With exceptions! Nickel Plate, Grand Trunk Western in particular, Illinois Central, N&W. Of course N&W went quickly when it did and perhaps the others really are not East, I dunno, Chicago-Detroit-Buffalo, is that East?
Aaaannnd…why were T1’s and Niagaras’s obsolete? I think they could have had a stand alone specialized usage for many years yet, somewhat akin to Nickel Plates Berkshire. Ditto for Lackawanna 4-8-4’s and Firelocks beloved Erie Berkshires.
The firebox wrappers problem of the Niagaras’s could have been solved.
This did not happen so I quess my thinking is all screwy but it could have happened quite easily and with not so much of a rush to ruin.
Yes but … the standalone specialized use of the T1 involved sustained high speed, implicitly higher speed than the point that the ‘conventional valves’ on the T1a started to have their obvious effect on free admission and exhaust (somewhere between 85 and 100mph; it’s in the Keystone material and the T1 Trust repository, including the comparative TE/speed curves). No regular PRR train that wasn’t better handled by diesels required (or could be given) that sort of speed cost-effectively, and as it developed, many of the PRR steam guys either had little interest in learning not to horse the passenger Duplexes or were to some degree willing participants or ‘fellow-travelers’ in the make-'em-fail effort.
The Niagara’s whole raison d’etre economically was repeated use on long, fast passenger trains with effectively implemented maintenance. Even by the time the Kiefer report was published, what there was of that traffic was being converted to ‘Dieseliners’; all you really need to know about the follow-on experimentation with the type A installation rigged on 5500-the-Niagara was how quickly the locomotive was retired from service, please note while T1s were happily polishing the rails still. And then came the great falloff of the Great Steel Fleet, very quickly to levels that effectively orphaned 6000hp locomotives whether or not they could be run effectively to lower levels of performance with careful sliding-pressure firing as the Niagaras could.
However we may think of Arnold Haas for his tales about 142-mph Trail Blazer runs and 120+mph Niagara flights, I think we can take him at his word about various engineers taking special pains to work the remaining Niagaras to death with ridiculously short or
Well thank you Overmod for the reply and the info. At least the Niagara’s , with the exception of 5500, got 10 years and fairly useful ones at that. The T1’s half that. Maybe a bit more but used sparingly.
It is the fact that they were so modern and still new. They were not ‘one of’s’ but whole fleets. Same goes for N&W J’s, C&O 0-8-0 switchers , then N&W and VGN switchers, CPR Selkirk’s and on and on.
Still boggles the mind though.there she goes, hook, line and sinker.
Wartime profits squandered away permanently and GM reaping a harvest of incredible wealth.
By the way, putative can be defined as ‘supposed’.
Precisely. You will be familiar with the general GM arguments for adoption of first switching and then road power. You are likely also familiar with Brown’s paper (from 1961) discussing why some of the arguments “against steam” might have been exaggerated or even wrong.
Many of the arguments for first-generation dieselization didn’t really hold up that well, as the preservation of the St. Clair 4-6-0s demonstrates in a number of ways. Even as late as the second-generation locomotives with Flexicoil trucks a great deal of the ‘advantage’ in low track forces, effective train-handling, etc. was in the explaining and not in the doing, if you take my point; this is one of the reasons Ross Rowland notes 614T was recorded as producing less track-damaging force than contemporary diesel alternatives at the time of the testing in the '80s. Alco and GM tried building better-mousetrap trucks in that period with dubious success.
Meanwhile, the great advantages of road-switcher power on the Pascack Valley and Northern branches were being brought out in the early-'50s trade press: no more water tower maintenance and filling, no more having to turn the power on a wye or table, no more keeping all the engines fired and hot all night under inspection to ensure they will be ready for a fairly short duty turn twice a day… etc. You can examine the plant at the Hudson River terminal end of the runs and tell me where you’re going to maintain steam for all the trains Erie and later EL wanted to run.
Even with the fun of maintaining 244s all those years – and they often got fairly tractorish in those last few, more endearingly than not – the RS units ran those services effectively. In a way that steam never possibly could and be cost effective.
