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.
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.
Jim,
you totally disregard one important factor : steam locomotive design is not done by gambling but by engineering . Engineering again is applied science really , not applied poker .
So , in order to build a new T1 - be it a replica , be it a T1b or even a T2 - is not a matter of applied guestimate but applied engineering , by itself vastly advanced since the days of this historical type of locomotive , again of which much more is known now than was back then before knowing what would be their actual behavior in service . At the time of their introduction the Duplex type held some specific imponderabilities and poppet valve gear was an advanced ambitious proposition . Engineering challenge of both features has since eased significantly .
If we build a new T1 we have two advantages : we can straighten out known compromises in design and we know what to expect .
Further , on the Pennsy the T1 engines had to do hard work 24/7 from the day they had left constructors yard . A replica or a new T1 / T2 will be destined for special travels with a totally different profile of monthly work in ton-miles and attendance applicable to the locomotive .
It is feasible , guys , it's perfectly feasible !
narig01
*any* type of steam locomotive - if not designed with hoplessly underdimensioned cylinders - *could* run into a slip at start , at low speed hill climbing ( constant high t.e. working ) or at speed due to instant transient loss of adhesion . Varying rail adhesion conditions are an issue in today's modern electric traction - or why should they invest that much thought in better levelling out mass per axle distribution under all conditions of running and ever-improved electronic slip control .
In the Duplex type certain specific aspects of behavior also experienced in SE Mallet types proved to be more pointed and will have to be addressed by design of a new Duplex . What and why this is so I wiill not go into details here or this would become a tolerably long post to read . High speed slip was also experienced with German and French Pacifics and seems to have been known on the NYC, or else why should the Central have arranged those known high speed slippage tests with J-3a class locomotive to investigate what may happen under extreme conditions ?
Narig01 asked a questions about slipping problems with articulateds, and even mentioned UP's 3985 by name. Well guess what, back around 1989 or so Steve Lee of the UP steam program addressed that very question in an article he wrote for "Trains" about running freights with 3985.
The answer was yes, articulateds would slip if not handled correctly. Big Steve said the secret to avoid same was to take it easy on the starts, a long slow pull on the throttle and not "pullin' it like you MEAN it!" An attempted jack-rabbit start would cause the boiler water to surge toward the firebox end reducing weight on the front engine resulting in slips. Nice and easy on the throttle was the way to go.
Overmod refers to an "air assisted swing throttle." I have never heard of this and would appreciate an explanation.
Also, regarding poppet valves, I think a helicopter flight control hydraulic system could be applied to a locomotive with good results. The Sikorsky S-76 uses two very compact and lightweight 3000 psi hydraulic pumps to power the flight control actuators, which adjust the flight path of the rotor blades as they spin. Such a pump could be driven by a small steam turbine. The actuators would directly move the valves with the valve events controlled by the engineer via computer or directly by mechanical linkage.Such a system would be very reliable, nearly maintenance free and robust enough to stand up to railroad operating conditions. What do you think?
The air throttle assist is shown in PRR drawing A436493. This system should provide the same proportional control and positive location that a Franklin Precision reverse does. A competing system from the late '40s was the ThrottleMaster.
There are many forms of servo actuation that can be applied to steam-locomotive valves. For example, air-over-hydraulic servos have a comparatively good history in fast proportional modulation of large valves (and it might be somewhat easier to make arrangements for power air on a locomotive than the very large volume of hydraulic fluid that has to be moved to cycle valves of adequate flow the number of times per minute required for a locomotive at high speed).
Historically, precise hydraulic systems of the kind you describe may have trouble standing up well long-term in typical locomotive operating environments (see the experience, for example, with Meier-Mattern valve gear). I consider the situation to be somewhat less critical on a locomotive with 'typical' non-desmodromic poppet or drop valves (the T1 being an example) tnan on one with piston valves (where position of the valve body may need to be reproduceably assured within 1/32" or better with the valve moving at considerable speed at the moment of admission, with what may be a long overall travel...) But there are still sensor and actuator concerns that I think are substantial.
A greater problem imho is that the effect on the locomotive of valve misposition at high speed can be catastrophic, as there are much greater forces involved than, say, in automotive-size IC engines with 'electronic camshaft' valve actuators. There are different syndromes when different parts of a full-servo valve system go out... few of them particularly pretty. Then there is the matter of road failures that incapacitate the locomotive -- and there are a number of subsystems involved in the full-servo drive you describe which can produce that effect if they fail or suffer 'performance degradation' individually or in complex combination.
That's not to say you can't have servo performance enhancement, only that you'll want to maintain full mechanical integrity of the valve gear and apply the servo action either in the follower mechanism (of a poppet-valve system) or have an auxiliary valve system in parallel that comes into use only at higher speeds (and that is arranged to 'fail safe' to the greatest extent that can be arranged).
Hiawatha A 4-4-2 or F 4-6-4? The former would really be a one-of-a-kind rarety, good for short trains on mostly flat routes. Come to think of it, other than the CP Royal Hudson and one earlier CP example, both very fine locomotives, looks and performance, how many other 4-6-4's are preserved, and how man operational? I think there are two 4-4-2's at the Pennsylvania State RR Museum at Strassburg. Any Atlantics operational?
Hi Dave! No, there's no operational 4-4-2's that I'm aware of. One of the 4-4-2's you mentioned at the Pennsylvania State RR Museum was used by the Strasburg Railroad until ( I think) the mid-1990's. Ultrasonic examination revealed severe firebox erosion so the locomotive was returned to the museum. As the Strasburg was leasing it and didn't own it outright they elected not to repair it. I saw it several years ago and it's in beautiful shape, they didn't return it as a junker, and the impression I got from the museum stafffer I spoke to was there were no hard feelings between the museum and the Strasburg, they realized the Strasburg was under no obligation to repair the firebox. Maybe it'll be restored to operating condition at some point in the future? Anyone's guess.
As an aside, that same ultrasonic unit revealed firebox erosion on so many other Strasburg engines causing them to be immediately pulled from service the Strasburg crew called it "The Death Ray"!
I recall that event. They also had a beautiful PRR D-16 that had to be taking from service and is also on display at the museum. Possibly long in the future, both locos can be restored to operation, but I would not hold my breath.
I Dave! I saw the D-16 at the museum as well, and it was in beautiful shape as well. And I'm with you, I'm not holding my breath waiting for any immediate repair and return to service of either locomotive. Maybe someday, but not soon.
Granted, you can't tell a book by it's cover, but to my untrained eye aside from firebox rebuilding it didn't look like it would take much to put either locomotive in service again.
samfp1943 "...These locomotives sported 80' drivers, "
"...These locomotives sported 80' drivers, "
I recall seeing a T1 sprinting across Ohio when I was a kid ... actually it passed us like we were standing still at 60+ ... but I didn't think the drivers were that large. Maybe 80" would be more likely.
ChuckAllen, TX
daveklepper but I would not hold my breath.
but I would not hold my breath.
In service to you and Firelock, I am holding my breath starting NOW.
GASP!! ....Did it work?
Nah, didn't work. Try it again.
Not a T-1 but somewhat of a clone from the land down under
Ah, yes, the SAR 520 class. Good to see 523 out, regrettably she was rather hidden when I was there.
520 has retained her original headlight, which looks much better than the awful sealed beam arrangement that 523 has.
Holy smoke Mr. Balt, that thing's amazing! I'd heard about those Aussie T-1 clones, but this it the first picture I've seen of one. Thanks for posting!
NorthWest520 has retained her original headlight, which looks much better than the awful sealed beam arrangement that 523 has.
Here are two views of 520 with the 'regular' headlight...
Overmod NorthWest 520 has retained her original headlight, which looks much better than the awful sealed beam arrangement that 523 has. Here are two views of 520 with the 'regular' headlight...
NorthWest 520 has retained her original headlight, which looks much better than the awful sealed beam arrangement that 523 has.
What does the X or + sign indicate on the right side of the pilot. Also, what is the O in the left side of the top picture.
The 520 class is a documented copy of the T1 sharknose design. In an article in TRAINS many years ago at the time of the opening of the through standard-gauge transcon route in Australia, the designer of the 520 class stated that he drew on the styling of the T1 when designing the 520 class. Note that it even includes an all-weather cab.
Are 520 and/or 523 operational? Very well worth a trip to Austrailia to ride behind either! Along, of course, with enjoying the Melbourn tram system, now the world's largest, and with those classic W-type trams still iin serivce. Like the Milan Peter Witts, seem like they are eternal.
520 is, with Steamranger. 523 isn't.
BaltACD
What does the X or + sign indicate on the right side of the pilot. Also, what is the O in the left side of the top picture./quote]
From the steam_tech Yahoo group:
The post quote facility appears to be 'down' this morning, so I can't paste in the context.
BaltACD wanted to know what the 'destination sign' on the other side (the circular one that looks a bit like 'Kilroy Was Here') is.
Ivan Marchant noted: "The disc on the right of the picture is what we call the States Emblem or Piping Shrike. Up until the 1960’s, all locos built and operated in South Australia carried that emblem."
520 is operational, with steam ranger. 523 isn't, or isn't yet?
I don't think that there are any plans to fire up 523 at the moment, she is sitting on display at the museum, although not where she is is Balt's picture.
Prof O.
If I may say , it's sentences like this one here [to quote]
>> (see the experience, for example, with Meier-Mattern valve gear) <<
which make people
( who do not necessarily have as big and complete a volume
and content of a library available as you let on to have )
feel cut off from discussion .
I'd appreciate if you could allow yourself to get down
and offer a minimum of a functional explanation
of such items you like to mention all-too laconically
by simply dropping *a name*
- would you mind ?
= J =
Folks ,
could we back up from down-under and again get to speak pensively of pending matters T1 of the good old one-and-only perennial-in-our-mind Pennsylvania RR once roaming hilly land as thickly forrested as Transsylvania - name meaning 'behind the forests' which is why PRR could symbolically also be spelled Pensylvania RR - the railroad in the land of five forests - *gee* -
... although , that would be another story yet .
I think the original suggestion was hydraulic actuation of the valve gear after the pattern of a Sikorsky helicopter, which was answered by the historical example of Meier Mattern valve gear. The suggestion that it was hydraulically actuated is probably all a person needs to know about it, considering that helicopters are incredibly maintenance intensive.
