Hi Firelock
Well , different people - different approaches .
The S1 at the 1939 World Fair ground - it was said that’s where she ‘performed’ best .
I still don’t see what should have made slipping pr
Well hi Juniatha! Concerning the Pennsy S-1, the “Big Engine” as the Pennsy people called it, from what I’ve read the problem wasn’t so much with slipping as it was with that loooooong wheelbase. The Crestline, Ohio section of track was the only part of the Pennsy that could handle the locomotive, it had very few curves for the engine to deal with. I suppose the Pennsy put the lessons to good use when they designed the other duplex drive engines that followed.
As far as the slipping is concerned, I suppose the Pennsy crews might have done better if they had some experience with articulated Mallet types. Engineers running articulated locomotives knew you just couldn’t “floor it” when you wanted to get moving. Slow and steady throttle application was the ticket. The PRR had very, very few Mallet types and those were used mostly for pusher or heavy yard service.
I find it interesting that some other posters have said the Pennsy sent the T-1 to the C&O and the N&W for evaluation, both roads had extensive experience with articulated types and said the T-1 was fine once crews learned how to handle and fire them. There wasn’t anything about it they cared to copy, but they said the locomotive was just fine.
It does make me wonder why if the PRR was looking for a 4-8-4 type why they just didn’t borrow an N&W Class J for evaluation. Class "J"s were designed for undulating track profiles and were good pullers on grades. Pennsy had close contact with N&W owning quite a bit of N&W stock as I recall. Who knows? Pride perhaps? How could the “Standard Railroad of the World” humble themselves like that? Of course, they weren’t above borrowing a C&O 2-10-4 in the early 40’s, but there was a war on and they didn’t have time (or War Production Board permission for that matter) to develop one of their own. So they copied the C&O engine but put a
They did in fact do this. It has been very well documented too. #610, got her up to 110mph.
The test of N&W J 610 was covered in two parts in PRRT&HS magazine, The Keystone:
Part 1 - Vol. 41, #4, pgs 9-21 (Winter 2008)
Part 2 - Vol. 42, #2, pgs 67-70 (Summer 2009)
Top speeds were 109 mph with 13 cars on the Broadway, 110 mph with 15 cars on The Admiral, and 111 mph with 11 cars on the Liberty Limited, all regularly scheduled runs. Not too shabby for a low-drivered mountain mauler. It’s not much of a stretch to visualize a T1 at 120 mph.
Hi Firelock
Yes , Big Jim and Feltonhill are right , PRR tested a N&W J – however they found it not well fitting for their high speed demands – small wonder with cylinder volume large and drivers small it was more of an undulating line express engine – just as N&W had wanted it to be . That meant power output curve was declining above some 70 mph , on the very few occasions the T1 tested on N&W was given a chance to run fast the Duplex showed both more powerful and more economic in the upper speed range – again no wonder with an inevitably freer steam flow through four smaller cylinders with poppet valves .
Add.: attaining 110 mph was a remarkable feat , the J reached metric wheel diameter speed [530 rpm] ! Balancing and vehicle track holding must have been very good in this class of locomotive - yet such high rpm speeds mean very high kinetic mass inertia – several times higher than steam forces on piston ! – and thus demand designing all parts of drive motion excessively strong to withstand it -– an extreme design situation which can be considerably eased by simply applying suitably larger wheels .
It was a different thing with the C&O 2-10-4 that was modified to become PRR J1 class –
Well thanks Big Jim, Felton Hill, and Juniatha! I had no idea the PRR tested a Class J. I’m not really a big Pennsy fan myself, just an interested bystander, and in my readings on the Pennsy never saw any mention of this. I still think the PRR missed out on a good thing with the “J”. They couldn’t have been seriously considering running 100 mph trains on a regular basis, could they? And yes Juniatha, the “J” was a superbly designed engine, probably the best “Northern” type ever built by anyone. Maybe that was the problem after all, the Pennsy couldn’t, wouldn’t admit that “wooden-axle coal hauler” was better at steam locomotive design than they were.