The problem with keeping a limited quantity of steam locomotives around is that you also have to maintain the associated fueling and maintenance facilities, also. That’s why some railroads dieselized by division. At one fell swoop, they could get rid of coaling towers, waterspouts and most divisional roundhouses. Since the T1s were meant for long distance, interdivisional runs, that couldn’t have happened. Look at my username. I have a special affinity for back/erecting shops and roundhouses. I miss them but that’s from a hobbyist’s point of view. From a practical, economic point, I understand completely why most aren’t around anymore.
Yes that is logical and makes good sense and generally that is what happened. So here comes the but…but Donald Russell of the Southern Pacific kept hordes of steam of all sorts stored serviceable in Houston I believe. He did not believe that expensive Diesels should be idled during slower times so things were cut real tight. If there was an upturn somewhere along the system the steam was pulled out.
Not everyone was on the same wavelength.
This arraignment stuck around for quite some time.
Thank you very much Overmod, things I have learnt from you guys sharing is beyond expectation! $35,000 in 1946 is almost equal to 100K today, not enough to buy a decent house in first tier cities, assuming S1 can keep in service for 40 years, doing Excursions, hauling special train for tourist or used for other creative business ideas, I believe it can bring more than $35,000 to PRR. But PRR was never good at publicity stuff.
When NYCRR successfully turned the 20th Century and the Empire State Express into a fancy club and social networking platform for the elites, the only thing PRR did to their Broadway Limited was to redesign the interior of their new pullman trainset, there was no creative ideas and method to convert the underdog to the upper hand. They didn’t even tired to streamlining a few more K4s to haul their Blue Ribbon Fleet or maintain consistency of their named train’s livery. Milwaukee Road, NYC, Union Pacific, Southern Pacific and many smaller railroads did a much better job at building up a corporate image, PRR probably thought they were too big that they didn’t really need it. They did something but it always fell between two stools.
I am not familiar with the history of Niagara, did NYC ever release an official speed record of it like what they did for the Super Hudson during road test? (IIRC its was 95mph)
For S1 speed, I tried my best to use the train simulator “TrainZ” (Please don’t laugh at me [:P]), the only programme available to find the answer for me. Base on the figures in the config file of C&O 2-6-6-6 Class H-8 Allegheny,
Once again, these are Bretton Woods dollars so it’s appropriate to compare ‘modern’ value to the price of gold; that’s a value of just under 1 and a quarter million. Hard to justify that to the stockholders, especially when so little practical use of the locomotive could be demonstrated through the latter half of the Forties. PRR had no place to run a very big, very fast locomotive like that economically, and some of its cost was likely still very much stuck on the PRR balance sheet. The decision to cash the Big Engine in was not taken idly, but in a world of PRR losing money and deciding to dieselize fast there was little question which way it would go.
The story about the approach curve ‘restriction’ in Pittsburgh station was well-documented by the T1 Trust, as was the research that eventually put enough lateral into T1s to get around it (I believe it was later removed with track realignment, but don’t remember the specifics.) It did not as I recall involve access to all tracks in the station (tight point of a double slip switch?).
On the other hand, starting suitably long and heavy trains through complicated and possibly poorly lined and surfaced track arrangements was NOT where an unconjugated duplex, even with the exordinate FA the T1s wound up with, would be happy about. Unlike transient loss of adhesion on a 4-8-4 over a low joint or frog, the same thing on one engine of a duplex caused prompt unloading of up to 25% of the available adhesion. The lack of any kind of separate throttle for the two engines (and PRR’s engine crew training, which as noted didn’t emphasize careful
If there is specialized Niagara testing at high speed, it would likely be covered by Tom Gerbracht (either in Know Thy Niagaras or via an appropriate e-mail to him via NYCSHS.
My guess would be that with the known problems of lateral buckling in the rods, there would NOT be any greased-rail slip testing, and in the absence of something like Wagner drifting valves a la ATSF (or some sort of Nicolai/Trofimov arrangement) no extreme high-speed instrumented testing.