The last time helicopter tech was applied to a train was the United Aircraft, Sikorsky Division, TurboTrain. I would not apply the dreaded epithat "unsuccessful" on it, but let us just say the TurboTrain had its "issues."
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
OvermodNo, a name meaning that would have to be something like 'Rursylvania' ...the original term for the region was 'ultra sylvam', beyond the forest (later changed to 'trans' meaning something like 'across to the other side of'). In semantics (and Latin) sometimes the little details do have to be observed... ... which is why PRR could symbolically also be spelled Pensylvania RR - the railroad in the land of five forests ... ... but wouldn't 'Pentsylvania' have been a better pun in that case?
Observing those little details a wee bit more carefully, it should be quinque silvarum, which sort of kills the possibility of any more puns, Gott sei Dank.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimmObserving those little details a wee bit more carefully, it should be quinque silvarum, which sort of kills the possibility of any more puns ...
Quintsylvania? (works if you torture it enough...) <ducks for cover>
all this information is interesting and applicable to understanding the problems with various approaches to control of steam distribution, and all contributions to this understanding should be welcome, since comparisons with what was used on the t1s and what might be used on 5500 are useful.
JuniathaOvermod the problem is you *always* seem to need to make a controversy of everything . If I was to say for example "Tonight ( no , not *this* night of course ) there is a full moon up there" you'd say , "No it's not just tonight it's up there but its always full , only one cannot see it fully , and besides one does only see one side so one can never see all 360° of the moon and therefor never see it fully !" .
Oh dear me!! Didn't you know, some people are always right? Except when they are not.
Overmod Juniatha No, I'd just say what Heinlein would -- 'it's full on this side'. (Before I get tagged again for not referencing old white guy names post-'76ers might not recognize, that's Robert Anson Heinlein, an ex-Navy guy who wrote SF) schlimm Oh dear me!! Didn't you know, some people are always right? Except when they are not. Fortunately I am not like them.
No, I'd just say what Heinlein would -- 'it's full on this side'. (Before I get tagged again for not referencing old white guy names post-'76ers might not recognize, that's Robert Anson Heinlein, an ex-Navy guy who wrote SF)
schlimm Oh dear me!! Didn't you know, some people are always right? Except when they are not.
Fortunately I am not like them.
Oh dear me!! Didn't you know, some people are always right? Except when they have no sense of sarcasm.
schlimm Fortunately I am not like them. Oh dear me!! Didn't you know, some people are always right? Except when they have no sense of sarcasm.
You just demonstrated that you are one of that self-elect confraternity.
[/sarc] (guess I need to provide the tag for some people.)
There's a new thread just for this exquisite byplay -- please go there and use it from here on out.
Overmod schlimm Fortunately I am not like them. Oh dear me!! Didn't you know, some people are always right? Except when they have no sense of sarcasm. You just demonstrated that you are one of that self-elect confraternity. [/sarc] (guess I need to provide the tag for some people.) There's a new thread just for this exquisite byplay -- please go there and use it from here on out.
schlimm Some folks can only dish out rude or dismissive or conteptuous remarks to others, but get controlling when the tables are turned. I apologize to all for this brief diversion, but Overmod brought it on himself, although I am quite certain he will deny that.
Some folks can only dish out rude or dismissive or conteptuous remarks to others, but get controlling when the tables are turned. I apologize to all for this brief diversion, but Overmod brought it on himself, although I am quite certain he will deny that.
You're right: the rude, dismissive, contemptuous (note sp.) folks certainly would say I'd deny that.
Now go put this post in the correct thread. (Sorry if that comes across as 'controlling')
[Edit: never mind, I'll do it.]
It is a internet forum for crying out loud.
I hope I'm not the only person confused by the premise of this restoration(bad choice of words for what's going on). If the goal is to show what can be done with steam in the modern era, why do they seem to be pursuing a replication of what was avilable in the last century?
I fail to understand why you would work with mechanical linkage and gearboxes as your solution.
I would assume that you can place encoders on each engine. With the feedback available, taking it to your microprocessor, it would seem that you could send signals for actuation to the appropriate valves. This should stop slips, maximize steam usage, and provide appropriate steam at all speeds.
Steam into New York's Pennsylvania Station was not an option. Not so in Transylvania.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZLPJuy9oyQ
ChuckHawkins would assume that you can place encoders on each engine. With the feedback available, taking it to your microprocessor, it would seem that you could send signals for actuation to the appropriate valves. This should stop slips, maximize steam usage, and provide appropriate steam at all speeds.
This approach is very true -- the problem is not that the system can't be made to work remarkably well, it's that when the system fails, the consequences are exceptionally dire. And there are many catastrophic points of potential failure in a control system of this type! About the last thing any practical railroad could want is a locomotive that can be completely incapacitated on the main by any number of simple failures, or that can suddenly experience full (or no) steam pressure on one or the other faces of one or more pistons... or that can pass abruptly from coasting bypass to high compression or vice versa without warning.
Remember that your system -- the encoders, actuators, PLC/processors, power supply, interconnect bus, etc. -- is going to be operating in a high-shock, dusty, wet, environment, maintained by people who are likely emphatically NOT NASA grade technicians or computer science/EE majors, and who are directed by people who are likely to buy from the lowest bidder and cut maintenance whenever they can...
In my opinion, if you are wise, you will provide a proportional mechanical system that provides 'default' valve actuation, and then do any fancy high-speed modulation of timing, duration, etc. via something like variable followers or secondary actuators in the valvetrain. Franklin type B or B-2 gear, or the drive-arm and shaft setup for type D, can be equipped to accomplish this comparatively easily (with any or a combination of sensor and actuator technologies). Note that a good Gray-coded rotary encoder of high precision can be incorporated into the Franklin or Reidinger-style gearbox very easily.
I further believe that for high-speed service you will want to provide a means of timing the valves that is separate from the means that physically moves them -- a relatively simple version of this principle being Corliss valves, which are spring-driven and need only be tripped like an escapement to cycle open or closed. It is not difficult to extend that principle to give valve opening and closing that can be modulated separately from timing and/or duration (there was at least one development of this in the late '90s, in Australia, that featured very complex motion of a physical valve via an automatic mechanism which cycled at each 'trip' and was autonomously regulated and powered).
Part of the 'fun' in past discussions of T1 "improvement" was to use only the systems and technologies that were available in the '40s and early '50s. Some very good proportional servo approaches for rotary and linear encoders existed then, as did rather good analog control methods (see gun directors, for example, or the system that was used for slip detection on the Q2 duplexes (note: NOT the system that implemented the slip control, which had significant problems).
Part of the confusion involved here is that there are a couple of contemporary projects involving modern steam. Project 130 is the CSR 'demonstration' project intended to reach 130 mph, which perhaps intentionally says it's intended to develop high-speed modern solid-fuel-burning locomotive power for Amtrak. (They carefully do not say that such 'new' locomotives will probably be very different from any reciprocating steam locomotive, let alone a modified ATSF Hudson design.)
The T1 Trust is the organization building a 'new' T1 -- with the explicit aim of keeping it as close as possible to the locomotive the PRR built, and making only the bare minimum of changes to make the locomotive workable and easy to service in a modern environment. There is no current intention to make the locomotive an 'ultimate' or 'extreme' demonstration of what's possible with a double-Atlantic duplex configuration; as noted elsewhere, such a locomotive would be very different from a T1 in a number of respects.
Please advise if English translation of any of the above is necessary. ;-}
OvermodPlease advise if English translation of any of the above is necessary. ;-}
Perhaps some improvements in syntax could illuminate the rather murky prose? :-} Your use of a "sarcasm" emo apparently makes one immune (in your mind, at least) from charges being the author of snarky comments.
Oh good Lord, don't anyone even THINK of putting micro-processors, computers, or any gee-wizardry into steam locomotives! My job's not railroad related but I've had to deal with plenty of over-engineered equipment over the years and some of it's enough to make a grown man cry.
KISS rule, baby. And remember what Mr. Scott once said:
"The more ye complicate the plumbin' the easier it is to stop up the drain!"
Oh, and Pennsylvania? It means "Penn's Woods."
@ Firelock
Awrl-ride , there ! PeNNsylvania , for being one of the financial 'Megalosaurus' of early times of the United States in development , he just 'bought' (?) this land and called it his’ - so Woody Guthrie's "This land is your land .." ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxiMrvDbq3s ) did no longer apply ..
and I will slam on brakes real hard against a head of steam here - long old Sally-One must come to a screeching stop , no regards to smoke rising .
As concerns T1 electronically controlled electric actuation of valves : sure , and I'd make it programmable and remote controlled , too , so in case it starts to go astray it can be messed with from the diner’s or (and?) from home base to make the confusion complete - not to forget to beef up parameters a trifle bit by making allowances for such things as road altitude and degree of inclination , type of track and rail , air temperature and moisture , type of performance to be chosen in at least 12 steps between 'absolutely smooth' and 'positively sporty' - not to mention those influencing elements I have just this minute allowed to drop from my mind .
Geeee .. I wonder
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnS9M03F-fA
or if you prefer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vg84L84uop8&index=34&list=RDTOSZwEwl_1Q
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_wrFI-Kbxk
or for chill out
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YD9E79TO8pU
Uhm - cheers (?)
schlimm Overmod Please advise if English translation of any of the above is necessary. ;-}
Overmod Please advise if English translation of any of the above is necessary. ;-}
There are certainly improvements in syntax that could make some of my prose in that post clearer. If you 'advise' as requested, with specific references to specific syntactic problems or issues, rather than putting the missing 'n' in your supposed sarcasm, I'll be happy to make the effort.
Question, with so many stuffed and mounted great locomotives around the country why should we spend any $ to replicate a failed design rather than restore some deserving still existing power? None of my $ to this till there is an operating CB&Q S3 running and even then questionable.
BuslistQuestion, with so many stuffed and mounted great locomotives around the country why should we spend any $ to replicate a failed design rather than restore some deserving still existing power?
The T1 Trust has their own explanations for both these questions -- why the T1 at all, and why the T1 instead of other deserving power that could be 'built from scratch' (the 'short list' including the J1e or S1b).
The T1 was very far from a 'failed design', contrary to a great deal of ancient railfan 'wisdom'. There are solutions, using nothing better than contemporary technology or work, that address most of the substantial problems, including that of high-speed slipping at maximum trailing load. I for one think it makes sense -- as far as restoring any big steam locomotive makes sense -- to work with re-creating and perhaps improving an innovative design rather than spending All That Money on something relatively conventional. [Note that I CAREFULLY avoid questions like 'why not spend All That Money on selected restoration projects rather than a complete new build'. The Trust is getting its money from sources that don't care as much about those other restorations, meritorious though they may be in absolute terms, and long-term it's not a zero-sum game for the pittance of available grant money and railfan donations).
