This:
Or this:
SCRAP IT !
SCRAP IT !
SCRAP IT !
SCRAP THEM ALL!
TEAR THIS DOWN !
Considering the newly arrived and exciting locomotives heralding the future and the very masterpiece of the Pennsy empire I would say that Bigfoot riding Nessie is more believable.
Yeah, we know what believeable here all right, the scrapping.
I have no words. Only had one cup of coffee so far.
[banghead]
PS: I always warms my heart to see a picture of animal pals!
I’ve never understood the constant dogging of the PRR on here because they didn’t save an example of every class of steam locomotive that they had. Yet, other roads that did much less (B&O, ACL, SAL, GN, NP, Erie, etc., etc.) get a pass. The Pennsy actually did a pretty decent job of it. Not as good as some like the Santa Fe, but decent…
No they don’t get a pass. They just did not have the S1, S2, Duplex locomotives all pointing to the future. An enourmous investment that was all junked while almost new. Pennsylvannia Station, well that’s just a crime. But yeah, there are many other examples.
The steam locomotives in question ranged from not particularly successful to outright flops and were ripe pickings for diesel-electric locomotives, which were recognized by just about everybody else as the way of the future.
Oh no, you missed the real point, rather badly.
Which is more believable: the PRR doing what came so naturally to it (while maintaining a collection at Northumberland) or:
New York Central scrapping ALL the Hudsons, the most famous North American steam locomotive classes…
and scrapping ALL the Niagaras…
and trying very hard to get rid of GCT in the mid-Fifties, not failing for objective reasons of not trying…
Well the thing is the PRR DID have a collection stored at Northumberland PA with a fairly generous representation of types, the idea was to eventually build a museum for the same, in the same manner as the B&O museum in Baltimore.
Why they didn’t bother with the S1, a T1, the S2, and some others is what the question is. Scrap values would have been an inconsequential “pennies on the pound” compared to the original costs and not likely to affect the bottom line all that much. The scrap values would have been spent in a matter of hours covering a fraction of daily operating costs anyway. It’s a question that will never be answered, all the decision makers of the time being long dead.
That Northumberland collection eventually became the foundation of the Railroad Museum of Pennsyvania’s collection of locomotives.
The B&O Museum had a tough road to travel from the time it was created. Whenever B&O’s bottom line had trouble, the Museum was closed until finances improved. That happened a number of times until CSX deeded it to its own organization that continues to operate it today. The roundhouse roof collapse of 2003 set them back, however, working the community and the museum has recovered.
https://www.wbaltv.com/article/bo-railroad-museum-thriving-10-years-after-roof-collapse/6584840
Oh! My poor S1, S2, and T1s… if Pennsy had a high-speed-railway system
Given the choice between the two types…
Technically Big Jawn was more momentous as far as transportation technology goes. But it wouldn’t draw a crowd like a class J can.
One succeeded with its assigned tasks - one didn’t.
If what I’ve read is true, Big Jawn cost a lot more to build than a Y6b did, but really didn’t do the job any better.
It had its bugs too. The N&W might have persued the concept and eliminated the flaws if they could have interested any other railroads in it, but they couldn’t, so they dropped it.
One issue was that it was a LOT longer; another was that the chain-grate boiler produced a particularly annoying fine fly ash. The real kiss of death was that the Westinghouse electrics as built weren’t up to the job: one of the generators was apparently dropped as it was being produced (and apparently never worked quite right after that, no great surprise!) and it turned out that many of the traction motors, after only a few years of actual service, were overload-damaged beyond practical repair – remember that these are Westinghouse hexapole motors, famously impossible to kill in high-current low-speed service in many Baldwin diesel-electrics, so this is no casual matter.
What killed the TE-1, succinctly, was the practical development of high-horsepower second-generation locomotives at EMD and Alco – arguably the same thing that induced Saunders and his craven cabal of cowans to terminate the ‘rest’ of the steam not long afterwards. All that complexity for a mere 4500 maximum horsepower, long and heavy and specialized-proprietary and the whole thing out of service for any of a thousand failures… not really surprising that even the other coal roads wanted no part of a production run.
The N&W might have persued the concept and eliminated the flaws if they could have interested any other railroads in it, but they couldn’t, so they dropped it.
[/quote]
I agree the Big Jawn was not as stylish as the Class J, but she still looked majesty and formidable in my eyes. [:)]
Both of them should have been displaying in the Museum of Science and Industry, Chicago, together with the PRR S2. Though their owners and designers probably wanted them to be scrapped. 
Quick glimpse of Big Jawn at about 10 seconds.
I would rather museum space be used for successful, mass produced machines that actually had an impact on history.
[quote user=“Backshop”]
Jones1945
Penny Trains
Given the choice between the two types…
Technically Big Jawn was more momentous as far as transportation technology goes. But it wouldn’t draw a crowd like a class J can.
I agree the Big Jawn was not as stylish as the Class J, but she still looked majesty and formidable in my eyes.
Both of them should have been displaying in the Museum of Science and Industry, Chicago, together with the PRR S2. Though their owners and designers probably wante
Well, as I said Jawn Henry might have worked if N&W chose to persue it. There were issues, but none that were really unsurmountable. In the end though, it just wasn’t worth it.
Now that C&O turbine is another matter. If what I’ve read is true, and it probably is, the thing was an over-engineered nightmare. It made Jawn Henry look like a work of genius. Nothing could have gotten the bugs out of it. A true flop if ever there was one.
Baldwin’s 60000 at the Franklin Institute might have been a winner, but with three cylinders and a water-tube boiler (which no railroad had any success with) it was just too complicated to generate any interest. The railroads liked 'em simple. Two cylinders, tried-and-true boiler technology, and nothing exotic is what they wanted at the time.
Interesting clip Balt supplied. I didn’t know Jawn Henry made it up to Ohio.
This was right at the time Alco was touting three-cylinder power as the future, even on relatively small transfer engines. H.A.V. Campbell, Baldwin’s European representative, proposed (in October 1923) the use of a 4000+ horsepower 2-8-4, the power and use of a nominal 2-wheel truck being explicitly associated with three-cylinder compound power. G.W. Basford, one of Lima’s top guys, also liked three cylinders in this period, and had he not died suddenly in October 1925 it might have been interesting how Super-Power would have evolved in the critical early years. Boiler technology received some dramatic alterations in this period, starting with recognition of the importance of radiant uptake, effective feedwater heating, better alloys … and a number of watertube firebox approaches to make higher operating pressures more practical, including Emerson’s.
The things that made the 2-cylinder simple so compelling wouldn’t come for a few more years, basically starting with Eksergian as late as 1928. Early Super-Power engines were dogs that couldn’t back up well; it was not difficult to convert them a la T&P 610 into quite capable engines … with a little knowledge and resolve, and a Baldwin Disc main. All sorts of early-Thirties things.