The Hudson test (about which there seems to be considerable old-wives’-tale story spinning) is recounted in Kiefer’s motive power study of 1947. This is a greased-rail test, I believe of a J3a, and the highest recorded “speed” (derived from rotational frequency) is just above 161mph. Here is where some care needs to be interpolated: on firm track this produced no overt wheel ‘bounce’ (meaning that at that rps the vertical augment was less than the imposed weight via the equalization) BUT on track with less stiffness or damping in the vertical plane, effects could be seen in the low 100s – so track stiffness was and presumably is a major factor in expressed augment and “all that that implies”.
It’s sad that there was no wealthy railfan, collector or any organization willing to save this beauty, the whole society was still recovering from WWII and S1 looked so “torn up” which probably need tons of money for repairment, bad luck, bad timing…….
I can understand that in 1949, the empire of PRR kept falling apart, the financial situation was deteriorating for at least 2 years. Who would save a vase when the Mansion is collapsing.
Not buying a $1.25 million dolllar equivalent for the scrap value of the S1. That would make the initial costs of duplex drives 2.32 billion. No way. The $35,000 put directly into the cost of a Diesel amounts to less than 10%. I don’t know playing with numbers doesn’t tell the tale though. Was it the S1 or the S2 that had it side all smucked up by a flailing broken side rod.
Jones1945-- I like the corruption angle. Powerful men at Pennsy, Baldwin, EMD, NYC, Alco … lots of interactions, favours, shenanigans and big big $'s on the table. Things were done, of course.
In the past Overmod has alluded to actual documentation that may exist by executives at Pennsy stating how to go about making the T1’s a hopeless engine. They couldn’t get Diesels fast enough and I do recall reporters, analysists, shareholders and such hounding Pennsy as to why total Dieselization was taking so long. The answers were reasonable, that it was a huge system and it could not be done overnight. However, they couldn’t get rid of steam fast enough and the heat was on. So strange things were happening amidst the big push and rush.
I have asked several times regarding the surprising and somewhat suspicious and mysterious loss shown by Pennsy in 1946 and then again in subsequent years in the late 40’s. Perhaps they spent too much on Capital purchases. 1946 and the later 40’s were still halcyon days. Sure labour costs were increasing but the railroads did and had the moving and the shaking economy wise.
Real criminals like Stuart Saunders were not in full effect yet but something is real fishy about it all.
They got together and complained about being underpaid for postal services over several years and got a fat settlement with Uncle Sam during this time as well.
Part of the difficulty with PRR steam was precisely that they overcapitalized on obsolescent designs – all those K4s in the late '20s a notable example – and then indulged in somewhat wacky electric designs analogous to ‘standard’ wheel arrangements (O1 approximating an E6; P5 a K4; L1 a lollipop, etc.), and then later making some dubious assumptions with the DD2 that was going to be the design model for the various classes for the electrification west of Harrisburg. This was precisely the time that the great convergence between Super-Power and advances in balancing post-Eksergian was coming together, after the Alco diversion into three-cylinder power was over, and PRR experienced this only peripherally through the J1s (and the process of perfecting them all over again that came from using the ‘wrong’ blueprint sets!)
That is true, but remember that dieselization was a direct consequence of the ‘electric’ planning, giving a great deal of the advantage of 11kV wire to Pittsburgh while avoiding the expense – and I wish it hadn’t, but it made sense at the time – of the full tunnel bypassing Horse Shoe, which at over 9000’ would not have been worked with diesels at PRR’s traffic density. We have a prospective ‘wartime’ plan for the engine classes of the first stage of the electrification, which would have followed the general plan of the DD2 with the horsepower classes reflecting use of the better 428A motors, right up to back-to-back eight-pow
Although it isn’t clear from the photograph, the suspension arrangements for the Pennsylvania truck illustrated and the Gresley bogie were the same. Both used coil springs in compression supporting an equalising beam as primary suspension over the axleboxes, and full elliptical leaf springs on a swing bolster as secondary suspension. The Pennsylvania truck had the equalising beam in full view, while it was hidden behind the side frame on the Gresley bogie. The Gresley beam was straight with the coil springs located on steel rods projecting downward held by collars and bearing against internal brackets on the side frame. The bottom ends of these (coil spring) rods can be seen projecting below the frame inboard of the wheels in the photo above.
