Trains.com

120 MPH T1

44605 views
140 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 22,320 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Sunday, December 10, 2017 7:43 PM

timz
Yes, the dispatcher doesn't care if a passenger train leaves early-- but if it picks up passengers at that station, Amtrak usually doesn't want it to leave early. If a following train can pick up the passengers in a few minutes, the dispatcher can apparently authorize a train to leave ahead of its public-timetable schedule. (Presumably he'd have to radio the conductor and engineer and give them the OK.)

All that is in the hands of the passenger operator.

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    February 2005
  • 2,082 posts
Posted by timz on Sunday, December 10, 2017 6:27 PM

Yes, the dispatcher doesn't care if a passenger train leaves early-- but if it picks up passengers at that station, Amtrak usually doesn't want it to leave early. If a following train can pick up the passengers in a few minutes, the dispatcher can apparently authorize a train to leave ahead of its public-timetable schedule. (Presumably he'd have to radio the conductor and engineer and give them the OK.)

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 22,320 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Sunday, December 10, 2017 6:14 PM

timz
"L" meaning they weren't supposed to board passengers at that stop? If the station was between NY and Washington, that was enough to make an early departure legal.

Most other RRs in, say, the 1970s and earlier had rule 92, which flatly forbid leaving any station ahead of time. Nowadays I think many? all? dispatchers are allowed to authorize passenger trains to leave early-- tho there would rarely be any reason to do that.

There is no longer a Timetable and Train Order form of operation which relies on time and other factors for movement authority. 

From the Dispatchers view point today, he or she really doesn't care if a passenger train leaves in advance of the scheduled departure time.  Authority for movement is given via either Signal Indication or Track Warrant Control - neither of these means of authority are time related.

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    February 2005
  • 2,082 posts
Posted by timz on Sunday, December 10, 2017 4:33 PM

"L" meaning they weren't supposed to board passengers at that stop? If the station was between NY and Washington, that was enough to make an early departure legal.

Most other RRs in, say, the 1970s and earlier had rule 92, which flatly forbid leaving any station ahead of time. Nowadays I think many? all? dispatchers are allowed to authorize passenger trains to leave early-- tho there would rarely be any reason to do that.

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 18,724 posts
Posted by Overmod on Sunday, December 10, 2017 11:35 AM

timz
So presumably the employee timetable showed them as discharge-only at Philadelphia and Newark, and they didn't appear in the Form 12 and Form 79 public timetables at all.

I am informed from a different source that some Amtrak trains were given official permission to leave stations early; they were said to be denoted in timetable with code "L".  I do not have material to substantiate this, but I suspect timz does.

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 18,751 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Sunday, December 10, 2017 11:14 AM

Most of the years I rode them, they did not appear in the Wash - NY and Phila - NY PRR public timetables.  I did ride them though, on occasion, Wash - NY, with a conductor that did not mind.  Very useful idea when the regular hourly trains were crowded.  I suspect he gave my ticket stub to a regular NY - Wash conductor to hand in, rather than have to answer questions.

  • Member since
    February 2005
  • 2,082 posts
Posted by timz on Sunday, December 3, 2017 4:56 PM

daveklepper
northbound Silver Metior, Souterner, East Coast Champion, and Flordia Special frequently arrived at and left Philadelphia, Newark, and New York as much six or seven minutes ahead of schedule.

So presumably the employee timetable showed them as discharge-only at Philadelphia and Newark, and they didn't appear in the Form 12 and Form 79 public timetables at all.

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 18,724 posts
Posted by Overmod on Sunday, December 3, 2017 10:32 AM

daveklepper
But I also rode trains meeting your description, the northbound Silver Meteor, Southerner, East Coast Champion, and Florida Special frequently arrived at and left Philadelphia, Newark, and New York as much as six or seven minutes ahead of schedule.

I was given to understand that at least part of the reason for 'detraining passengers only' at some of these later stops was to avoid issues with early onward departure -- not just keeping the hoi off the Pullman trains.

 

 

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 18,751 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Sunday, December 3, 2017 2:21 AM

I meant advance sections of regularly scheduled trains, most frequently the advanced Congressional, later renamed the advanced Afternoon Congressional.

In other words, both the Central and the Pennsy, instead of running a second section ten minutes behind the schedule train, ran an advanced section ten minutes earlier.

