https://www.facebook.com/t1locomotive/videos/3171970519759288/
Still in training.
There's more, for all the whiners finding reasons why 'she'll never start'...
https://www.facebook.com/t1locomotive/videos/something-special-is-coming/1151587942319836/
Yes, the 'prow' that goes on the end of that has also been fabricated...
Thanks L-O!
I don't do facebook, but I just now looked at this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1HyhTmwlHs
Isn't that just the boiler outer shell? There is no throatplate, no indication of an inner firebox so presumably no tubes...
Why does the nose apparently match the outer shell of the boiler? Shouldn't it be larger to match the boiler after lagging?
Have they found someone to make a throatplate and inner firebox?
Peter
Peter, when I saw the first video, my first question was, "Why is the forward fairing noticeably larger in girth than the boiler?" Or, so it looks to me. Maybe we need a closer look, or for someone who knows to speak up.
-Crandell
It appears that the forward faring that makes the transition from the "round" of the smokebox to the "rectangle" of the prow will get some additional cladding.
The smokebox and smokestack on the T-1 actually sit relatively far back from the front of the locomotive from the drawings I have seen.
There are some very good T-1 photographs and a technical drawing on this site that might be of assistance.
https://revivaler.com/pennsylvania-railroad-t1-t1a-duplex/
selectorPeter, when I saw the first video, my first question was, "Why is the forward fairing noticeably larger in girth than the boiler?" Or, so it looks to me. Maybe we need a closer look, or for someone who knows to speak up.
Calculating and forming the inner wrapper was among the first things the ESC researched. As I recall there is a discussion on forming the throatplate and the Belpaire chamber wrapper somewhere on the Web. Joe Burgard calculated where the plate for the Chapelon sectional-boiler 'feedwater heater section' would go; his result had it surprisingly short, only about 3'3/8" back from the front tubesheet.
This belongs in the T1 file but there's a lot of other good stuff here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WiLIS2Sl29s
But what is that maintenance item at 12:59 that looks like a first world war tank?
Probably a light rhomboid tank with its sponson guns removed, adapted to serve as a tractor.
I dimly remember an American light tank design comparable to a British Mark I or improved version of same, that was made functionally obsolete as soon as any kind of speed became desirable for armor. Flintlock will probably know.
Much too small to be a tank with sponson guns. It's just a tractor. It's only about 3ft tall.
I took a look at that piece of equipment '54 mentioned being in the film at 12:59, and it's no surplus tank, it looks to me like a purpose-built piece of maintanance gear, although what the philosophy behind the design was I have no idea.
As far as American WW1 tanks are concerned copies of the British Mark IV (that huge multi-man crew rhomboid tank) were built here in the US but never made it overseas and didn't last long post-war, the French Renault FT-17 two-man tank being considered more practical. Copies of those were built here as well and lasted in-service into the 1930's.
There were a number of experimental tank designs tried here between the wars, too many to go into and some quite promising, but there wasn't enough money the the Army budget during those years to persue them.
OK, as an old Armor Officer, I have to chime in. I think no Mark V heavy tanks were built in the US and any vehicles operated by the AEF came from British stocks. What was built in the US was the Mark VIII heavy
"The Mark VIII tank also known as the Liberty or The International was a British-American tank design of the First World War intended to overcome the limitations of the earlier British designs and be a collaborative effort to equip France, the UK and the US with a single heavy tank design.
Production at a site in France was expected to take advantage of US industrial capacity to produce the automotive elements, with the UK producing the armoured hulls and armament. The planned production levels would have equipped the Allied armies with a very large tank force that would have broken through the German defensive positions in the planned offensive for 1919. In practice, manufacture was slow and only a few vehicles were produced before the end of the war in November 1918.
After the war, 100 vehicles assembled in the US were used by the US Army until more advanced designs replaced them in 1932. A few tanks that had not been scrapped by the start of World War II were offered to Canada for training purposes"
The Royal Canadian Tank Corps had - count em - 2 tanks (Vickers MkVIB) in 1939, so they accepted the US offer for the remaining Mk VIII's and the 236 M1917's (US built version of the Renault FT) left and purchased the lot at scrap metal prices. As the US was still neutral, they were shipped to "Mr Worthington, Borden Iron Foundry, Ontario, Canada" Mr Worthington was the head of the Canadian Tank Corps, Col Worthington, and Borden Iron Foundry was the Corps' training center, Camp Borden.
"At the time of the deal, the United States was a neutral nation and could not officially provide weapons to any of the combatants. The Canadian Government was sold these old WW1 era tanks as ‘scrap metal’. They paid the going rate for scrap metal: each tank only cost $240US. The first M1917 tanks arrived at camp Borden on 8th October 1940, transported by train from a parking lot at Fort George G. Meade in Maryland. Tank crew training could now start in earnest.
