Trains.com

Subscriber & Member Login

Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more!

Pennsylvania T-1 4-4-4-4 passenger service

5735 views
36 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    August 2010
  • From: Henrico, VA
  • 8,955 posts
Posted by Firelock76 on Saturday, October 15, 2016 6:10 PM

Well, the PRR bought (and built) those C&O 2-10-4 copies because they HAD to, World War Two was raging, the Pennsy needed new freight power desperately, but the War Production Board wouldn't allow the PRR the time or resources to develop a new design of their own, they had to go with an existing model. As it was, that C&O design worked out just fine.

As to Class J's, keep in mind the PRR owned a majority interest in the N&W at the time, so they certainly were aware of what the Class J's were capable of, hence the mystery of why they didn't go that route.

Certainly no other railroad bought Class J's either, but remember this was a day and age when most major 'roads had their own ideas of what a locomotive should be.  It would take GM/EMD's "take it or leave it" attitude toward their diesels that would break that mindset.

  • Member since
    August 2003
  • From: Collinwood, Ohio, USA
  • 16,367 posts
Posted by gmpullman on Saturday, October 15, 2016 5:37 PM

PRR did test J No. 610 between December 4, 1944 through January 3, 1945 making 12 round trips in passenger service, including The Broadway, General, Admiral and Liberty Limiteds, plus two round trips in freight racking up 7,100 miles. Several stretches were made at over 100 MPH and at one point 610 was clocked at 111 MPH (70" drivers rotating at 533 RPM!)

A very interesting article about the test is in the V41, #4 issue of The Keystone.

Regards, Ed

  • Member since
    May 2004
  • 7,500 posts
Posted by 7j43k on Saturday, October 15, 2016 5:10 PM

I agree that Pennsy was pretty sure it knew all there was to know about steam locomotive design.  And they knew a lot, for sure.

But NOBODY bought N&W J copies.  And PRR DID buy those 2-10-4 copies.  Perhaps N&W didn't care to build J's for the Pennsy. 

Maybe Pennsy should have gotten copies of GN's S-1's.  They had Belpaire fireboxes, after all.  And pretty small drivers, like the J's.

 

 

Ed

  • Member since
    August 2010
  • From: Henrico, VA
  • 8,955 posts
Posted by Firelock76 on Saturday, October 15, 2016 3:53 PM

For a superb, myth-busting telling of the T-1 story get yourself a copy of the Classic Trains magazine special issue "Steam Glory 3."  There's an article in it by David R. Stevenson that tells the whole story.

In a nutshell, once the initial teething troubles inherent in a new design were ironed out, and crews were properly trained the T-1's worked just fine.  What really killed them was the Pennsy's decision in 1946 to dieselize all the long-distance passenger trains hauled by steam, so the T-1's were out of a job just as the job started!

A previous poster was right, though.  PRR could have saved themselves an awful lot of trouble if they'd bought Class J's from the N&W earlier on.  Why didn't they?  Personally I think it was ego, the "Standard Railroad of the World" couldn't admit those "hillbillys" down in Roanoke were better at steam locomotive design than they were!

Anyway, go to the Classic Trains site, select "shop," then "special issues" and you'll find it.

  • Member since
    May 2004
  • 7,500 posts
Posted by 7j43k on Saturday, October 15, 2016 3:33 PM

My belief is that the T's were excellent locomotives.

They, perhaps, demanded more of their operating and maintenance crews than they could deliver.

 

Ed

  • Member since
    February 2005
  • From: Southwest US
  • 12,914 posts
Posted by tomikawaTT on Saturday, October 15, 2016 2:44 PM

According to the CrestlinePRR website, when new the T1s were assigned to the Pennsy's premier trains, which presumably included the Broadway Limited.  However, they were the first locos to be supplanted when the PRR dieselized, dropping to mail train service before joining the parade to the scrap line.

The T1 was an unfortunate design that suffered from a myriad of faults that killed it before there was time to find and install corrections.  PRR would have been well advised to redesign the N&W J with higher drivers.  Note that the PRR had much better luck with conventional 2-cylinder 2-10-4s than with the Q-duplexes.  In railroading, KISS rules - a fact that inevitably shows up on the bottom line.

Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 196 - sans duplexes)

  • Member since
    October 2001
  • From: OH
  • 17,574 posts
Posted by BRAKIE on Saturday, October 15, 2016 11:28 AM

The majority of the T-1s was used between Crestline(Oh) and Ft.Wayne(Ind)..In fact a square building next to the roundhouse was used for the Ts.

The reason I said the majority was used on the Ft.Wayne line is because I seen photos of Ts in Columbus(Oh).

Larry

Conductor.

Summerset Ry.


"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt  Safety First!"

  • Member since
    December 2010
  • 25 posts
Pennsylvania T-1 4-4-4-4 passenger service
Posted by dumbasapost on Saturday, October 15, 2016 10:41 AM

Hi all,

Recently I've become interested in the short-lived Pennsylvania T-1.  I've been trying to track down information regarding its passenger service, but I seem to be spinning my wheels so I thought I would turn to you guys for help.

What 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?

Many thanks!

Subscriber & Member Login

Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more!

Users Online

There are no community member online

Search the Community

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Model Railroader Newsletter See all
Sign up for our FREE e-newsletter and get model railroad news in your inbox!