Trains.com

A new-build Pennsy T-1?

10389 views
65 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    December 2008
  • From: Toronto, Canada
  • 2,560 posts
A new-build Pennsy T-1?
Posted by 54light15 on Monday, February 2, 2015 10:50 AM

I learned about this from the latest "Heritage Railway" magazine, a British publication. If the Brits can build new, so can we!

www.t1trust.com

 

  • Member since
    October 2014
  • 1,644 posts
Posted by Wizlish on Monday, February 2, 2015 10:56 AM

We have a number of threads on this project already, both here and on the Classic Trains forum.

Yes, we can build it.

  • Member since
    October 2008
  • From: Calgary
  • 2,047 posts
Posted by cx500 on Monday, February 2, 2015 11:01 AM

All that is needed is a tender full of gold bricks.

  • Member since
    December 2008
  • From: Toronto, Canada
  • 2,560 posts
Posted by 54light15 on Monday, February 2, 2015 11:13 AM

Well, it was the first I saw of it. In the same magazine they talk about at least 3 new-builds, all of types that have been completely scrapped. As much as I am a long-time Pennsy fan, I'd still rather see a new NYC Dreyfuss Hudson.

  • Member since
    March 2013
  • 426 posts
Posted by Dr D on Monday, February 2, 2015 1:42 PM

I think the British railfans building a copy of the Toranado class 4-6-2 Pacific has stimulated much interest in similar projects.  If you read the details of this project is was the toy of some relatively weathy individuals who sorta just got into the project over a period of years.

This British Pacific would be on par with an American NYC J1e Hudson 4-6-4 as originally constructed with built up frame.  Similar USRA Pacifics of Erie RR, Southern RR, many of which are still around and just need restoration.

The Dreyfus Hudson was a late 1930s construction which had a cast steel frame.  Machining tolerance was held tight so that roller bearing construction could be used   on all axles and side rods - the cylinders were cast into the frame as were the mounting for the air compressors on the front of the locomotive.  This took a milling and machining of substancial capacity.

American steam locomotives also used accssories which the British steam locomotive did not owing to the overall size.  It is well knowen that Pennsy hand fired their passenger 4-6-2 Pacifics late into the 1930s.  I am not sure the British ever adopted the locomotive firebox stoker to any degree.  These were produced in America by Hanna, Locomotive Stoker Company and others.  All were somewhat complicated constructions in their own right.  As were Worthington, Coffin, and Eleco feed water heating systems.  Each of these had many models with corresponding feed water pumps, tanks etc.  To say nothing of the regular suppliers of boiler check valves, injectors, super heater headers, throttles, cab gauges, firebox doors, power reverse mechanisms etc. etc. etc.  Also such American items as Valve Pilot Indicator and its console, tender water scoop, coal pusher, and this does not stop with the American tradition of rear truck steam booster engine. 

Seems the British Toranado 4-6-2 reproduction started with the easy to manufacture parts "as a whim" and then got serious about the project having to commit to boiler courses - frame and cylinder castings.  

A couple of more observations here.  The British steam locomotive was no where near as massive as the American steam locomotive.  It was a relatively simple and effective engine!  The Brits used flat steel plates for their locomotive frames with bolted or rivited cross construction.  Where as late American practice as I noted was large steal castings then machined as one construction. 

The British reproduction new boiler courses were rolled in Eastern Europe - Poland being the only place they could find that could still handle rolling steel sections of that size.

I have often thought it would be easier to go to China with an American blueprint and have the existing Chinese machine shops foundries etc. cast and assemble most of a reproduction American locomotive and then scrounge the parts from spares needed to finish it.

The Chinese, however, have never even considered making as sophisitcated a steam locomoitive as a NYC Niagara or Pennsy TI - this is way beyond any of the technology China or the British ever attempted.

Further, whats the point of going through all this unless you are going to do a Pennsy T1 or NYC Niagara - they are the only engines worth the trouble.

Would be easier go get up an armed milita - go to Elkhart, Indiana - get the mayor at gunpoint and get the original NYC 3001 restored to opperating condition.  Than to go to China an build a NYC Niagara!  COME ON!

Next time you look at some massive American steam locomotive like ATSF 4-6-4 3463 late model Hudson involved in a custody fight, or think of Ross Rollands C&O 614 just sitting there.  Think of the potential of these engines that need restoration at a fraction of the cost.  The Pennsy 4-6-2 is half restored and just sitting there and its the original engine waiting for some interest.  Think of the cost of reproducing the ATSF 2-10-4 or the GN 4-8-4 - when you look at these engines be glad they were saved!

