So obviously no J1 2-10-4s were preserved by the Pennsylvania Railroad. I have heard from a few different sources, some old topics here actually that they came close to preserving a couple of them or maybe just one. I head something about a Columbus museum. I've also heard that the PRR didn't preserve any because they were based off of a C&O design and not considered to be "Pennsy enough." Any one know anything?
Replies sorted oldest to newest
As far as I know, none of there later steamers were preserved.
Yeah..here goes just a little bit of this two edged story. No PRR steam of any type, regardless of who designed it or where it was built, survived....unless it was operated on Lines East, and more specifically, east of Harrisburg. Was this intentional? I didn't used to think so, but given the "personal" factor, I suspect that there may have been something going on here. Hopefully, someday the mystery will be cleared up with a revelation from Lewistown, or Hagley. That being said, Lines West, out of Columbus, supposedly offered a J1 to several different cities, including Columbus, and Indianapolis, and possibly Ft. Wayne. There were no takers in the allotted time frame. Would have been interesting if those cities had all said yes! Now here's what we do know for certain....either 6170 or 6171 had been held back because of her condition ( and I'm going to go with 6170 here, because of a 1957 photo of her in near mint shape, at least paint wise!) This machine may have played into the "city giveaway" story, or maybe not. She was offered to the Museum at Worthington a bit north of Columbus. They did not have the space, track, or facilities to make the best use of such a large chooch, and instead wound up getting N&W 578...which was more suited to their plans to operate the engine within their facilities. In any event 6170 sat around until someone in Columbus management decided to sent the locomotive east to the Historical collection, which then was HQed at Northumberland, PA. Local legend says there were three attempts to move the locomotive, all resulting in a derailment. At this point, the story gets muddy. Some say the 6170 was then cut up with what was left of the other steam in Columbus, others say she stayed put in the service facilities until the N&W take-over, and was then cut-up. The "optimists" say she disappeared sometime around 1962 and was never seen again, which if it has any basis in reality, would only be possible if she had been stuffed into a closed up building. which leads to one documented fact . First, though, the design of the J1 was not a bunch different than a ton of other Pennsy locomotives. Case: the H8, K2, and even K4s were all copies of Alco designs with PRR machinery details, such as the Belpaire Firebox, and hollow bored valve gear. The beloved GG1 is a NH EP3 Flat Iron with a new cab! J1 was as much "Pennsy" as any of these ! Back to the previous point: While 6170 remains a mystery, a bigger mystery is the case of 6435. She was never cut-up by the railroad, nor was she sold for scrap. This is confirmed in various places, like Edson's Keystone Steam and Electric. Where is 6435? Pretty hard to hide 987 K Lbs. of PRR Texas....she'd almost have to be inside somewhere. Steak dinner at Ditka's is on me to the person who finds 6435 !
As for railroads saving engines...this is NOT the end of the story, one way or the other. I'm reminded that Union Pacific made no attempt to save any of their GTEL locomotives at any point. It's only because of the steam program that a lot of the tenders survived...some also went to work train / non revenue service. Somebody(s) at Intercontenental is owed a great debt of thanks here, as two of these later day machines did survive. A number of these mills were still hanging around Cheyenne til at least 1974, and I suspect that this had as much to do with the GE U50C program (and all it's issues) than anything else. In the end #26 went to Ogden, and of course #18 is in IRM.
Both incredible machines still alive today, with Uncle Pete having mighty little to do with it !
The only reason the turbines hung on at Intercontinental was they were hoping to adapt the turbines for marine service (at least that's what I was told when I lived in KC.)
And, IRM wasn't the first consideration for the 18. It first went to the Kansas City RR Museum, but they had no place to put it and it was stored in the KC area.
