Duplex Steam Locomotive / Steam discussion

[feltonhill]

Ed Woodings had a stroke and was unable to fini***he T1. It was about 98% completed, had been run on air but never fired, It needed some reverse gear work and auxillaries. Was sold to a collector.

[wallyworld]

John Cosby's article was one of the best first person articles about railroading I've read.
I second the request it be posted if possible.This engine has certainly become a legendary beast. One of the great tragedies of railroad preservation is that not one was preserved while many a lowly shifter was.

[Murphy Siding]

June 1,1920: America's largest steam roster belonged to PRR-7656 steam locomotives. PRR had 1692 passenger, 4996 freight, and 968 steam switchers. Eleven percent of all American steam locomotives were on the PRR. I imagine that it wasn't unreasonable, even 25 years later, that PRR was so dedicated to keeping, and improving steam power.

[Anonymous]

Garth,
Go here for pictures of a perfect T-1 model: http://users.rcn.com/borders/woodings/
Unfortunately the builder Ed Woodings had a stroke and may not finish it. It is about 98% finished and at one point last year I beleive he wanted to sell it. I am not sure what happened to it.
Bill

QUOTE: Originally posted by Garth Hunley


Is there some pictures out there of these "Duplex Locomotives"? It sure would be nice to see the engineering odd balls.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by cefinkjr

QUOTE: Originally posted by up829

I've seen a few pictures of a T1 poised to race Central E7's out of Englewood but have never read an account of the result. What happened?

Never heard of E7 vs T1 getting out of Englewood but, when I worked on the Central in the late 60s, many old timers told me stories of such races between various trains. They swore that the Central train would invariably beat the Pennsy train. Some even admitted that this might have been caused by a fairly sharp curve east of Englewood on the PRR while the Central's right of way was tangent track for several more miles. [:D]

Chuck

The Great Train Stations supplement to a fairly recent Classic Trains has a picture of a T1 on the Broadway racing an A-B set of E7's on the Century out of Englewood dated June 1946.

[feltonhill]

T1 5500 was rebuilt with Franklin rotary cam poppet gear after a wreck adn renetered service 7/3/48. It also had teh cylinders reduced one inch to 18-3/4 inches. This arrangement had an outside drive shaft and better accessibility to the camshaft on each cylinder. Got rid of the oscillating cam boxes, one on the pilot beam (under the hood, so to speak), and the other for the rear engine vertically between the frame back of the rear cylinder saddle. Some of the enginemen said 5500 was the best of the lot after the modifications. It would certainly have been much easier to maintain.

[cefinkjr]

QUOTE: Originally posted by up829

I've seen a few pictures of a T1 poised to race Central E7's out of Englewood but have never read an account of the result. What happened?

Never heard of E7 vs T1 getting out of Englewood but, when I worked on the Central in the late 60s, many old timers told me stories of such races between various trains. They swore that the Central train would invariably beat the Pennsy train. Some even admitted that this might have been caused by a fairly sharp curve east of Englewood on the PRR while the Central's right of way was tangent track for several more miles. [:D]

Chuck

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by malcand

I've looked at all the photo's and I can't tell what valve gear system the T1's used, anyone know?

They used the Franklin poppet valves, actuated from the crossheads. One T1, the 5547, was altered and equipped with piston valves driven by PRR's standard Walschaerts valve gear.

With regard to the latter day foreign improvements, such as Giesl ejectors, etc.: They might have improved efficiency somewhat, but probably weren't seen as being worth the cost. They were probably all covered by foreign patents, so would have to have been produced under license in the USA which would have added to the cost.

To show you how this kind of thing affected Motive Power departments of various railroads, there were certain outfits that wouldn't use Baker Valve Gear because it had to be purchased from the Pilliod Company, which held the patent. There were railroads (NYC & N&W) that felt that Baker had certain operational and maintenance advantages and was worth the additional cost, whatever it might have been.

But Egide Walschaerts' patent on his valve gear ran out many years ago, and it could be built without any additional cost.

Old Timer

[Anonymous]

I've looked at all the photo's and I can't tell what valve gear system the T1's used, anyone know?