The Gresley bogie was rated as better than the standard British Railways bogie (based on the LMS design) and was used on dining cars, and on a fleet of electric Commuter trains based on Glasgow in the mid 1960s. The more modern BR B4 and B5 designs provided a better rid
This kind of sort of explains things but I can’t seem to connect things very well.
The PRR reports record passenger and freight revenues for 1946, revenue exceeds expenditures, they recieved a whopping 17.6% freight rate increase then go on to say there is a loss due to government regulations.
Yet they state they transported more freight and passengers in 1946 than any year and in the same breath say revenues were down 114 million due to the decrease in wartime traffic and strikes.
The T1’s are not mentioned by name but they are definitely mentioned in the article.
They recieved 37 high speed 6500 horsepower steam locomotives and tenders to complete an order of 50.
Someone help me out here and tell me what the heck is going on.
Very true, glad to share my thoughts with you guys here! IIRC NYC J-3a with Boxpok drivers was designed to achieve 160mph+, however, they can hardly reach 95mph when hauling a long consist of the 20th Century. I heard another rumor about a story of J-3a reached 165mph during a special run to save a kid (rushed to somewhere to buy rare medicine for the kid), I would believe this story if it was 165kmh, not mph.
[quote user=“Miningman”]
Jones1945-- I like the corruption angle. Powerful men at Pennsy, Baldwin, EMD, NYC, Alco … lots of interactions, favours, shenanigans and big big $'s on the table. Things were done, of course.
In the past Overmod has alluded to actual documentation that may exist by executives at Pennsy sta
Speaking of DD2, a pre-war design, I wonder what PRR would have to do in the post-war era if the ridership wasn’t dropped so suddenly in 1946/47 and they had more time to think about how to compete with the Airlines. It has been proved that Electric Train is the best choice to develop high-speed train, after those painful development of the Hover trains (Aerotrain in France), gas turbine-electric (early TGV and A.P.T in the UK) etc. If PRR’s electrification plan went according to plan, they are the best candidate to develop the first high-speed train for America with their rich experience. High-Speed Train was the only choice to compete with the Airlines, if PRR able to decrease the travel time between New York to DC to 2 1/2 hours; New York to Chicago to 9 hours or less (via the new mainline?), I believe PRR still had a chance to survive much longer (lol).
Interesting! I guess Gresley Bogie and PRR 2D P5 truck both doesn’t have shock absorber, am I right? I only have experience riding truck or buses which using leaf springs suspension, some of them have shock absorber on the front axle, but the vehicle still shaking like a roller coaster even in slow speed, but from what I see on YouTube, it seems that passenger coaches using Gresley Bogie looks very stable on high speed. I can’t find 3 axles version Gresley Bogie on the web but I know LMS used 3 axles truck/ 6 wheels bogie on their sleeper and dinner. I bet the main reason for
As to the ‘follow-ons’ for the electric district, the answer is actually historical (and verifiable from a variety of sources) – rectifier/Ignitron locomotives using diesel-style bogies with relatively low wheels and independent-axle traction motor drive (with DC, not universal, motors). This was clear on PRR by the time of the ‘experimental’ classes ordered in the early Fifties, and culminating in the vacuum-cleaner E44s ordered in the early Sixties. All these predominantly for freight, of course; passenger needs were covered by the wartime GG1s (in what might be considered a reprise of too many K4s in the Twenties) so no New Haven ‘Jet’ analogues, but that’s what you would have seen had the passenger electrification been taken up at a reasonable point after the War.
In parallel, the evolution of the V1 into what became Jawn Henry is an interesting and valuable thing to observe. The 4-8-0+4-8-0 became a span-bolstered C-C+C-C, which turned out to roast a set of hexapole motors beyond reasonable repair in just a few years of testing. How much of that was attributable to drop damage in the main generators and how much of that was overloading may never be thoroughly known.
The truth is just the opposite; see the UMTA as part of the ‘guns and butter’ in the Johnson administration, and