Dr. D   

  • Member since
    March 2003
  • From: US
  • 460 posts
Posted by JimValle on Monday, February 2, 2015 5:04 PM

It might be even more fun and a better investment to revive the Pennsy's concept plan for an "R" class conventional 4-8-4 as described in a back issue of the  Keystone some years back.  There has often been talk that the Pennsy would have been much better off building a fleet of these rather than the T-1s.  In fact, since we're thinking in the financial stratosphere, why not build both and settle the argument once and for all!

  • Member since
    December 2008
  • From: Toronto, Canada
  • 2,560 posts
Posted by 54light15 on Tuesday, February 3, 2015 9:51 AM

Actually, the Tornado's boiler was made in Meiningen, Germany. I was there a few years ago during thier open house that occurs every September. What a place! Everything to do with steam was being done there. They were in the process of building a new locomotive for the Mollibahn in North Germany and were working on various standard and narrow gauge locomotives. Model train stuff was everywhere, who knew that TT scale was so popular? Memorabilia, builder's plates, numbers, uniforms and so on. And, you could walk through the whole place with a beer in your hand. A real glass of beer and not in a paper cup. Cab rides were offered to anyone who wanted one. Nothing was fenced off, not even the running tracks, all they had were two guys with safety vests warning people to stay back duing a movement. And, when it was all over everyone went to the station to watch four steam powered excursion trains be switched and loaded. I have got to get back there. 

  • Member since
    August 2010
  • From: Henrico, VA
  • 8,955 posts
Posted by Firelock76 on Tuesday, February 3, 2015 5:30 PM

Es lebe dampf!  Es lebe Deutschland!

  • Member since
    December 2008
  • From: Toronto, Canada
  • 2,560 posts
Posted by 54light15 on Wednesday, February 4, 2015 1:23 PM

Aber naturlich, meine Freund!

  • Member since
    February 2012
  • From: CAPE CORAL FLA
  • 511 posts
Posted by thomas81z on Sunday, February 8, 2015 7:15 AM
Well the way my Girlfriend spends money on amazon prr t1 should have enough money to finish it in a year lol
  • Member since
    April 2011
  • 649 posts
Posted by LensCapOn on Sunday, February 8, 2015 2:27 PM

T-!? Meh!

 

Now talk about doing NYC&HR  #999 and I might be willing to kick in some $$$

 

Wonder if CSX would grant some track time on the old route to let her rip.

  • Member since
    March 2016
  • From: Burbank IL (near Clearing)
  • 13,540 posts
Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Monday, February 9, 2015 7:20 AM

NYC&HR 999 still exists and is on display at the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago.  However, the 86" drivers are long gone.  The locomotive was rebuilt twice by NYC in the early 1920's to make it a more usable locomotive.

The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul
  • Member since
    April 2011
  • 649 posts
Posted by LensCapOn on Monday, February 9, 2015 8:12 AM

CSSHEGEWISCH

NYC&HR 999 still exists and is on display at the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago. 

That rebuilt engine has nothing to do with the Old 999.

 

By the time they were done rebuilding it, only the number was left. A RP20BD has more in common with the Dash-7 it was built on the then the existing 999 has with the engine William Buchanan built.

 

Which is why a new version sounds like fun. (And would be less than a T-1 to build)

 

Just did a search and see things have changed since leaving Chicago.

"in 1962, the Museum of Science and Industry acquired the 999 and displayed it outside. Following a complete restoration from June to October 1993, the 999 was brought inside to its present location in November 1993."

 

 

Question is, is the rebuilt one a steamer or just a looker?

  • Member since
    July 2004
  • 2,741 posts
Posted by Paul Milenkovic on Monday, February 9, 2015 10:27 AM

This question regarding whether a restored steam engine is the actual article or whether this even really matters is known as the question of "Theseus' Boat" or the "Ship of Theseus" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus

Who was Theseus?  He was this legendary person of Athens back when the Minoan tyrant was demanding "tributes" -- a real-life version of those Jennifer Lawrence movies.  And Theseus was the Jennifer Lawrence heroic person in these events that supposedly took place 4000 years ago.  A lot of the account has the cast of mythology about it, but the account is that Theseus kicked Minoan backside and brought back the young people who were to be sacrificed to the Minoan gods back to Athens.

This was regarded as a kind of founding experience of Athens, and Athenian Greeks had that boat on public display for so long that all the boards in it had to be replaced at least once, that some Greek philosopher dudes who worried about such things wondered if it was really Theseus' boat anymore.