[ndbprr]

The T-1 has been the subject of articles in the PRRT&HS magazine "The Keystone" more than any other in the time I have been a member. The discussion has been very technical at times and The result is (IMHO) a lot of the information about T-1's and slipperyness is wrong. Several engineers have said that other engineers like to leave stations by turning on the sand and yanking the throttle wide open until speed was reached but a t-1 could be controlled by an engineer willing to be more refined in his approach. Everyone agrees that every new class has teething problems and that they could have been solved had diesels not been the real answer. In retrospect the PRR was fooli***o not abandon steam earlier but most of us are glad they didn't!

[andrechapelon]

QUOTE: Originally posted by martin.knoepfel

André Chapelon designed a duplex, too. It was a 2-10-2 for heavy coal and ore trains. However, in Chapelons design, the 2nd and the 3rd axle were coupled by inside-rods, unlike the T1

The June, 1974 (IIRC) issue of "Trains" had an article on how steam could have possibly been saved if the railroads had paid attention to some overseas advances (as well as domestic), most notably those of Andre Chapelon, including the technique mentioned above. There were several design ideas presented. The article was written by Bill Withuhn. If memory serves, Withuhn is or was a curator at the Smithsonian.

Update: Article was "Did We Scrap Steam Too Soon?", William Withuhn, Trains Magazine, June 1974

Source:

Andre

[tnchpsk8]

My Dad retired from the PennCentral just before they became part of Conrail. He had started out on The PRR roughly around 1945 and retired after thirty-five years. He worked as a conductor/brakeman on road freights between Enola/Pitcairen and Enola/Conway. We lived in Altoona and he hired on there before I was born. He worked out of Altoona and also in the yard at Altoona when I was a toddler. Later when I got out of high school he worked out of Enola. They always had a place for him even if it wasn't the cush job all the time.

[tnchpsk8]

-The T1 was a good locomotive, designed to replace doubleheaded K4/K4s locomotives on the premier passenger trains on a 1 for 2 basis. Eliminating the second locomotive meant a 50% cut in crews and salaries, thus eliminating work.
-Conscious of the above, a lot of veteran PRR engineers suddenly found themselves incapable of handling the T1, but were quite capable of handling a two-crew train. "Gee, boss, that new locomotive is slippery. How about we go back to the pair?" "We'd have to call two crews." "Huh. Imagine that. Ain't that a shame?"
-With the locomotives being deliberately mishandled, of course there would be problems.


And where is the PRR today? Thinking like that MAY have kept more fellows working for a short time but in the long run may have contributed greatly to the demise of the company. In MY experience in the transportation industry employees are lost through attrition when newer, bigger and better means of locomotion comes along. The employees are usually moved around within the company but everybody keeps on working. Just not neccessarily at the same job they had been.

[feltonhill]

The T1 was initially a Baldwin design. BLW and its chief engineer, Ralph Johnson, were major proponents of the duplex drive concept. BLW was planning to build one or two demonstrators on its own tab when PRR got interested. The two prototype T1's were basically a BLW design modified to suit PRR's preferences.

I've found reason to doubt the claim that PRR unilaterially specified poppet valves for the prototypes over BLW's objections. Available information suggests it may have been a joint effort or perhaps the other way around. In July 1940, BLW was urging PRR to accept poppet valves. PRR withheld full approval until Altoona completed its test report of the poppet valve K4 later in 1940. On Jan 15, 1941, poppet valves were approved as part of the evolving design of first T1's

The Q1 and Q2 were PRR designed and built, IIRC.

[nanaimo73]

QUOTE: Originally posted by feltonhill

The Giesl ejector was installed on at least a C&O 0-8-0. There may have been others but I don't recall reading about it. Hwever, the installation was very late in the game. Purportedly it really improved the loco's performance, but C&O committed to diesels at about the same time, so nothing came of it. It was very popular in Austria.

There were also the Chapelon, Kylala and hybrid Kylchap exhausts to consider too. These are still being used and developed on a small scale for remaining steam applications. Don't know if they would have survived the rigors of US service or not. They had considerable success elsewhere in the world.

BTW, the referenced links to Jos. Koopman's exhaust commentaries are well worth investigating. He's one of the few left in the field of ongoing exhaust development. He used to appear frequently on the Steam_Tech website, maybe still does.

