I loved this story from the first time I read it ... and am still looking forward to some Q2 tales. Gil Reid bought into the story 'big time', and the result is something we should all have on our walls:
But, just as there is no 'real' Santa Claus for Virginia, there is no getting around that 5536 had no unusual mods to the speed-recorder system documented anywhere in the (rather extensive) material so far identified. I am still looking to see if 5500 (which got the rotary-cam setup) might have had a higher encoder and speedometer display put on as part of the conversion ... but for reasons previously and exhaustively described, I do not think there is, or was, any reason for PRR to put more than a "100mph" speedometer on any of its steam locomotives, with the possible exception of the S1 (which I think might have been 110mph, still well short of what was reported on 5536 - I am looking for my backhead shot of the S1 locomotive to confirm this).
Note that Crosby is not a T1 expert - he claims that all the T1s had 'rotary cam poppet valves' which is a strange thing to make it past the Trains Magazine editors. I continue to think that this is akin to the situation where the 161mph Hudson slip tests morphed with the 'serum to Nome' railroaders'-boyhood stories to produce that story about a Hudson rushing medical relief across New York State at 157mph ... a lot of verisimilitude with a few little mistaken points that spoil the tale a bit, like some of John Barnes' early science fiction.
Note that I say this all with extreme regret, as I think the T1 design was easily capable of performing as reported.
Thanks for the Gil Reid artwork. immediately downloaded to my hard-drive. Thanks!
I remember the article and especially the Gil Reid painting. I saw it in a short-lived magazine called "Vintage Rails" which I wished I kept, dammit!
It may have originally appeared in "Trains," but I'm not sure about that.
Thanks David and RME!
I don't have the T1 print but I do have a similar one of an NYC J3a Hudson framed print entitled "79 MPH".
Another really beautiful painting that is on my hard-drive is Rose's Walking through Texas. I really get a lump in my throat every time I look at it. Two Riply Northerns heading into the sunset with SF refers.
Some day I will find the right story to attach to it. Railroading has insipired some terrific painting as well as photography.
One that I am particularly fond of, as telling a story that unfolds as you look at it, is John Winfield's take on Scheeler's Rolling Power called "Three Hours to Amarillo" (I'm not posting a thumbnail, but here is a place where you can see a large preview by clicking the thumbnail (and a great many fine other paintings as well).
John Winfield is a great, great artist. I am fortunate to have prints of his "Extra 3801 West" and "Cab Forwards On Tehachapi". Looking to give myself a Christmas present of "Storming Curtis Hill" showing ATSF 2926 on a reefer block. All his work is excellent.
A great story indeed! Almost made me feel like I was in the cab.
Rio Grande Valley, CFI,CFII
Here's a question for one of you with an engineering degree. This T1 was pulling 14 cars, which I would estimate to be about 1200 tons. Please feel free to amend that estimate if you wish. Add to it another 450 tons for the locomotive and tender. Now tell me how much horsepower would it take to move that load 120 mph on level ground. Also is there a formula one can use to determine HP? In my foggy memory I recall the T1 to be capable of 5000 to 6000 HP. Is that enough to pull off the alleged performance?
tpatrickhow much horsepower would it take to move that load 120 mph on level ground.
No one here knows. We can guess at it, and maybe be right within a factor of 1.5 or so.
tpatrickis there a formula one can use to determine HP?
Horsepower of the locomotive, you mean? There are formulas, but no one would promise they're right. Only way to learn the power of a steam locomotive is to test it.
tpatrick 5000 to 6000 HP
5000 to 6000 HP
The T1 may have been capable of 5000 dbhp, but not at 120 mph.
There is no 'one true' formula for calculating dbhp (which is the only thing that really counts on the road). Chapelon says PRR observed 6760ihp from the instrumentation on one run on the test plant at 100mph indicated, but he does not say what was recorded on the roller brakes for that run (which would be close to wheelrim HP). Machine losses on the T1s were remarkably low, so I would not think dbhp would vary very far from wheelrim output; there should be a correction factor for the high-speed slipping but that's probably impossible to model deterministically, let alone get meaningful numbers from; it should be possible to model the aerodynamic drag under straight and quartering conditions using a second locomotive and a dynamometer car able to record accurately in buff.
Meanwhile, the practical falloff of developed HP at high speed is probably far less on the T1s than most other locomotives, as both admission volume and timing precision will be maintained by the poppet valves up to very high cyclic rpm (as observed on 5399) and the superheat will ramp up to ridiculous levels (as on 614) without producing catastrophic valve issues (as on the high-speed class J testing) if the 1948 valve improvements are used. So the falling 'tail' of the horsepower curve, already relatively broad and flat, may be sustained far longer than anticipated at speeds above those PRR actually tested on the plant. I expect the actual limiting factor to be backpressure in the front end (and characteristics of chassis stability) and both of those to be well above 120mph on level, straight, ideal track.
I think you are vastly overestimating the train weight. If you consult PRR equipment diagrams for the lightweight equipment (for example the POS211a observation) you will find a light weight under 60 tons, and I believe this may cross-relate well with 14 such cars, loaded, representing the design load (880 tons) for the locomotive.
