HarveyK400But possibly too long for the South Amboy turntable?
http://www.raritanriver-rr.com/ForgottenHistory1Forgotten traces of the RRRR 20seenin the three official Raritan River Rail Road Company maps.htm
Are these maps related to those mentioned locations? Some plans contains a turntable, look at "Stevens" Ave shops"
UP 4-12-2I agree--what were they smoking when they were designing such long locomotives?
I agree--what were they smoking when they were designing such long locomotives?
The PRR T1 was 119' long, and 51 of those feet was due to its extended capacity long distance tender. The T1 itself was only 68' long - about the size of a SD40-2. To put that in prospective, the PRR J1 2-10-4 was 118' long, and most late steam 4-8-4s were around 115' long (give or take a few feet depending on tender capacity). So in that respect, the T1 was really no longer than most other late steam designs. Remember, the PRR original idea was to use the T1 in long distance service, so the long tender made sense.
GP40-2 The PRR T1 was 119' long, and 51 of those feet was due to its extended capacity long distance tender. The T1 itself was only 68' long - about the size of a SD40-2. To put that in prospective, the PRR J1 2-10-4 was 118' long, and most late steam 4-8-4s were around 115' long (give or take a few feet depending on tender capacity). So in that respect, the T1 was really no longer than most other late steam designs. Remember, the PRR original idea was to use the T1 in long distance service, so the long tender made sense.
FWIW, a J-1 would walk away on 68" drivers with 12 cars on the NY&LB.
But if it got behind for some reason, it couldn't make up time as the T1 was capable of doing. The J1 would be capped at 70 mph, with some odd and rare exceptions, while the Duplex was known to exceed limits when it had to, and by a substantial margin.
-Crandell
I wasn't referring to the T-1, but the S-1, which was 140' engine + tender.
What were they smoking? How you gonna turn that baby without a wye?
John
selectorBut if it got behind for some reason, it couldn't make up time as the T1 was capable of doing. The J1 would be capped at 70 mph, with some odd and rare exceptions, while the Duplex was known to exceed limits when it had to, and by a substantial margin. -Crandell
Where would a T-1 make up time with frequent commuter stops on the NY&LB, much less overcoming a slower start than a J-1? I even wondered if a J-1 was balanced for more than 60 mph without pounding the daylights out of the track. It boils down to which engine, the T, M, or J, would be more economical with coal measured somehow against performance.
I'm guessing double-headed K-4s were a response to the need for better acceleration and speed overcoming the cost of a second engine crew and the limitation of the length of turntables.
GP40-2The only reason they completed their own end-of-steam designs was because at the time they had too much R&D tied up in them to stop. Their hope was to sell them to another RR that was more committed to steam, but no one was interested
Thinking about this,
... and we add Harvey400K's and others thoughts, look at the number of built engines containing their own design ( past '30 steam, excluding any typical Decapod or Mountain ... etc. design ...),
their steam railroad department seemed go to no-where...and those late '20 design 2-10-4 C&O T-Class were known one of the best on the PRR? Even equal power to Q2, correct? No blame on other designs... but they were..costly? Pushing limits?
However those late S2, from a theoretical standpoint, looked pretty well, I might thing...
-hard times for steam, though.
I
HarveyK400FWIW, a J-1 would walk away on 68" drivers with 12 cars on the NY&LB.
The J1 had 69" drivers. It would certainly eliminate double headed K4s, but at passenger speeds, that 2-10-4 would also eliminate most of the track. Better have track gangs following in its wake of destruction and give the crews paid time off so their internal organs can recover from the pounding. LOL
The question remains: Why the S-1? What were they thinking of? Probably some good books have the answer, but what is it? One of kind, too long to really be practical, and designed before road power dieselization was seriously considered.
HarveyK400Where would a T-1 make up time with frequent commuter stops on the NY&LB, much less overcoming a slower start than a J-1?
That part is the deal breaker, I'm sure. If the distance between stops is much less than, say, 20 miles, the T1 would be mightily tested to make up time.
selectorHarveyK400Where would a T-1 make up time with frequent commuter stops on the NY&LB, much less overcoming a slower start than a J-1? That part is the deal breaker, I'm sure. If the distance between stops is much less than, say, 20 miles, the T1 would be mightily tested to make up time. -Crandell
A quick check of the map shows the distance between stops ranges from 1-6 miles - most in the 2-3 mile range. FWIW, only a couple expresses in 1966 Guide; but not leaving Penn Station 5-6 pm. So thoeretically, a J-1 restricted to 60 mph (don't know what Pennsy thought about that) might match the trip time of a T-1. There are engineering formulas to calculate this stuff; but you need a lot of data from the heat quality of the coal to the weight of the 12 cars.
daveklepperThe question remains: Why the S-1? What were they thinking of? Probably some good books have the answer, but what is it? One of kind, too long to really be practical, and designed before road power dieselization was seriously considered.
The S-1 was 78' long, which is only 4' longer than a SD70ACe. The real culprit here was its 62' long tender. Put a more standard length 40' tender on the S-1, and the total length is now only 118', just slightly longer than the typical 4-8-4.
http://www.steamlocomotive.com/bigboy/bigbigboy.jpg
I see you fellows are still discussing BIG Steam!
I kinda thought the above linked Locomotive might be a subject for and R&D Project!
Enjoy!
Ah, the wonders of PhotoShop. All seriousness aside, though, the above picture suggests some of George Henderson's proposals for quadruplexes and quintuplexes (!) and a short article in TRAINS for a proposed Mallet-Garratt (4-8-8-4+4-8-8-4).
Yes, Paul!
You're right! I thought it was a cleaverly done idea, and would give some folks a start to their saturday morning.
I would think a double articulated Garrett would be a power monster, but I would be curious if you could manage to pack on enough water and fuel, for a trip over even a moderately long run. I might be very doable for a specific situation where lots of power was needed over a specific obstacle. Like Sand Patch, or some of the VGN's or N&W's mainline grades. Just a thought.
If it were a condensor engine a la S. Africa, it would do a lot better than having to stop at short intervals.
Unless, of course, we could figure out how to maintain track pans on grades.
-there is a good german article about that,
... condensing is a very special and limited technique ...
Those condensed steam has to be cooled down quickly to water and cooling also consumes a lot of energy...look at their big fans! Yet, on testing they could cool down 25tons of exhaust steam (metric) to 194°F hot water...
A steam locomotive and its auxiliaries is not big enough to carry huge cooling area and cooling appliances...
Those SAR-tenders were ridiculous big already, and they were far not as big engines like American's 4-8-4...
-lars
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.