One key difference is that the T1 appears to appeal to a much wider demographic than most steam locomotives -- even N&W 611 doesn't have the 'wicked cool factor' the Trust has observed in its marketing approaches. (Closest thing on the Burlington would be a S-4A ... but that's another story ;-} )
And in case anybody is wondering -- I don't think a replicated T1 design is a basis for the CSR/SRI 'Amtrak-compatible passenger locomotive' design, any more than the Ripley Hudson would be...
Failed design? Didn't the Supreme Court once lay out what constituted "fighting words"?
The thing about the T-1 is all of the apocryphal tales told of clocking 120+ MPH on some road foreman's watch with 1200 trailing tons and all of that.
The T-1 was the pinnacle of high-speed passenger steam during the waning years of steam and perhaps the waning years of passenger service and certainly the waning years of 100+ MPH speeds outside of electrified territory in the U.S. What about the Norfolk and Western J or the NYC Niagara, you may ask, but what about them? Great locomotives, high-horsepower passenger steam but not at the tippy top of the pinnacle of high-speed steam.
It doesn't matter that they were judged "unsuccessfull" (I hate the word, it is too glib a dismissal.). These divided-drive poppet-valved high-drivered speedsters have a certain glamor of no other locomotive, steam or Diesel or whatever.
T-1mania is a combination of nostalgia, wistfullness and wishful thinking of what might have been or what could have been. Trains Magazine once characterized the T-1 as a "dinosaur", but what they meant was not just an extinct species, but the meanest, baddest, fiercest meat-eating dinosaur of them all just before the meteor crashed down and ended their reign.
Your question is like, "What is the big deal about the T-Rex, from the fossils we see it suffered from arthritis and a tendency for bone fractures and would have gone extinct anyway, even without the meteor (or Diesel)."
Your question is like, "Why go to the trouble to find, excavate, reconstruct, and exhibit the bones of a monster-killer like the T-Rex when other more prosaic dinosaur fossils are more readily available and so much easier to work with"?
Paul Milenkovic Failed design? Didn't the Supreme Court once lay out what constituted "fighting words"? The thing about the T-1 is all of the apocryphal tales told of clocking 120+ MPH on some road foreman's watch with 1200 trailing tons and all of that. The T-1 was the pinnacle of high-speed passenger steam during the waning years of steam and perhaps the waning years of passenger service and certainly the waning years of 100+ MPH speeds outside of electrified territory in the U.S. What about the Norfolk and Western J or the NYC Niagara, you may ask, but what about them? Great locomotives, high-horsepower passenger steam but not at the tippy top of the pinnacle of high-speed steam. It doesn't matter that they were judged "unsuccessfull" (I hate the word, it is too glib a dismissal.). These divided-drive poppet-valved high-drivered speedsters have a certain glamor of no other locomotive, steam or Diesel or whatever. T-1mania is a combination of nostalgia, wistfullness and wishful thinking of what might have been or what could have been. Trains Magazine once characterized the T-1 as a "dinosaur", but what they meant was not just an extinct species, but the meanest, baddest, fiercest meat-eating dinosaur of them all just before the meteor crashed down and ended their reign. Your question is like, "What is the big deal about the T-Rex, from the fossils we see it suffered from arthritis and a tendency for bone fractures and would have gone extinct anyway, even without the meteor (or Diesel)." Your question is like, "Why go to the trouble to find, excavate, reconstruct, and exhibit the bones of a monster-killer like the T-Rex when other more prosaic dinosaur fossils are more readily available and so much easier to work with"?
Don't know if you realized how you got it right! Not where my $ will go, let's see long lived successful machines, not something with questionable glamor (their filthy condition at the end of their lives indicated the esteem they were held in by their owner compared to the relative cleanliness of a lowly K4) brought back to life!
BuslistDon't know if realized how you got it right! Not where my $ will go, let's see long lived successful machines brought back to life!
One of the beauties of America is that Buslist is entitled to his opinion, and it is not wrong; if he wants to spend his money on restoring extant steam to life, more power to him! No one is twisting his arm to get him to become a T1 fan, or contribute to the T1 Trust, or in fact stop advocating that dollars be spent on existing steam rather than replicating a T1.
Not sure, however, that the T1 thread is altogether the right place for repeatedly discussing why NOT to have anything to do with T1s... that's best put in a 'what steam to restore?' thread.
Overmod Buslist Don't know if realized how you got it right! Not where my $ will go, let's see long lived successful machines brought back to life! One of the beauties of America is that Buslist is entitled to his opinion, and it is not wrong; if he wants to spend his money on restoring extant steam to life, more power to him! No one is twisting his arm to get him to become a T1 fan, or contribute to the T1 Trust, or in fact stop advocating that dollars be spent on existing steam rather than replicating a T1. Not sure, however, that the T1 thread is altogether the right place for repeatedly discussing why NOT to have anything to do with T1s... that's best put in a 'what steam to restore?' thread.
Buslist Don't know if realized how you got it right! Not where my $ will go, let's see long lived successful machines brought back to life!
I guess I just don't understand the compulsion to put rare restoration $ into replicating what is in reality only a footnote to the history of the industry, When in reality there are so many (in my mind) more worthy projects. Each one of us has the choice of where to put their hard earned $. So be it!
Overmodschlimm Overmod Please advise if English translation of any of the above is necessary. ;-} Perhaps some improvements in syntax could illuminate the rather murky prose? :-} Your use of a "sarcasm" emo apparently makes one immune (in your mind, at least) from charges being the author of snarky comments. That's not a sarcasm emoticon, it's wry (and a bit self-deprecating) humor -- in other words, not to be taken in full seriousness even by me. Semicolon means 'wink'. Perhaps unsurprisingly, your emoticon, evidently intended to have a very different meaning, does not have that.
Deliberately set to catch your correcting other's posts with condescending comments, as is your apparent wont (and possible need). Most of us also are aware of the meaning of the semicolon in the context of an emo.
Guys ,
one thing's for sure :
#1 - the Duplex concept was an American landmark in the development of the reciprocating steam locomotive , it came late in twilight of steam and that explains most all of the agony these engines found themselves in , yet by an unbiased view this only makes their performances in spite of adverse conditions stand the taller .
#2 - no Duplex has been spared the reefer - a woeful deficiency to all of us friends of steam , at least .
#3 - trying to heal this vacancy is inherently a brave effort and should rightfully be respected even by those who personally might choose to stand off .
#4 - it is an effort worth every pound , since with the demise of the last T1 many of us steam lovers felt no less afflicted than the one-and-only living T1 reincarnation here sings :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Up6sZWEPGj4
Or that's the way I see it .. ( no ? say , just look at *that* aristocratic nose , those high cheek bones ..)
Don't confuse the nasty condition of a lot of the T-1's at the end of their lives with what the Pennsy men thought of them. Remember, this was at the tail end of the PRR steam era, and the drill by that time was to do just enough maintanance on the steamers to keep them alive until the diesel replacements showed up. They weren't going to waste time and effort on outgoing equiment.
Even on the New York and Long Branch, where the K-4's made their last stand, there were some filthy looking locomotives as well. Some were at the point they had to be double-headed just to make the commuter runs. But hey, the end was coming, everyone knew it, and as the saying goes "you don't throw good money after bad!"
Cher as a T-1? Hmmm, I watched the video, and you know, it kind of fits. Yeah, the nose, the cheek bones, the raven black hair...
I always thought Cher was cool! Anyone remember her video "If I Could Turn Back Time", shot on the battleship USS New Jersey? Man, were those sailors an appreciative audience!
As for electronics, look at the HHP-8s...
Anyway, part of the reason why PRR T1s always look grubby in photos was that they only were in service for less than a decade, most of which was spent under active dieselization. Essentially considered obsolete when new, the plan was simply to keep them running as cheaply as possible until replacements arrived. K4s were generally ratty by the early '50s, too, but there was plenty of time for clean pictures when they were in their prime.
The other thing is, if someday and for whatever reason steam cannot be operated on main lines, the T1 will still exist for future generations to ponder and enjoy, as well as any locomotives that can be fired up with the money.
Firelock76Cher as a T-1? Hmmm, I watched the video, and you know, it kind of fits. Yeah, the nose, the cheek bones, the raven black hair...
.
Oh, steam can be operated on main lines Dave, the problem is you need a sympathetic host railroad for it to happen, either a Class 1 or a regional with enough trackage to make it worthwhile.
Not everyone is a Norfolk-Southern, or a BNSF, and their steam-friendly attitude could change overnight with a change of management. By the same token, CSX's anti-steam attitude could change at any time, but I'm not holding my breath waiting for it to happen. Nothing against CSX, by the way.
daveklepperwhy won't steam be operated on main lines? where there is a will there is a way.
Dave, even though this IS your thread, we already have a good thread on this topic, and that's where discussion of this point would probably be better made.
Big Jim ,
"shark-nose" - oh , let's dig that silly term once and for good ( if at all , you might want to call it / them sharp nose - but then again you don't have to , you might as well just concede it looks elegant and even aristocratic and I leave it to you to consider which one you prefer )
Firelock ,
uhm - - that's exactly *not* what I'd call a decent way , I think she was very badly adviced - likely not adviced at all or wanted to have it her way no matter what - anyways , it was vulgar and abasing , as a singer and as a woman she was downright demeaning herself . I think it must have been fear of age and fear of loosing shape so common among us women . Some men - some , mind it - manage to be ageing in dignity , they even seem to gain in conduct , some women manage it , too . However some can't and - alas! - they panic and there , an old witch produces an unasked-for tacky public show of what's still remaining , more or less , of her shapeliness of times long since gone , just like in this-here song by Barry Manilow (not that he aged that much better , by the way )
I guess it was Tina Turner who influenced her - to her disadvantage .
In sharp contrast , see her decent early performances in the Sixties of Flower Power
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQlhH6tDBc8
Cher with heavy 'Loewy style' (!) eye liners and , see !? , the T1 is already crossed out and the diesel close to her (although , why in prisoner's wear - mysterious song , which ever way you see it )
..*gee*..
