|
|
Post by KIM on Jun 4, 2012 15:22:28 GMT -8
The Pennsylvania's 4-4-4-4 was one of the coolest looking art deco engines. I have to wonder what the advantage was over a standard 4-8-4? Were there any without the shrouds? What years were they used, and what was their range?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2012 16:05:58 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by calzephyr on Jun 5, 2012 7:06:21 GMT -8
The Pennsylvania's 4-4-4-4 was one of the coolest looking art deco engines. I have to wonder what the advantage was over a standard 4-8-4? Were there any without the shrouds? What years were they used, and what was their range? There were a lot of stories about the T1 and how they could have changed the world of railroading, but as for me who got to watch them run, I will never forget their majesty and glamor. I never saw the first two locomotives that were the pilot for the production T1's but the production locos ran on the St. Louis line starting right after the war was over in 46 and continued up until early 1951. It was a short five years and they were modified in 1947 to look better in my opinion. I really liked the newer look and they went to the scrap yard as a streamlined locomotive. The concept behind the T1 was to lighten up the piston load by having smaller cylinders and high presure steam (300psi) to have a more equal pull and not harm the rails at high speed. The T1's have some off the record for speed that were not official, but some of the old engineers claimed some very high speeds for these locomotives. The were very smoky locomotives as most Pennsy power was and as a railfan, we did not mind that. The poppet valve issues made them hard to maintain and I never saw one start a train without spinning the front set of drivers. Once moving, they were very fast and I got to see them at 80 to 90 mph many times east of our town on the mainline with the name trains. It was a sight to watch them glide along at those speeds. Most locomotives seem to really be working to get to 80 plus mph but the T1's sort of took it all in stride at those speeds unlike the K4's, which could run fast but not smooth like the T1's. I got to be in the cab of several of the T1's since the crews were normally friendly in the forties and like railfans in general. My dad was a railfan and that is how I got started. My Mother took most of the PRR pictures with the box camera as I was too young to get the locomotives in the view finder most of the time. This is how the production T1 looked when first built.  This is the look of the T1's after 1947 or so.   |
|
pappy
New Member
Posts: 14
|
Post by pappy on Jun 5, 2012 8:24:21 GMT -8
The T1 is my favorite of all the steamers. I bought 2 from the last BLI run even though they don't fit my era or branch line. I figure they can run alongside Thomas and Spencer... ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Christian on Jun 5, 2012 8:38:49 GMT -8
I figure they can run alongside Thomas and Spencer... ;D They'd be great hauling the Hogwarts Express. Almost the right color . . . |
|
|
|
Post by calzephyr on Jun 5, 2012 8:55:11 GMT -8
The T1 is my favorite of all the steamers. I bought 2 from the last BLI run even though they don't fit my era or branch line. I figure they can run alongside Thomas and Spencer... ;D Wow, you could fit several Thomas and Spencer locos into the same space as a T1 uses up on the track. The T1 was my Dad's favorite locomotive and that made it way up there on my list also. This is some close ups of the running gear of the T1. Larry    |
|
|
|
Post by calzephyr on Jun 5, 2012 8:58:04 GMT -8
I figure they can run alongside Thomas and Spencer... ;D They'd be great hauling the Hogwarts Express. Almost the right color . . . They really looked very grimy black since they were not washed a lot and the dark green only really showed up much when they were clean. The smoke from the T1 at speed would really lay back over the locomotive and train. Larry |
|
nhguy
New Member
Posts: 15
|
Post by nhguy on Jun 5, 2012 9:58:34 GMT -8
They were a great technological experiment. From what I read they were pretty slippery when starting a train. More so than normal steam engines. But when they got up to speed they out did even the famous K4s in performance and fuel economy.
|
|
|
|
Post by pgheast on Jun 10, 2012 18:43:48 GMT -8
A good hand at the throttle could get a T-1 to start as smooth
as any other locomotive. I believe had they been articulated, they would
have been used system wide for a longer period. The shrouding and long
rigid wheelbase made the mechanical dept. sweat.
