Uh, the T1 weren't no dog.
Now that my bad english has gotten everyone's attention, let me STRONGLY recomend Classic Trains special edition "Steam Glory 3." In it there's a superb article by David R. Stevenson which demolishes all the "old husbands tales" about the T1. I have to call them "old husbands tales" because old wives usually don't tell tales about steam locomotives.
Without quoting the article word for word let me say the T1 never really had a chance. Just as T1 production was getting rolling the Pennsy decided to dieselize passenger operations. The T1 just never had a chance to show what it could do in the hands of capable crewmen.
Get "Steam Glory 3," you'll love it!
True, "The T1 weren't no dog."
But what good will her qualities be on the Cuyahoga Valley Line or the line out of Owosso? This conjures images of a hobbled racehorse or a caged lion.
I'd love to be on board for this project, but I have to say the Hudson idea seems to be better in terms of general utility.
Does it matter? The T1 boys have a dream and they're trying to go for it. And maybe if and when they get it built other 'roads may invite them to operate it. Maybe.
At any rate, something that looks as futuristic as a T1 would be a great attention-getter for any 'road that wants some attention. Anything's possible.
I mean, how many steam locomotives are around that look like something out of science fiction?
So, if someone wants to build a new Hudson, let them get organized and start the fundraising. A new Hudson would ge a pretty cool thing to have around as well, although a project to resurrect one of the two existing Mohawks would probably be an easier undertaking.
ACYI'd love to be on board for this project, but I have to say the Hudson idea seems to be better in terms of general utility.
It probably is. Completely aside from its being one of the most famous locomotives in the world. If the idea of a restoration is to produce a 'fan' locomotive, even something like the 5AT project might not be as "useful".
The T1 is a different thing entirely, and it has 'spun off' a couple of significant results already, including the ability to design and fabricate lightweight rods. Even if the project produces nothing more, in the short to intermediate term, than a full set of modern engineering CAD files and the materials science behind using them, it will have been well worth the relative time and effort spent on it. The modeling and measurement knowledge is even more icing on the cake. And the result, as Firelock said, is apparently instantly attractive to a very wide demographic, far more than the number of people who would appreciate a Hudson for what it is.
(Just for the record, while a Dreyfuss Hudson is kinda sorta in the same recognizable science-fiction appearance category, and of course is an industrial design icon, it is NOT in the same league as the T1. And I would be very disappointed if a Hudson replica project built a J3 at all, instead of building 5345 (with modern improvements) as God would intend justice be done...
Wislish,
I appreciate your candor but cannot understand what your comment about the Dreyfus Hudson "...if a Hudson replica project built a J3 at all, instead of building 5345 (with modern improvements) as God would intend justice be done..."
With respect to the Almighty - Why is 5345 to be singled out as the heritage of the great NYC Hudson fleet, and why the J3 when most observers feel the J1 was the beauty queen of all NYC steam production?
Are we really going to work a reproduction NYC Hudson to the levels that the advantages of a J3 would be of any usefulness? In the world of antiques often the older and antiquated equate to more interesting and more valuable. With graphite, polish, pinstripe and serif Roman lettering of course!
Doc
Dr DI appreciate your candor but cannot understand what your comment about the Dreyfus Hudson "...if a Hudson replica project built a J3 at all, instead of building 5345 (with modern improvements) as God would intend justice be done..." With respect to the Almighty - Why is 5345 to be singled out as the heritage of the great NYC Hudson fleet, and why the J3 when most observers feel the J1 was the beauty queen of all NYC steam production?
Oh, for God's sake, do your numbers. What was the most famous of all the Hudsons? And if we follow the numbering convention used for Tornado ... and for the replica T1 ... what number would be used for a new build of an improved J1e?
Frankly, one reason I don't like J3s is I don't like their proportions compared to the J1s. I don't care whether or not they were better fleet locomotives than the earlier ones, or benefited from the rapid evolution of reciprocating-locomotive design and technology between the mid-Twenties and the mid-Thirties. What we would be building is an invocation of esthetics (and only afterwards, and as a kind of afterthought, a reliable and easy-to-maintain locomotive -- that stuff is just due diligence for an engine design with this famous a 'past'). And we would be righting the awful wrong that was cutting up 5344, which of all the Hudsons was the one with the richest history and the most general 'magic'. In my opinion.
Now, both esthetically and technically, if I can't have 4-8-2 3000 (with 72" drivers like the L4s, but non-Frankenstein smokebox esthetics) to play with, the next best thing is 3001. Dr. Leonard and others have pointed out that this might have been a better design than a Hudson for most of the services NYC actually ran (much as it can be argued that a good 4-8-4 design, even the postwar turbine locomotive Westinghouse had in mind in 1947, would have done everything the PRR needed on the services it ran). It is certainly going to be more flexible and more capable than a Hudson in most fantrip service. And, perhaps most importantly, all the millions of dollars of planning and building are already done.