I guess "modern" philosphers having time on their hands worry about this question.  And like ancient Greeks and modern academics, it appears to steam locomotive enthusiasts lose sleep over whether Engine 999 at the Museum of Science and Industry is "the same thing" as the locomotive that broke the century mark but locomotive enthusiasts in England snark was an unproven claim.

If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?

  • Member since
    December 2008
  • From: Toronto, Canada
  • 2,560 posts
Posted by 54light15 on Monday, February 9, 2015 10:37 AM

The old "grandfather's axe" thing again. Speaking of boats, I've heard that the U.S.S. Constitution has only 10% of it's original timber. I wish they'd sail that thing around, they did in the 1930s' I think all up and down the east coast.

Also, wasn't 999 used to set a bicycle speed record in the 1890s where the rider was in an enclosure at the rear of the coach, riding on polished wood between the rails?

  • Member since
    October 2014
  • 1,644 posts
Posted by Wizlish on Monday, February 9, 2015 1:46 PM

54light15
Also, wasn't 999 used to set a bicycle speed record in the 1890s where the rider was in an enclosure at the rear of the coach, riding on polished wood between the rails?

If I remember correctly, that record was on the LIRR (where the NYC didn't run).  I know there was at least one detailed description of the rolling stock used; I will see if I can find it, but anyone is welcome to comment in the meantime.

EDIT:  Google "Mile-a-Minute Murphy".

  • Member since
    August 2010
  • From: Henrico, VA
  • 8,955 posts
Posted by Firelock76 on Monday, February 9, 2015 5:36 PM

It's my understanding USS Constitution is about 60% original.  The same applies to Admiral Nelson's flagship HMS Victory.

As far as sailing "Old Ironsides", here's a story I heard from a Coast Guard officer years ago.

During the Bicentennial when the US Navy heard about OpSail, the parade of "Tall Ships" planned for New York harbor, someone got the idea "Hey!  Why don't we sail 'Old Ironsides' during OpSail?"  Everyone was ecstatic about the idea until they realised in 1976 there was no-one in the Navy who was sail qualified.

Enter the Coast Guard. "Hey guys, WE'RE sail qualified!  We've got the "Eagle", remember?  We'll sail her for you!"

"No thanks", said the Navy.  They weren't going to let a Coast Guard crew handle their ship!

Realistically though, "Constitution" is still an 18th Century ship with no modern sanitary facilities.  Sailing her up and down the east coast with the main deck loaded with a cargo of Porta-Johns would be undignified, to say the least.

  • Member since
    March 2013
  • 426 posts
Posted by Dr D on Monday, February 9, 2015 7:11 PM

This question about "how much is original" is a legal issue, and one that has been appraoched and discussed in court for years.  Starting with Loyds of London the insurance company.  Legally no matter how many times the "SS Jane" is rebuilt is is still legally the "SS Jane."

The "SS Jane" can be entirely rebuilt out of itself and it is the legal and titled property of the owner.  Take this situation for example - a totally rotton Chris Craft speedboat was found from the 1920s - grey wood suitable only for patterns. This was hauled to a boat builder in Marine City MI.  The boat was used for patterns for two new constructions which were then "reproductions of 1924 Chris Craft."

I talked to the boat builder who smiled and said, "They didn't want what was left of the original so I kept it and rebuilt it.  They paid me $xx,xxxx to do two boats but I acquired the original 1924 and redid it - I GOT THE ORIGINAL - THEY GOT THE REPRODUCTIONS!"

This was all a legal and if not somewhat of a moral quagmire that has been settled by "due process of law" over the years.  The two new speedboats above were titled as new construction the original speedboat rebuilt was titled as a 1924 boat.  Even though all three were sporting new wood!  Go figure!  

The "USS Constitution" or for that matter the recently rebuilt "Charles Morgan" the last whaling ship from before the civil war 1847 - which was recently rebuilt and is sailing out of Mystic Conn - sailing the ocean.  These are the legal ships of their name no matter the age or stage of rebuilding.  

"Charles W Morgan" last of the old whalers was used in the 1960's movie MOBY DICK on her last summer voyage out to the Grand Banks encountered whales which came around and played around the same hull that slaughtered their great great great grand parents over 100 years ago!  Check last months Wooden Boat Magazine.

NYC 999 however new is still the NYC 999 - needs the polished frame, gold pinstriping and a set of larger drive wheels.  Also what happened to the original number boards?  The ones on the locomotive now are not the ones that were on her when she was stored outside on display at The Museum of Science and Industry.  Are the orginals locked up for safekeeping, misplaced?  The replacements are tacky.

Words to watch in this type of discussion - "original" - "reproduction" - "repair" - "replacement."

