Is this a variation in speed that was cyclic over, say, one or two second intervals, or was it a swaying motion, Dave? I have ridden behind diesels and steamers, and don’t recall a tugging action of any kind, except I have noticed it on the Sky Train in Vancouver, BC, when it is accelerating.
-Crandell
My guess (and that’s all it is) is that if the two engine sets got in exact phase, there would be a noticeable variation in the drawbar pull because of the inherent variability of the tractive effort over one revolution of the drivers. The variation was about plus/minus 20% of average. At 55, a T1 would be getting onto its DBHP curve, so the variation may have been what you felt. Wish I could have been there!
It was only a for and aft motion, not swaying side-to-side. It was gentle, but noticable. The above explanaition makes sense.
Much of this riding was in what were probably the most comfortable long-distance coaches ever built, the Juniata-built 44-seat cars specifically for the Trail Blaizer, Jeffersonian, and Red Arrow. These rode like a dream, the reclining seats were extremely comfortable, and the washrooms spacious. The next best thing in my opinion were the AT&SF double-deck El Capitan cars. But the Juniata cars rusted out quickly, and were scrapped after only about 10 year use, with their trucks and possibly other equpment going to rebuilt P-70’s which then rode better than they had with the PRR peidstal trucks. The Budd equipment on the NYC was OK, and so were the rebuilt P-70’s, and so were the AT&SF single-level cars and the UP’s postwar coaches. With the PRR pedistal trucks though, sometimes when going around a curve, it seemed like there was absolutely no spring between your seat and the rail!
[:)] OK One final question on my part, Being that they were on a rigid frame were thes T-1s limited or restricted to certain division on the PRR? Seems to me that there had to be restrictions on clearances on tunnels and weight on bridges and overpasses Just wondering Larry
The T1’s were assigned to all PRR east-west mainlines Harrisburg west. They ran to both Chicago and St. Louis. There were some early problems at Federal Tower in Pittsburgh (turnouts on a 13 deg, IIRC) but that was largely resolved by changing the driver back face to back face dimension on several of the locomotive axles and careful attention to the geometry of the turnouts.
In overall weight, they were about the same as a large 4-8-4. As far as maximum axle load, they ranged from 67,500 lbs to 69,990 lbs, somewhat below a large 4-8-4 and not much more than some of the K4’s. They were only 15’-6" high and 10’-0" wide. They could clear the high level platforms in the Pittsburgh suburban district (east).
In contrast, when N&W J 610 was tested on PRR in 1944, it was restricted to Crestline-Chicago. It was 16’-0" high and 11’-0" wide, too large to operate on many PRR lines without changes to stations, other structures and track centers, which were too expensive to implement for a short-term test.
IMHO it is a mistake to characterize the T1’s as being “obsolete” at the time they were built and one can come to the conclusion they never should been built only with the benefit of hindsight. Remember, until the mid-1940’s the Pennsy was committed to steam motive power (just like the N&W was even a decde later). The T1 was designed to replace the double headed K4’s on their heavier trains and they were admirably suited for that service. When the T1’s failed to live up to their capabilities it was as a result of one or both of two factors neither of which were the fault of the engine or its design.
The T1’s came into vogue at a time when proper maintneance was being deferred and/or short cut in order to get motive power on the road to handle the surge of WW2 traffic. If anything PRR maintenance declined even further following the war. And,
Many enginemen never bothered to learn how to operate the T1’s and continued to run them like the K4’s they were used to operating. This was the primary reason for their reputed “slipperiness”. As Feltonhill well knows, given a bit of sand and a light hand on the throttle when starting, a T1 could walk away with the heaviest PRR passenger consist without slipping.
I had the good fortune to see T1’s running at track speed on the PRR main line east of Valpariso, IN and believe me they were an awesome sight to behold.
Mark
Mark,
How fortunate you were to actually see these locos in action. They were out of service before my time trackside.
What is little known, but was documented in both the Altoona tests and the N&W tests in 1948 is that the T1’s had a superior steam circuit. There was little pressure loss from the boiler to the steam chests,and the deliverery pipe volume was very large. All this gave the T1 a starting TE of something like 68,000 lbs, well above the rated 64,500 or whatever it was. Part throttle was sufficient to get the maximum force to the rail under normal conditions. Any gross throttle opening was a invitation to disaster unless adhesion was ideal.
They were a locomotive to be reckoned with, but as you noted, maintenance during their lifetime was on the decline. Unfortunately they required everything to be almost perfect to realise their potential. Good example of the ideal being questionable in real life.
Sure would have liked to see one of them go by at 100 or so (and maybe still accelerating).
