RE: What steam we haven't seen ?

[feltonhill]

Paul,

Check your messages/"conversations".  I sent a list of all the PRR T1 articles in the Keystone.  If it didn't show up, reply here.  I'll try another way.

[Deggesty]

Paul, from what I have read of the N&W's practice with the A's, J's, and Y6's, not only were the engines well designed and built using the known technology, but also the maintenance and service facilities were designed to keep the engines on the road, and the crews were well trained in the art of running the engines.

I well remember the article in Trains in the mid-fifties that described the care of the engines, and illustrated how the J's were kept moving so that the best use was made of them.

But, even if you increase the efficiency of your use of fuel and water 50-100 per cent but you have to manufacture your own spare parts, the cost of  replacing damaged (think of the J that had the reverse gear on the left side disintegrate south of Abingdon) or wornout parts could negate the savings.

[Paul Milenkovic]

Using the power of my university library privileges, I was able to read Burnell, Neil. "An Appreciation of the T1 - The Enginemen's Perspective" on interlibrary loan.  Mr. Burnell interviewed crew members who drove and fired the Pennsy T1's to address the mythology that has developed around them, about them being slippery, rough riding, poor steaming, or whatever other slander has been directed their way by the self-appointed experts.

The impression I got was the T1's were capable engines.  Yes they were slippery inasmuch as you can floor the gas pedal on a Ford Pinto and not much happens -- try the same thing on a high performing sports car and you risk spinning out of control.

The crew reports indicate that they 'rode like a Pullman car" contradicting what has been written about rough riding.  Maybe there is some exageration what with unsubstantiated and undocumented reports of 100 MPH+ running (well over 100 MPH), but apparently railroad management looked the other way when crews "made up time" but didn't want to brag about how fast they were blowing through grade crossings.  But there are indications that the poppet valve T1's were kind of alike a multi-valve overhead cam car in comparison with the more conventional push-rod "Detroit Iron" that runs out of steam (wonder where that analogy came from) at higher RPMs.

As to the poppet valves and the maintenance crews, I have to order an article in Mr. Burnell's series to get his take on that.

My take on all of that is that the T1's were good engines, perhaps the best performing steam engines in terms of 100+ MPH with 1000+ trailing tons (the engine and tender alone accounted for an additional 500 tons).

It seems to me that the railroads that were successful in some sense in the waning days of steam, NYC with the Niagara, N&W with the J, A, and Y classes (by the way, the J and the Niagara were fine locomotives, but Mr. Burnell suggested that the poppet valve duplex-drive T1 could turn out power at speeds where its competitors simply topped off on their power curves), that what those railroads focused on were maintenance facilities, maintenance cycles, and maintenance procedures.

To the extent that the PRR didn't get many service turns out of their T1's is that they bought these high performance locomotives and then didn't back them up with the maintenance procedures to keep them productive.

So with steam, and especially with high performance mainline steam, you are not just acquiring a bunch of locomotives with certain attributes, you need to acquire an entire motive power system, which includes a way to maintain them in a cost-effective manner that keeps them out on the road.  It may have been the early-design poppet valves hidden behind streamline shrouds (and between the frames for the back engine) on the T1 that were the downfall of those locomotives, but I have the impression that the Pennsy didn't look at the big picture of those locomotives as merely elements of a much larger system of train operations.

I think that thermal efficiency has a role -- I guess latter-day U.S. steam was rated at around 6 percent, the N&W Y-class could get 8 percent, and I read that the T1 could get 8 percent operated short of full power where all of your firebed is sucked up the stack.  Chapelon and later Porta were getting 11 or 12 percent.  Maybe these aren't big gains, but going from 6 percent to 12 percent cuts your water and coal usage in half, with gains in on-the-road endurance between water and coal stops and a reduction by half in the amount of coal you have to move around in support of railroad operations.

But I think the inside-rod cranked-axle duplex designs of "Did we scrap steam too soon" and all of the calls for turbines and condensers and electric drive along with the all-too-complicated ACE 3000 design are missing a point.  The focus is wrong, the focus is on building a better locomotive whereas the focus needs to be on building a train operations system, concentrating on everything from crew training to maintenance and service facilities to how you keep those engines on the road and get economic return from them.

[selector]

This is purely speculative, and certainly not from being well-read on steam...(cough...):

I would have wanted to see vastly improved thermal efficiency, more weight born by driven wheels/sets, and my feeling is that turbine drives was the ultimate end-point for steam....even if they had gotten it to work.  Composite light-weight rods (not available in the mid-50's as you limit us, Juniatha) would have taken care of dynamic augment and other unwanted wear and tear effects.

I suppose a boiler could have driven a turbine that drove a generator that powered driven axles with traction motors.  How about a H-8-70ACE? 

[carnej1]

Juniatha

Short sentence - big question :

W - h - a - t        

 ( you can see me start slowly here )

- provided steam development had continued beyond 1945 , say into 1952 .. 54 -

might / would / should then have been the next step-up in fast passenger steam power ?

- coupled wheels / wheel sets

- engine unit / units

- wheel arrangements 

- boiler configuration

-speed / power configuration .

Lean back and start you imaginations , everyone !

( We leave alone historical facts of EMD diesel invasion for this )

Regards

          Juniatha

 The best piece I've ever read about this topic was an TRAINS magazine article from the 1970's written by Bill Withun(who was later involved the with the ACE3000 Project) called "Did We Scap Steam Too Soon?".

 He speculated that improved Duplex drive locomotives based on the PRR designs would have been the next evolutionary step in Steam development. The article included drawings of advanced versions of an 8 drivered duplex passenger locomotive as well as a ten coupled freight engine.

 He also mentioned Lima's late 40's proposals for advanced super power designs, particularly the 4-8-6 they tried to market. And he discussed the possibility of improved steam turbine electric designs..