Great stuff wanswheel!
BigJim Miningman Also there is some kind of "thing" at the top of the rear ladder on the T1's tender. That is for the [now someone give the correct name] "induction radio", where the PRR used the wires on the telegraph poles to send the radio waves(?) in order to communicate with the crew.
Miningman Also there is some kind of "thing" at the top of the rear ladder on the T1's tender.
That is for the [now someone give the correct name] "induction radio", where the PRR used the wires on the telegraph poles to send the radio waves(?) in order to communicate with the crew.
Trainphone is the PRR's name. Allows cabin and headend to talk. Also, talk to nearby trains.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
S1 in revenue service in a heavy snow storm...
PRR Crestline Ohio roundhouse - notice T1 or perhaps S1 on the lower left - track to extended stall - and compare size of locomotive to the two J1 2-10-4 units on the middle right of the picture...
PRR T1 5518 on the far western reaches of the Pennsylvania Railroad at St Louis MO...
Proud crew posing 5527 at Englewood IL...
S1 in Fort Wayne IN...
S1 in Pennsylvania Railroad Calendar painting...
T1 5516 broadside in St Louis MO...
T1 5516 at the St Louis Union Depot trainshed...
S1 under a massive signal bridge in Chicago IL...
Temporay detour - happened along on this great K4 vs Hudson "race" out of Chicago photo with the K4 in the lead...
And this K4 vs Hudson "race" photo with the Hudson seeming to have the edge...
Have not been able to locate a T1 vs Niagara race photo yet...
T1 possibly doubleheading on a coal train? (check out the trailing unit and the car behind the tank and see what you think)...
Altoona Works Roundhouse No 2 - Locomotive Finishing Shop - launching pad for the T1...
And of course, what would have happened if the Norfolk & Western J tests had made a bigger impression - this photo is actually in Roanoke VA but notice the Pennsylvania baggage car on the left...
Well as I've stated previously, nothing brings out the photos and comments more than anything if it's regarding the T1's.
Regardiing my comment about "some thing" by the rear ladder on the tender...I was well aware of the induction radio/phone system and the antennna's... we still use something vaguely similiar in underground mining operations called a leaky feeder. A person has to be in a drift or crosscut where there are permanent wires strung along the back ( that's the "roof" for non miner types, ...we cringe at that term). The receiver is usually a small box and microphone pinned on your chest near the shoulder, just like the police use. Does not work everywhere. Not easy to communicate through a mile or two of solid rock, on several levels and up to surface.
I've looked at that picture for a while now and for some odd reason I didn't get the fact that it was just a bunch of intersecting shadows that really threw me. Given the date and the condition I would say this is a new engine getting it's tender just as kbgw49 thought.
So much has been written on their demise and the reasons why..stillborn really. It really adds to the mystique of the loco itself.
Just an Aaron Rogers Hail Mary throw here, and theoretical to boot, but was there anyone who would have been interested in picking them up on the cheap. I understand Pennsy was shopping then around pretty early...yes I know N&W and C&O tried 'em out ..I'm thinking more along the lines of out West...UP Passenger service? They may have been tempting at a low initial price vs Diesels E7's and 8's, which could have then been diverted funds to freight Diesels. Just trying to find them a second chance...that would have been something. Geez, I said it was a Hail Mary OK?
It sounds like a great idea but why would UP or ATSF even look at a T1? Both roads were already committed to dieselization and they both had well-designed 4-8-4's on the roster in dual service. Secondhand T1's would have been oddballs on either roster.
Kgb, I'm pretty sure that's the S1 in the Crestline roundhouse photo. The S1 was famous, or maybe infamous, for being too large for the Pennsy's turntables and that aerial shot's a pretty good illustration of same. Man, that thing's HUGE!
CSSHEGEWISCH- Sante Fe would not even consider this idea..no doubts whatsoever. UP might consider it for the reasons I gave..to better hasten dieselization of freight hauling. They could forgo expensive E's, so more for freight units. The Overland Route would be just fine for fast running of passenger trains and the T1's would be up to the challenge. Imagine T1's along side Big Boys and Challengers. They could have got 10 years out of them easy. If Pennsy sold them off very inexpensively along with all the parts and support it could have been a viable thing. Of course at this point I have to stress the theoretical aspect of all this. It does however raise the intriguing question of what UP's steam guys could do with these racehorses.