Rusty
Indeed most of the UP "B" units died fairly quickly as they were stripped of their prime movers. Some turbine units were stored outside on pallets for a time. I know the K.C. museum held #18 for a time before she went to IRM...but she also has most of her innerds intact including the 8500 Turbine and pony motor. Number 18 was used as a "Switcher" at Intercontinental when the other units needed moved around, which would explain why the front two traction motors were left in place when the other ten were pulled. Two loose "A" units 14, and 16 stayed intact for quite a few years afterwards, and I still can't say for sure that they were ever cut-up ! It's this kind of stuff that fuels the possibility that PRR 6435 could have been supplied to an online industry for steam generation work while she still had flue time left, and that "other " arrangements might have been made which could have resulted in 6435's survival.
The PRR J1 2-10-4's were a Lima design, identical to the C&O 2-10-4. Other than the cab and window differences, they were the same locomotive.
Because of that fact, many people say that the J1 was the only "good" locomotive the PRR ever had. It was certainly the only PRR "Super Power" loco.
Here are some J-1 fotos I took back in the early 1950s. How about the caboose
hop and the 1 hopper load.
Lewrail
I am asking if the PRR M1b was a "good" engine. How did it compare to other engines in its class?
The first twenty five PRR J1s were the closest to the C&O T1, mechanically. From that point on a variety of changes were coming. The other 100 machines were built with one of three variations of cast steel frames from Eddystone. These were roller bearing equipped on the drivers, but not the pilot and trailing trucks. Of course all tenders had rollers. Minor detail differences cropped up during the construction period, such as the position of the boiler feed check valve on the port side, and the air pump models, and mounts. Fabricated pilots came in two styles, depending on the frame used, etc. etc. As it was, when they were first built, the PRR JAY was not given unlimited clearance on the Pittsburgh Division, and would have to wait til around 1945 when some minor realignments were made, to get freed up. When new Most J1 operation centered around St' Louis and Chicago...heading east. This was prime M1 country, being flatter than most of the rest of the road. I'd have to guess that these areas would have been the least restrictive at the time the J1 first arrived. From the PRR's point of view, the M1b was an excellent machine, because it was already a known quantity and fit nearly anywhere in the PRR system. Parts were "local" to Columbus and Altoona. Fifteen years experience with the M1a didn't hurt in any way. IMHO. Pennsy's second best steam freighter. Operating costs were a bit lower than that of the J1, but then so was capacity. When Diesels showed up, the Mountains were hit hard.
Great information, thank you. Comparing the models, the size of the M1b looks close (in length) to a Berkshire. Perhaps I'm trying to compare apples and oranges, but how did the M1b compare to a Berkshire in overall performance?
Great information, thank you. Comparing the models, the size of the M1b looks close (in length) to a Berkshire. Perhaps I'm trying to compare apples and oranges, but how did the M1b compare to a Berkshire in overall performance?
The AMC designed Lima Super Power 2-8-4 locomotives were better performers than the PRR M1 class of mountains. For one thing, the PRR M1 class locomotives were NOT designed/built with American Multiple Valve Front End Throttles. What RR designs/develops a "modern" superheated steam locomotive, and still uses a dome throttle?????
Thanks, Hot Water. These are questions from my 12 year old so thank you for the understanding. I thought I read that the Berks were produced as early as 1925. Would the early Berks and the M1a (1930 build date) be closer in performance than a later Berk and a converted M1b?
We are very green in the prototypes department so the rhetorical question about the various throttles, we have no idea what that means or why it is not a good design or why PRR didn't update, or whatever. If you know of any good PRR steam books that discusses their models, please let me know. Great to read a response from you. Thank you again.
Larry
The Black Gold Black Diamond books are the ones to buy that explains the development of Pennsy steam engines for the L1s & K4s, I1, M1//M1b, J1, S1, S2, Q2 &T1
Even if these books do not answer all your question, they are the best available for understanding the development of the modern PRR steam engines followed by the road to dieselization.
Hirsimaki, Eric. Black Gold Black Diamonds - The Pennsylvania Railroad and Dieselization
Volume 1 & vol 2
The PRR M1 series dates from the first prototype in 1923. There were certainly some improvements as the type was developed, but not nearly what could have been done. IIRC, Hirsimaki points out that Lima had developed a staged upgrade specifically for the PRR M1 class, that was not fully implemented, even with the M1b. You might be able to make some comparisons between the PRR M1 and the earliest Lima 2-8-4s, but by the time you get to the highly refined Berks of the '40s....kiss it goodbye!