This story and the painting ran in Trains Magazine back in the 60's or 70's - likely I have the issue and can find it.
Doc
RME Machine losses on the T1s were remarkably low
Machine losses on the T1s were remarkably low
Are there any usable sources from machine losses -- friction between the power in the cylinders and power at the wheel rims?
John Knowles had posted a long report on this subject, but it looks to be that his Web site is no longer up. What was interesting about his work is that this machine friction varied with load and speed in a way that made it more complicated than a simple "mechanical efficiency" number. Another point was that the machine friction of a locomotive was much higher than the locomotive's Davis formula rolling resistance, to the point where the machine friction of the locomotive was roughly comparable to the (non-aerodynamic) rolling resistance of the entire train it was pulling.
I am interested if there are other sources going into comparable detail.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Wish to correct my Johe Rose SF ReferBlock painting posting:
Racing into the SunRISE is correct!
Paul MilenkovicAre there any usable sources from machine losses -- friction between the power in the cylinders and power at the wheel rims?
There are some discussions relevant specifically to the T1 in the Engineering Committee sections on the T1 Trust site.
Part of the reason for the machine losses being (relatively) low was the use of roller bearings, and supposedly-more-than-desultory wheel turning to profile. I'm sure the burns from the various kinds of slip did not help the situation, but the magnitude of the difference was probably only a fraction of a percent, the difficulties being much more pronounced in terms of reactions at high speed and increased propensity for very-high-speed slipping.
The difference between Franklin type A and piston valves is substantial, both in relative friction and inertia. Typical piston valves for a locomotive this size would consume something like 35hp around diameter speed, and of course much more at higher speed or if unanticipated high superheat degraded the tribology. Franklin indicated that the hp to run type A was about 3hp (much of which was in compression of the springs and lubricated contact of the little dwarf radial gear in the box). "Standard" type B RC was supposed to be less, but I don't have any material on the specific 4-valve RC conversion ("B-1") that the only RC T1 had, which had more cams and linkage at all 'eight corners'.
ISTR some correspondence at the Hagley that indicated the hp to drive the valves on the T1a was about 22hp, but I don't really know if that was for both or for 'each engine' - the valves are not that much smaller than typical.
As a perhaps-interesting aside, there was some discussion about flexion in the Timken lightweight rods being a source of loss (Chapelon mentions the effect in conjunction with lateral-motion devices and roller-bearing rods). I'm not sure I believe this, but there is strong circumstantial evidence...
I will ask John (via steam_tech) whether his reference is still on the Web, or if not whether I can find a way to put it up or quote from/summarize it here.
daveklepperWish to correct my Johe Rose SF ReferBlock painting posting:
Unless I'm sadly mistaken you need a little more correction - isn't it TED Rose?
While we're on the general subject, here's Ted 'on topic':
and for a couple of you who are enamored of the Milwaukee F7, here's something T1s for all their slipping didn't do:
And, for Mr. Klepper, here's something akin to 'Racing into the Sunrise' that he might appreciate...
RME and for a couple of you who are enamored of the Milwaukee F7, here's something T1s for all their slipping didn't do:
I am guessing that is a representation just a second after broken rod?
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACDI am guessing that is a representation just a second after broken rod?
It is one of two possible things. The likelier one is the event Scribbins described where (if I recall this correctly) the crosshead seized in the guide due to tribology problems at speed. The train momentum (and thrust from the other side) bent the main, which then windmilled knocking off the shrouding but somehow not digging into the ties and lifting that side of the locomotive.
The other possibility, which I saw documented in a thumbnail picture in Trains years ago without a full narrative, involved a broken main pin. I suspect those were starting to become relatively frequent in the latter-'40s experience with big steam running lots of effective horsepower through just two pins, especially in arrangements like the 'revised' system on N&W Js that put the bending moment on the main far out on the pin (somewhat ironically to relieve a chronic fracture problem on the extended #4 driver pins in the inline tandem-rod original arrangement). I do not know how much actual R&R of roller-bearing rods and magnafluxing of pins actually took place, but have my suspicions that there is a relatively narrow critical range of load in which the failure of the pins would rise dramatically...
Paul Milenkovic RME Machine losses on the T1s were remarkably low Are there any usable sources from machine losses -- friction between the power in the cylinders and power at the wheel rims? John Knowles had posted a long report on this subject, but it looks to be that his Web site is no longer up. What was interesting about his work is that this machine friction varied with load and speed in a way that made it more complicated than a simple "mechanical efficiency" number. Another point was that the machine friction of a locomotive was much higher than the locomotive's Davis formula rolling resistance, to the point where the machine friction of the locomotive was roughly comparable to the (non-aerodynamic) rolling resistance of the entire train it was pulling. I am interested if there are other sources going into comparable detail.