|
|
|
|
Post by calzephyr on Jun 10, 2012 19:19:45 GMT -8
A good hand at the throttle could get a T-1 to start as smooth as any other locomotive. I believe had they been articulated, they would have been used system wide for a longer period. The shrouding and long rigid wheelbase made the mechanical dept. sweat. You may be correct, but I watched them run for four to five years and never, never, never saw one start a train east or west at Effingham Illinois without the front engine spinning wildly. The engineers we talked to all admitted they were extremely fast but starting a train and accelerating quickly produced great spins. If the engineer had no time table and allowed the T1 to gain speed very slowly, you may be correct. I was there on site and watched a lot of burned track marks also. We really liked the T1's and nothing ran like a T1 at speed. They were gray hounds at speed. Larry |
|
|
|
Post by Paul Cutler III on Jun 11, 2012 6:44:25 GMT -8
It would have been better if they had just made them 4-8-4's.
nhguy,
But the problem was that they were much more expensive to maintain.
I remember the quote from the Steamtown Park Ranger who gave us the backshop tour. He said, "Do you know why the K-4's lasted so long? Because everything they came up with to replace them was a failure until dieselization." Ouch.
|
|
|
|
Post by calzephyr on Jun 11, 2012 10:42:49 GMT -8
It would have been better if they had just made them 4-8-4's. nhguy, But the problem was that they were much more expensive to maintain. I remember the quote from the Steamtown Park Ranger who gave us the backshop tour. He said, "Do you know why the K-4's lasted so long? Because everything they came up with to replace them was a failure until dieselization." Ouch. True, the PRR could have built a great 4-8-4 with roller bearings on all alxes and the roller rods much like the NYC. However, the NYC probably had one of the best long distance high speed 4-8-4's and they were bypassed by the E7's because of normal steam locomotive type high priced maintenance. There was a brass model 4-8-4 of what the PRR might have built by a custom maker a few years ago and it was really nice. They used the tender from from a S1 and probably the boiler and mounted a nice 4-8-4 chassis to show what might have been! Larry |
|
|
|
Post by jaygee on Jul 20, 2015 13:29:17 GMT -8
Much of the T1 info has been gleaned from the popular railroad press. And it's here that the T1 reputation has been smeared all over the landscape. The best place to get the truth on these machines is from the "Pennsy Keystone" Magazine put out by the PRRT&HS. A lot of research was put into their series of articles, including accounts by a large number of former engineers. The T1 was an expensive machine to operate, but that consideration had not been of primary importance when they were developed in the early forties. The T1 contained a high percentage of aftermarket parts and materials, not produced at Altoona Works. PRR made the decision to go Diesel power for passenger operation as a responce to New York Central doing the same in early 1945. This predated the 50 production built T1s, so they were out of their primary job very quickly! None of the original 52 locomotives were saved by the PRR, as was the case with all "Lines West" power. Today the PRR T1 Trust intends to fix this sorry state of affairs with a new built locomotive...one very close to the original T1. See their website.
|
|
|
|
Post by atsfan on Jul 20, 2015 18:58:17 GMT -8
A new T1? Wow
Shame in PRR for scrapping them all
Not to mention. Penn Station.
|
|
|
|
Post by jaygee on Jul 21, 2015 11:23:11 GMT -8
It's a new idea for chooch in the USA, but has been proven in the UK. Given the cost, it will take some time to get it all together. A lot of the preliminary work is done, and some pieces have been made.
|
|
|
|
Post by calzephyr on Jul 29, 2015 11:17:39 GMT -8
Much of the T1 info has been gleaned from the popular railroad press. And it's here that the T1 reputation has been smeared all over the landscape. The best place to get the truth on these machines is from the "Pennsy Keystone" Magazine put out by the PRRT&HS. A lot of research was put into their series of articles, including accounts by a large number of former engineers. The T1 was an expensive machine to operate, but that consideration had not been of primary importance when they were developed in the early forties. The T1 contained a high percentage of aftermarket parts and materials, not produced at Altoona Works. PRR made the decision to go Diesel power for passenger operation as a responce to New York Central doing the same in early 1945. This predated the 50 production built T1s, so they were out of their primary job very quickly! None of the original 52 locomotives were saved by the PRR, as was the case with all "Lines West" power. Today the PRR T1 Trust intends to fix this sorry state of affairs with a new built locomotive...one very close to the original T1. See their website. We watched the T1's on the St. Louis main line and liked them since they were beautiful, extremely fast and capable of maintaining fast schedules on flat land tracks. The fact is, they spun one of their sets of drivers on start ups probably due to weight distribution or the lack of sufficient weight for the normal accepted adhesion factor. Any of the videos available showing the T1's will attest to my witness of the problem. The crews we talked to liked the speed of the T1 on a train and were proud of their locomotive. If the new diesels were not a factor, I am confident the PRR would have modified and corrected the problems with the design. larry |
|
|
|
Post by WP 257 on Jul 29, 2015 20:19:04 GMT -8
But the real factor was maintenance costs.