Oh, most absolutely - yes. The Erie,Pa. train was sometimes M1 hauled, and IIRC, there were ten M1a s specifically set up and painted for passenger service when built. As for the M1b on varnish...no doubt it happened, but rarely. FWIW, the last two Q2s had passenger equipment when built. I've yet to see a Q2 or verifiable M1b passenger photo. Both could be seen helping passenger trains, as in HSC action. These would be on the point, so at the right angle, they might look like they were hauling the consist. The Big Jay also got in on this action, both front and rear. My cousin has a photo of a J1 on a Truk Train, but because of the angle it appears to be the only power assigned!
Here's a good look @ 2-10-4's in action, first half of vid focuses on santa fe. About half-way through, (approximately 4:25) they start to show PRR J1's.
A passenger locomotive will have two air hoses, one for air and the other for the comm line. They will also have a steam heat conduit under the rear coupler, and very rarely the front coupler as well. Air brakes may be set up differently as well, but that could depend on a lot of things. Sometimes passenger steamers might be serviced in a different facility too.
What constitued an engine for freight vs. passenger...anything?
Larry
I second the comments by jaygee on the requirement for a signal line and train heating steam line on a passenger locomotive.
Certain wheel arrangements were primarily used for freight and others for passenger trains. Sometimes "passenger" locomotives were used on freight trains and some "freight' type locomotives were equipped with steam and signal lines for passenger service. To get a better handle on what sort of things were most commonly done and why let's take a look at the last two distinct eras of steam locomotive construction, the standard or heavyweight era and the super power era.
The in the standard era the most common type of newly constructed mainline freight locomotive was the 2-8-2 Mikado and 4-6-2 Pacifics were the passenger locomotive of choice for most railroads. For heavier power some railroads added an axle and built 2-10-2 Santa Fe types or 4-8-2 mountains. In all cases a single axle trailing truck was used to support a deep and wide fire box. However, the single axle limited the grate area to 70 square feet or less on all but a few designs of these types. That, along with the boiler pressure and the super heaters then in use limited locomotives to about 3000 drawbar horsepower or less.
This era lasted 15-20 years, from just before 1910 until into the 1920s. Heavyweight steel passenger cars were also a defining feature of railroad equipment in this era. Locomotives were changed often on long distance trains, sometimes after only 100 to 200 miles. A Pacific was good for an 8 to 9 car train on relatively flat terrain but might only be able to handle 5 heavyweights on steep mountain grades unless a helper was added. Some railroads might replace a Pacific with a Mikado or Mountain type at a scheduled engine change at the start of a mountainous district to avoid needing a Pacific plus a helper. At the end of the mountainous area the locomotive might be changed back to a Pacific.
Driver size and cylinder dimensions also varied with the intended service of a locomotive. Mikados and Pacifics all have six axles and several railroads used similar or identical boilers for both types. So the power sources were of equal capacity. But the power transmission systems, the cylinders and drive wheels, were designed to apply that power in different ways.
Boiler pressures in the 180 to 220 psi range were common for all locomotives of this period. Mikados usually had 63" diameter drivers, give or take an inch. Some Santa Fe types had even smaller drivers for low speed lugging. But larger cylinders on the Santa Fes along with small drivers resulted in poor balancing and speed limitations. Pacific usually had drivers in the 69" to 80" size range for better balancing and higher speed at the same RPMs as their freight counterparts. Mountains were often somewhere in between Mikados and Pacifics in speed capability with 69" to 73" drivers. This made Mountains not only good for passenger service on steep grades but also suited for 35-50 mph fast freight service.