Juniatha"shark-nose" - oh , let's dig that silly term once and for good ( if at all , you might want to call it / them sharp nose - but then again you don't have to , you might as well just concede it looks elegant and even aristocratic and I leave it to you to consider which one you prefer )
I could never figure out why the Baldwin diesels were referred to as "Shark Nose" either, but, try getting that misnomer changed!
BigJimI could never figure out why the Baldwin diesels were referred to as "Shark Nose" either
One reason was, I think, similarity of the nose curve to the effect of the paint on the famous Curtiss Warhawk.
Another was the design similarity to the late-Thirties 'Spirit of Motion' Grahams, commonly known as 'Sharknoses'
Returning to the T1, of course there is always... this...
OvermodOne reason was, I think, similarity of the nose curve to the effect of the paint on the famous Curtiss Warhawk.
Hi Juniatha! Yeah, I remember Cher did get quite a bit of critisism at the time for her performance in "If I Could Turn Back Time", but I look at it this way, nobody MADE her do it, and her outfit was kind of in the spirit of that "dress" she wore to an Oscar ceremony, you know, the one everyone said made her look like she was going to Darth Vaders funeral? Anyway, those swab-jockeys certainly enjoyed it!
Me? I thought the best lookin' lady there was the USS New Jersey herself!
What's this got to do with the T-1? Not a bloody thing, I admit it, but at least the old Jersey's still with us. Wish I could say the same about a T-1
Love that P-40 Overmod, and isn't amazing how something 70-plus years old can still look so lethal? I didn't live through the era, obviously, but I still have a hard time thinking of World War Two aircraft as antiques. World War One aircraft, THOSE are antiques.
Hi folks ,
just *one* more word on this before we possibly stop :
Now if you were in doubt , here's the proof : she really must have been a T1 in former life ( who ? well now ..) starting the show she slips - and repeatedly so
( b-b-but why the diesel , too ? who'll explain *that* - is it infectuous ? .. amazing .. )
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDnm0VHCsoE&index=34&list=RDBjHSOzVU5j0
( and why does *this* appear in the 'everything-you-never-dared-to-ask-about-the-T1' thread ?
Well , hell , it *does* relate to the T1- somehow ..)
aunt Sally-1ne
JuniathaNow if you were in doubt , here's the proof: she really must have been a T1 in former life ... starting the show she slips - and repeatedly so
And, be it noted, because the man supposedly 'in charge of the show' started it and then couldn't handle the situation properly ...
And even when she lets go, it's with grace and style ...
Good call!
Lady and gentlemen;
I have been absent for awhile so please excuse the delay in my reply. I have thought about your objections to my question concerning this endeavor. Franky I'm not persuaded by your comments. Let's see if I basically hit on the major issues.
1) Environmental - it's hot, dirty, and of a high-shock nature.
2) Education - personnel require a "keep it simple ?" approach; I refuse to even use the last word.
3) Failue of a component might result in a lack of valve actuation at speed with consequences.
In my first post, I failed to say all that I might do for this appliction. I personally doubt that Will Woodard (were he here) would fail to adapt recent tecnology to improve his system.
We've heard a great deal about "slippery" with these machines. I'd put load cells on both drives and bring that info back up to the operators (hate providing them with info that might enable them to perform better). Using that, along with factor of adhesion, might allow focus on which drive might be facing problematic conditions and how it should be handled.
As to the environmental conditions, based on my time in steel mills, I really don't think the RR situation is any more challenging. Electronics have functioned well in the mills for many years and I have confidence they could do so on a railroad.
I think any question of the operator's ability to handle these "advanced devices" says more about the mind-set of the person who asks. The necessary training is always required whether in using a hammer ora PC readout. Again based on my experience, people rise to the occasion (many actually welcome it).
A valve failure at speed - whether an electrically or mechanically actuated device has this failure, what happens? The pressure of the pistonon our fluid is going to overcome the resistence offered by the valve and open it. The failure is a failure despite the actuating device.
There was also a reference to transmitting info on opeeration over the airways to a remote location for analysis. We definitely wouldn't want to follow those infernal combustion guys down that sort of silly path.
I'm beibg a little "snarky" the way I've responded but it isn't my intention to belittle. I just think when we pontificate we should stop and take a real look at what we are saying.
ChuckHawkins I have been absent for awhile so please excuse the delay in my reply. I have thought about your objections to my question concerning this endeavor. Franky I'm not persuaded by your comments.
I have been absent for awhile so please excuse the delay in my reply. I have thought about your objections to my question concerning this endeavor. Franky I'm not persuaded by your comments.
When did Sinatra get involved in this thread? I thought he had died...
In my first post, I failed to say all that I might do for this application. I personally doubt that Will Woodard (were he here) would fail to adapt recent technology to improve his system.
Why is it that you DON'T say 'all you might do' for this application? Then at least we could get to the merits of what you propose with a bit more actual technological discussion -- which is (or was, anyway) one of the main intents of this thread.
Cute, but the wrong technology, with not only the wrong haptics but the wrong latency as well. With slip, all you care about is the rotational acceleration relative to a reference (in the past an encoded or proportional-voltage signal, derived for example from an undriven and unbraked wheel; in more modern memory a ground radar like that used by EMD; in still more modern technology a pattern-recognition scan which could be easily derived from tercom or adapted from computer mouse=tracking technology). The servo I designed works automatically within a quarter-revolution of the drivers. and proportionally reduces only the slip of the engine involved; more coarse trim control (e.g. via the four Wagner throttles on the forward engine) precludes repeated slipping under conditions that give compromised adhesion. Load cells might be useful in determining the reduction of weight on a given driver, due to road shock coupled with augment force, but any control signal derived from such a source would become nonproportional (in a relatively unpredictable sense) very quickly after giving an indication, certainly before any proportional control could be achieved for the systems that actually control a slip on a steam locomotive. I won't dignify load cells in the side rods with a formal response; suffice it to say that control theory will NOT be your friend if you think you can get a signal better that way than from driver rotation.
As I noted somewhere back in one of the modern-steam threads (I don't remember which one, although you might be able to find it by going to the Classic Trains Web site, which still has a functional thread search engine) it would be quite simple to put two indicator lights in the cab of a T1 that informs, instantly and positively, the presence of a developing slip on either or both engines. The immediate problem with this is that, net of reaction time, the slip may propagate dramatically before the engineer can do much of anything -- and on the T1 as designed, that 'much of anything' is restricted by the single throttle (and there is little room for a pair of multiple throttles, even at the smaller required size, in the area provided). Note that PRR had already understood the importance of autonomic response to slipping on duplex drives by the time of the Q2s; while the device that was designed to solve the issue had problems (bang-bang control modality being perhaps worse than butterfly-valve shaft bearing maintenance) there was really nothing that couldn't have been solved even with the analog system utilized.
No one is saying they won't work, and perhaps work for a very long time. There is a massive difference between equipment under cover in a static environment, using AC power from the grid, with staff available to provide maintenance on failed components relatively quickly, and the situation on a working railroad, but we can leave that aside, as we can the discussion of 'typical' railroad maintenance methods and priorities for a complicated system that does not return in dollars and cents a return commensurate with the required expenditure (to use some more of that highfalutin' grammar). What we can't leave aside is the effect of a failure of one of these systems out on the main line of a working railroad. And there are many potential failure modes, including a fairly wide variety of common-mode failures, that might produce that result.
Yes, you can design modular, self-diagnosing systems that would be easy to repair on the road. Specify what you think is appropriate, and we'll all take it from there. There might even be some applicability of modern failover thinking (in other words, design so that quick and positive reaction to failure gives effective uptime comparable to systems with longer MTTF) but I would not want to have to explain this unless I had very good logistics reserves, and competent on-site diagnostics...
I think any question of the operator's ability to handle these "advanced devices" says more about the mind-set of the person who asks. The necessary training is always required whether in using a hammer or a PC readout. Again based on my experience, people rise to the occasion (many actually welcome it).
This being in response to what, precisely? The issue is not exactly whether we provide the equivalent of a drink from a firehose to an engine crew. It's what we do that makes the job of running a locomotive effectively -- however we may choose to define that -- as simple, error-free, and rewarding (not necessarily in that order!) as possible.
There is no reason why instrumentation cannot be provided that allows you to 'drill down' and watch the kinematics of the valvetrain or the instantaneous pressure (or even a measure of the mass flow) of steam as the engine runs. On the other hand, it was the job of devices like the Valve Pilot to reduce the effective moment-to-moment tinkering with valve-gear settings to something simple that distracts from the haptic process of safe train handling as little as possible -- e.g. simply matching needles. As you are probably aware, modern automatic transmissions can provide performance far beyond what even a skilled driver can achieve with a manual... and they do this without requiring attention to things like upshift lights or feedback from limiters. Why would we think that optimization of high-performance reciprocating steam locomotives should be different?
A valve failure at speed - whether an electrically or mechanically actuated device has this failure - what happens? The pressure of the piston on our fluid is going to overcome the resistance offered by the valve and open it. The failure is a failure despite the actuating device.
With respect -- you really don't understand either how poppet valves on steam locomotives work, or what the forces involved in even a duplex reciprocating locomotive actually are. If you calculate what happens if one side of a two-cylinder double-acting locomotive 'sees' full-pressure admission against one face of its piston -- I recommend you start with measuring the lateral deflection in the main rod, a good use for the strain gage out of your load cell perhaps -- you will stop being so sanguine in very short order. Did you think the rotating inertia of the drivers and rodwork would just go away if the drivers started skidding?
There was also a reference to transmitting info on operation over the airways to a remote location for analysis. We definitely wouldn't want to follow those infernal combustion guys down that sort of silly path.
What is supposed to be an issue with this?
You don't want to have all the sensors wireless and consuming bandwidth, as you no doubt know from your mill experience. I think it is much more likely that you would condition the data on the locomotive, multiplex it for transmission if desired, and simultaneously store the data feed for subsequent analysis. There are some advantages to seeing the data feed and 'tweaking' the experimental parameters while running, and providing the strain gages in the draft gear (hey! you don't suppose that might also count as a load cell?) eliminates some of the need for a dedicated instrument/dynamometer car) -- but I have a suspicion that for most instantiations it would be better to have wired connections and onboard data streaming than to rely on external radio conditions. Which is a very different thing from saying either that we don't know how to do it, or haven't looked as well as you think you have at why we should.