I have a DVD entitled “The Golden Twilight of Postwar Steam” with LOTS of shots of T-1’s. In at least TWO of these shots, there clearly appears to NOT be a diaphragm between the engine and tender. The footage is so clear in one particular instance, that it’s almost indisputable. Does anyone know if there were documented instances where these locos were operated without these diaphragms? If so, why not? I know that sometimes the cab doors were left open, which may at first glance, give the impression there is no diaphragm, but this clearly is not the case. Any info from the Pennsy know-it-alls out there? (or those fortunate to have actually SEEN it?)
I will certainly have to defer on this. My memory is simiply not good enough to recall having seen the diaphragm in all cases or whether there were exceptions. Probably was too excited to see the locomotives and know that I would ride behind them to notice!
An uncle of mine who once worked for the PRR ( Pitt-Harrisburgh) told me that diaphrams were removed in summer month’s for better in-cab ventilation. He also advised of a similar situation to the canvass curtains hung on the back part of the cab, these were closed to help keep heat in during the winter and tied back in the summer. He also stated the dog houses on the tenders had to be better ventilated in summer month’s or ice cooled.
Another reason for diaphrams being removed was due to maintenance guys who were increasingly getting fed up with all the shrouding and cosmetic’s on the T1 and the time wasted taking it off to do even minor maintenance, then put it all back on. In time and with the company’s permission much of it was never replaced taking some of the T1 personality with it.
A side note, my uncle left the PRR because he kept falling off the tops of rail cars in the winter as they rounded the Horseshoe Curve or the many curves along Sugar Run when he was setting or releasing brakes. One fall too many and he was out of there.
Mark
I was fortunate to see the T1’s at speed on the St. Louis line around Effingham Illinois. They were really something to see running 80mph or more with a long passenger train.
We spent many days on the weekends watching the PRR in Effingham, and I don’t remember a T1 starting a train without spinning. The westbound train stopped at the station about 100 feet from the IC diamond and when the T1 started up, the front engine would spin on the diamond. They were slippery and I have read they could go into a high speed slip also. There were some engineers that could probably handle them better than others, but an operating department has to have locomotive that everyone can run.
I really liked them, but it was more than an operating problem. I have always wondered why more weight was not added to the front engine of the T1. If steam had continued, they would have found some better solutions.
This is one of my pictures of an eastbound T1 slowing for Effingham station stop.
CZ
The photo in the first post of this thread comes from my Rail Archive web site, from the Random Steam Collection ( www.railarchive.net/randomsteam/ ). It was in my father’s small collection and I don’t know who the photographer was. (Perhaps someone here knows who took it.)
The T1 has long fascinated me. I never saw any of them in operation, and they were gone before I started taking rail photos (at around age 14, 1952). I have read whatever I can find about them, and own a few videos that show them in operation. Incidentally, the Green Frog DVD “The Golden Twilight of Postwar Steam,” mentioned in one of the posts here, shows not only the T1 but also has scenes of K4 3847 which was equipped with rotary poppet valves.
I don’t know if anyone answered this, but it is fairly simple: on the right side of the screen it says “My Profile”. Under that click on “Update Profile”, then select the tab marked “Avatar” It lets you upload your selected picture.
In another message, you wanted to set the background picture on the computer, but the owner of the machine did not want it changed. On this family’s computer, using Windows XP, we each have our own login, and can choose whatever background picture you want.
Dr Leonard
The 3847 had the rotary poppet valves and all of that frame work to hold the drive shaft connected to the ecentric rod. One of the T1 had that system applied also, but it looked very odd to me.
We got to see the 5399 eastbound at Effingham in early 1952. It was the K4 with the Franklin system installed which looked almost normal except for the cylinder casting being different and the lack of the ecentric rod. Both the 5399 and 3847 also received a front end thottle, which was rare on the K4’s since only a few were modified.
I looked at your web site recently and gave permission to the IRM display of the Picture of the C&NW display at the Railroad Fair. Thank you for forwarding that email
CZ
I wish that I could have seen one of these awesome machines in action. The Chesapeake and Ohio tested two T-1’s in the late 1940’s, and considered buying them from the Pennsy. In their tests their engineers reported no slippage problems, but were able to maintain speeds of over 100mph with very heavy consists over long distances. I believe this was the case because the engineers most likely chosen to test the T-1’s were probably very experienced on the C&O’s large mallets. As you mention, the K4 enginemen weren’t trained on the T-1 properly. There was also the maintenance issue. The poppet valves were ahead of their time, and the Pennsy mechanics had trouble fixing them. The last Altoona models also had much less slippage than the earlier Baldwin ones. They were extremely fast and powerful, but didn’t weigh much more than a large 4-8-4. With properly trained crews (maintenance and operating) the T-1 would have set many records. They were also very easy on the track–no hammer blow. The beauty of these machines is remarkable. The shark-nosed greyhound rules!
