New Steam Glory 3 ...PRR T1 redux

"....highly readable and understood..."......well stated!

I was always taken in by the aesthetics of the T1 and slightly annoyed by all the negative press that it has received over the years. The above mentioned Classic Trains article sheds some light on just why that locomotive was so maligned, and rather unjustly so. The economics of the PRR in the '50s precluded any thought of saving a T1, but what a preservation piece it would be today!

I would say the most important thing to take away from Dr. David R. Stephenson article was that the T-1 were NOT a Failure. 

What they were was thoroughbred race horses or Formula One race cars. They were specialized machines and they needed specialized maintenance and running. They were not Chevy trucks like the K-4's or M-1's that could get by on low level maintenance and running. So the T-1's, if well cared for and well run, were truly magnificent machines. They not the failures ill informed fans parrot.

 I love the PRR T1. Whatta Machine to have witnessed in action. Give the Pennsy credit for pushing the boundaries of Modern steam design. Certainly a paradgim shift in current day thinking. A complex machine indeed.

  This might sound weird for most people on the Forum living on the east coast, but I consider it privilege to have visited the Pennsy Museum in Strastburg on two occasions.

  I was suprised at how little info or photo's there was on the Duplexs. Its just to bad they did'nt last a couple of years more in service.  Al

I enjoyed the article.  It indicated operational difficulties were more due to poor maintenance or inexperienced crew than to locomotive design.

Certainly a GREAT article from Dr. Stephenson, and it confirms many stories I heard from some of the "old timers" of the PRR latter steam era. The T1 was indeed a spectacular piece of passenger motive power, and a darned shame that the PRR didn't have enough quality trained engine crews to PROPERLY operate them.

This was one of many Great articles in that issue.  I have been surprised that nobody has brought this up before since issue has been out a month or so.

jaagee

Thank you for the information on the t1.

A favorite of mine also.

I heard this issue was on the way some time ago.  Just got it a day or two ago, and promptly devoured it; the T1 and NYCS Niagara article.  Had the big TEEs operated on the east end of the system instead of the west, it's quite probable that one might have been saved. The PRR historical collection was already being assembled by the time the final batch of Baldwins was dispatched west from Altoona to Sharpsburg. Way too bad we don't have say #5500, with her rotary poppet valve gear around today.  Indeed, such a locomotive could have been restored and operated with a lot more care and concern today than in revenue service in the times when they ran.  This is one case where the modeller certainly comes off better than the foamer!  Some irony here, as both the T1 Duplex and Niagara are both here side by side, so to speak...and neither survived ; good, bad, or indifferent.    For the real T1 freak, the PRRT&HS Keystone is a great source for loads of info, in the last dozen years, on these most excellent machines.

Jaygee

Thanks for starting this thread on the T-1 article.  When I read it I couldn't help but think of the Wreck of the Penn Central. 

There were thousands of Pacifics, Hudsons, Mountains, Northerns and other modern locomotives with front end throttles in service from coast to coast at the time the T-1s were built.  But author David Stephenson contends that many of the PRRs engine men had trouble handling the T-1 in due in large part to their lack of experience with locomotives equipped with front end throttles.  Was there any other large class one railroad in the US at the time whose most senior locomotive engineers, those in passenger service, were unfamiliar with handling a locomotive with a front end throttle?  It is amazing to think how behind the times the PRR was in the mid 1940s. 

As you and Stephenson point out the duplex drive concept that Baldwin championed starting in the early 1930s had been made doubly obsolete when the T-1s were constructed, first by modern 4-8-4s and then by the GM E-6.  The T-1s simply should never have been built. The VP of Lines West even asked that the production order be at least partially canceled in favor of diesels.  Unfortunately he was overruled.

I suppose one could see the T-1 class as a success from the narrow standpoint that they were capable of hauling a long passenger train at high speed.  But again Stephenson points out that "it is likely that many contemporary 4-8-4s could have performed in a similar manner, albeit without the caveats of through preparation and crew ability."

Stephenson asks his readers "Who gets the blame: those who developed the questionable performance standard, those who developed the overly complex design, or the locomotive that met the specification in spite of itself?"  It seems hard to think of a major corporation in the US at the time that had leadership less in touch with the economic realities of their industry or the importance of changing technology than the Pennsylvania Railroad.  The millions spent on the T-1 should have been allocated for more suitable equipment that could have reliably achieved the needed performance while lowering operating costs.  The Pennsylvania's share holders would end up paying the price for out of date management and an ossified corporate culture.