Doc

  • Member since
    December 2008
  • From: Toronto, Canada
  • 2,560 posts
Posted by 54light15 on Monday, February 9, 2015 8:28 PM

Firelock, I had not thought about sanitation. Just going to the "head" wouldn't be the thing in the 21st century. About the Coast Guard, I recall in the US Navy in the 70s a Coast Guard guy came up to me on the base at Norfolk to ask about my car, an old Nash. He said how the Coast Guard had a sort of a rivalry with the Navy. I didn't have the heart to tell him that we didn't think about the Coast Guard at all.

In Britain, you can get a brand new body for an MGB and an E-type Jaguar and others I am sure. If you have a rusty body, you can move the chassis plate from one to the other and legally it's the same car. People do it here too, a guy on Ebay was selling a fragment of a body of a 69 Camaro SS 396. It had been junked after a wreck in 1970. He made it plain that it was only for the chassis plate, the car was beyond restoring and there was nothing left of it but the plate. But, you can put that plate on a non-SS body and presto! You have an original Chevy Camaro SS 396! He got thousands for it as I recall. A metal rectangle with numbers stamped on it but there you go.

  • Member since
    April 2011
  • 649 posts
Posted by LensCapOn on Tuesday, February 10, 2015 7:54 AM

54light15

Firelock, I had not thought about sanitation. Just going to the "head" wouldn't be the thing in the 21st century. 

 

Isn't that what the "poop-deck" was for?

 

Not that I know much about sailing....

  • Member since
    December 2008
  • From: Toronto, Canada
  • 2,560 posts
Posted by 54light15 on Tuesday, February 10, 2015 9:31 AM

The head is the bow of the ship, notice a framework on most sailing ships of that era. You clung to the framework, undid those 13 buttons and... 

In the days of Spanish galleons and the like, to have a wave wash onto the hull at the stern from directly aft was called being pooped. Notice that a galleon has a raised stern area, that is called the poop deck that by being raised, helps to prevent the ship from being forced downward by the pressure of the water. There is a famous person who came up with this idea. His son was named Popeye.

  • Member since
    April 2011
  • 649 posts
Posted by LensCapOn on Tuesday, February 10, 2015 12:09 PM

54light15

There is a famous person who came up with this idea. His son was named Popeye.

 

Where is a link to verify THAT story?

 

Google and Bing have failed me...

  • Member since
    November 2003
  • From: Rhode Island
  • 2,289 posts
Posted by carnej1 on Tuesday, February 10, 2015 1:36 PM

54light15

The head is the bow of the ship, notice a framework on most sailing ships of that era. You clung to the framework, undid those 13 buttons and... 

In the days of Spanish galleons and the like, to have a wave wash onto the hull at the stern from directly aft was called being pooped. Notice that a galleon has a raised stern area, that is called the poop deck that by being raised, helps to prevent the ship from being forced downward by the pressure of the water. There is a famous person who came up with this idea. His son was named Popeye.

 

 "La Poupe" is French for "The Stern" (from the earlier Latin word Puppis), and was anglicized as "poop"...in this case referring to the decking over the aft-most cabin(s) of a sailing vessel as you describe.

 Interestingly, in French usage Poupe can also refer to the "stern"(posterior) of a person so perhaps that's where the bodily function related definition of the word was derived from...

"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock

  • Member since
    December 2008
  • From: Toronto, Canada
  • 2,560 posts
Posted by 54light15 on Tuesday, February 10, 2015 2:07 PM
  • Member since
    August 2005
  • From: At the Crossroads of the West
  • 11,013 posts
Posted by Deggesty on Tuesday, February 10, 2015 5:03 PM

LensCapOn
 
54light15

There is a famous person who came up with this idea. His son was named Popeye.

 

 

 

Where is a link to verify THAT story?

 

 

Google and Bing have failed me...

 

Surely, you have heard of Poopdeck Pappy, Popeye the Sailor Man's father?

Johnny

  • Member since
    August 2005
  • From: At the Crossroads of the West
  • 11,013 posts
Posted by Deggesty on Tuesday, February 10, 2015 5:14 PM

Wizlish
 
54light15
Also, wasn't 999 used to set a bicycle speed record in the 1890s where the rider was in an enclosure at the rear of the coach, riding on polished wood between the rails?

 

If I remember correctly, that record was on the LIRR (where the NYC didn't run).  I know there was at least one detailed description of the rolling stock used; I will see if I can find it, but anyone is welcome to comment in the meantime.

EDIT:  Google "Mile-a-Minute Murphy".

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Minthorn_Murphy

It is quite interesting. It seems to have written by an Englishman, since it speaks of the engine driver, who opened the regulator.