The Hirsimaki "Nickel Plate Years" book states that the maintenance costs, primarily due to employee wage/benefit increases, literally doubled on the Nickel Plate Road between 1950 and 1956, if I recall correctly.
Since steam power, even on an extremely efficient road like the Nickel Plate that could turn engines around much quicker than most roads, is by definition rather labor intensive, it didn't really matter how good the diesels were or were not--they quickly became, after 1950, much cheaper to operate where labor was factored into the equation.
Since the Pennsy's engineering staff was quite famous for studying the efficiency of just about everything--even what milk to use in the dining cars--it is quite possible they realized the economy of diesels sooner than even a road like the Nickel Plate.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Ferro Kid on Jul 29, 2015 21:59:12 GMT -8
It would have been better if they had just made them 4-8-4's. nhguy, But the problem was that they were much more expensive to maintain. I remember the quote from the Steamtown Park Ranger who gave us the backshop tour. He said, "Do you know why the K-4's lasted so long? Because everything they came up with to replace them was a failure until dieselization." Ouch. A very thought provoking statement. And of course a number of the diesels were failures as well: the Centipedes, the BP20s, and to some extent the Alco PAs and some Fairbanks-Morse products... |
|
|
|
Post by jaygee on Jul 31, 2015 3:59:21 GMT -8
And for the PRR T1, you add the hugely increasing labor costs, plus the rapidly rising cost of aftermarket parts and materials for these engines. Then add that the travelling public nor Pennsy management wanted them around, and the price of coal doubled in a few years. ....well, you get the picture. The postwar years were tough for any steamer, but more so for the T1
|
|
|
|
Post by Rockin' Rick on Sept 10, 2015 8:19:50 GMT -8
Much of the T1 info has been gleaned from the popular railroad press. And it's here that the T1 reputation has been smeared all over the landscape. The best place to get the truth on these machines is from the "Pennsy Keystone" Magazine put out by the PRRT&HS. A lot of research was put into their series of articles, including accounts by a large number of former engineers. The T1 was an expensive machine to operate, but that consideration had not been of primary importance when they were developed in the early forties. The T1 contained a high percentage of aftermarket parts and materials, not produced at Altoona Works. PRR made the decision to go Diesel power for passenger operation as a responce to New York Central doing the same in early 1945. This predated the 50 production built T1s, so they were out of their primary job very quickly! None of the original 52 locomotives were saved by the PRR, as was the case with all "Lines West" power. Today the PRR T1 Trust intends to fix this sorry state of affairs with a new built locomotive...one very close to the original T1. See their website. The recent series of Keystone articles on the T1's have been fantastic. The problems these beauties had have been explored from new vantage points and some surprising new conclusions have been reached. It boils down to the oft-repeated statement that had diesels not been banging loudly on the door solutions would have been found. They were done in by EP20's 5900 & 5901, the first E7's... |
|
|
|
Post by Spikre on Sept 11, 2015 9:28:37 GMT -8
 PRR tried to Sell the T-1 Fleet to N&W dureing the 1947/48 time period. after several months of testing several different T-1s,N&W said "No Thank You" to PRR. consider that some of the N&W Board of Directors were also on the PRR, Wabash,and Lehigh Valley Boards. and at the time N&W was still building Steam Locos at the Roanoke Shops. it could be that the N&W Profile wasn't suited to the T-1s. or the 70" drivered Js were the best option on the N&Ws Profile. N&W may not have cared for the Poppet Valves either ? but at least 1 T-1 was converted to standard Valve Gear,not sure if that T ran on the N&W ? PRR got good use out of the Q-2 Duplex's,so the Concept wasn't a complete failure,the Ts were just built too late maybe ? Spikre 
|
|
|
|
Post by Spikre on Sept 11, 2015 11:04:26 GMT -8