The wreck of the 1960s was lined up in the 30s, 40s and 50s.  While the T-1 might be viewed as a successful performer on the rails it is a major symbol of a corporation that was already in decline.

The PRR was NOT one of those many railroads having steam locomotives with front end throttles. For example, the only class of PRR locomotives built with front end throttles was the J1 2-10-4s (actually the best steam locomotive the PRR ever had), and of course those were freight locomotives. Even the PRR's class of "modern" M1 4-8-2 locomotives had DOME THROTTLES! What railroad mechanical department would design & build a big, modern, superheated 4-8-2 with a dome throttle?

This lack of front-end throttle (read modern) locomotives, along with MANY other anachronisms unique to the PRR is why I have always questioned the P-Company's oft-repeated "Standard Railroad of the World" claim. As Jack just said, the only modern power they had that actually worked reliably was the J1, which was a Lima design and a clone of the C&O 2-10-4.

Their late experiments with exotic steam power almost seemed like a "too little, too late" type of over-compensation for being behind the times for so long. PRR steam power never impressed me very much.

Their late experiments with exotic steam power almost seemed like a "too little, too late" type of over-compensation for being behind the times for so long.

Rich

In the article Stephenson used the phrase "too Much, too late". 

As for "Standard Railroad of the World" someone is fond of adding...

...all others were delux!

Why have I never heard of the B&O "George"? Was this the same as the PRR T1 4-4-4-4?

Thanks for letting us know about this article! I ordered it.

Here's a link to the "George Emerson"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...e_and_Ohio_Class_N-1

Too bad the T1 never had a chance, what with diesels and all. But on it's own,

forgetting the era in which it was built, what a locomotive.

Imagine this: Instead of the Niagara, the Central would have had this engine.

All the kinks worked out, and it steaming along the "water level route" at an

easy gait at a hundred per..or more.. and using less water and coal than

any other 4 8 4. She would have been a legend.

Great story, in that special edition. Also a "wow" story about firing the Niagara.

Ed

As an aside, Ted Hikel makes reference to the PRR VP of Lines West. That fellow was David M. Smucker, of the jam manufacturing family. Per "The Wreck of the Penn Central" book, he must have been a pretty tough egg, as his nickname on the railroad was "Mother Smucker"  !!

Actually Stephenson credits none other than future PRR president James M. Symes as the Lines West VP who tried to get the T-1s cancelled and buy diesels.

It is hard to overstate how much the T-1s cost the PRR.  They were the wrong steam locomotives purchased too late.  Then in the scramble to modernize the Pennsy compounded the mistake and bought too many of the wrong diesels.  If they would have just ordered E7s as early as possible they would have been fine.  But it seems the Pennsylvania mechanical department wasn't any better at evaluating diesels than they were with steam.

With Baldwin and the Pennsy headquartered in Philadelphia it would be interesting to know how many motive power decisions were made based on social considerations and how many were real business decisions.

Did't the PRR start getting their first E7 units in the 1945 or 1946?

The two volumes of "Black diamonds - Black gold" make much mention of James Symes in relation to his effect on PRR motive power policy from 1940 onward.  One huge factor here, when considering the T1, and a lot of other variables from the mid '40s onward, is the simple fact that the Penn lost money for the first time in 1946.  This was totally unexpected, for the most part...although there were signs that the road was heading down a slippery slope before then.  I have to believe that one reason the T1 was promoted over the N&W J, in spite of test results, was the fact that for steam power, and Altoona Works, the writing was already on the wall. Was the Big Tee a final statement of worth for people like John Duer and co.??  Surely the N&W J could have done all that needed to be done on the Penn for the few short years until Diesels swamped all the first class assignments.  The J class was also bumpable into freight service; something the T1 was less sucessful with.  If you read between the lines in some of the more recent PRR motive power books and even some magazine articles, it becomes clear that there were some real personality struggles going on here, at least until the collapsing bottom line brought everything into a different light.    Another aspect of T1 operation in real life, day to day service was the quality of the design itself.  The two prototypes and the fifty production models all had to be extensively reworked in the sheet metal categories shortly after their introduction. Both Locomotive front ends, and tender tops underwent a major transformation as a result of practical experience with the machines.  The poppet valves were designed and built by Franklin Railway Supply to a high standard, and were capable of handling truly high speed operation, but the T1 was operated at such outrageous speeds, that the valves had little chance of surviving any long term use.  This was confirmed by Franklin's own QC inspectors in the field.  This shortcoming (!) was later fixed, but was indicative of the problems encountered with these locomotives.  Two quotes from ages ago regarding the T1;