Mr. Murphy was certainly tenacious, keeping on even with dust and dirt being thrown up into his face.

Johnny

  • Member since
    August 2010
  • From: Henrico, VA
  • 8,955 posts
Posted by Firelock76 on Tuesday, February 10, 2015 6:09 PM

Per Dr. D's comment...

It's been a maxim for years with those who restore antique aircraft, particularly the World War One vintage 'craft, that as long as SOME of the airplane is original, maybe a fuselage rib, maybe the engine, maybe only the builders plate, it makes no difference how much of the plane's been replaced as long as it's built the same way as the original was.

There IS one exception I can think of...

When the Shuttleworth Collections Sopwith Triplane was built during the years 1973 to 1990 believe it or not Sir Tommy Sopwith was still alive (!) and enthusiastically involved in the project.  He declared it an ORIGINAL Sopwith Triplane, Number 153 to be exact.  Number 152 left the production line in 1917!

A late production model, to be sure, but still an original!

  • Member since
    December 2008
  • From: Toronto, Canada
  • 2,560 posts
Posted by 54light15 on Tuesday, February 10, 2015 8:42 PM

Fascinating stuff, Firelock! I recall reading in one of my old man's aviation magazines that a man built a new Boeing F4-B4, a biplane carrier borne fighter from about 1934. Boeing gave it a serial number in continuation with the series that was long out of production. I love when people do this sort of thing.

In Britain, the Tornado locomotive has a serial number in continuity with the A1 Pacific series that was out of production as well. Great stuff! I've been to the Old Rhinebeck Aerodrome and the aircraft there are considered authentic.

  • Member since
    January 2002
  • 4,612 posts
Posted by M636C on Wednesday, February 11, 2015 6:13 AM

Dr D

 

 

 

 

Seems the British Toranado 4-6-2 reproduction started with the easy to manufacture parts "as a whim" and then got serious about the project having to commit to boiler courses - frame and cylinder castings.  

A couple of more observations here.  The British steam locomotive was no where near as massive as the American steam locomotive.  It was a relatively simple and effective engine!  The Brits used flat steel plates for their locomotive frames with bolted or rivited cross construction.  Where as late American practice as I noted was large steal castings then machined as one construction. 

The British reproduction new boiler courses were rolled in Eastern Europe - Poland being the only place they could find that could still handle rolling steel sections of that size.

I have often thought it would be easier to go to China with an American blueprint and have the existing Chinese machine shops foundries etc. cast and assemble most of a reproduction American locomotive and then scrounge the parts from spares needed to finish it.

The Chinese, however, have never even considered making as sophisitcated a steam locomoitive as a NYC Niagara or Pennsy TI - this is way beyond any of the technology China or the British ever attempted.

 

Dr. D   

 
Exactly how was a Niagara "More sophisticated" than a Chinese QJ?
 
The QJ had built up bar frames rather than a cast frame. But GSI had long stopped making such castings by the time the QJ was first built (about 1958), not that they would have been sold to China given the political situation at the time.
 
But the QJ had Boxpok wheels, a Delta trailing truck, a mechanical stoker and a Worthington feed water heater.  It even had a weight transfer system to move weight from the trailing axles to the driving axles using air cylinders (just like the GE ES44C4). I'm not sure all of them had that feature, so checking those in the USA would show whether they had it.
 
The QJ was lighter, of course but that was due to the track they were used on.
 
I don't believe that anyone could now cast a Niagara nor a T1 frame anywhere in the world. They were all made in a single plant that doesn't do it any more. I understand that the S1 frame was the longest one piece casting ever made anywhere (remember that an S1 was as big as a Big Boy but rigid with half the number of driving wheels).
 
I watched while an experienced foundry tried to make a much smaller but still complex casting. They knew better than the OEM and decided against some procedures that they though were not needed. Seven castings later they hadn't had one success but had used up the funding. We never got anything from that project.
 
You don't just dig a hole and fill it with molten steel.
 
So if you want to build a T1 you'll be stuck with welding a frame. The Germans built one piece welded frames including (cast) cylinders for the class 10 Pacifics. You won't be able to tell from looking at it that it wasn't cast if you design it properly and it will be just as strong and accurate if machined properly.
 
M636C
  • Member since
    March 2016
  • From: Burbank IL (near Clearing)
  • 13,540 posts
Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Wednesday, February 11, 2015 7:06 AM

I would hardly call it "being stuck with a welded frame".  As pointed out by M636C in the above post and by EMC with its first switchers, a welded frame is just as strong as a cast frame.

The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy