What they need to do is to make the construction of this T-1 steam locomotive part of a $60-$100 million movie about the construction and operations of the real T-1 steam locomotives back in the 1940's. It would have to be a historically based movie. Then they could spend a few more million dollars promoting the movie.
Andrew
That sounds like a great plan to turn $100 million into $25 million. 
As Rick has said, the best way to make a small fortune with a steam locomotive is to start out with a large one.
why the ************* not???
First you have to assume that the owners of several million dollars agree that the best way to spend it is on operating historic locomotives.
Second you then have to get them to agree that the best way to do that is to dump all the money into recreating an oddball design that is shrouded in controversy rather than:
a. restoring, operating and endowing the future operation and maintenance of a more practical existing locomotive
or
b. contributing their millions to several projects by groups with proven track records.
That is why the ********** not!!! 
It seems that the T-1 was misunderstood even by the Pennsylvania mechanical people who contributed to its design and the Pennsy management that authorized their construction.
The recent Classic Trains article on the T-1 makes a case that the T-1 was very capable at the high speeds for which the design was optimized. Unfortunately the design features that contributed to performance in a specific part of the operating range made it less friendly to engine and shop crews and expensive to operate in real world passenger service. A standard 4-8-4 as built for dozens of other railroads would have served the Pennsy better.
The US Air Force and Navy had a similar problem. A generation and a half of US combat aircraft were built to designs (F-4, F-104, F-106, F-111, F-14, F-15, A-5, B-1A) that were optimized to do Mach 2+. Those aircraft required design compromises to be able to do Mach 2 and the compromises hurt range, weapons carrying capability, maneuverability, visibility or combinations of all four. In the crucible of Viet Nam combat operations our fighters were often out turned and out gunned but none ever went Mach 2 in a dog fight. The F-16 and F-18 will do Mach 1.8 and are excellent dog fighters and more efficient overall combat aircraft.
The N&W J, the UP 800s, the SP GS classes, NYC Niagaras, etc. were really good (Mach 1.8) locomotives.
Does the locomotive preservation community need to build a replica of a (Mach 2+) T-1 to reprove why they were not economical locomotives?