 heres some PRR Family Steam Loco Trivia: Lehigh Valley,Wabash and N&W had 4-8-4 Northerns. LV were the oldest,N&Ws the newest. 4-8-4s were Proven Locos on Pennco Roads,but PRR Avoided them. only DT&I had Berkshires,but then went back to Mikadoes for Their Last Steam Locos. PRRs 1st "Super Power" loco was the S-1 6-4-4-6. PRRs largest fleet of Super Power locos were the 125 J-1/J-1As. in a Rare Move PRR accepted the C&O T-1 design almost as-is. no other PRR Road had any Duplex Power,or wanted any. Wabash and LV Dieselized early,but that really didn't improve their Finances. PRR dieselized by 1957,but that didn't improve their financial oulook that much,as they were deeply in Red Ink. N&W Dieselized Late, it really didn't matter as they were Firmly in the Black no matter what was pulling their trains. N&W killed their Electrics by 1950,and killed the Virginian Electrics quickly as well{1962}. any other thoughts on the PRR Family Irregularities of the 40s and 50s ? Spikre
|
|
|
|
Post by jaygee on Sept 15, 2015 12:35:16 GMT -8
Pennsy was in deep doo-doo by the mid forties, and it became readily apparent when P. Co. lost big $$ in their centenial year of '46. Motive power was a small slice of the prevailing situation, but it was also something highly visible both to the BOD and John Q Public. The whole T1 thing revolves around timing and personalities as much as anything else. Ninety five percent of what's been in print over the last fifty years concerning these machines is complete BS! Outside of the RR crews themselves, there's always been a tiny number of folks who, for various reasons, had the real skinny on this class of power. To that end, I highly recommend the Keystone Magazine published by the PRRT&HS. Starting with the Fall 2001 issue, the real T1 story began to emerge from the confusion of the past. To be sure, the T1 arrived at the wrong time , and under the wrong circumstances. You just can't imagine how fast the whole program ran straight into a brick wall! The two Baldwin prototypes were built for a PRR in far better shape financially, than were the production machines of 1946. In 1941, the Penn wanted a hot rod, much like their S1, but smaller and more practical. In a move highly uncharacteristic of their past, Pennsy loaded the T1 with tons of aftermarket gadgetry designed to push passenger steam power into a whole new level of performance. The new locomotives had their share of flaws, but none so serious as to scrap the overall design. With passenger loads at record high levels, The Penn envisioned a need for some fifty production machines. But whoa!....President Martin Clement, and James Symes V.P. threw up a red flag, when New York Central announced plans to aquire New EMD E7s for the Century. For the brave new post-war world, the PRR would need every advantage to complete with Central for the passenger share that was up for grabs. New cars would not be enough, now...with Central going Diesel. The E unit was already a proven product anyway, especially by the end of WW2. By the time everything was ironed out, the Mechanical Dept. decided that the T1 would be needed anyway, even if a big push towards Diesel power was initiated. The 1942 EMD E7 order that PRR had placed for the South Wind was reinstated, and soon plans were afoot for more passenger Diesels. The T1 order might have been cut back a wee bit, but the frames were cast up and enough other material amassed that all fifty got built. they were quicly overshadowed by the new Diesels, courtesy of the Marketing Dept. There were also real savings to consider, what with operating steam power - plus the T1 was still a new design, prototypes or no, and they required a certain amount of de-bugging right out of the box. Less than a year after delivery, the whole fleet of fifty two was modernized with a much more practical front end; exposing a lot more of the machinery. And this was just the beginning. The poppet gear also needed tweeked frequently, and the rear set especially was a giant PITA to work on. All the while PRR was hemmoraging dollars at a prodigeous rate. The cost for the exotic T1 only parts (none made at Altoona) stabbed the Operating Dept, every time a repair was needed. Once traffic patterns returned to normal after the war, passenger revenues sank through the floor. Trains were dropped as fast as they could get permission, reducing the need for passsenger power. In 1951 the bottom dropped out when Franklin Railway Supply (at the time of the BLH merger) Made the poppet valves a limited production, high cost item. The T1 fleet, relegated to secondary service for the most part, was fast tracked to oblivion. By early '54 the game was over, and the last run was made. The last batch was sold for scrap in Jan. 1956. The T1 design has been blasted up one side and down the other, and yet with careful observation and study, a different locomotive is revealed...in another day and time, one that would have won great respect for the Penn and her people.
|
|
