Why a T1????

This was already discussed here on the Real Trains Forum, some months ago. You may try searching for it, or someone else may provide the link to that previous discussion.

Maybe they're PRR fans?  Its distinctive appearance?  Who knows?

Write/email the group and ask them...

In Australia they built their own T1 "copies" years ago, one of which still exists.

I think that they want to make it because it really looks cool.

 

I have a Lionel TMCC version and it looks great at the head of any train.  Most people are just drawn to the PRR T-1 because of its looks.   I can't think of any other reason to build one versus any other of the already preserved steam locomotives.  

 

I would rather see a GG-1 restored to operating condition before building a brand new T-1.  The GG-1 was all PRR and operated for much longer than the T-1.  The GG-1 even had a steam boiler for those needing something to fire.  

 

Joe  

Most people haven't the slightest clue as to what the T1 was, how it operated, why they died relatively young...or where to get accurate info on this beast.  The late model, modernized PRR T1 is one of the two most under-rated, mis-understood, and un-appreciated locomotives developed in this country after 1925...the other being the B&O EM1.   If you think reading Pennsy Power 1 is going to give you a PhD in PRR Duplexii, .....do not pass GO, and do not collect $200.00 !

I agree that the T1, while an interesting prototype, is a curious choice for a steam resurrection project.  It is a complex beast to try to clone (probably an order of magnitude more complicated than an NYC Hudson), with poppet valves, unconventional rotary valve gear, and a very long rigid wheelbase on a cast steel frame.  The size would limit where it could run (or be turned).

They choose to build a T1, not because it will be easy, but because it is hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.

 

A NYC fits the same bill and would certainly be easier but - I can speak this thought and finally endorse it: "It's their project and they can do anything they want".  It was an amazing looking engine, and an engine of amazing performance, capable of speeds over 100 mph.  The Pennsy has a huge fan base and that engine is oft mentioned in just about every top 10 list of "What engine would you bring back if you had the means".

 

I'd donate and WILL donate once I feel the project has some momentum. Based on those in the business, it looks like there is a chance this project may come to fruition, albeit, just a few days before the PRR #1361 is restored.

 

An interesting idea, the group plans to actually fabricate actual parts and place them in museums in order to build support and encourage donations.

 

/Mitch

 

 

I reply to your question with one of mine:

 

why the ************* not???

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

My sentiments exactly!

 

I personally don't get the "build a Hudson instead" mentality, probably because I was never a NYC/Hudson fan... but hey, if someone can raise the money and build a Hudson, go for it!

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!!! 

 

Most people haven't the slightest clue as to what the T1 was, how it operated, why they died relatively young...or where to get accurate info on this beast.  The late model, modernized PRR T1 is one of the two most under-rated, mis-understood, and un-appreciated locomotives developed in this country after 1925...the other being the B&O EM1.   If you think reading Pennsy Power 1 is going to give you a PhD in PRR Duplexii, .....do not pass GO, and do not collect $200.00 !

 

 

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?

 

 

Someone has already done that.

I understand your logic and appreciate your response. However as to why not?

There are a few 4-8-4's and Hudsons and other locomotives already roaming the country. The only thing left of the T-1 is maybe a few parts, some pictures in books and online. The guys who operated and maintained it are now all probably 80 + years old and the stories of this mystical and living creature are just about all gone because of that. Wouldn't it be nice for a grandfather to take his grandson or daughter to see an amazing engineering achievement and then relate a story to them that seems almost like a fairytale of how these massive beasts once roamed the country?

The locomotive in another 10 years will be shrouded in mystery because everyone who operated and maintained it will be gone. The design is flawed, so what? The T-1 is the most beautiful design I have ever seen, and with all its quirks just further proves that steam locomotives are living breathing things. There's one member on here with the signature "steam engines are the closest man has ever gotten to fabricating life."

Just be positive about it, you'll finger it out ^_^

That sounds like JFK's "Go to the Moon" speech at Rice Stadium in Houston TX.

OK, for that amount of money, we can get all the display engines looking good, out of the weather, anf get UP 3985 running!

Sorry...

 

Comparing building a replica of an obsolete locomotive to Project Apollo by paraphrasing JFK is an insult to those who worked on the project and the astronauts who risked and gave their lives for the futhering of science and the benefit of mankind.

 

Rusty

You either like or hate the PRR T1 (most likely for all the wrong reasons!)  Or the PRR in general, Or streamlined steam,  Or whatever !    The opinions of the vast majority of enthusiasts around today is pretty much meaningless...when it comes to what the T1 is and isn't.   When this project is successful, it will open the doors for other types of steam projects, including a NYCS Hudson.  Sure, it might make more sense to build a Central "J" first (ah, but which one???)  but if it were so appealing then why no attempt?   There's NO doubt it would be easier, cheaper, and more practical.....but consider this.  If you can successfully clone a working PRR T1 prototype, then you could build anything!   Point is, if you don't like the Penn, streamlined steam, Duplexii locomotives, or the T1 in particular....don't pay and don't play!   There's plenty of chooch projects out there, awaiting your nickels and dimes.  For me, it's both 611 and the T1 Trust......just too @#$%^&*! bad I could n't have done something for Espee 4450, but that is their fault - not mine!

It would be a lot easier to build a Reading T1.  I know where there are some parts...

To set things straight there are two distinct models of the T-1; the Pennsy; a 4-4-4-4 with four steam cylinders, and the Reading Lines; a 4-8-4 with two steam cylinders.

 

Reading Lines built their T-1's out of necessity and from older steam engines as new metal was difficult to get during WW2.

 

Lee Fritz

I think Rich knows the difference.  ;-)