"If you can't make 120MPH with a normal sized train, your T1 needs worked on" and "The spring rigging doesn't always respond well at 130MPH"  ...are not a joke! There are numerous reports of T1 powered passenger trains arriving at grade crossings before the gates would activate!  So the personel issues were not always in the negative, from the enthusiast's perspective, anyway.  I'm sure the PRR's legal dept. breathed a sigh of relief when these puppies were given a dirt nap! It does make you wonder what might have happened if the Penn had remained a profitable operation and had not been forced to dump off huge amounts of it's passenger service in the late '40s. 

Oops! Symes it was. Symes was no steam romantic. When interviewed by David P. Morgan  in 1955, as PRR Pres, he commented "Compared to steam, diesels haul more, faster!". Guess he came to that observation pretty early on.

Did't the PRR start getting their first E7 units in the 1945 or 1946?

They took delivery of some E7s in 46.  Then they bought Baldwins. 

They bought 15 PAs in 47

More E7s and E8s came 48-52.

The PRR discision to start seriously going after Diesel power really started with Central's similar descision, in '43.  Clement went after EMD to get their displaced E6 A+A order back in the books, and moved to a much higher priority than it had previously been. Both roads had enough Diesel knowledge coming both from GM marketing and the B&O, to have a pretty good idea of what to expect from GM passenger units on their respective routes.  Central even included a choice of motive power to their customer base surveys conducted from mid WW2 'til the end. This was a sop to the public, as Park Ave. knew already how the public would respond, and their minds were already made up anyway.  Central was going Diesel for the Great Steel Fleet, at least in part. Clement wasn't about to lose any market share to their chief competitor, if he could help it. The two unit order arrived as the new E7 model, and after initial set-up and tests, cleaned clock on every steam locomotive the Penn had or even could envision.  This experience mimics that of the B&O...not surprising given the similarity of terrain. What remained unspoken of was the deplorable state of the PRR's maintainence forces at the end of the war.  Both the new steamers, and newly arriving Diesels would be suffering greatly on this account.  When the dust had cleared, the EMDs won out by greater reliability, and better factory support.  The T1 may have not been the best choice in 1945, but it was a viable choice in 1941, thusly showing how fast technology can overtake the best laid plans....even without the "personality factors".

The PRR's hubris (like the one befalled Kodak,) precipitated it's downfall. Many decisions, poor in hindsight, are here for us to Monday morning quarterback.

I for one am glad for the incredible, fascinating, extravagant, extreme steam designs that came about because of the Pennsy.  Unlike the superb and business sensible designs such as NKP Berks and N&W Y-6's, we can gasp at the PPR designs and their feast of energy, stats and speed.

The '69 Ford "Boss" Mustang was a ridiculous machine for everyday transportation like the T-1.

But what a grand RIDE!

jaygee

You said the the T-1 was a viable choice in 1941 but might not have been the best in 1945.  Why do you think that?  It seems that the war kept diesel technology from developing as quickly as it otherwise might have.  There was little change in the capabilities of two cylinder 4-8-4s in that time as well.

The big changes in technology came in the mid to late 1930s.  Developments in steel alloys allowed for lighter high pressure boilers high strength machinery that allowed for better balancing of two cylinder locomotives.  And the diesel went from experimental to reliable and fast everyday transportation with very high utilization.

I'd be interested to hear what ever you have to say about Symes, Clement and Duer.  What the heck was going on there?