PRR was never satisfied with the T1's exhaust . They tried numerous configurations on the Altoona plant, and finally decided on one. The boiler was always reputed to be free steaming, although some have noted it required higher than ideal back pressure to create the necessary smokebox vacuum.

Thanks for the reply.

Did Baldwin do a lot of the design work on the Duplexs, or did the PRR do most of it ?

[feltonhill]

This situation was not usual because some NYC and PRR trains were on similar schedules out of Englewood headed east. Two E7's would have about 104,000 lbs starting TE vs the T1's rated 64,650 lbs STE, so they would have a significant advantage getting underway. It wouldn't have been much of a contest until 60 mph or so. The E7/E8's really excelled at getting trains started quickly. However, they tended to run out of DBHP at speed just about the time a typical steam loco (4-6-4, 4-8-4) would be getting onto its HP curve.

[Anonymous]

I've seen a few pictures of a T1 poised to race Central E7's out of Englewood but have never read an account of the result. What happened?

[feltonhill]

The Giesl ejector was installed on at least a C&O 0-8-0. There may have been others but I don't recall reading about it. Hwever, the installation was very late in the game. Purportedly it really improved the loco's performance, but C&O committed to diesels at about the same time, so nothing came of it. It was very popular in Austria.

There were also the Chapelon, Kylala and hybrid Kylchap exhausts to consider too. These are still being used and developed on a small scale for remaining steam applications. Don't know if they would have survived the rigors of US service or not. They had considerable success elsewhere in the world.

BTW, the referenced links to Jos. Koopman's exhaust commentaries are well worth investigating. He's one of the few left in the field of ongoing exhaust development. He used to appear frequently on the Steam_Tech website, maybe still does.

PRR was never satisfied with the T1's exhaust . They tried numerous configurations on the Altoona plant, and finally decided on one. The boiler was always reputed to be free steaming, although some have noted it required higher than ideal back pressure to create the necessary smokebox vacuum.

[nanaimo73]

There were a couple of articles in Trains during the 1970s which seemed to say American steam locomotives would have been better if they had used the Giesl exhaust ejector. Would they have made much difference on these modern steam locomotives ?

Hey Murph, if lumber sales are slow, look at these-
http://www.trainweb.org/tusp/koopmans/part_1.html
http://www.trainweb.org/tusp/koopmans/part_2.html
http://www.trainweb.org/tusp/koopmans/part_3.html

[Joby]

Well, the T1 was so late in the game, perhaps it was just the diesals that made it look bad.
Instead of listening to crews complain about the T1's ineffectiveness, the Pennsy just but a bunch of E units for the passenger trains, and used one crew no matter what.
--The T1, along with the Big Boy, Class Y/A/J, Niagras, Cab forwards, Allegheny, Q2, and SF mallets, defined "cool" .

[Anonymous]

It's been documented over the years that any locomotive intended to reduce the number of crews necessary to move a given amount of business encountered resistance from the crews. One of the most notable of these was the NP 2-8-8-4 which was intended to replace doubleheaded Mikados, and was perfectly capable of doing so. This is amply documented in Lorenz and Frey's NORTHERN PACIFIC - SUPERSTEAM ERA. It was also documented in the story of the engines in TRAINS, a few years back.

But the crews resisted the big engines; the FRA inspectors were on the property constantly at the behest of the BofLE and BofLF&E, taking exception to everything they could think of. Steam leaks, particularly in winters in the Dakotas, were a big target of the inspectors.

The same had occurred in the 1910s on the Norfolk and Western, where crews were being replaced one for two when the 2-6-6-2s came to replace doubleheaded 4-8-0s.

I'm certain that the T1 encountered the same resistance; I have the PRR society's Keystone magazines with the remembrance of the T1, and it seems to bear this out.

Several years back, Vernon L. Smith was a neighbor of mine; he's the guy who wrote ONE MANS LOCOMOTIVES; he and I met for coffee on many occasions, and it was a great education just talking with him. Smith had worked for Franklin Railway Supply (the poppet valve people) and had spent quite a bit of time with the T1s. He made the point, and it's a good one, that the T1 came and went during its service life and took what it had coming, right in stride. But as with anything else, competent engine handling made all the difference.