By the way, there was NO WAY a Virginia road was going to call their 4-8-4 a “Northern”! Not with some people still living in 1941 who remembered the Civil War, excuse me, the “War of Northern Agression.” Class “J” it had to be!
The C&O called their 4-8-4’s Greenbriers. And they were fine locomotives too. But I agree the J was best. And more than a match esthetically for the Daylights. Too bad the N&W didn’t call them Cavaliers. Woud have been a good and appropriate name.
Hi Folks
N&W - that was supposed to be the joke in my variation “North-Western Folk” when really the RR was in the South-East , besides my personal impression of their locos - which would take more than a few words to explain , so excuse me for leaving it alone .
However , my funny remarks come without guarantee .
Names of w/a derived or simply taken 1:1 from RR first applying it were not too imaginative , especially when this resulted in a composite name like “Union Pacific Type” for the 4-12-2 . This effectively was like having no name at all and having to hint the type you are talking about by saying “that type the Union Pacific had built , you know which one I mean , don’t you” maybe having to add “no , the other one” too .
Since the J was the pride and joy of the Norfolk & Western ( you see I can spell it right when I want to ) what about naming it the Roanoke Type ?
A batch of N&W 4-8-4 for the Pennsy : I have some doubts if that would have avoided engine trouble - sure , that section of it related to poppet valve gear since doing without a thing has always been a good method to avoid trouble with it . Yet , the N&W J class had a substantially higher t
To DaveK: Hey, a “Cavalier” type! I like that! Too bad you didn’t have N&W’s ear back in those days! Or, they could have named them after Virginia cities, say a Richmond" , “Roanoke”, or “Blacksburg” type. Why not? Most of N&W’s designers came from virginia Tech in Blacksburg, Or they could have taken a page from the New York Central’s book and named them after Virginia rivers like the James, the Rapahannock, of the Appomattox. Whoops, strike that last one, too many negative connotations, especially down South!
Hi Juniatha! As mentioned above, calling a “J” a “Roanoke” type would have been appropriate. Or, they could have named it a “Jeb Stuart” type for the great Confederate cavalryman, the “Last Cavalier.” Class "A"s could have been called “Lee” types, a good performer in all situations. The Class "Y"s? “Stonewalls”! Don’t get in his way! He’s coming and you can’t stop him!
I like the styling on the T-1’s, very impressive and modernistic. As a matter of fact I showed Lady Firestrorm a picture of a T-1 and asked “Is this Art Deco enough for you?” “It’s not ‘Art Deco’”, she said. “It’s Moderne!” Lady Firestorm knows these things!
I’m not going to say too much tonight, long day and I’m having trouble concentrating and typing. “Thank God!” yelled the crowd!
I basically like the T-1. I did get to ride behind them. I just like the N&W J, the New Haven I-5, and the Daylights better, in that order. All four are way ahead of 20th Century and other NYC streamliners, and at the bottom of the pile are varous inverted bathtubs, with the Milwaukee’s being the least objectionable. Or possibliy the CN 4-8-4 which is a bit better than a bathtub. The Pennsy streamlined K4 and S1, the B&O, Southern, and 2nd C&EI attempt, are all between the T-1 and the 20th Century. I also like the “semistreamlined” CP designs (Royal Hudson, Selkirk, Jubalee), about equal to the Pennsy T.
I think the reason I like the J and the I-5 better than the Daylights, is that I always considered the Daylight color scheme, beautiful though it is, as just a bit too colorful for trains.
Similarly, in pasenger equipment I like stainless steel with painted letterboards, purple for ACL and red for PRR and SP and blue for Wabbash, etc. For non-stainless, the NYC two-tone grey is too conservative, but GM&O, B&O, MP-TP, and UP had good schemes in my opinion.
For non-streamlined steam, nothing can beat a Southern Ry Pacific. Regarding color that is.
Esthetically, a T is a steam GG-1. That is what it was meant to be, and it is successful.
= J =
Beautiful photos of the X4449 and it’s passenger cars. Someone used the low sun to really bring out it’s total beauty. All the details of it’s running gear.
