not the only one..."
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