Old Timer

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by feltonhill

Read

John Crosby's “Last Chance,” Trains (August 1993), pp 54-56

First person description of a T1 doing what it does best. Great writing, too.

Is there any way Trains.com can post that article here?

[feltonhill]

Read

John Crosby's “Last Chance,” Trains (August 1993), pp 54-56

First person description of a T1 doing what it does best. Great writing, too.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by NW_611

Somewhere on here, a fellow opined that the "problem" with the T1 lay not with its design but rather with the men operating it. Let me float what I remember of the post, and get it commented upon:

-The T1 was a good locomotive, designed to replace doubleheaded K4/K4s locomotives on the premier passenger trains on a 1 for 2 basis. Eliminating the second locomotive meant a 50% cut in crews and salaries, thus eliminating work.
-Conscious of the above, a lot of veteran PRR engineers suddenly found themselves incapable of handling the T1, but were quite capable of handling a two-crew train. "Gee, boss, that new locomotive is slippery. How about we go back to the pair?" "We'd have to call two crews." "Huh. Imagine that. Ain't that a shame?"
-With the locomotives being deliberately mishandled, of course there would be problems.

Eh, an ignominous end for arguably the best-looking non-Norfolk and Western steam locomotive ever built. It looks like something from H.R. Giger's sketchpad-in a word, evil.

[^]

That took me back. LOL.

I have read stories or were they legends that the engine was not provided with sufficient room in the PRR system where they can stretch out thier legs and RUN.

I offer the view point that hot machines like hot cars are designed to be driven very fast. Anything less is a slap in the face.

The power I think lies with the awesome top end on this particular locomotive. 16 Cars on a passenger train at 2 miles a minute (120+??) is no mean feat.

[feltonhill]

Available information suggests the riding qualities of the T1 were mixed. The two prototypes reputedly rode very rough at speed until corrective measures were taken. One of the causes was the tender banging into the engine. This was cured by changing the tender trucks. No. 6110 had to be rebalanced prior to testing on the Altoona plant. This may have been brought on by improper counterbalancing when built. This problem may also have caused the complaints about extremely rough riding of one of the prototypes cited in Eric Hirsimaki's BGBD Vol.1. Nos 6110 and 6111 were counterbalanced using different methods.

Most enginmen interviewed for several articles in PRRT&HS magazine, The Keystone, seemed to have had no complaints about the riding qualities of the production T1's. When 5511 and 5539 were tested on C&O, no complaints. When 5511 was tested on N&W, same thing, no complaints. During the extensive over-the road tests I mentioned earlier, no complaints.

[feltonhill]

For photos try -

http://prrsteam.pennsyrr.com/prrt1.html

or just put -

prr t1 photos

in Google. Plenty of results on the first page.

[Anonymous]

Is there some pictures out there of these "Duplex Locomotives"? It sure would be nice to see the engineering odd balls.

[Murphy Siding]

feltonhill:(and Old Timer) Thanks for the explanations. Would it be correct to assume that a duplex locomotive could be a rough rider on less than perfect track?
Thanks

[germanium]

Feltonhill - thanks for the info. I traced the details, and I'll try my local bookshop.
On another issue, regarding slipping - if those heavy-handed steam hoggers had tried throwing the throttle open in a similar manner on a diesel, would slippage then occur, or are there overrides built-in to stop "Hank the Yank" doing this ?

[feltonhill]

murphysiding -

Rigid frame layout of a duplex eliminated all of the high pressure jointed connections in the steam lines to each of the four cylinders. It also eliminated the hinged joint and pin in the frame at the rear cylinder saddle. This reduced the maintenance costs associated with articulated power. On a high speed loco such as the T1 the rigid wheelbase would add stability. There were lateral motion devices on #1 adn #3 axles IIRC. This enabled the T1 to get around any normal mainline curve. On the way to tests,5511 managed to traverse the entire N&W main from Columbus to Roanoke without incident. There were and are several curves that exceed 12 deg 30min

On the downside, the rigid frame didn't allow each engine set to find its footing on track that was not ideally surfaced. The design and maintenance of the loco's suspension was critical to its performance on average track. PRR changed the suspension design between the prototypes and the production lot, but it didn't always have the internal discipline to get the servicing done on a consistent basis.