Joe
I wonder who the Pied Piper was that hung “shark-nosed” on these engines? They sure didn’t know what shark looks like. I’m still waiting for the picture of a shark with a nose that actually looks a T1, or Baldwin diesel for that matter!
Joe
I really liked the T1’s but they were not ready for prime time when it came to starting a train, but they really could run once the train speed was above 40 mph or so. We would go east of Effingham ten miles or so and watch the T1’s come by at 80 mph plus. They just glided by at those speeds and really impressed anyone who watched them.
Most of our time was spent around the station in town at Effingham and the coaling tower west of town where the T1’s had to restart the train. Never saw one leave without spining and sometimes over and over. We watched them almost every weekend as my dad was an advid railroad fan and I was there every time he watched the PRR. They really needed more weight on t
Are there any websites that pulls together these many stores and details of the T1? There a bits here, there, and in trains, but is there any place that pulls them together? Would like to know how crews felt about them, how they operated,and anything other interesting details.
Thanks.
No, there aren’t any sites that pull all of the T1 history together However, the basic parts of “the book” have already been written and published in the PRRT&HS magazine, The Keystone (and others). Here’s a list of articles, similar to what I posted over a year ago at the beginning of this thread, but limited to The Keystone for brevity:
Burnell, Neil. “An Appreciation of the T1 - The Enginemen’s Perspective,” The Keystone (Autumn 2001, pp 19-59)
Burnell, Neil. “The ‘Slippery’ T1,” The Keystone (Winter 2001, pp57-62)
Burnell, Neil. “A Reassessment of T1 6110 and 6111", The Keystone, Vol. 37, No. 1, pp18-39
Burnell, Neil. “The Case for the T1a 5547.” The Keystone, Vol.39, No. 3, pp40-52
Burnell, Neil. “Dispelling the Myths,”, The Keystone, Vol.41, No. 1, pp15-55
Slee, David E., and Neil Burnell. “Some Thoughts on Pennsy Passenger Steam Power,” The Keystone, Vol .41, No.4, pp22-36
Stephenson, David R. “PRR T1 Tests on C&O and N&W” The Keystone, Summer 2009, Vol.42, #2 , pp35-66
Most of Burnell’s articles contin lenngthy comments from T1 crewmembers. All of these back issues of The Keystone can be purchased from the PRR Technical and Historical Society. See their website. The cost is about the same as a hard-cover book, around $60. I just sent this entire group to someone in Europe so I know they’re available. There are more articles than this in other publications (C&O History, published by C&O Historical Society; The Arrow, published by N&W Historical Society; and Milepost, published by Friends of the RR Museum of PA) but they are harder to find and back issues are not always available. This is the major and minimum list that I’d recommend if you want the complete picture reflecting the most thorough research. Caveat: I’m a member of
[quote user=“feltonhill”]
No, there aren’t any sites that pull all of the T1 history together However, the basic parts of “the book” have already been written and published in the PRRT&HS magazine, The Keystone (and others). Here’s a list of articles, similar to what I posted over a year ago at the beginning of this thread, but limited to The Keystone for brevity:
Burnell, Neil. “An Appreciation of the T1 - The Enginemen’s Perspective,” The Keystone (Autumn 2001, pp 19-59)
Burnell, Neil. “The ‘Slippery’ T1,” The Keystone (Winter 2001, pp57-62)
Burnell, Neil. “A Reassessment of T1 6110 and 6111", The Keystone, Vol. 37, No. 1, pp18-39
Burnell, Neil. “The Case for the T1a 5547.” The Keystone, Vol.39, No. 3, pp40-52
Burnell, Neil. “Dispelling the Myths,”, The Keystone, Vol.41, No. 1, pp15-55
Slee, David E., and Neil Burnell. “Some Thoughts on Pennsy Passenger Steam Power,” The Keystone, Vol .41, No.4, pp22-36
Stephenson, David R. “PRR T1 Tests on C&O and N&W” The Keystone, Summer 2009, Vol.42, #2 , pp35-66
Most of Burnell’s articles contin lenngthy comments from T1 crewmembers. All of these back issues of The Keystone can be purchased from the PRR Technical and Historical Society. See their website. The cost is about the same as a hard-cover book, around $60. I just sent this entire group to someone in Europe so I know they’re available. There are more articles than this in other publications (C&O History, published by C&O Historical Society; The Arrow, published by N&W Historical Society; and Milepost, published by Friends of the RR Museum of PA) but they are harder to find and back issues are not always available. This is the major and minimum list that I’d recommend if you want the complete picture reflecting the most thorough resear