I thought we had a T-1 thread on this Forum. Did whoever inaugurated it ask for it to be removed because it strayed too much from the subject? I would like to reopen the discussion with the intent of staying with the subject, althouogh comparitive steam power and even comparing performance with diesels certainly should be allowed. My own impression was that it was a fine locomotive, but needed careful handling when starting a train, and came to late to realize its full potential because of the economics of the diesel.
Dave:
Link to photo of 6110 @ http://www.crestlineprr.com/t1pre_deliveryatblw.html
a link to a site with some info on the T-1's and the PRR Roundhouse and Facility at Crestline,Ohio:
@ http://www.crestlineprr.com/duplexexperimentals.html#t1
FTS: ( at the site index for the T-1): "...These locomotives sported 80' drivers, and could easily pull an 18 car train at speeds at 100 mph and more. There is a story told that a road foreman was riding behind a T1, and clocked it at over 120 mph on the flat lands of Indiana! These engines were the first production engines to utilize the Poppet valve. The Motive Power Department wondered why it was that they were failing way more often than they should have. They were designed to run at 100 mph, but could not withstand the punishment of continued running at 100+ mph..."
While I had mentioned that the old T1 thread had strayed a bit - I never requested it be closed and removed.
Who among us, when conducting 'friendly' converstations with our friends stays 'on point' and limited to a single topic? I have no problem with straying conversations and unless they become personally abusive they should be allowed to follow their own trail - just like happens in real life.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Guys, the thread still exists, just on the Classic Trains forum. Here is a link to it.
OK, it just got submerged behind newer topics and I didn't find it.
NorthWest Guys, the thread still exists, just on the Classic Trains forum. Here is a link to it.
daveklepper I thought we had a T-1 thread on this Forum. Did whoever inaugurated it ask for it to be removed because it strayed too much from the subject? I would like to reopen the discussion with the intent of staying with the subject, althouogh comparitive steam power and even comparing performance with diesels certainly should be allowed. My own impression was that it was a fine locomotive, but needed careful handling when starting a train, and came to late to realize its full potential because of the economics of the diesel.
We have discussed the T1 many times and much has been said about it. I am older and got to see them running on the St. Louis mainline and as a railfan, I was impressed. The maintenance issues and the fact that EMD had the E7 available at the same time the production T1's were built doomed all passenger steam. I got to see them above 80 many times and that was a reall treat to watch them glide so to speak with a train.
The start ups were always a problem even if the engineer was easy on the thottle, but they sure could run once moving.
CZ
Ever get to ride behind one or visit a cab?
While I am not particularly a PRR fan, I have both Volume 1 and 2 of Black Gold - Black Diamonds by Eric Hirsimaki. Most of Volume 1 is about PRR steam power since that was the competition when the diesel came along.
The first T1 pair was ordered in July 1940 and delivered in April and May 1942 at a cost of $310,000 each. The rear gear valve for the poppet valves was located under the boiler in a location very difficult to access, and the front valves were located under a streamlined shroud, which soon disappeared. They suffered no end of teething problems including: poor steaming - fixed by replacing the front end nozzles, tender slamming against the rear of the locomotive - finally corrected by changing the spring rigging on the tender trucks, inordinately high failure rate of the poppet valves which often broke at high speed, unreliable sanders, they were slippery, they were very rough riding, superheater units leaked and/or frequently broke.
The second batch, of 25, began to arrive in November 1945. Hirsimaki states "Perhaps the most surprising feature on the engines was the older Type A poppet valves which had long since proved unsuitable. The newer Type B poppet valve system was available and it was easier to maintain. However, the railroad opted to retain the Type A valves 'for commercial reasons'. This doomed the T1's from the start."
PRR began to place massive orders for freight and passenger diesel locomotives in February 1946.
My take is that the first two were a reasonable experiment, and the final 25 were a total mistake.
Mac
I was in the cab of several T1's. The crews were friendly in the late forties and a kid could get a look at the cab and they normally opened the firebox door to impress us.