The Canadian opposition party heard about the deal and tried to embarrass the Government in Parliament and raised a question about the purchase. They received the formal reply that the train delivering 1,500 tons of scrap metal had arrived at the Camp Borden Iron Foundry. No further questions were asked."
M1917's unloading - Col Worthington in beret
Col Worthington inspecting some "scrap metal" when it arrived at Camp Borden
Some Mark VIII's parked after unloading at Camp Borden
https://www.canadiansoldiers.com/vehicles/tanks/m1917.htm
I haven't been in years but there is a tank museum at Camp Borden and one of those is likely in the collection along with a T34. I did see a Bren gun carrier parked outside a garage away from the museum collection. I didn't know they were powered by a flathead Ford V8. Also at Camp Borden are a bunch of hangars dating from 1917. I assume they are still there.
Technically, it was probably a Canadian built successor to the Bren Gun Carrier, the Universal Carrier.
"The Universal Carriers, in different variants, were also produced in allied countries. Ford Motor Company of Canada manufactured about 29,000 vehicles known as the Ford C01UC Universal Carrier
Universal Carriers were manufactured in the United States of America for allied use with GAE and GAEA V-8 Ford engines. About 20,000 were produced."
In production from 1934 to 1960, with about 110,000 produced - biggest production run of any AFV in history.
And here's a shot of two wartime products of CPR's Angus Shops
Virtually the entire production run of 1400 Valentine Tanks was shipped as aid to Russia
OK, that's it. I'll cease hijacking the forum!
BEAUSABREOK, as an old Armor Officer, I have to chime in
And I'm glad you did! All good information I didn't know, so thanks!
I was in the Marines myself, and armor wasn't my MOS. I did get a ride in a M-48 once though.
By the way, are you familiar with "The Chieftan's" YouTube channel?
Rhomboid. I always thought that "The Rhombus" would have been a great name for the national military command center. It just sounds more military than pentagon. Doing your best cartoon announcer voice: "Meanwhile, back at the Rhombus..."
Same me, different spelling!
Ehhh, some steam locomotives are so hideous looking, I am not sure they should be brought back from extinction.
While I think that the T1 has an interesting appearance, I think that a better choice would have been something smaller like a C&NW Class E 4-6-2 or an MILW Class A 4-4-2.
CSSHEGEWISCH While I think that the T1 has an interesting appearance, I think that a better choice would have been something smaller like a C&NW Class E 4-6-2 or an MILW Class A 4-4-2.
Backshop CSSHEGEWISCH While I think that the T1 has an interesting appearance, I think that a better choice would have been something smaller like a C&NW Class E 4-6-2 or an MILW Class A 4-4-2. The word "interesting" can have so many definitions. I would've liked to have seen a Hudson or Niagara...something successful...
The word "interesting" can have so many definitions. I would've liked to have seen a Hudson or Niagara...something successful...
I would like to see a J-1 also but why imply that a C&NW E or CMStPnP A are not sucessful?
My "not successful" comment was directed towards the T1.
Backshop My "not successful" comment was directed towards the T1.
Good!!
Which explains my belief that the T1 project is more of an expensive engineering experiment than anything else.
He's not bad for an amateur
Isn't the plan for the new T1 to correct the deficiencies that it had? I've read that the A1 type pacific in the UK had problems that were the reason that all of them were scrapped. I understand that those were corrected when the Tornado was built.
54light15Isn't the plan for the new T1 to correct the deficiencies that it had?
That's a good question. I've heard stories of a slight spat in the T1 Trust organization, not a major one but more of a difference of opinion. One side says put the latest steam improvements into the new T1, the other side says if they don't make it EXACTLY like the original T1's then it's not a real T1. Whether this is true or not I have no idea.
And of course, all the railroads maintained each and every single steam locomotive to the identical form and condition it was in the day it rolled out of the shop. They never, ever improved anything with design improvements, ever.
And an oil-fired Big Boy with a brand new burner design, or an oil-fired K-28 or K-36 on the former Rio Grande narrow gauge is not really preservation.
Build the new build to be the best it can be so it lasts the longest it can. If the technology existed at the time the Pennsy designers would have fixed the flaws.
if those designers were alive today they would be saying "Build it right!!
Flintlock76That's a good question. I've heard stories of a slight spat in the T1 Trust organization, not a major one but more of a difference of opinion. One side says put the latest steam improvements into the new T1, the other side says if they don't make it EXACTLY like the original T1's then it's not a real T1. Whether this is true or not I have no idea.
Needs ditchlights.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.