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*..
= J =
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 .
Regards
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?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.