PNWRMNM While I am not particularly a PRR fan, I have both Volume 1 and 2 of Black Gold - Black Diamonds by Eric Hirsimaki. Most of Volume 1 is about PRR steam power since that was the competition when the diesel came along. The first T1 pair was ordered in July 1940 and delivered in April and May 1942 at a cost of $310,000 each. The rear gear valve for the poppet valves was located under the boiler in a location very difficult to access, and the front valves were located under a streamlined shroud, which soon disappeared. They suffered no end of teething problems including: poor steaming - fixed by replacing the front end nozzles, tender slamming against the rear of the locomotive - finally corrected by changing the spring rigging on the tender trucks, inordinately high failure rate of the poppet valves which often broke at high speed, unreliable sanders, they were slippery, they were very rough riding, superheater units leaked and/or frequently broke. The second batch, of 25, began to arrive in November 1945. Hirsimaki states "Perhaps the most surprising feature on the engines was the older Type A poppet valves which had long since proved unsuitable. The newer Type B poppet valve system was available and it was easier to maintain. However, the railroad opted to retain the Type A valves 'for commercial reasons'. This doomed the T1's from the start." PRR began to place massive orders for freight and passenger diesel locomotives in February 1946. My take is that the first two were a reasonable experiment, and the final 25 were a total mistake. Mac
I remember one Sunday when we were watching trains at Effingham, Illinois and we could hear what sounded like a train chuffing loudly coming in from the East end of town. Suddenly, a T1 rolled around the curve east of town and glided to a stop. One of the poppet valves was broken and that valve would release the boiler presure into the stack each time instead of pushing the piston. Dad talked to the crew and they said maintaining steam was a problem but they went West out of town with that loud chuff each time the valve opened to the steam chest for that one cylinder. I am not sure but It must have been an exhaust valve that was broken or stuck open. The fireman said the exhaust was lifting the coal off of the grates. No one was happy that day.
inordinately high failure rate of the poppet valves which often broke at high speed,
It was the late George Drury in his book on North American steam who said poppet valves arrived just a little too late for American steam builders to master them. He was probably right.
As far as the last 25 T1's being a mistake, that's correct as well. The PRR made the decison to dieselize passenger service in 1946, so in a sense the T1's were out of a job before they were even built. Certainly they were used in passenger service but with the diesel handwriting on the wall they never really got the chance to prove what they could do. C'est la vie.
narig01Many years ago Trains ran a piece on the tale of one passenger crew on the Pennsylvania RR who had a fast run with a T-1. When they got to Ft Wayne there was a note that the chief dispatcher wanted to see then. His remark was to the effect of the train was flying a little too low. The author of tale noted they had clocked many miles in 30 seconds. The dispatcher also used roughly the same language in confirming the speed. Thx IGN
I certainly believe they could run 120 mph given the right size of train and track conditions.
We did not have 100 mph conditions on the main line to St. Louis but the T1's could made good time on any flat land type of track.
We might yet be able to test the design for longer than the PRR. A group is planning to build a T1 (to be numbered 5550) from scratch.
http://prrt1steamlocomotivetrust.org/
I believe they're going to upgrade the design some, but if built, I'm sure it will last longer than 4 years in service.
Blue Alert! We're at Blue Alert! Aw crap, it's a nondescript GEVO... Cancel Blue Alert!
Flaw wise, I know little of any flaws except the high speed slipping, caused primarily by poor maintenance, not a design flaw. Based on earlier posts here, The 5550 project has several engineers on board, and they have devised a couple of ways modern technology can be used to eliminate the chance of high speed slipping.
Also, the main point of the project is to recreate a locomotive from scratch, even if it doesn't run. Since an M-1 survives, why build another? This is similar to the British Tornado project.
The only similarity between the Tornado project and the 5550 project is building a steam locomotive from scratch. I have grown to be pessimistic over the years and the 5550 project is doomed to failure from a lack of money.