I'm being a little "snarky" the way I've responded but it isn't my intention to belittle. I just think when we pontificate we should stop and take a real look at what we are saying.
Snark is fine, I suppose, as long as you can back it up (as Beethoven supposedly justified his ornery temper by composing beautifully). You might realize that you are far from the first person to have insights about this sort of thing, and in fact far from the first person who would subsequently realize that his or her first thoughts were... not exactly the things that work best in the 'greater whole' of the locomotive considered as part of a transportation system, even though they may have seemed ideal in a different engineering context. A particularly poignant example is Bulleid's adaptation of roller chains/silent chains to valve-gear drive. It's easy with hindsight to understand the issues that make it an unadvisable 'technology transfer' to reciprocating locomotives, but not if what you've seen 'theretofore' has been in successful applications of its principles...
Never make the mistake that if anyone seems to be pontificating that they actually intend what they say to be taken ex cathedra. But DO ask the followup questions about the substance of the "pontification", and DO propose alternatives that you think will work... and explain why. More than nine times out of ten, there is more to it than meets the eye, even to people with extensive training in particular disciplines...
[/quote]
Folks - some VERY interesting posts to say the least! But what has stood out the most is that many have repeated the T1 made 120mph. With a train even!
I am just going to have to bow out on this one. Just isnt possible IMHO with a T1. And in 40 yrs of locomotive study (and i still dont know everything), I have never heard this before. Not that this could ever happen now, but I would have to be in that cab with a pocket waltham to verify this one!
If that was true, then the american steam speed record would belong to the T1. Especially if the T1 did this as many times as are claimed. Pretty sure the Hiawatha could outrun a T1, with just 4" driver difference, for example. But even that loco Im pretty sure couldnt touch 120mph.
Dont get me wrong, Im sure the T1 was fast, but thats if you could get her up to speed (without breaking something or slipping all the time). 100 was doable (dangerously!), 110 almost maybe, but 120?? I will have to agree to disagree here.
I will give the T1 this, she has got some mighty fine lines about her. And it easily recognizable anywhere. Which is not a common feature for steam. Most looked like the next. Only those like the NYC J3a, MILW Hiawatha, Daylight GS-4, or even NW 611 have that kind of special recognition. T1 is in that group (something about her nose i think!).
Mechanically, for Pennsy being the "standard railroad of the world", the T1 wasnt all that. Very seldom is it ever brought up the trade between the C&O and PRR to test each others locos. Of which, the T1 failed miserably. Both railroads enjoy the same topography, and traffic type. Pretty fair test, but the T1 did not live up to even modest hype.
Shame though, truely a unique locomotive. Lastly, i dont think the advent of the diesel age doomed the T1. Had diesels not shown up for another decade or so, the T1 would still have failed. And likewise, PRR would have moved on to other ideas. Regardless that the T1 made it to production. Any existing video Ive seen shows her slipping at the drop of a hat no matter what she is doing This wasnt an engineers mishandling problem. It was her design.
Not a tried and true documented engineering rule, but you can look at a T1 and tell shes a wheel spinner. Makes you wonder what a set of 70" drivers would have done for her. I give her a thumbs up for sure, but 120mph? Im not buying that bridge!
Cheers!
PM RailfanPretty sure the Hiawatha could outrun a T1, with just 4" driver difference, for example. But even that loco Im pretty sure couldnt touch 120mph.
Which "Hiawatha"? A or F7?
As a perhaps peripheral note, Alfred Bruce of Alco, nobody's idea of a liar, mentions that 128mph for a class A was easily achievable.
In my own opinion, there is zero likelihood that a T1 could NOT reach 120mph on suitable rail, under stable conditions. Even the issue of high-speed slipping was likely to become troublesome only at the combination of high loading and high speed. Moreover, I also think it is likely that a properly-designed divided-drive would hold up much longer at sustained running at high speed than a comparable 4-8-4, since main-pin fracture should have been less likely (the late Jim Scribbins noting this as one of the reasons for relatively early retirement of the F7s).
Note that the 'benchmark' top speed of a T1 built like the S1, with ordinary rodwork and valve gear, using the 'one-and-a-half diameter speed measure, is already 120mph -- with the advantages of the Franklin gear, Timken rods and rod bearings, and revised suspension arrangements then adding to the practical achievement of high speed. Applying the principles Voyce Glaze used to balance the N&W J class would, I think, easily result in a T1 able to reach the same rotational peak speed as the J -- say, 540rpm -- without the difficulty the J had with deflection in the valve gear or potential for seizing of the piston valves at high superheated-steam temperature. There was adequate steam (and perhaps more importantly, adequate exhaust capability to relieve the steam after it has acted) to produce meaningful torque at that rotational speed.
Whether the T1 would be economical to run at sustained high speed is another story altogether. But that is not the issue under discussion now.
Rather than considering a divided-drive with 70" drivers (and poppet gear, etc.) why not consider the case of a double-Belpaire version with the requisite 76" drivers to fit the available clearance? And keep a type E boosteron the locomotive if you need to be able to start (with minimal slipping) any train you can pull at higher speed...
My bad, I was speaking of the Class A series Hiawatha. It just happened to be the first, fast loco that popped into my mind.
Hi everybody
While I certainly do not intend to get involved in discussion about how fast the MILW A class Atlantics /F-7 Hudsons or PRR T1 locos *did* go in actual traffic , less so about evaluation of such feats of speeding a locomotive , likely of rather neglected technical condition in these years of precipitant decline of steam in America , there is little scope for doubt all three of them *could* top the magical 120 mph or even 200 km/h (125 mph) provided (a) first class technical condition of the locomotive (b) adequate limitation of train load (c) last not least perfectly suited track structure and alignment . Mind , all three classes were built to a customer's specification for 100 mph daily service - sound mechanical engineering thus had a substantial safety margin of rpm speed to be designed into the corresponding locomotive types . Since mechanically , the T1 presented something like a ‘double Atlantic’ configuration with those -4 in smaller drive wheel diameter well made up for by their poppet valve gear with ambitions valve opening and timing at least in the original setup and zero-play roller bearing rod and axle specification , it was the most powerful one and thus undoubtedly the #1 candidate for reaching such progressive level of ‘locomotion’ .
Personally , I presume it might have been interesting at least to find out if the one-and-only S1 6100 *could* have done even better – at least as concerns resources of steaming and with those odd last four inches , too , she had an undeniable potential reserve to outrun all of them . There are rumours remaining round and round she had been up to 140 mph – even 150 . Well , with all sympathy , the latter would appear *optimistic* , mildly put .
Well , we will never know – and beyond all reasonable down-to-earth considerations that leaves scope for us to ..
*imagine* ..
--sssSallywhOoshhh--
Hate to differ PM, but when all is said and done the T-1 was NOT a failure. With the PRR's decision to dieselize passenger service in 1946 the T-1 was out of a job before the job even got started! Built for high-speed mainline service there was no way a T-1 could be downgraded to branch-line or commuter service like a lot of the older PRR steamers were. I mean, a drag racer isn't all that practical for running down to the supermarket, even though it might turn some envious eyes.
Possibly if the T-1 had emerged say ten years earlier, 1935 instead of 1945 it would have been a whole different story. It's been said the Pennsy stuck with the K-4 for too long when they should have moved on, but that's another tale for another time.
Oh, and those T-1 tests on the C&O and N&W? Both 'roads didn't find anything really wrong with the T-1, especially the N&W, there just wasn't anything about it they cared to borrow.
I spoke to the Chairman of the T-1 5550 project.
-They have permission from someone run on a test track in the southwest to see just how fast they can get it to go. (If the T-1 ever gets off the ground)
-An interesting point (Probably mentioned numerous times in this thread) is the poppet valve gear, the director was orbiting around it and how efficient it was, since it was constantly in motion, rather than stopping and reversing backwards like conventional valve systems.
-The slippage problem he wrote off as a rumer that grew bigger over time. He desribed it as a small problem, exagerated overtime, and was mostly due to human error. Like taking an engineer out of an old VW bug (Pennsy K-4), and putting them in a ferrari(T-1) (His description). They just weren't used to the preformance. Also, at first, the sandpipes were missing the tracks entirely.
-The T-1 was tested by N&W, and outpreformed the J-class, even on the winding mountain tracks. They were GOOD engines, even if they couldn't do 140 mph, and were a bit sensitive.
Could a T1 do 120mph? I'm not sure. I wouldn't doubt it doing 100mph, but they have their reasons saying it could do 140 mph. We'll just have to wait and see.
Remember, if the T-1 was really that bad, why would this team invest millions in it, when they could do something better? (*cough*,*cough* NYC Hudson)
They aren't crazy. They're being held back by people who think they are.
(This post was edited to try and prevent a missunderstanding)
you said it and well , too .
About the C&O and N&W 'tests' there would be a lot to remark , yet suffice it for now : they were anything but technically sound test procedures . There are a couple of questions that yet remain to be answered about some points in runs of scheduled , although wilfully overloaded trains – for example the N&W even added a string of coal laden gondolas to an already beefed to the max passenger train when bound to attack their ever-inevitable test bench Christiansburg hill climb . What was the idea ? I'd have asked if I had been at Symes position . I might have phoned saying “you guys probably thought it has two sets of drives , so it must be a freighter , so lets load on anything near and see what it can do up the hill” . The Chessie somehow managed to have a full head of steam – at least so they put it down in their notes – yet produce but around 3/4 of nominal starting tractive effort at full boiler pressure – now , how was that ? At least , both railroads noted *no* more tendency to slipping than with any of their conventional classes of steam locomotive . And that alone leaves a couple of question marks with stories of notorious and untameable slipping on PRR . At least , on youtube you can see one driver starting out with a passenger train , T1 front engine slipping and him not acting in any way until the engine unit regains adhesion all by itself – no throttle closing at all . This was a careless and in fact very rude sort of driving . Well , by this sort of engine handling *anything* could happen and *nothing* can be said about what that engine could do when properly handled .
Sally-One
Edit
Oh , and now that I see it , S Connor you are right about the T1 trust , that much is for sure , further , you might just have found the missing formula : while it is not sure at all the T1 would attain 120 mph , they might as well just skipped that official speed limit by going for 140 directly - gee, that's cute , I like it !