Southern Pacific under Russell is also a theoretical possibility. He thought diesels were very expensive and slowed down purchases here and there keeping steam in reserve in large numbers. It's possible say '48. Russell was a maverick and a bold thinker and could be very unconventional. Again, purchasing T1's at a huge discount allowed for more dollars for diesels on freight. Picture fast coast running and segments of the Sunset with T1's sporting orange and red hues.
Well, the PRR did try to sell T1's to the C&O and the N&W as well, but neither 'road was interested.
Maybe they should have tried Espee and UP. Would have been interesting to say the least.
We have to remember this was the era, albeit the tail end of same, when just about every major 'road had it's own ideas of what a locomotive should be and were pretty parochial about it. It took EMD/GM to break them of that outlook.
"Here's the diesel. You know what it can do for you. You know you want it, but forget custom jobs, take them as they are or leave them!"
We all know what happened.
Re Tenders for T1 -
I believe that Altoona made all the regular production T1 tenders and half the locomotives. Which means that at some point they came "tenderless" from Baldwin Locomotive Works and - in the beginning of their lives went into the Altoona shop to be completed - likely the reason a new tender would be without coal.
Seems there was an extended birth process for some original T1's. To say nothing about how long it would take to assemble a reproduction.
I would guess the photo was taken from the roundhouse roof by a company photographer.
----------------
Doc
T1's 5500 to 5524 were built in Altoona and 5525-5549 were built by Baldwin but all of the tenders were built in Altoona. So it is logical to think that 5525 thru to 5549 were transported without their tenders to the tender shop in Altoona. It is very likely that is what we are seeing in this picture.
I wonder if any photograph exists of the Baldwin builds being hauled en route without their tenders.
You know the more I look long and hard at these posted pictures from Wanswheel and kgbw49 the more the T1's do "look" like they were a UP or SP locomotive and kind of out of place on the Pennsy. It adds even more to the mystery, lore and tragedy of these great machines.
Firelock76Well, the PRR did try to sell T1's to the C&O and the N&W as well, but neither 'road was interested. Maybe they should have tried Espee and UP. Would have been interesting to say the least. We have to remember this was the era, albeit the tail end of same, when just about every major 'road had it's own ideas of what a locomotive should be and were pretty parochial about it. It took EMD/GM to break them of that outlook. "Here's the diesel. You know what it can do for you. You know you want it, but forget custom jobs, take them as they are or leave them!" We all know what happened.
In Don Ball Jr.'s book 'The Pennsylvania Railroad 1940's-1950's' there are statements of the tests both C&O & N&W conducted with the T1's vs. the home roads comparable motive power. In each case the PRR T1 was found inferior to the home road power.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Look up the old T1 thread on this forum for a fascinating and very informative debate on the T1's ...especially covering their trials and tribulations on the N&W and C&O. General consensus was the trials were unfair and badly flawed. Combine that with corporate sabotage and group think and the answers are quite obvious.
Lets hope the 5550 project becomes a reality. We will see for ourselves and get the truth.
MiningmanGeneral consensus was the trials were unfair and badly flawed. Combine that with corporate sabotage and group think and the answers are quite obvious.
.
The folks commenting and putting forth detailed technical answers plus very valid opinions on that form were hardly uniformed. The C&O tests in particular were not right. N&W tests were better but the N&W guys were not going to let the Pennsy motive power designers show them up. They were doomed in any case right from the start wether they were the best thing ever or not.
You just made my point!
Miningman The folks commenting and putting forth detailed technical answers plus very valid opinions on that forum were hardly uninformed. The C&O tests in particular were not right. N&W tests were better but the N&W guys were not going to let the Pennsy motive power designers show them up. They were doomed in any case right from the start whether they were the best thing ever or not.
The folks commenting and putting forth detailed technical answers plus very valid opinions on that forum were hardly uninformed. The C&O tests in particular were not right. N&W tests were better but the N&W guys were not going to let the Pennsy motive power designers show them up. They were doomed in any case right from the start whether they were the best thing ever or not.
There's no particular need to castigate either C&O or N&W for running 'unfair' tests, except insofar as the load and expected performance fell outside the achievable performance envelope of a relatively light, short-stroke locomotive. And N&W's assessment of the locomotive seemed reasonable for its operating conditions ... just as PRR's assessment of the J locomotive was reasonable. The people actually conducting the tests were not fools.