But I also rode trains meeting your description, the northbound Silver Metior, Souterner, East Coast Champion, and Flordia Special frequently arrived at and left Philadelphia, Newark, and New York as much six or seven minutes ahead of schedule.   Probably also true of the Broadway Limited, Trailblazer, Jeffersonian, etc, substituting N. Phill. for Phill.

And the northbound Crescent was a special case.  At one point the Southern public timetable showed times in the corredor that were probably correct for times when the train ran as an entire train north of Washington.  But all times that I rode it, a string of rebuilt P-70's with a PRR diner was attached, it ran as a regular Washington - NY hourly train, with times earlier than those shown in the Southern timetable.

  • Member since
    February 2005
  • 2,082 posts
Posted by timz on Sunday, November 26, 2017 4:43 PM

daveklepper
I rode such trains in the NY -Washington corridor.

Guess you mean, trains that passed stations ahead of schedule when they were not scheduled to receive traffic at those stations. That was legal in PRR Rule-251 territory-- no train order needed.

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 22,320 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Sunday, November 26, 2017 2:01 PM

daveklepper
I rode such trains in the NY -Washington corridor.  Believe me, both the PRR and New York Central did.   And Amtrak can if it wsnts to in the corridor, but they usually simply assign a temporary train number and issue a temporary schedule.

Multiple track territory was normally not operated under Timetable & Train Orders method of operation - with that being the case Schedule times were of limited to no importance.

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 18,751 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Sunday, November 26, 2017 1:55 AM

I rode such trains in the NY -Washington corridor.  Believe me, both the PRR and New York Central did.   And Amtrak can if it wsnts to in the corridor, but they usually simply assign a temporary train number and issue a temporary schedule.

  • Member since
    April 2016
  • 1,330 posts
Posted by Shadow the Cats owner on Saturday, November 25, 2017 3:44 PM

Way back when you would be amazed at what carriers did way before Lawyers made this society so afraid of being sued into oblivion for the smallest thing that they force compliance over service.  My boss has always run a very safe operation yet way back in the 80's and up to the mid 90's his drivers knew if they had to push the book so to speak to get that load there then the boss and his father had their backs.  My late father in law told me countless times of how he threw his logbook in the bunk in the 70's to get loads thru for his boss.

  • Member since
    February 2005
  • 2,082 posts
Posted by timz on Saturday, November 25, 2017 3:20 PM

BaltACD
Carriers can have trains do what they need or want them to do - to wit a possible train order. FIRST NO. 1 ENG 5501 RUN 1 HOUR ADVANCE FORT WAYNE TO CHICAGO.   This would require trains that had to protect against NO. 1 to protect against this train one hour in advance of NO 1's schedule as printed in the Timetable.

Carriers "can" do that (i.e. God wouldn't incinerate them with a thunderbolt, probably) but they never did, and safe bet they don't now.

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 22,320 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Thursday, November 23, 2017 7:52 AM

BigJim
The point is, if the train was timetabled, it cannot leave a station before the time stated.

Carriers can have trains do what they need or want them to do - to wit a possible train order.

FIRST NO. 1 ENG 5501 RUN 1 HOUR ADVANCE FORT WAYNE TO CHICAGO.  

This would require trains that had to protect against NO. 1 to protect against this train one hour in advance of NO 1's schedule as printed in the Timetable. 

The reality is, on a multiple track railroad, such a order would not be necessary and the PRR from Fort Wayne to Chicago was a double track primarily current of traffic signaled railroad.  

In today's world of railroading Amtrak's Auto Train routinely operates from orign in advance of the scheduled 4 PM departing time from the terminals at Lorton and Sanford.

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 18,751 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Thursday, November 23, 2017 4:11 AM

[quote user="BigJim"]

The point is, if the train was timetabled, it cannot leave a station before the time stated.

 

[/quote above]

Yes it can,  if it is an "Advanced Section" of the train.  Which the PRR did regularly with many NY - Washington expresses during WWII.   Once rode from Washington to NY in 3hr 5min.

The data may have been from an Advanced Trailblazer or Advanced Broadway.

This was common practice on both the Pennsy and the Central.

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • From: Matawan, NJ
  • 128 posts
Posted by Redwards on Friday, October 27, 2017 4:59 AM

Out of curiosity, who is the author of "90 MPH and beyond"?  I have a few back issues of the Keystone with T1 related articles but not Autumn 2014.