Choo-choo; you are mighty close, my man!  What was the T1?  A final statement, perhaps.  In 1941, you could still build a case for a 100+MPH steamer on the PRR with all the toys to enhance it's abilities.  The money and business was there (or so it seemed).  The technology was there; the S1 worked...it was just too big, and too unrefined, as it was discovered.  The T prototypes, even with their many bugs, proved the new design had not just merit, but the possibility of opening up a whole new performance plateau for steam power.  The T1 was supposed to be the steam equivalent of the GG1.   ...seriously !   And so Altoona did the leg work and de-bugged the design, but not completely.  It was still realised that this machine would never be anything like your granddaddy's K4.   The issue by 1945 had changed considerably.  The Diesel, as offered by EMD, was now proven to be about as bulletproof as you were going to get at that time.  B&O was a major competitor of the Penn in certain markets, and was gushing all over with new EMD E6 and EA

streamlined passenger Diesels. This had to hurt, but nothing like what happened when the NYCS announced new passenger Diesels for the top name trains like the Century.  OUCH!  What to do?  This is where it gets good.  President Martin Clement was a sharp operator, most of the time. Too bad he missed out on the EMD E6 order that was supposed to complement those going to the L&N for joint Florida service. Had they shown up in 1942, at the same time as L&N got theirs, the E6s would have been squaring off against the new Baldwin T1s.  You can bet that NO production passenger steam of any kind would have been authorized past that point.  Jim Symes would have been right there with that descision, no doubt. He cut his teeth out west while on leave from the PRR from about 1935 to '40. His close contact with some of the premier Diesel operators of that era gave him new insight as to what could be obtained with this new type of power. He also had to realize that Altoona was increasingly out on a limb with their steam forever mindset.  That is where Harry Jones, and John Duer come in.  They were the heirs to this massive Altoona hierarchy and paradigm.  They're thinking literally was, that if EMD could do "XYZ+" ...we'll build a new steamer that will do even more! No kidding ! We'll just de-bug the T1, add a few new refinements, and go rewrite the motive power playbook.  Symes was not impressed, neither was Clement, although for different reasons.  Symes was an operator, Clement was after market share, and market advantage.  There was also a need for new passenger power of any type that could help defray the increasing cost of K4s operation; especially the doubleheading that was required on the fastest and longest trains.  There can be no doubt that the main reason the N&W J was not used as some kind of PRR prototype, had to do with Jones and especially Duer.  A non PRR design was an offront to that crowd, as seen with their cold, unrealistic response to the 2-10-4 J freighter.  No, it would be the T1, or the highway, from their tunnelvision point of view.  Clement got his restored Diesel order ; E7s, by the time they were built.  Symes wanted some of the T1 order for fifty units shaved, and it probably would have been, except for two things.  PRR still felt a need for new passenger power, especially of a "modern" type to propel the new postwar streamliners that would be used to compete against both B&O and the NYCS. There is also strong evidence to suggest that by the time these revised suggestions came to Clement's attention, GSC Eddystone had already rough cast the frames for nearly the whole order of fifty; either in house or by way of GSC Granite City.  The T1 order stood.  Within a year of their delivery, Duer's hot rods were losing ground to the Diesel, not just because they were no longer the company prima donna, but in actual, documented performance. No surprise for people like Symes, but a rude awakening for the Duer crowd.  Clement didn't care what the T1s did, good, bad or ugly...they were steam, and had no place on the ultra modern Blue Ribbon Fleet.  Floods of Diesels were soon on the order books, as a result of the disasterous 1946 bottom line.  Symes had won out, partially through good business sense, and partially by default.  J.V.B. Duer retired in 1947...as the Big Tees, now modernised, were bumped to second string behind a bewildering array of new Diesel types.    You're right,  a Ford GT40 makes a less than ideal family grocery getter !

The big picture of the PRR. Don't forget a not insignificant supplier of traffic having some impact as it did for N&W, which of course was coal which was still very much a household and industrial necessity to be moved by rail. All of this reminds me of the study done on interurban railroads which was their failure and absolute inability to acknowledge trends, and project likely outcomes in face of the automobile. The rest is the  minutia of small factoids as in the case of the T1. That kind of traditional railroad conservatism for which the PRR was notorious.creates sunk cost situations..the investment and institutional history of betting the farm on one horse, which was coal combustion. They went into the pulverized coal sink hole in development for years as well and would have pursued it till the death if the balance sheets had not gone South for further retooling. Pride also came before a fall, being the standard railroad of the world and their way or the highway image of themselves as innovators, well..time caught up with them.