Big Jim's statement is spot on: the actual C&O testing did not appear to feature slipping (the problem was stalling, quite the opposite issue), but 'revealed railfan wisdom' (regrettably including DPM if I remember correctly) made it common knowledge that T1s slipped dramatically and this was an important reason they 'failed' on C&O. Believe me when I tell you the PRR designers weren't going to show up the N&W design team, particularly Voyce Glaze (see his calculations for a 4-4-4-4 in Calculation Book #1, short as they are) or vice versa - they were professionals with distinct senses of design optimization. N&W knew going into the tests that a locomotive with 80" drivers and 26" stroke wasn't going to do the same work as a J on their railroad, and they had comparatively little need for the benefits of duplex divided drive either in augment or mass reduction at the costs the T1 design imposed. (N&W is also notable for having eschewed Franklin type A entirely, not for want either of technical knowledge or willingness to develop new forms of locomotive power - in my opinion this is no accident.)
The sad thing for the T1 design, in my opinion, was the remarkable bad timing: they were badly needed in 1941, still important in 1945, an afterthought by 1947, an embarrassment by 1950. The history of the V1 shows similar details; I think the S2 is perhaps the most dramatic demonstration.
Ironically there is this photoshopped picture of a "C&O" T1 out on the Web...
With respect to these tests, I read somewhere that the T1 "test article" didn't arrive for the tests in tip-top condition. Kind of like trying to sell a used car and not bothering to wash it, clean out the insides, and have any Check Engine light condition serviced, first?
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Kgbw49- That photoshopped picture is downright ugly as can be...it looks like a ridiculous running shoe.
Paul Milenkovic- That is true. There are good accounts in the old T1 thread a couple of years back with Juniatha, M. Sol and Overmod comments and many others...it is a great thread to read through, with a lot of references and accounts to those tests.
The thread was around March 2012...David Klepper and Firelock were commentators ...lot of great stuff.
Juniatha
Miningman - LOL! There is Nike's next shoe - the Nike T1 Flyer!
Kgbw49- Good one! Now I'm starting to seriously rethink that Southern Pacific T1 idea of hues of red and orange. Likely a disaster.
UP could have picked them up cheap, cheap, cheap and forgone new expensive passenger diesels. By the time they were done, say 1959 it was becoming obvious that passenger was in serious decline. They could then pick up second hand relatively new E's in surplus from other roads for what was left. A win-win. Also, for some reason I do not think the UP steam guys would be insulted by these...I think they would have seen them as a challenge and souped them up to their liking. Probably have one extant today. I'm really not crazy, just wishing and dreaming.
MiningmanKgbw49- Good one! Now I'm starting to seriously rethink that Southern Pacific T1 idea of hues of red and orange. Likely a disaster.
I think it is easily possible to adapt the Daylight scheme compellingly to a T1, even one largely stripped of skirting (or given SP-style skirting in their shops). Perhaps if Juniatha comes back to comment on being quoted in this thread, she can 'gin up a picture for us, as she's already done drawings of some improvements on the T1 streamlining.
The problem is that there are parts of the Daylight runs that involve significant grade and curvature, and climatic conditions under which the T1s were demonstratedly slippery-natured. I don't think a short-stroke engine would do well there, no matter how dramatically faster they might prove on other parts of the runs.
UP could have picked them up cheap, cheap, cheap and forgone new expensive passenger diesels.
On a railroad that stopped development of heavy passenger steam in the 1930s, and used diesels on their Streamliners almost exclusively? My own suspicion is that, as with ATSF, most areas where UP ran steam fast enough, with limited enough grade for the train weight required to justify a T1, would be dieselized in preference ... no matter how cheap the locomotives, even with adequate 'spares' and a full documentation of the care and feeding of the parts of the poppet-valve drive gear, could be provided. (And that, again, would be strictly limited for PRR by how they could get out of their equipment trust obligations for such new locomotives...)
By the time they were done, say 1959 it was becoming obvious that passenger was in serious decline. They could then pick up second hand relatively new E's in surplus from other roads for what was left. A win-win.
