Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote user="feltonhill"] Evaluating the T1 is a tough job.  I've been tyring to do that for several years through various articles in RR historical society magazines.  They were neither all good nor all bad.  As built, they just weren't the right locomotive for PRR, or maybe any other road.  There was too much experimentation in one package.  Getting rid of the poppet valves, like T1a 5547, would have reduced the level of complexity and inaccessibility.  It would have likely helped operations without compromising performance. [/quote] Hello feltonhill, please allow me to add that interesting link about the T1, a very extensive article, for the other readers, if it is OK for you. I do not know much about the K4, but must say with its Belpaire firebox and bullish front arrangement it was a very distinguished, but maybe not in a technical way outstanding machine. Were the myths about it just hyped, or was it just more or less nothing more than a ubiquitious Pacific? I read in "Last of the Steam " from Joe Collias that a K4 with 20.000pounds less tractive effort could start a train easier than a T1. I do not believe that, except the engineneer would have been a mule than certified/qualified one. Probably some people at the PRR did not liked them, 'cause the T1 could almost twice the job of a K4 and would give less people work at the railroad. Especially in the last years, Pacifics played only a role in commuter service. For example, the last Pacifics aquired for the UP was 1920, and by '53 only round about 30 of those rabbit looking engines were left. That the K4 survied the T1 was obvious: cheap and simple and not complex and expensive.   Happy New Year to everybody!   Lars
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag