dumbasapostWhat trains did the T-1 pull? Did it ever pull the Broadway Limited? What would a prototypical consist look like for a T-1 in the early 1950's?
Just a quick time-out from the technical T1 thread hijacking now in progress, to make sure the original poster's questions were answered:
As a little background, which we've alluded to but never quite fully discussed, PRR had three things going on up to the time the T1 became the follow-on to the multiple-builder S1 project. Consists were getting heavier, some cars were getting lighter, and peak speeds were expected to become faster. Meanwhile, PRR's last experiments with 'modern' power (the M1 and K5) came just at the point that modern balancing was having its revolution. It was assumed right up to the early '30s that an eight-coupled engine like a 4-8-4 would not be used for high speed (hence the plethora of high-speed Hudsons) and the experiments on NYC with 69" and then 72"-drivered Mountains were (to my knowledge) never applied to the M1s for passenger service before the mad-scientist duplex pitch gained the traction it did.
Many typical PRR trains were therefore too long and heavy for a single K4 (or, likely, even a single M1 modified for faster running) and were given doubleheaded power, which might be thought of as an 80"-drivered articulated locomotive with greater evaporation than an N&W A. (Had it been possible to MU two K4s, with the use of Franklin Precision air throttles as applied to the T1s and perhaps an improved version of the automatic cutoff control operational as early as 1922, this might have remained a better option for the longest single-train passenger-plus-M&E consists PRR could have, right up to the maximum stable speed a K4 would routinely operate ... but that still ain't quite 100mph.)
Turns out that a reasonable power allocation to a heavy PRR consist would be two E6s Atlantics (rather than K4s) and putting the two four-coupled engines under a common boiler -- with corresponding smaller-than-usual grate area -- would provide the combination of additional power and free-running performance that PRR wanted. So, the answer to your first question was that the T1 would be expected to pull the sort of train seen with two K4s.
As lightweight "Fleet of Modernism" consists began to come in, but with them the additional loads coming with more axle-powered generators for lighting and AC, etc., you would adjust the consist accordingly. The original T1s were designed to pull 880 trailing tons at 100mph, and I think the design was overbuilt enough to achieve better performance than that. Single consist was probably at that point limited more by station-platform length than by number of cars that the engine could pull.
There are, I think, published pictures of both 'Buck Rogers' and 'Flash Gordon' on the Broadway - I'd expect these to be more than just publicity shots. However, a couple of the design issues with the suspension, in particular the idea of using the long beam equalizer under the rear cylinder block to equalize all four driver pairs (which turned out not to be good) might have kept those prototypes out of regular assignment to premier trains.
I also expect you'll find a number of pre-'47 shots of T1s on the major trains. A problem was that, due to a combination of poor coal, the effects of the smaller grate size, and the relatively poor smoke lifting of the high-efficiency exhaust and streamlining, the T1s tended to be dirty engines; whether that governed some of their assignments I don't know for sure.
Post '48 the T1s were reassigned to secondary consists, more and more so as the various orders of passenger diesels came in. One problem here is that these tended to be maximum tonnage, sometimes on poorer rail and under less favorable environmental conditions, and involve plenty of starting and stopping -- these not being favorable to the T1s design even if the high-speed slipping were redressed. In this connection it is important to read what Dave Stephenson has said about the C&O tests (which in 1948 implicitly included at least some of the suspension fine-tuning modifications). Do not trust the railfan reports of these tests, as quite a bit of outright mendacity has entered in. But do observe the problems involved with starting a heavy train upgrade with a very short stroke for the driver diameter. The reported issue was stalling, not slipping (and C&O's own answer, as seen on the J3a 4-8-4s, was a good high-speed booster).
A prototypical consist for a T1 by the early 1950s would be a secondary train that still needed (or would benefit from) higher-speed operation in places where that could be attained. There are numerous pictures from that era that, analyzed by people familiar with PRR consists, would give you detailed information; there are also people on the PRR-FAX list who have exact consist sheets for particular trains on particular days, and it would not be difficult to sort these on the basis of locomotive number to get a breakdown on what T1s were pulling (or expected to pull).
There is little doubt that a good 4-8-4 providing about "5/4 the performance of a M1a at medium-high speed" (which was the stated design objective of the Q1) would have been more useful to PRR after 1948 than the divided-drive engines were. This was especially so after ICC 29543 restricted high-speed operation and some of the characteristics of diesel power allowed reduction of end-to-end times with much reduced need for pure high-speed capability. However, this might have likely been a downsized turbine and not a reciprocating locomotive, or a V1 articulated-chassis turbine, in the short period PRR would still be designing and building new steam. Sadly (to me) the devices that made mechanical turbine drive practical on large American power were described for PRR just past the point it was recognized that dieselization was a 'better answer' -- as, indeed, they were in important respects even for steam with N&W/NYC-like service reliability.
You specified the 1950's, when T1's were operating with the simplified streamlining. The bulbous nose would be out of place in that time frame. By the 1950's, T1's weren't likely to appear on first-line passenger runs such as the Broadway, General, or Spirit of St. Louis unless the diesels failed and there was an emergency substitution of power. Late photos (i.e. 1950's) tend to show T1's hauling trains that have heavy head end traffic. Remember, east of Harrisburg was electrified territory, and T1's were no longer normally operating Fort Wayne to Chicago or Indianapolis to St. Louis in 1950 and afterwards.
Westbound Mail & Express train 11 and eastbound train 12 operated between Pittsburgh and St. Louis with heavy head end traffic plus P70 and/or PB70 rider cars. Westbound 13, 93, 95, and eastbound 14 and 18, and 96, were equivalent trains east of Pittsburgh, with similar consists.
