Skip to main content

I know this has been brought up before but with a big article in Trainsmag.com today, I figure why not ask are they nuts?  Even if they can build a PRR T1 from scratch(in my opinion unlikely).  Why reproduce a engine that the PRR had removed from service so early in their lives for a hole host of reasons?  Why not a NYC HUDSON would be a better choice.

 

http://prrt1steamlocomotivetrust.org/

Last edited by superwarp1
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

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

 

 

Last edited by Zephyr

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

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?

 

 

Last edited by Ted Hikel
Originally Posted by falconservice:

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

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 ^_^
Originally Posted by Zephyr:

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, .........

 

 

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!

Originally Posted by Zephyr:

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.

 

 

 

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!

I have a friend that saw T-1's in action, whose father rode behind them in RPO cars.

Is a re-creation based on the fact that there are no surviving original examples?  I

thought there were, but pay little attention....none across from the Strasburg or

elsewhere?  Not enough parts left to do a restoration of an original? Such a project would make me think of Doble trying to make an easy to operate steam automobile, and best the Stanleys and Whites.  I don't think you will get away from steam being labor intensive, and we are running out of places we can go to for cheap labor.  The N&W and C&O experimented with then modern ways to make steam more economical....certainly a means of getting locomotives off imported fossil fuel is of interest.  This sounds like making a full size version of the Girl's Train reproductions, where, for some (me), such a model has one thinking, "Fake, fake, fake!". They have built modernized repros of vintage automobiles like the Ford Model A, and classic Auburn and Duesenberg.  I do not think that production lasted long, and they bring

up the same thought.

The Chinese are no longer building steamers?  I would guess they would have made

the most recent efforts to make them more cost effective.  One would suggest looking

at the power in nuclear submarines, but can just guess what a furor that would

generate.  (that is steam replacing diesel, heh heh)

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

 

 

Can you tell us any more about this John?

 

 

The only connection between the very conventional and very successful Australian 520 Class 4-8-4s and the Pennsylvania T-1 was "shark nose" streamlining.  Given the much lighter axle loads allowed in the design these 4-8-4s were only about the size of a North American Pacific.

 

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

 

Lee Fritz

Not quite.

 

Before the T-1's, the Reading's last new steam locomotives were 10 huge 2-10-2's built by in 1932, Baldwin's first large order since the Great Depression had begun. They were copies of 11 locomotives rebuilt from plodding 2-8-8-2 Mallets in 1927 to haul freight trains faster.

 

Reading officials noted the advantages of EMD FT demonstrators around 1940, but World War II forced reliance on steam. Hence the final UP FEF-3's and Big Boys and B&O EM-1's. The Reading made do with locomotives on the roster.

 

In today's terms, the Reading qualifies as a regional railroad. It extended from Williamsport through Tamaqua and Reading to Philadelphia, and from Lurgan through Harrisburg to Reading, and from there to Allentown and Bethlehem. The "Dutch Line" jointly operated with the Western Maryland connected Lurgan and Hagerstown. Unlike the C&O, the N&W, the Nickel Plate, and other Class I roads, the Reading had no need for Super Power locomotives.

 

On January 1, 1942, E. P. Gangewere succeeded A. K. Galloway as Superintendent of Motive Power and Rolling Equipment (MP&RE). Soon after assuming office, he conducted a study of EMD FT diesels, 2-10-4 Texas types, and a high-speed 2-6-6-2. His recommendation led to the purchase of FT's. He advised that the Reading make do with existing steam locomotives and dieselize as quickly as possible after the war.

 

But in 1944, Revelle W. Brown, a former B&O engineer, replaced E. W. Sheer as President of the Reading. President Brown had a deep fondness for steam locomotives. He was responsible for rebuilding 20 (then 30) of the Reading's newest hulking I10sa 2-8-0's as T-1 4-8-4's (1945-1947) and 10 G3 4-6-2's (1948).

Nods to Lehigh Valley 4-8-4's ("Wyomings") were the class letter ("T") and the numbers (LV 5100 became RDG 2100, a nice fit after 2000-2049 assigned to I1-sa's).

 

The Reading was the only anthracite road to save some steamers. The T-1's were treated with respect. When railfans pleaded for steam-powered excursions in the late 1950's, the Reading had 3 serviceable T-1's on hand: 2124, 2100 and 2102.

 

 

Originally Posted by phillyreading:
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.

I was being facetious.

It seems that almost every railroad rostered a steam locomotive called a "T1."

I could go on, but you get the picture... 

Last edited by Rich Melvin

Kudos to the RDG. for saving what they did.  PRR fans are amazingly lucky the Northumberland collection survived the late '50s and up to '68, when the collection was sent to Strasburg.  You notice that NONE of those engines, famous or not, that operated outside the NYC / Philly / Harrisburg area were saved.   This was a Lines East Collection...pure and simple.  Lines West would have to do their own thing, and mighty little of it survived.  Beyond the Reuben Wells, there is one narrow gauge "F" class loco in Waynesburg, IIRC.  The big, modern PRR types, N1s, Q2, S2, T1, and most tragically, the Big Jay didn't stand a chance.   The Penn did intend to save a J1, or at least someone in the Columbus management chain did. She was the 6171, and lots of different stories abound locally as how she met her demise in the early to mid '60's.  Perhaps that's part of the T1 Trust appeal...to right the wrongs done before our time, and maybe find out what we really had, good, bad, or ugly ! 

Post
OGR Publishing, Inc., 1310 Eastside Centre Ct, Suite 6, Mountain Home, AR 72653
330-757-3020

www.ogaugerr.com
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×
×