S. Connor I spoke to one of the directors of the T-1 5550 project. -They have permission from the FRA to run on their test track in the southwest to see just how fast they can get it to go. (If the T-1 ever gets off the ground) -An interesting point (Probably mentioned numerous times in this thread) is the poppet valve gear, the director was orbiting around it and how efficient it was, since it was constantly in motion, rather than stopping and reversing backwards like conventional valve systems. -The slippage problem he wrote off as a rumer that grew bigger over time. He desribed it as a small problem, exagerated overtime, and was mostly due to human error. Like taking an engineer out of an old VW bug (Pennsy K-4), and putting them in a ferrari(T-1) (His description). They just weren't used to the preformance. Also, at first, the sandpipes were missing the tracks entirely. -The T-1 was tested by N&W, and outpreformed the J-class, even on the winding mountain tracks. They were GOOD engines, even if they couldn't do 140 mph, and were a bit sensitive. Could a T1 do 120mph? I'm not sure. I wouldn't doubt it doing 100mph, but they have their reasons saying it could do 140 mph. We'll just have to wait and see. Remember, if the T-1 was really that bad, why would this team invest millions in it, when they could do something better? (*cough*,*cough* NYC Hudson) They aren't crazy. They're being held back by people who think they are.
I spoke to one of the directors of the T-1 5550 project.
-They have permission from the FRA to run on their test track in the southwest to see just how fast they can get it to go. (If the T-1 ever gets off the ground)
Sorry but FRA cannot give these guys permission to run on their test track. FRA has granted CARE, CUSTODY, and CONTROL of the facility in 1982, first to the AAR and later it's subsidiary company TTCI. Testing of any safe rail vehicle is possible if it's paid for at cost +. Bring $ and saftey case anything is possible.
Its statements like this, if reported correctly, makes one wonder how well this group understands the current railroad environment.
PM RailfanI am just going to have to bow out on this one. Just isnt possible IMHO with a T1. And in 40 yrs of locomotive study (and i still dont know everything), I have never heard this before. Not that this could ever happen now, but I would have to be in that cab with a pocket Waltham to verify this one!
And this from the guy who claimed the power stats for an AMC Berk were massively understated?
Will you please be more specific about why you think the T1 is not capable of reaching 120 mph? And what specific historical grounds you have for saying the T1 "failed miserably" on C&O, when the actual, researched material says otherwise?
(You'll get your first shot at seeing the capability of a T1 when the virtual model is developed at the T1 Trust. God willing, you will see the capabilities of the 'improved' T1 when it has been built and starts to undergo testing. Be sure you have your Vanguard wound.)
I edited my above post.
"They have permission from someone to run on a high-speed test track."
Just trying to report what the Chainman said, misguidance was not intended, I don't want to satart any rumors. It is my mistake, and I am sorry.
S. Connor I edited my above post. "They have permission from someone to run on a high-speed test track." Just trying to report what the Chainman said, misguidance was not intended, I don't want to satart any rumors. It is my mistake, and I am sorry.
The point is permission is not required just $ and a safety case. My point is that "permission " should not be taken as a token of the value of the project. The Business Development guys out there are pretty good. So there is no creditability given to the project by this. And note that the T1 project guys will not be at the throttle, TTCI guys will, so throw in the cost of training them.
But the elephant in the room that never gets mentioned is that testing at these speeds almost always requires ( by the FRA and TTCI) the use of an instrumented wheel set (IWS) on the "critical" axle. The critical axle is usually determined using a vehicle dynamics model such as NUCARS or Vampire. I don't know if either of these or another vehicle dynamics model has ever been used or verified on a steam locomotive. Even running the model with an expert is costly.
If the critical axle is in the leading or trailing truck probably not too much of a problem as there are "in stock" IWSs that might fit the bill. But if it's a driver the picture totally changes. Anyone familiar with the production of an IWS can only cringe at the cost of the precision machining, strain gauge placement and calibration of the wheelset (not to mention the cost of building a calibration rig for a wheel that size). This probably knocks high speed testing out of the ball park.
The crews running the T1's were the top passenger hogheads and those engines would slip on any startup even if the engineer was careful. I probably am one of the few on this forum that actually watched them in service and they were beyond slippery, but beautiful to see. The front engine was seemed to be worst at slipping or first in many cases, but no engineer could get them up to speed without some slipping. They probably needed a lot more weight on the drivers.
The PRR crews would say the T1's would really run once they got to speed and rumors of 120 plus were talked about in those days also.
Larry
Overmod PM Railfan I am just going to have to bow out on this one. Just isnt possible IMHO with a T1. And in 40 yrs of locomotive study (and i still dont know everything), I have never heard this before. Not that this could ever happen now, but I would have to be in that cab with a pocket Waltham to verify this one! And this from the guy who claimed the power stats for an AMC Berk were massively understated? Will you please be more specific about why you think the T1 is not capable of reaching 120 mph? And what specific historical grounds you have for saying the T1 "failed miserably" on C&O, when the actual, researched material says otherwise? (You'll get your first shot at seeing the capability of a T1 when the virtual model is developed at the T1 Trust. God willing, you will see the capabilities of the 'improved' T1 when it has been built and starts to undergo testing. Be sure you have your Vanguard wound.)
PM Railfan I am just going to have to bow out on this one. Just isnt possible IMHO with a T1. And in 40 yrs of locomotive study (and i still dont know everything), I have never heard this before. Not that this could ever happen now, but I would have to be in that cab with a pocket Waltham to verify this one!
I will take the bait.
Berkshires: Show me what evidence you have that disputes my claims about the AMC Berks. Bear in mind, I have made a lifes work studying the AMC Berks alone. Id be really fascinated to hear what you have to say to dispute this.
PRR T1: Show me the proof a T1 DID hit 120. Especially as many times as claimed. Surely that has to be recorded by a believable, unbiased source "IF" it actually happened. Funny, not even a mention of a T1 in ANY speed record books. Id say 120 should atleast have gotten the T1 an 'honorable' mention. Not even that! I cant dispute something that never happened.
Also, show me the proof in which the testing (on the C&O) wasnt a failure. I do not recall in all the C&O literature I have of the C&O taking anything (idea or otherwise) from the T1. What railroad would want a slippery locomotive????? Especially in the topography the C&O had. Heck show me a youtube video (or other) in which the T1 DOESNT slip. And dont blame it on the engineers handling either.
Read this thread more closely, there are a few more than me that doubt the T1 hit 120. You show me what proof you have, then we will discuss it. Until then, 120 for a T1 is still a rumor, and 3000hp for an AMC Berk is still an underating. Dont let your desire of a favorite railroad or locomotive affect your knowledge. Study the facts!
As said in my op, im bowing out on this because i know a T1 hitting 120 is just conjecture.
(I wasnt interested in the T1 Project (new version) until now. And I will be watching, eagerly. Vangaurd wound and ready!)
PM RailfanAnd in 40 yrs of locomotive study (and i still dont know everything), I have never heard this before.
You also would do well to pay attention to the part of Juniatha's post above about testing on the C&O and N&W.
PM Railfan Heck show me a youtube video (or other) in which the T1 DOESNT slip. And dont blame it on the engineers handling either.
No slips: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hgKcGnEihc
Remember, the T-1 being "Constantly and Uncontrollably Slipping" should not hold it back. It appears to me that this slipping thing is masking a lot of the T-1's highspots; the T-1 had incedible effiency, for one.
What does it matter if the original T-1 had slipping problems, this is a new one, and a new chance to learn what it was realy like.
Who cares how a steamer runs so long as there is one running, anyway!
(I know I'm quoting someone here, but I like the line):
"Let's make this the best T-1 Ever!"
Refering to Juniatha's post, the laws of physics mean that there will always be a "sweet spot" of traction before the drivers start to slip. It's just a matter of keeping the engine in this "sweet spot" during startup. Most engines have a large "sweet spot" making them seem to stick to the rails.
The T-1 just had a small sweet spot, this does not mean that it cannot be kept within that zone, it just means that, (suprise, suprise,) it takes one fine engineer to keep it within the sweet spot while starting a train.
Some engineers may have blamed it on the engine bacause they didn't want the admit they weren't skilled enough to keep in the sweet spot. This doesn't mean they were bad, it means the T-1 was very touchy on startup.
PM Railfan And dont blame it on the engineers handling either.
And dont blame it on the engineers handling either.
Maybe people use this as an attack on the T-1 because their image of an engineer in the day was one of a man who could control any iron horse.
Some horses were not meant to be tamed.
It seems to me someone is just dead set againt this particualar class.
Are we havin' fun or what?
For those who didn't see it, let me recommend the "Trains" special edition of "Steam Glory 3". There's a VERY good article in there concerning the T-1 where the author does a good job of busting the myths and "old husbands tales" about the poor old T-1. I won't quote it chapter and verse but it's well worth the purchase price of the issue. It's still available through Kalmbach.
Juniatha, thanks for the kind words! And you really know your stuff!
Mr Connor, thanks for posting that interesting video. You're right, lots of T-1s and no slips, as a matter of fact some VERY clean stacks as well.
Mind you, that seems to be the only thing about those engines that seems to be clean. Considering how filthy some of them are it kind of reinforces the fact that the T-1 never really had a chance. I mean, an image-concious 'road like the PRR not even TRYING to keep them presentable? Says something, to me at least.
Last thing: The N&W finding a T-1 was better than a Class J? That's the first I've heard of that! Hard to believe at any rate, but then, I DO live in Virginia!
PM RailfanBerkshires: Show me what evidence you have that disputes my claims about the AMC Berks. Bear in mind, I have made a lifes work studying the AMC Berks alone. Id be really fascinated to hear what you have to say to dispute this.
What would make you think I'm "disputing" anything? I have higher regard for the AMC and its locomotive designs than for most others. The point I was establishing is that, while you seem so eager to debunk the "established" HP numbers for your favorite classes, you are downright obstinate in continuing to make the (by now thoroughly debunked, by some of the best scholars in the business) old railfan claims about slippery, defective, unworkable T1 problems. On the other hand, I see no particular evidence that you comprehend what some of the actual advantages and problems with the duplex design are, particularly with respect to high-speed running. Or, I think, what the actual results of testing on the C&O were; Dave Stephenson certainly thinks differently about it, and frankly I will take his scholarship over yours.