All that remains is the propaganda effort to establish that 3001 is 'as good' as a Hudson. That's a real uphill battle for a lot of railfans at present ... but I think it is a battle well worth waging and then winning. As I said, even though I deeply wish to see a J1e built, I'd want any dollars that would go toward that project to go to 3001 instead until she is runnable, and perhaps even after that to assuring her operating and preservation infrastructure in or around Elkhart.
No question. I'd be onboard for the 3001. Or even the 2933, which is the freight version.
But those aren't new-built locos, and that was the original topic.
Tom
Good and heart-felt post on NYC Hudson 5344!
NYC 5344 did indeed carry the "magic lantern" of Hudson mojo and it was a most followed steam locomotive in its day as it yet remains today.
NYC 5344 was first built as a standard J1e Hudson with Walscharts valve gear - then suddenly streamlined as Commadore Vanderbilt in black shroud with number boards hidden. Then suddenly restyled as one of the silver Dreyfus "Roman Gladiator" Art Deco streamline Hudson jobs - aliebet with modifications for its lack of combustion chamber, non barrel boiler, differing running boards and roller bearing side rods.
NYC Hudson 5344 was finally returned to its un-streamlined form but as a modified J1e with Baker valve Gear. Always unique, always a drama queen and always a Hudson - and made all the more famous of course because she was chosen as the model for LIONEL TRAINS.
Joshua Lionel Cowen owner of LIONEL always receving criticism for historic accuracies in his models chose NYC Hudson 5344 I believe because she was NEW and MODERN and shortly to be STREAMLINED effectively hiding any error of detail that the very famous LIONEL would have had.
NYC Hudson 5344 remains today on the fireplace mantle of many American homes as LIONEL 700E, LIONEL 763E and Post War LIONEL 773.
And of course NYC 5344 runs within the dreams and sacred memories of many boys grown up to be men. 5344 remains dear to their hearts also.
Wislish - I of course expect that upon your fireplace mantle is the exoticly rare model of a Pennsy T-1 Duplex 4-4-4-4.
----------------------
So Wake UP! Mayor Dick Moore! of Elkhart, Indiana! all those American boys grown to men are coming after you! for their stolen prize NYC Mohawk 3001! And you can't keep it forever!
http://www.columbusrailroads.com/new/utility/slideshow.php?file=live%2F05Steam_Railroads%2F13New_York_Central%2F06Passenger_Steam%2Fhome.txt&num=
Doc, I think you are singing from this sheet of music!
See Slide 5 - I think David P. Morgan would approve.
Call me an apostate, but I like the NYC's Mohawks better than the Hudsons!
But not by much.
Steam, glorious steam!
Thanks for that link kgbw49! One could weep for what's been lost.
ACYBut those aren't new-built locos, and that was the original topic.
The relevance is there. The issue was that someone - I think you - proposed a new-built Hudson made a better project than the T1 the Trust is building. I simply made the point that you get almost the same 'bang' for far fewer bucks by restoring 3001.
It's not April Fools, so I will not bring up the $1 million matching grant from Rexall to restore the Mohawk at NRM/MOT with a replica Vanderbilt shroud...
For the record, several smaller designs, including the NYC Hudson, were proposed by others before I chimed in to agree. Frankly, I don't want to rain on anybody's parade. If any of these projects can be brought to fruition, I'm all for it. I'm simply pointing out the obvious: that the T1 would be a monumental undertaking, and there are other potential projects that might be less costly, more useful on a variety of routes, and less prone to present engineering challenges. Nonetheless, I'd love to see the T1 project succeed, just as I'd love to see one of the two Mohawks run again.
One of the great reasons for the T1 project was to take up and where necessary solve the engineering challenges. But most of that work gets done long before the $10 million has to be spent. I already think that the drawing efforts (they are well on track to having the written blueprints restructured as modern CAD files) and the file repository already justify the Trust's efforts, and things are just getting started.
Personally, I think there are two 'debunking' new builds that ought to be made, neither of which is particularly excursion-service oriented. The first, which is almost cost-effective, is that earlier 'most famous locomotive in the world' the Buchanan 4-4-0 NYC 999. With the 86" drivers, the Cuyahoga cutoff, the whole nine yards. Put it on the dynamometer and spin it up, see if it can go as fast as railfan history indicates. Afterward you have a splendid example of Gay Nineties high technology.
The other example, a PRR example as it turns out, also involves a social aspect. The locomotive is only part of what's likely to be needful; it is of course the pre-modified 7002, built just the way it was when it supposedly ran 127+ mph between AY and Elida.
The social part of it is finding an engineer and fireman who are prepared to learn the secret lore of how to get the most out of such a locomotive design, and who develop the combination of pride and professionalism that would let them run it at 10/10ths.
Do I think it will go anywhere near 127 mph? No ... but it would be fun to find out, and the locomotive isn't embarrassingly huge and expensive...
As a native of the Appalachian coal fields, I can tell you that old-timers would hardly acknowledge PRB coal as coal; at least, not without calling it "brown coal" and comparing it to peat.
ChuckAllen, TX
Well they are casting the first wheel this falll
So im thrilled to see it take the first baby steps
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.