On the Harrisburg-Fort Wayne line, one additional likely train would have been the Admiral, train 70 Eastbound, and 71 Westbound. It carried heavy head end traffic, plus upgraded P70 coaches, a single diner, 3Cpt 1DR Bar-Lounge, and a mix of heavyweight and lightweight sleepers. Eastbound, it carried a 10-6 sleeper from the California Zephyr and a 10-6 from the SP/UP/CNW San Francisco Overland. Westbound number 71 was combined with number 9, the Akronite, from New York as far as Pittsburgh.
On the Panhandle, T1's in the 1950's might have handled M&E trains 11 & 12 mentioned above, plus such trains as the Metropolitan (no. 25 Harrisburg to Pittsburgh and no. 27 Pittsburgh to Indianapolis) or the Allegheny (no. 6 from Indianapolis to Harrisburg). No. 6 was essentially the Eastbound counterpart of 25/27. Both trains carried upgraded P70GSR coaches, a 12-1 sleeper, and an 8 section Buffet west of Pittsburgh, plus heavy head end traffic. East of Pittsburgh, accommodations were Spartan. Number 25 carried a diner and some P70KR rebuilt coaches. Number 6 terminated in Pittsburgh, with its head end cars being forwarded east on no. 18 (Mail & Express) and no. 46 The New Englander.
Consist information from Pennsylvania Railroad Passenger Trains, Consists and Cars - 1952 Volume 1, East-West Trains, by Henry Stegmaier, Jr. TLC Publishing, Lynchburg, VA., 2003.
Tom
Thanks for the heads-up. That was fun!
One thing I don't understand, though: why get rid of the Wagner bypass valves? They're a valuable part of running a large engine effectively at high speed, and cost-effectively at normal speed, and even though requiring "special" maintenance the cost of removing them would pay for quite a bit of tinkering...
He also seems to think that the nose of the T1 was fixed in its length, like a one-piece Bowser casting, and so he winds up with heroic empty space ahead of the cylinders, looking remarkably Q-2ish. I am not sure the weight distribution of that locomotive 'as built' would work right.
Interesting and amusing premise for how it worked out, though...
The Js biggest speed issue they were top heavy and many including the 611 ended on its side in the Tug Fork.I suspect the Ts was top heavy as well.
A side note.When the 611 rollover into the Tug the engineer was killed.The morning was foggy and the engineer sped into a curve along the Tug and over she went.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
The PRR T1...
Beautiful and unique locomotive. Enough to garner to some very interesting if not "TALL" tales. As in hitting 130-140mph for example
100mph probably so on good days with light trains and clear, level track. 110mph would be ultimately pushing it for the T1, and even a northern class such as alot of posters have mentioned the N&W J class doing.
But 130-140mph? Never happened. Then again, much like fishing, railfans need good caboose tales to tell. This is one of them.
PM Railfan
PM Railfan100mph probably so on good days with light trains and clear, level track. 110mph would be ultimately pushing it for the T1, and even a northern class such as alot of posters have mentioned the N&W J class doing.
And your basis for making these categorical statements is what, exactly?
There are dynamometer car records for 611 testing on PRR. This for a locomotive (admittedly one with particularly well-designed balance) with 70" drivers. And, as noted, marked top-heaviness ... when operated too briskly on a very curving line, in fog, where thinking you were one curve away from where you actually were could produce results comparable to those for Amtrak 188.
What on earth would make you think a divided-drive engine with better valve gear, exhaust characteristics, and good steam generation for its cylinder capacity would not reach the same speed? Now, it does have to be said that the speedometers on the T1s, like those on the GG1s, did only read up to 100mph, so any speed above that would have to depend on a watch and the veracity of its user. But there is little doubt that the T1 would be easily capable of reaching the same speed as a Milwaukee A (which no less an authority than Alfred Bruce said was easily capable of 128mph) let alone that railfan favorite the F7 Hudson (with less favorable rod dynamics).
Remember that the design spec for the T1 involved 880 tons at 100 mph. Now perhaps on the Pere Marquette you consider that to be a light train, but most others probably differ. Perhaps you also think that PRR was either too enthusiastic or too mendacious to actually build something that met the specified requirements (or faked the testing that substantiated it).
Now, the question of speeds over about 125mph is more as you indicate: every mph gain in that range is very significant, and if at any point there is a critical resonance, at that speed, you will not "power through it" as you could on an E6s (at lower speed, of course) or one of the Australian Garratt classes. So there is in fact no guarantee that translating ihp via a resistance formula into speed is a reliable guide, or that any of the tall tales regarding 130mph speed out of a T1 in regular service were accurate. One point to remember here is that even at reported speeds in the 115mph range the suspension behavior of cars in the train was much worse than anything observed on the locomotive, and this bodes extremely poorly for any supposed report of travelling at very high speed with actual revenue passengers behind you.
PRR had not gotten done working the bugs out of the T1 as a high-speed locomotive before 1948, and some of the better modifications that would have made very high speed more practical were, in fact, never implemented. That does not mean that the design was not physically capable of achieving those speeds, however, and I think this is one of the first things that will emerge as the T1 Trust refines its simulation models.
Then there is the prospect of 5550 on the Fast Loop at Pueblo. Perhaps not representative of PRR operations in the late Forties. But capable of establishing -- or disproving, as the case may be -- that the thing can be done.
I suspect the engineers that hit the century mark between Lima and Ft.Wayne was in violation of the ETT track speed a practice that management overlooked until something went horribly wrong.
I read in Trains Magazine where a engineer departed Crestline 45 minutes behind schedule and arrived in Ft.Wayne on the advertised.
I suppose the real question is how many engineers would endanger their lives and livelihood by violating the ETT track speeds for passenger trains?