I think it was obvious that passenger was in decline for the sorts of trains the T1 would run long before 1959, and this would be exaggerated by 'repeats' of the kinds of service interruption that the T1s experienced on PRR (not all of which would be solved by the 1948 improvements, or the likely adoption of oil firing on UP -- there is NO way to adapt a T1 to use typical UP "coal"). In order for UP to overcome the maintenance issues observed for Q2s vs. J1s (twice as many cylinders, valve-gear servicing difficulties, etc.) they'd have to run faster trains than the later classes of FEF, and while the duplex reduction of augment might allow operation closer to 'Streamliner' average speed, there are places (I think Sherman Hill would be one) where a short-stroke unconjugated duplex would be at a very decided operational disadvantage.
Also, for some reason I do not think the UP steam guys would be insulted by these...I think they would have seen them as a challenge and souped them up to their liking.
At what cost, exactly, over the supposed bargain of their acquisition? By the time you did the firing and perhaps tender conversions, installed B-2 gear, and put in independent control of the two engines, you'd be well-up on the out-of-pocket cost for a year's worth of financing on an equivalent set of E units through GM. And still with all the rising costs of manpower and facilities needed to service a steam locomotive...
Probably have one extant today. I'm really not crazy, just wishing and dreaming.
Perhaps the thing to consider would have been what SP developed (perhaps with Lima) if the duplex concept had been made to work as expected, with a proper firebox size and less flickety valve gear ... and the advent of practical diesel-electric power had not included Sloan/Hamilton/Dilworth's version of EMD. We know ATSF had perhaps the most exotic duplex on the boards (oil-fired 6-4-4-4) and while I wouldn't want to see SP take up the proposed T&P duplex styling even through slitted eyes, the locomotive likely under that styling would have done nicely at lower augment, had that been perceived as desirable instead of more orders of 'straight' GS locomotives. But that of course is far more wishing and dreaming than we've already been doing...
[/quote]
RME- Thanks for the great reply. If this could nudge Juniatha back for a bit in the forum then that would be worth it.
Makes one wonder if the designers and builders and also those regular folks in the roundhouse that laboured on them, and those that ran them, that believed in the T1's, ever contemplated that in 2017 they are still being debated, admired, admonished, fixes put forth and so on.
I think more in the last ten years have been written and a keener knowledge and sense of them than ever. That alone is validation.
Miningman RME- Thanks for the great reply. If this could nudge Juniatha back for a bit in the forum then that would be worth it. Makes one wonder if the designers and builders and also those regular folks in the roundhouse that laboured on them, and those that ran them, that believed in the T1's, ever contemplated that in 2017 they are still being debated, admired, admonished, fixes put forth and so on. I think more in the last ten years have been written and a keener knowledge and sense of them than ever. That alone is validation.
MiningmanRME- Thanks for the great reply. If this could nudge Juniatha back for a bit in the forum then that would be worth it.
I doubt it. It was a loss. Sadly, she let me know that one or two posters (none of us) drove her off.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
I've got Juniatha's e-mail. (Not at liberty to give it out.) I've tried several times to get her back but no luck, not even a reply. Maybe I'll try again. I don't know.
I miss that young lady.
Here are a couple of brief YouTube videos with a lot of T1 footage...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hgKcGnEihc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znMu4K71ktY
It is rather mysterious and puzzling as to why folks leave the forum after being so active and a very popular contributor. Comment forums are definitely not for the thin skinned or impatient. Personally I find people who jump in without reading the posts leading up to their comment quite frustrating. Many simply do no due diligence or inform themselves before shooting off their big yap. Of course there are always the trolls which if left unchecked can destroy a website. The Classic and Trains posts are pretty good at finding a balance without too much nonsense. For comparison, try your favourite sports team comments section and blogs..that is seriously ridiculous stuff populated by people with far too much time on their hands...they have become meaningless.
For myself, working full time in teaching, time constraints come into play as well...so much to do in such little time. While some are retired that is not the case for all and even in retirement some are more busy than ever.
( As an aside, grammar, puctuation and spelling are horrid..beyond belief at times...it is a product of an education system that no longer corrects these things, fast paced lives and the Internet world..nontheless many come across as being illiterate)
Also, who knows who is truly who? Some reappear under different names, or at least it certainly appears that way. Many do not fill out the biography or post any basic information on themselves.
I really enjoy the forums when I can. There are many who have left for reasons unknown to us. It is a loss in many cases.
Miningman, please be just a bit more tolerant of spelling and punctuation errors. Sometimes they represent lack of time for checking, typos, and a triumph of impatiance over accuracy.
Dave- Of course, in your case it is very understandable...as it is for others. It is easy to see the difference.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.