As one who rode behind T-1's on the Trailblazer, Red Arrow, and Cincinnati Limited, and whose favorite steam locomotive will always be the N&W J-1, but who also loves the K4 and E6 for nostalgia, I want to defend the T-1. The bugs had mostly been worked out just before they were scrapped. A good engineer could start the train without slipping, and apparently the knowledge of how to maintain and how often to maintain the troublesome valve gear was learned. It was an excellent performer, capable of extremely high speed running without damaging the track and still hauling a wopping long train at the same time. Sure there were a number of 4-8-4's that were probably better locomotives overall, the N&W J-1, the Niagra, the Daylights, the Ripley-designed AT&SF's, UP's second batch of 800's, even the Burlington's O-4. If the project does really happen, with all the huge funding it will take, a fine locomotive can and probably will result.
I recall that article in Trains about the fast run in the T1- the crew was called on the carpet in a manager's office and as they were leaving the man said something like, 'Nice run, boys!"
"If you can't make up time without worrying about the speed, I'll get someone who can!"
The store was published in both Trains (1993) and the Winter 2000 edition of 'The Keystone', the title "Last Chance." The tale takes place in 1948 with T1 5536. For any T1 junkie, it is a must read "At Maple the speedometer needle kept moving. We were now covering a mile in 30 seconds - 120 MPH!"
Also recommend ordering a copy of the Keystone Autumn 2000, Vol 34 # 3 for "An Appreciation of the T1." All I can say about this issue is WOW, very detailed and eye popping. There are a few naked T1 photos on the floor at Eddystone, which will make you go "hmmmm."
So question for the 5550 project, which valve gear would be used? Franklin, continuous rotary (5500), or Walschaerts (5547)?
Probably, the Franklin continuous rotary, but the improved Type B, and with modern metallurgy, it should be successful and reliable.
If my favorite steamer is the N&W J, why would i like to see a T-2 or T-1a? We have a number of very fine restored and operational 4-8-4's. But the T-1 was unique, quite beautiful in its own way, and certainly would be a popular fan-trip locomotive. It does need a nice string of matched Tuscan red cars to haul with Mountain View bringing up the rear. And its first revenue passenger run should include Horseshoe curve!
No reason not to build a new T-1. The plans and drawings exist, the skills to do it exist, and who knows, there may be some "angel" out there who's a rabid Pennsy fan and has deep, deep pockets who can make it all happen.
The only problem I can see is where to run it, but that's no reason not to try.
And then we can get busy with a Niagara, a Hudson, an Erie K-1, a Hiawatha, "The Blue Comet"...
Which Hiawatha, A or F?
about that http://www.crestlineprr.com/duplexexperimentals.html#t1
quote :
>> Another famous problem with the T1 was it was prone to slipping when at speed. With no warning at all, when there was a weight transfer, the front engine would lose its footing. Engineman were constantly dealing with this problem, sometimes having to stop the train to regain control. According to an article in a recent Keystone magazine, the problem was not so much the fault of the T1 as it was with the engineman. If he was sensitive to the T1's behavior, slipping was a minor problem, if one at all.
I've been told that when a T1 was shopped at Crestline, they would go out clean and shiny. <<
High speed slipping did not have to be contained to front engine since its cause could apply to both engines alike .
>> Engineman were constantly dealing with this problem, sometimes having to stop the train to regain control. <<
This belongs to the heritage of great campfire legends of railroading ! Only to stop a slipping of four or eight powered wheels you’d be a fool to *completely* stop *all* the wheels of a whole train from turning *at all* . This would be like cleaning your living room carpet by flamethrower , no , more than that ! I may be prepard to believe some things about PRR drivers handling T1 engines – but not this stuff !
>> I've been told that when a T1 was shopped at Crestline, they would go out clean and shiny. <<
Well , that must have been at night exclusively and elusively - or there would have been some photos showing something better than the known inevitable dirt garb 1948 ff. More likely , they did as everyone did during steam's late hours of fading out : minimum repair with minimum of cleaning just around parts to be worked on and disregard the rest .
Mea culpa & regards
Juniatha
Last year there was a great article in "Classic Trains" where the author exploded the "old husbands tales" concerning the T-1. I won't belabor any of the details but the author said it best, the K-4 was "as simple as a hammer and as reliable as an anvil" so when the T-1 came along it wasn't a surprise Pennsy veterans had some problems with it. Once they learned how to run and service it, no problems.