Trivia: Have you seen data on the photo of the experimental {German}, steamer {pre WWII}, over in The Flatwheel Diner {my Avatar}…?
Hi 19 1001
Yes I have seen data of this trial engine , here’s a link :
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/DRB-Baureihe_19.10
you may also google for ‘steam motor loco’ - ok , = J = has done it for you and got this :
http://www.aqpl43.dsl.pipex.com/MUSEUM/LOCOLOCO/steamotor/steamotor.htm
This is an interesting site about unconventional steam locos - only why the engine is listed as ‘V 19 1001’ must remain that writers secret - perhaps meaning ‘Versuch’ [ger] trial - yet that was never an official designation , in DR numbering system prefix letter ‘V’ meant Verbrennungs-Motor [ger] combustion engine (actually diesel as for most cases , however scrutinizing DR officials wanted numbering system to be prepared for the unexpected and most outlandish development - after all with such people as engineers you never know what they may happen to jump up with) . So , take it easy , just say “nineteen-thousand-one” or “nineteen-ten class” as with this singular trial engine loco equals class (never say “class nineteen-thousand-one” though !) .
Other than the V-2 motors hung outboards and driving via an equilibration system to deal with suspension motion the loco was fully conventional , having a 44 class boiler and same streamline tender as the previously built 01.10 class .
The concept was intended to fight the same deficiencies of clasi
= J =
That’s quite a run down of info on said project. Don’t remember if it was this same info we went thru several years ago, but it was similar.
And that info also agreed with where the project did end up…Right here with us.
I simply zeroed in on the issue when I ran across it back some years ago. Facinating…A “V-8” steam engine…!
Quentin, when I first saw, in my email, that you were discussing “J” & “T,” I thought you might be discussing Henry Ford’s most famous car and some other car (I do not recall ever hearing of a Model J car, though).[:)]
And I am sure that you all know of the NC&SL’s Dixie class (the early production engines were called “Yellow Jackets” and the wartime production engines were known as “Stripes”).
I believe Dusenberg had a Model J - however, Ford T was never near the class of the Dusenberg Model J.
But, could you easily run your feed mill, hay baler, or wood saw off your Model J? Now, that’s class for a farmer.[:)]
One thing is certain: you would never have to run your Model J in reverse to ascend the W Road up Signal Mountain (there was a certain design flaw in the Model T–the gas tank, with cushioning on top, was the front seat, and there was no fuel pump. Ford’s Model A also had no fuel pump, but the gas tank was just below the windshield.
Production of the model T ended before Delco the first widely used fuel pump - American practice before then was to use a vacuum tank, where engine vacuum sucked fuel out of the main tank. The model T’s also did without water pumps and oil pumps, using a thermic siphon for circulating water (essentially the same principle as thermic siphons in fireboxes) and splash dippers on the crankshaft for engine lubrication. Electric starters were available in the last couple of yeas of production.
Connection with locomotive aesthetics? Model T’s, as most American locomotives at the time, were painted black.
- Erik
Hi folks
J , J & J – I’m afraid it tends to get ever so slightly confusing : Roanoke J – Pennsy J – Central J – Duesey J – J class yacht ( America’s Cup formula in the 1930s ) – just to mention some coming to mind …
Ok , here’s a link to the Duesenberg J :
http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/car/1833/Duesenberg-SSJ-LaGrande-Roadster.html
And could you have run your saw mill by a Duesey – ah but absolutely so – and it would have turned into a speed saw like you never saw before ! You can also use a Rolly to climb Pikes Peak – leisurely and with a glass of champagne – or use your Ferrari for shopping – with the additional effect that it will help you avoid buying unnecessary things because you won’t get them into it .
The Duesey J roadster even became an SSJ , a lettering that put it in competition with the Mercedes SSK (Super Sport Kompressor) – the Double S theme was much later picked up by Chevrolet with the 2nd body Sara Simpson edition Camaro and there was a song by Bill Anderson to go with , too - oh , uhm , wait a minute , stop , no-no-no , that’s another story .
Check out this one , too : Bo