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)
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.
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--
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.
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...
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!
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...
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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]
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.
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.
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.
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!
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
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.
OvermodOne reason was, I think, similarity of the nose curve to the effect of the paint on the famous Curtiss Warhawk.
.
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...
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!
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*..
= J =
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.
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.
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...
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.
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!
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 ..)
Juniatha
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.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
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!
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.
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!
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!
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"?
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!
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
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...
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.
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.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.