I found this info from a thread from 2012.
http://cs.trains.com/trn/f/741/p/2917510/reply.aspx
NM_Coot Santa Fe test results showed that the 3765 class with limited cutoff could maintain full boiler pressure at all speeds and cutoffs. Test runs with 3766 showed 5450 MIH at 55 to 70 mph and over 5000 IH from 35 to 90 mph. Given the Santa Fe penchant for long runs at high reliability, this high HP over a very wide speed range makes for excellent performance with heavy, fast services where maximum output is required over wide speed ranges. The concept of limited cutoff was recommended for implementation on the 3460, 3776, and 5001 classes. In passing, the test of 3766, as equipped with roller bearings on all axles, gave a mechanical efficiency of about 90% up to 30 MPH and then dropped to about 82% at 60 MPH and 62% at 90 MPH.
Santa Fe test results showed that the 3765 class with limited cutoff could maintain full boiler pressure at all speeds and cutoffs. Test runs with 3766 showed 5450 MIH at 55 to 70 mph and over 5000 IH from 35 to 90 mph. Given the Santa Fe penchant for long runs at high reliability, this high HP over a very wide speed range makes for excellent performance with heavy, fast services where maximum output is required over wide speed ranges. The concept of limited cutoff was recommended for implementation on the 3460, 3776, and 5001 classes. In passing, the test of 3766, as equipped with roller bearings on all axles, gave a mechanical efficiency of about 90% up to 30 MPH and then dropped to about 82% at 60 MPH and 62% at 90 MPH.
emphasis mine
Cruising at high speed...
Not sure how fast this one is moving, but it gives a pretty good idea what the T1 Trust is all about....
Here is a nifty 4-minute video with a lot of T1 footage...
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=znMu4K71ktY
At Columbus, OH...
Doubleheading with another T1 in the smoke shadow...
Outrunning the camera shutter at high speed...
Burning up the miles with a dinged-up front end...
Coming up the express tracks on four tracks wide...
About to rattle double diamonds...
Station stop at Valparaiso...
Broadside at a bit of an odd angle, but it shows just how big a unit these locomotives are - they are very large...
Fresh out of Altoona Shops...
At Harrisburg PA...
Downgrade on Horseshoe Curve...
Brunswick Green at speed...
Station stop...
Ready to roll...
What was the capacity of the tender?
BaltACD, the numbers for 5500-5549 are 42.6 tons of coal and 19,200 US gallons of water per the info on Steamlocomotive.com.
http://steamlocomotive.com/duplex/?page=prr
The engine and empty tender are reported as weighing 944,700 lbs.
The T1 driver fixed wheelbase was 25 feet 4 inches. This compares to the PRR J1 driver fixed wheelbase of 24 feet 4 inches.
Big units!
tpatrick Here's a question for one of you with an engineering degree. This T1 was pulling 14 cars, which I would estimate to be about 1200 tons. Please feel free to amend that estimate if you wish. Add to it another 450 tons for the locomotive and tender. Now tell me how much horsepower would it take to move that load 120 mph on level ground. Also is there a formula one can use to determine HP? In my foggy memory I recall the T1 to be capable of 5000 to 6000 HP. Is that enough to pull off the alleged performance?
I dont drive trains, I have driven a steamer once and a diesel a few times, but I can explain large loads and speed...
My experience is trucks and I dont mean just one trailer and weighing only 42.5 tonnes(93,600 lbs) but upto 100 tonnes(220,000 lbs).. top speed aloud is 100 kph(60 mph)..
You might think, impossible with 50 tyres under you, 13 axles and and rough roads... But its getting going thats the hard bit, once you get that weight working for you and pushing when you need it, maintaining speed is easy and if our laws aloud, I could easily get upto 130 kph or more, but heat on tyres etc would be a problem... big hills that pulled you down below 80 kph(50mph) meant you had to make the engine work and gearing to pull you over the hill, so you would end up at about 50 kph(30mph)...
A good operator is only limited by the machines limits, there are limits to every machine(my limit was 550hp)..steam engines that are designed for speed, generally are capable of a lot more than they do daily, but then the operator is taking a risk at breaking the gear too...
I have read and heard stories about steamers going a lot faster than they where designed for, but they where designed to do a job and ability to do more, thus giving the engine a chance to last longer in service... Pushing the limits reduces that service time... A good operator should always get the best out of a machine..
I would love to have been able to run an express in an emergency, thats when you could run the fastest without any restrictions...( Like needing fresh cream for the local bailiff)...
I had the pleasure of meeting John Crosby's son a few years ago. He said that it was not an isolated incident and that engineers would frequently exceed the speed limit in order to make up time on a passenger train running late.
His dad ended up as a PRR tower operator in Toledo where he had a lot of time to write.
Leaving Chicago Union Station...
Leaving Chicago...
Passing Van Wert, OH on the advertised...
Waiting for the highball...
Pittsburgh engine terminal...
A little wear and tear but ready to chew up the miles...
Rockville Bridge...
Clean stack through Harrisburg, PA...
Making time through Pittsburgh, PA...
Fresh off the showroom floor...
A musician-author-teacher responded to my Christmas transmission to her as follows:
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.