Edit: Looks like it was Neil Burnell, and I do have it.     

--Reed

  • Member since
    September 2014
  • 33 posts
Posted by LAWRENCE SMITH on Thursday, October 26, 2017 9:06 PM

I've read this entire thread - no one mentions the article in the Keystone in Fall 2014 called "90 MPH and beyond". The author has done significant research to help dispell cliams made by the brits of the world steam locomotive speed record. Much of his findings involve the T-1 on the Ft Wayne Division. Much is documented - some is not. The Franklin Valve story is told in detail especially what the Franklin engineering teams found when they timed T-1 speeds in the loco cabs in daily operation - 140 mph was not uncommon but exceeded the warranty speed of 120. They had to use stopwatches as the speedometers weren't metered high enpough. This and other stories are told in rich detail and is a must read for anyone with interest in the T-1. (My favorite is the alleged elapsed time of the military special during WW2 from Crestline to Chicago.) No wonder the T-1 Trust people want to establish the absolute steam locomotive world speed record once and for all.

RME
  • Member since
    March 2016
  • 2,073 posts
Posted by RME on Tuesday, January 31, 2017 6:46 PM

carnej1
did PRR ever consider modifying the T1 fleet with the electro-mechanical wheelslip control system used on the Q2's?

I have never seen any indication of this, including when reviewing the extant documentation at the Hagley.  That's not to say it wasn't discussed, only that no evidence of adapting the equipment or re-engineering the system to passenger standards was made.

In a couple of respects it was apparently well-understood that the system needed major redesigning -- first, the system was virtually useless using its original 'bang-bang' implementation logic, and second, the bearings and pivot arrangement for the butterfly valves were neither reliable nor maintainable in service.  (These two issues may be related; the original electromechanical design would have been easy to implement proportionally, but sticking valves would have thrown that operation off badly, leading to full excursion 'by default' as the only operational choice...)

I consider it highly unlikely that any attempt at mechanically valving the steam would be desirable -- the Wagner throttles are not only much less visually obtrusive, they work properly at any degree of superheat and need little if any calibration as they age in service.  And in any case a mechanical traction-control system acting on the wheelrims directly is a better form of quick implementation and release for borderline slip conditions, and this as an adjunct of independent brake is much easier to control.

My understanding concerning Juniatha was that she was working too hard to be posting to this forum extensively.  Perhaps that will change in future, or she will take a periodic interest in things that happen here.

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 22,320 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Tuesday, January 31, 2017 11:54 AM

daveklepper
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.

As well as not having a working spell check on this particular version of forum software.  Prior versions did and many other organization's forums currently have spell check.

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    November 2003
  • From: Rhode Island
  • 2,289 posts
Posted by carnej1 on Tuesday, January 31, 2017 11:53 AM

 I apologize if this question has been asked previously on this forum (possibly in an older thread) but did PRR ever consider modifying the T1 fleet with the electro-mechanical wheelslip control system used on the Q2's? I read on the T1 trust site that they have considered such a system for their design..

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

  • Member since
    September 2013
  • 6,199 posts
Posted by Miningman on Tuesday, January 31, 2017 8:12 AM

Dave- Of course, in your case it is very understandable...as it is for others. It is easy to see the difference.

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 18,751 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Tuesday, January 31, 2017 3:26 AM

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.

  • Member since
    September 2013
  • 6,199 posts
Posted by Miningman on Saturday, January 28, 2017 3:31 PM

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. 

  • Member since
    January 2015
  • 2,176 posts
Posted by kgbw49 on Saturday, January 28, 2017 3:05 PM

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

 

 

  • Member since
    August 2010
  • From: Henrico, VA
  • 8,955 posts
Posted by Firelock76 on Sunday, January 22, 2017 6:33 PM

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.

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Sunday, January 22, 2017 5:31 PM

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. 

 

 

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. 

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

  • Member since
    September 2013
  • 6,199 posts
Posted by Miningman on Sunday, January 22, 2017 5:20 PM

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. 

 

RME
  • Member since
    March 2016
  • 2,073 posts
Posted by RME on Sunday, January 22, 2017 1:52 PM

Miningman
Kgbw49- 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]

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