The discussion we are having is not so much about whether there were "documented" instances of 120mph+ operation -- whatever you consider fair 'documentation' to be. It's about whether or not the engineering would allow those speeds -- and, to an extent, whether the duplex locomotive is capable of reaching high speeds more safely than, say, a Hudson of similar driver diameter and piston thrust per driver axle would. Certainly there were few if any places on the PRR of the mid-Forties where 120mph speed would be particularly useful, even if 'making up time' or whatever, and in all probability few passenger consists that would not themselves have cars that would ride alarmingly poorly in that speed range. PRR had no particular 'organizational' reason to conduct documented high-speed testing that fast, and didn't spend the money (or invent some pretext about, say, high-speed brake testing to justify running equipment-trust collateral up to inconvenient speeds) That's not to say that the physical design and construction of the locomotive won't achieve high speed under better conditions than prevailed then.
Firelock76 Last thing: The N&W finding a T-1 was better than a Class J? That's the first I've heard of that! Hard to believe at any rate, but then, I DO live in Virginia!
But shhh, don't let the folks at Fire Up 611 hear, they may have quite a shock!
August 1993 Trains Mag, article titled "Last Chance", page 56.
"According to your times by Estry and Adams, it took you all of 17 minutes to cover 27 miles. Now my math is nothing to brag about, but that averages out to something like 95 miles per hour, and that from a station stop."
If you assume, for ease of figuring, that it was a linear acceleration and linear deceleration from stand-still to 5 miles out, and a modest braking from 22 miles to stand-still, you come perilously close to 115 miles per hour for the steady speed portion. It isn't definitive, nor the 120 mph we are discussing, but who could doubt that the T1 could reach 120 if given her reins for maybe 15 minutes on level track with winds below 2 m/s?
The test figures have been published and the N&W did find that after a certain high speed the T1 was better than the J. I hope this doesn't disturb Mrs. Firelock's sleep tonight.
Well , well folks –
Lest on one grey and cold winter day in some remote corner of Altoona works , in a shed long forgotten , now finally bound to be torn down to make way for a new special shop , they’ll find , hardly noticeable at first , in the dim light and dust covered with a layer of dirt and debris the contours of the back end of what suspiciously looks like a huge steam loco tender with curved-in coal compartment turns up , and not before a lot of clearing out of incredible amounts of old stuff it appears there is a locomotive to go with the tender , too , almost hidden behind a heap of scrap including a nearly complete engine from an 1849 Mississippi side wheeler . And by Jove ! doesn’t it look darn much like a T1 ? all familiar to the old timers turning up as news spread , as it were with valve gear covers missing and work holes roughly torch-cut into the somewhat loose and battered streamline casing still muffled by a stuffy whiff of cinders . In the cab , on the floor before the open firehole and spoiled with a tread by a workman’s boot there lies a half torn works certificate still telling the boiler had been overhauled , passed and fire dropped thereafter – Crestline had never cared to call the locomotive back ; the cylinders turn out to be complete with pistons and valves , inspection reveals under a thick and sticky cover of black , old grease become doughy with time no camshaft is missing ..
Oowwh , folks – can’t go on , have to lean back and ..
… imagine …
Oh , and just to take away some of the graveness , look-a-here for a fast get-away with a veritable wheel spin at speed – if just in a trice – uhm not too tightly about Duplex engines , although two engines are concerned :
American Scream Machine challenging (yep) Italian Aristocrap ( scusi , errore d’ortographia , mi dispiace )
– who’s won ? See
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6sXkDIeymg
Sorry about the wait for my reply, it seems the Kalmbach forums are having problems tonight. Took me for ever to find this page again! Without further adieu, let me respond in the manner in which posts came in....
Big Jim - firstly, I would love to read the info that you posted, Thats all i said in my post (i dont know everything), so all I need is more info. And thats what I am asking.... Show me. Just an open request for you fellow railfans to let me see where you are getting your info from. I to emplore you folks to do the same and open up a little and read more about the T1, and the life she lived.
As for Juniatha's posts, I been trying to read those but you need an hour or two for each one! I cant say I agree with some things there, and some things i do agree with. Some of her posts make sense, others make absolutely no sense at all. (no offense!)
I wholeheartedly admit I have spent way more time on the C&O obviously than the PRR (or N&W for that matter). Reading their info on the testing is what is making me look biased, and non appreciative of the PRR T1. I assure you, that isnt the case.
I have no clue where Juniatha is getting her info from. Doesnt match what Ive read. But then it seems most of my info is different that yalls concerning the T1. And I know 'we all' are reading from info that is generally accepted as factual. (see Firelocks statement on T1 compared to J).
I think it is one of the most unique looking, classicly stlyed, and modern loco design. I just dont see it as all it is being said to be. I certainly dont see some of the claims made here in this forum. Again, offer me what you folks are reading.
S Connor - See, this is all I need to be corrected. Havent seen the video you posted. Not in its entirety for sure. However, for the one video you posted, i could post 5 showing the T1 slipping her way down the line. Now, i can say.... I have been corrected. (however, the opening scene shows no slipping, there is another video of this same one where a little further down the track she does!).
I am in total agreement with your statement, run steam! No matter what it is. But if someone is gonna build a new modern age steamer, i dont think "I" would have chosen the T1 design. Especially because of the problems encounteered with the originals.
But here we are, this is what we get (hopefully!), so more power to them i hope the new version gets the problems solved and we have a new ultra modern steamer that is actually capable of hitting 120.
140? well were having a hard time convincing me of 120 for the old design. Lets wait and see if 120 is reachable first before we shoot for 140.
Please do not think i am dead set against this class. I know you folks dont believe it, but I actually think highly of the T1. Just simply, i know she slips (alot), and just cant get my head around her doing 120. Otherwise, I am extremely happy we had this loco class, than not.
Lets look at Firelock's last paragraph of a recent post....
"Last thing: The N&W finding a T-1 was better than a Class J? That's the first I've heard of that! Hard to believe at any rate, but then, I DO live in Virginia!"
First Ive heard of this too. (I also live in the worst state in the union, Va.!) And this whole statement here is exactly like what i said in my OP. "Never heard of a T1 hitting 120". Never even remotely heard of this, nor read in any documented info on the subject. Nor rumor alluding to such either.
Overmod - You said....
"And this from the guy who claimed the power stats for an AMC Berk were massively understated?".
That statement is what made me think that.
As for comprehending what i read, im a mechanical engineer. I can understand the complexities of a rigid or non rigid frame. It may not appear that way, but i type in laymens speak because not everyone here can understand some of the things we discuss. We could get technical all day long, would it do us any better? Would those reading about this subject walk away understanding? Not likely.
Comparing people to people when we recite names, you mentioned Stephenson, my info comes from Ed Layman (now deceased) for instance. Someone who actaully had his hand on the throttle. Not someone who sits behind a drawing board. Both Stephenson and Layman I would say are very experienced, notable, and certainly worth quoting.
Im sure there are other 'scholars' who think diffrently than Stephenson, as I am sure there are others who would not believe Layman. In this case, we both have heard from two different sources on the same subject. Both are qualified, so who are "we" supposed to believe?
Your last paragrapgh is almost spot on. And most of it i agree with (which makes me wonder now, why we are opposed on this topic). Given that there were places to test, and the probability that PRR would arrange to do so, a high speed record would only be 'more' proof the "engineering" aspect of the T1 would/could work.
Railroads often made or paid for the 'conditions' to be right. My mentality doesnt come from 'ole railfans' ideas of what worked and didnt. It simply comes from the fact, if it happened.... more than just us folks here in this forum would know about it. I dont see that.
I hope I covered everyones response here. Im not even sure if the forum will get this post due to the site problems today. I am seeing pages listed as -1 -2, and user ACY said he couldnt edit a post earlier. So I hope you folks get this post.
PM RailfanAs for comprehending what i read, im a mechanical engineer. I can understand the complexities of a rigid or non rigid frame. It may not appear that way, but i type in laymens speak because not everyone here can understand some of the things we discuss. We could get technical all day long, would it do us any better? Would those reading about this subject walk away understanding? Not likely.
Oh, please.
Why would you not include technical material in a technical discussion, rather than just making opinions phrased as if they were definitive fact. You are far from the only engineer on this forum, and I see no particular valid reason to pretend to condescend. Tell you what -- why don't you provide the technical information, and let the poor people who turn out not to 'understand some of the things we discuss' ask for an explanation in "laymens speak" if they want one.
And yes,I think it WOULD 'do us ...better' to 'get technical all day long', as far as I'm concerned, and I suspect as others on the forum are concerned, when technical issues are under discussion. Frankly, we need less ex cathedra assertion and more reasoned discussion. Have you actually read the Burrell articles, for example, and do you understand the difference between high- and low-speed slipping? These are not just nits to pick -- you seem strangely enamored of pushing your conventional wisdom and choice of source material as though it has to be true because it supports what you have chosen to believe, and dismiss other points of view because they don't. That gets old after a while, particularly when done in a contentious tone. I have no quibble with advocacy; I advocate plenty of things on forums myself. But I at least try not to dictate what I advocate as if it were objective fact, or claim something is self-evident when a very great deal of other material indicates it might not be so.
Given that there were places to test, and the probability that PRR would arrange to do so, a high speed record would only be 'more' proof the "engineering" aspect of the T1 would/could work.
It would appear that the PRR test people did not agree with you, at least not enough to have reported any dynamometer-car testing at very high speeds. On the other hand, I will admit that I have not gone carefully through, say, the surviving material at the Hagley to see what evidence of either organized 'top-speed' testing or reliable second-hand reports of high-speed performance might be there. I can think of several reasons why PRR might not want to publicize actual high speed records from the T1s (first during wartime, and then after Clement's decision to dieselize the first-line trains), but the internal motive-power files might be a different story.
PM RailfanI think it [the T1] is one of the most unique looking, classicly stlyed, and modern loco design. I just dont see it as all it is being said to be. I certainly dont see some of the claims made here in this forum. Again, offer me what you folks are reading.
Haven't you read the sources that have been mentioned so far?
... if someone is gonna build a new modern age steamer, i dont think "I" would have chosen the T1 design. Especially because of the problems encounteered with the originals.
A very large reason for spending $10 million on a locomotive is to establish which of the problems were real and which were, to put it gently, "imaginary" or the result of circumstance.
It may well turn out that there ARE objective flaws in the four-coupled duplex concept. I myself think there might be (and have designed practical approaches to reduce or eliminate the foreseeable difficulties, in some cases). But until the mechanical modeling and multiphysics simulations are done, most of this will either remain conjecture or be subject to these 'he said/she said' discussions.
