The T1 Trust has purchased a 200,000-pound Pennsylvania Railroad long-haul tender No. 6659 from the Western New York Railway Historical society that had been used behind an M1, a 4-8-2 Mountain-type locomotive. Essentially, a T1 tender minus the stre…
http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2017/08/21-t1-trust-tender
I’m starting to think this could actually happen. I hope so, that’s for sure.
I met some of the folks involved in the T1 Trust at a train show about two years ago. They’re fine gentlemen and they are in earnest!
That’s one big tender.
And that’s for a locomotive with one of the best ‘cruising’ water rates for American express locomotives. Gives you some insight into reasons for dieselization outside the usually-stated cliches.
The logical ‘next step’ in passenger power would likely have been turbines, but any locomotive with high sustained hp output and the ‘necessary’ water treatment for reasonable boiler life would come to require additional cistern capacity (even above the largest PRR ‘coast-to-coast’ sizes) as soon as locomotive reliability improved to permit increased run lengths. This would be true of centipede as well as 16-wheel “bunker” sections; the 64t design for the NYC C1a (which was modified T1 size) could only be built for a railroad with established and effective track-pan infrastructure and the associated methods of water treatment (probably via pre-calibrated incremental dosing, in addition to the methods described in Trains - anyone remember the sad tale of the fellow who used boiler wash to clean his outfit; “shiniest buttons you ever saw”?)
http://www.billspennsyphotos.com/apps/photos/photo?photoid=72302792
I assume the T1 Trust will somehow incorporate the streamlining.
Smart and fortunate for the T1 Trust as it appears this will save around 2.5 million bucks.
Yes, of course. Did you expect it wouldn’t be streamlined to match? [:)]
I like how you did the ‘net’ math for the PV of the I1 tender cosmetic refurb as well as the rebuilding/streamlining. As noted, this represents about 1/4 the budgeted amount of the replication, and represents neither controversial technology nor something requiring dynamical modeling or virtual testing. However, expect the actual cost to go up depending on the number of instrumented wheelsets required, when physical high-speed testing time comes.
Man, if I hit the Powerball tomorrow night…
Or if ANY of us do, for that matter.
I would come up with a way to build an ABBA set of FT’s, preferably in Santa Fe colors. A much more influential locomotive than a T1.
The ft changed railroading for sure. It would be great to have a set of those running around. But not at the expense of the t 1 project. You got to hand it to those folks, they are really working at it.
Well, there are the “fixin’s” for an A-B pair running around, and it would be relatively easy to make patterns for the unique parts to, say, convert other EMD cabs for the other two.
The problem here has been stated eloquently by Preston Cook and some others: the FT wasn’t a poster child for a runnable locomotive. With steam it’s relatively easy to make the components you need to keep running. Early 567s need specific parts manufactured to high, and sometimes now undocumented, standards, and don’t always let you know parts are failing before catastrophe. In general there just isn’t the interest in the ‘old engine’ community, let alone the railfan community, to keep the things running rather than show them as the artifacts of the history of technology they now are.
Sure, you could ‘reskin’ some F7s, make some running-gear changes, fabricate some journal-box covers, and produce plausible-looking “FT” consists. But they wouldn’t really represent the actual design that changed railroading, and is it worth spending both the restoration and maintenance costs just to have something (like the Italian Kando-drive locomotive at MOT) that demonstrates the idea? Even swapping something like a 567D into the FT removes much of the actual historical importance…
[If it matters: yes, I think at least one FT should receive a full mechanical restoration, same as I supported the idea of making the Flying Yankee’s 201A powerplant fully operational – but no, I don’t think the result should be regularly operated, let alone put into excursion or trip service. Would we use the Liberty Bell for a time service?]
I went to their website on a whim several days ago and was amazed to see how much they have accomplished. I am reasonably confident that I’ll see days-old video of a T1 replica running in my lifetime…provided my AFib doesn’t get the better of me.
If I had won my local railroad historical society would be VERY happy right about now! [;)]
Well, this is just cool! When the T1 Trust first announced, I thought “Really?” Now, I think “Really!”
Keep the hits coming, guys!
ONE ticket in Massachusetts won. I hope it’s a railfan…