But as was said before, since the PRR had decided to dieselize passenger operations anyway the poor T-1's never really had a chance. If the T-1's had come out a decade earlier it probably would have been a different story. It's also been said the PRR stuck with the K-4 longer than they should have, but that's another story.
Firelock
>> It's also been said the PRR stuck with the K-4 longer than they should have, but that's another story. <<
Oh-yeah - and this one really *is* one of the amazing stories steam's history is full of !
On many a RR Pacifics came and went - on PRR the K4s was born to stay ..
Regards
Any kind Dave, what's the difference?
daveklepper Which Hiawatha, A or F?
Any kind Dave, what's the difference, although I'd lean more towards the original 4-4-2.
Hi Juniatha! The story as I read it a while back, and I forget just where, is the after the PRR's mainline electrifications from New York to Washington and out to Harrisburg the Pennsy went a bit "ga-ga" for electrification and put steam development on the back burner, expecting to run wire clear out to Pittsburg. The thing was, that massive electrification project was made possible by a Depression era government loan. However, after that project there was no more money coming from Uncle Sam so the electrification stopped and they had to make do with steam. So, the K-4 was it, at least until they had to come up with something else. The "something else" was the T-1.
Wayne
Juniatha High speed slipping did not have to be contained to front engine since its cause could apply to both engines alike .
To amplify this a bit: while there may have been a nominally greater tendency or 'propensity' for the forward engine to break into high-speed slipping first, either engine could be the one that actually broke loose in a particular 'event'. This is not the same problem as the low-speed slipping that was affected by weight transfer and the original equalization layout, etc and was predominantly observed on the forward engine.
On the T1s as built, there was no good way to determine which engine was slipping, and no separate throttle or 'trim' that could be used to correct only the wayward engine. A technically easy method for determining the presence of slip would be to use the 'sensor' portion of the analog system applied to the Q2s, which would indicate presence of slip "by engine" in the cab. Recording the relative incidence of these events would have given a better sense of the actual high-speed-slip dynamics. Might have been interesting to see how this would have developed if the T1s had remained in first-line passenger service...
>> Engineman were constantly dealing with this problem, sometimes having to stop the train to regain control. << This belongs to the heritage of great campfire legends of railroading ! Only to stop a slipping of four or eight powered wheels you’d be a fool to *completely* stop *all* the wheels of a whole train from turning *at all* . This would be like cleaning your living room carpet by flamethrower , no , more than that ! I may be prepared to believe some things about PRR drivers handling T1 engines – but not this stuff !
This belongs to the heritage of great campfire legends of railroading ! Only to stop a slipping of four or eight powered wheels you’d be a fool to *completely* stop *all* the wheels of a whole train from turning *at all* . This would be like cleaning your living room carpet by flamethrower , no , more than that ! I may be prepared to believe some things about PRR drivers handling T1 engines – but not this stuff !
Well said. I can provide at least one account of the actual procedure used for high-speed slip recovery; it is on p.21 of E.T.Harley's book on the 'Pennsy Q Class':
"I can recall standing on the cab deck on a T1 operating with a main (troop) train in the fog (poor rail conditions) between Dennison and Columbus, Ohio, and feeling the vibrations as it repeatedly went into high-speed wheel slip at 70 mph. The engineer would utter a few appropriate words, slam the air-assisted swing throttle shut and bring it out again very carefully when the slipping subsided."
It would rather obviously not take long for either engine of a T1 to stop slipping with steam reduced, even if it had wound up to very high speed and no effective sand could be applied to its driver treads, so any major speed reduction of the train, let alone a stop, would certainly not be observed.
I can see where, in some (extreme) cases, low-speed slipping (probably of the forward engine) would be so intractable as to require stopping the train, but that is a very different situation from high-speed slipping, and should certainly not be conflated with it (as the account Juniatha quoted seems to do). In my opinion, while there was in fact some inherent low-speed slipping tendency unrelated to improper engine handling procedures, most of its significant causes had been addressed by late 1947, for example through the progressive improvements to equalization and spring-rigging and better design and maintenance of the sanding arrangements. I think it's important to recognize that such measures would be less effective at ameliorating the high-speed slipping -- there, as Harley pointed out, the design would have benefited from some proportional form of what we would now call traction control.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.