Just to reiterate: the figure of 142-odd mph for the S1 is almost certainly a fiction from Arnold Haas -- it is a suspiciously-exact conversion from a metric speed, which neither PRR nor the ICC would have used. I know of no reliable source that indicates any speed in this range was physically reached by a T1, and I would agree that it is unlikely this speed could be attained (with a 'stock' T1), even if the valve gear and mass flow would allow it, with the onset of dangerous critical-speed effects in the suspension and guiding being noted in the reports that mention speed in the low 130s. One of the things that needs to be established 'scientifically' is the effect of the rather large number of changes that were made in the spring rigging and equalization, sequentially over time, in the middle-to-late Forties; something else that follows on from there is what changes might then have to be made (the need for high-speed performance enhancement being essentially dropped by PRR at some time in 1948 at the latest) to improve the high-speed behavior.
Lets look at Firelock's last paragraph of a recent post.... "Last thing: The N&W finding a T-1 was better than a Class J? That's the first I've heard of that! Hard to believe at any rate, but then, I DO live in Virginia!" First Ive heard of this too. (I also live in the worst state in the union, Va.!) And this whole statement here is exactly like what i said in my OP. "Never heard of a T1 hitting 120". Never even remotely heard of this, nor read in any documented info on the subject. Nor rumor alluding to such either.
Huh? The results of the N&W testing of the T1, as well as the PRR testing of the N&W J, are available. Both rather clearly state where the designs have 'advantages' and perceived disadvantages. N&W acknowledged -- as I would expect good engineers to acknowledge -- that for sustained high speed, the divided-drive locomotive with 80" drivers is valuable. That certainly doesn't mean you can or would conclude that means the T1 design is "better" in some imaginary blanket sense, or for 'pissing rights' or whatever. PRR similarly discusses the strong points of the J design objectively. As has been previously noted, C&O found nothing in the T1 design they could use -- but then again, C&O was off with the Baldwin turbine for its 'modern steam' by the time of the tests, and it was fairly obvious they wouldn't be a suitable market for 'secondhand' as-built T1s. (Ask N&W about cheap switchers!)
More later -- duty calls this morning.
Mister PM, you think Virginia's the worst state in the Union? You don't get around much, do you?
Well. OK, it took 'em ten years to get decent pizza after I moved here, and I'm still waiting for some old-style bakeries, but aside from that, no complaints.
Oh, Big Jim, I didn't lose any sleep over those N&W tests last night, I was so damn tired after I got home from work and running around like a maniac all day I didn't fire up the computer! Tonight may be another matter.
And Overmod's right, what's "best" depends on what's best for the application. I mean what's best, a Caddilac or a Chevy? Both'll get you where you want to go, how do you want to get there?
PM railfan
>> Some of her posts make sense, others make absolutely no sense at all. (no offense!) <<
Some see humor where others se no sense at all -
That's life
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIiUqfxFttM
( Franky-boy the one and only Sinatra )
and we still keep carrying on because ..
it's still a wonderful world
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2VCwBzGdPM
the man with the broadest smile singing
No offense intended - in return ; I guess it's just another matter of 'paroles' between women and men
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ifJapuqYiU
By the way : about 'return' :
A man presents himself before the ticket office
"One return ticket , please"
"Ok" says the office clerk " - and where to ?"
The prospective passenger with an air of indignation
"Well , over here , of course !"
Return , uhm , regards
PM RailfanComparing people to people when we recite names, you mentioned Stephenson, my info comes from Ed Layman (now deceased) for instance. Someone who actually had his hand on the throttle.
I did not know Mr. Layman, but I would like to read anything he has left us with. Can you provide me a source?
Just out of curiosity, what is it about Mr. Layman's experience with his hand on the throttle that makes him more of an authority than those other engineers (with their hands on the throttle, too) that were quoted about high achieved speeds in the various articles?
Not someone who sits behind a drawing board. Both Stephenson and Layman I would say are very experienced, notable, and certainly worth quoting. I'm sure there are other 'scholars' who think differently than Stephenson, as I am sure there are others who would not believe Layman. In this case, we both have heard from two different sources on the same subject. Both are qualified, so who are "we" supposed to believe?
Neither, really: we listen to them, assess them using valid historiographical methodology*, and use the results together with those derived from other available sources to develop our own picture of what we believe.
As I said, I haven't read Layman so I have no good idea what he might have said -- I am sure you will fill us in, preferably in actual technical detail. [Note I avoid the rather obvious pun here, even though it was a pretty good one!] I would be surprised if the breadth and depth of his knowledge of the T1 matches that which Mr. Stephenson has acquired... often, I believe, from firsthand sources... but I now state categorically that I would be delighted to be so surprised.
... Given that there were places to test, and the probability that PRR would arrange to do so, a high speed record would only be 'more' proof the "engineering" aspect of the T1 would/could work. Railroads often made or paid for the 'conditions' to be right.
I suppose the difficulty I have with this is that PRR's desire to test out the potential of the T1, on the road, with a revenue train, is most probably very different from providing corporate widespread public disclosure of the result. (This was a different era from that where PRR claimed 127-plus mph out of a slide-valve Atlantic...)
Yes, that is a somewhat mealymouthed excuse; if I had been Martin Clement or Hal Cover, I would not have let wartime expedience keep me from, ahem, coming up with an excuse for fast running, coincidentally carefully documented, that could then be announced as competitive with world-record speeds. On the other hand, I think there were increasingly significant reasons, as the postwar years went on, to establish that the T1s were hopelessly-flawed dogs that no amount of engineering could cure, and demonstrating any sort of reliable high speed out of one would not 'further' such an approach very well.
I cannot say conclusively that 'it happened' [confirmable 120+mph running]. I was not there during the T1s' lifetime, and have not talked directly to any of the people who claim to have run them at high speed. On the other hand, I have spent considerable time in high-speed locomotive design and I think it is possible to state categorically that there is no engineering reason why a T1 cannot be operated well above 120mph where track conditions permit it. Others may, of course, dispute this, but I would appreciate their providing some technical basis for a contrary opinion.
Firelock, I suspect that one reason he thinks Virginia is bad to live in is the traffic-law enforcement. As I think Lord Acton said, people elect the democracy they deserve, and Virginians elected an attorney specializing in traffic tickets, who promptly passed "safety" legislation guaranteed to benefit his and others' practices. While decades ago it might have made sense to enforce statutory reckless driving at 25mph over the then "national" speed limit, it makes no valid sense to keep the number there now that the speed limit has been raised. If the speed limit is 70, statutory recklessness ought to be 95-over, particularly now that even cheap cars are capable of safe operation in the 80mph range. I now descend the soapbox.
*Yes, that is a legitimate term, and it would take many more words for me to say the same thing less concisely in English. PM me if either of the words in it causes confusion.
Overmod, I can't imagine what PM's beefin' about concerning Virginia. Traffic law enforcement? I haven't had any trouble concerning same. Or maybe because I haven't been caught yet.
Breaks my heart to say this, but if he thinks Ol' Virginny's bad he should try New Jersey for a year or two. I'm a Jersey guy myself and in my heart of hearts always will be, and man do I miss the food, but I'm not sorry I left.
Like I said, I don't think PM gets around much.
Enough, back to the topic.
I don't drive in Virginia often, but the only trouble I have had while was difficulty getting from Washington to King George on a Friday afternoon last June, and getting around a wreck on the interstate when I was on my way to Norfolk the next day.
I do have a question: I do not, at the moment, recall the exact wording of the signs that warn that traffic control is exercised through the use of aircraft, and I wonder how the control is carried out--if you are seen to be exceeding the speed limit, does the pilot descend and bump the roof of your vehicle to warn you to slow down?
For the record, my father, along with many of his ancestors, was born in Lancaster County, and my maternal grandmother was born in Brunswick Country.
Now that we have restored the dignity of the Old Dominion, let us return to Steam!
Johnny
Firelock76Overmod, I can't imagine what PM's beefin' about concerning Virginia.
I'm sure he will tell us. I always thought of the Shenandoah Valley around Keswick/C'ville as one of the closest things to God's country, but tastes differ.
DeggestyI do have a question: I do not, at the moment, recall the exact wording of the signs that warn that traffic control is exercised through the use of aircraft, and I wonder how the control is carried out--if you are seen to be exceeding the speed limit, does the pilot descend and bump the roof of your vehicle to warn you to slow down?
No, he clocks your speed while recording you on video -- did you see those little airplanes painted on the pavement, a tenth of a mile apart? -- and then simply radios the police to pull you over a couple of miles down the road.
Texas is a bit more fun -- they have choppers with radar/lidar that come up off the nap of the earth at what seems like a couple hundred mph to 'surprise' you, and I wouldn't put it past them to land those aircraft in your way.
We haven't quite gotten here in reality, but the signs get some attention anyway:
Overmod Deggesty I do have a question: I do not, at the moment, recall the exact wording of the signs that warn that traffic control is exercised through the use of aircraft, and I wonder how the control is carried out--if you are seen to be exceeding the speed limit, does the pilot descend and bump the roof of your vehicle to warn you to slow down? No, he clocks your speed while recording you on video -- did you see those little airplanes painted on the pavement, a tenth of a mile apart? -- and then simply radios the police to pull you over a couple of miles down the road. Texas is a bit more fun -- they have choppers with radar/lidar that come up off the nap of the earth at what seems like a couple hundred mph to 'surprise' you, and I wouldn't put it past them to land those aircraft in your way. We haven't quite gotten here in reality, but the signs get some attention anyway:
Deggesty I do have a question: I do not, at the moment, recall the exact wording of the signs that warn that traffic control is exercised through the use of aircraft, and I wonder how the control is carried out--if you are seen to be exceeding the speed limit, does the pilot descend and bump the roof of your vehicle to warn you to slow down?
I heard they use Stukas for traffic enforcement on the Autobahn, but I suspect my leg was being pulled.
I wouldn't want to find out though! Imagine hearing a siren coming from overhead instead of behind you where it's supposed to be?
No Stukas, but they do use Porsches, BMWs , and Audis. Was passed by an Autobahn police officer in an Audi R8 while I was doing about 110 mph (170 kph) between Munich and Nürnberg. He was doing at least 140 mph - no lights, no siren. Just stay out of the way.
Gee, I hope I didn't scare off PM Railfan or hurt his feelings with my "you don't get around much, do you?" comment.
If I did, I apologize. Please don't take it to heart.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.