A Pacific and a Mikado might both have 60,000 pounds on each driving axle. That gives the Pacific 180,000 pounds on it's drive wheels and the Mikado 240,000. A good steam locomotive design rule of thumb was to design boiler pressure, cylinder size and drive wheel diameter all proportioned to have the starting drawbar pull equal 25% of the weight on the drive wheels for good adhesion. That gives a design objective of 45,000 pounds of starting drawbar pull for the Pacific and 60,000 pounds for the Mikado. Less weight meant that drivers were more prone to slipping. The passenger locomotive would commonly have shorter piston stroke to keep piston speed and lubrication needs within the acceptable range. The different dimensions gave the Mikado the ability to start a heavier train and reach its peak horsepower at slower freight train speeds. The Pacific could not start as heavy a train but could move it faster with peak horsepower coming at a higher speed. Trading a driving axle for a second axle on the engine truck also gave the Pacific a smoother ride at higher speeds.
In the Super Power era boiler pressures increased to 225-300 psi, super heaters grew larger, and fire boxes with 90 to 100+ square foot grates were supported by trailing trucks with two axles. Advances in lubricants and bearings allowed higher steam temperatures, higher axle loading, higher rotational speeds and reduced maintenance needs.
With lower maintenance needs locomotives were run much greater distances without needing to be changed and serviced. Passenger locomotives could run hundreds of miles, sometimes 1000 or more, without change. Due to variations in terrain most railroads needed locomotives that were more versatile to take full advantage of the economies that came with reduced changes and servicing facilities.
The first Lima Berkshires were a sort of Super Duper Mikado with 63" drivers. The 2-8-4 wheel arrangement came into its own with the Erie and AMC designs with 69"-70" drivers. They were very efficient fast freight locomotives and could do good work on passenger assignments when needed.
If you follow the Mikado/Pacific pattern and swap one driving axle for a second axle on the engine truck the Berkshire turns into a Hudson. Most Hudsons had 75" to 79 inch drivers. The Hudsons built in the 1930s for service out of Chicago on the C&NW, Milwaukee Road and Santa Fe had 84" drivers and 300 psi boilers for improved balancing at ultra high speed.
Add one driving axle to the Berkshire/Hudson and you have Texas types and Northerns. The earliest Texas types and 63" inch drivers but later 2-10-4s had 69"-74" inch drivers for higher speed and better balancing with their very high piston thrust. Move one axle forward and you have a 4-8-4 Northern. Northerns had drivers of 70" to 80". With the speed of the best passenger locomotives and the starting power of a Mikado many railroads considered a Norther the ultimate dual service locomotive. With the ability to handle 4000-5000 ton freights on the plains, 9 to12 car heavyweight passenger trains without a helper on mountain grades and run 90+ mph Northerns are as versatile as a mainline steam locomotive can get. That is why locomotives like SP 4449, UP 844 and MILW 261 have proven so successful in excursion service. They can handle long passenger trains without helpers and can run with or outrun any diesel.
As for railroads saving engines...this is NOT the end of the story, one way or the other. I'm reminded that Union Pacific made no attempt to save any of their GTEL locomotives at any point. It's only because of the steam program that a lot of the tenders survived...some also went to work train / non revenue service. Somebody(s) at Intercontenental is owed a great debt of thanks here, as two of these later day machines did survive. A number of these mills were still hanging around Cheyenne til at least 1974, and I suspect that this had as much to do with the GE U50C program (and all it's issues) than anything else. In the end #26 went to Ogden, and of course #18 is in IRM.
Both incredible machines still alive today, with Uncle Pete having mighty little to do with it !
No quibble except for the "still alive" part. They're corpses, just not dismembered corpses.
Great information, thank you. Comparing the models, the size of the M1b looks close (in length) to a Berkshire. Perhaps I'm trying to compare apples and oranges, but how did the M1b compare to a Berkshire in overall performance?
The AMC designed Lima Super Power 2-8-4 locomotives were better performers than the PRR M1 class of mountains. For one thing, the PRR M1 class locomotives were NOT designed/built with American Multiple Valve Front End Throttles. What RR designs/develops a "modern" superheated steam locomotive, and still uses a dome throttle?????
It doesn't look like any of the M1's contemporaries had front end throttles as built. I've just perused photos of ATSF 3700s, SP 4300's, C&O J-1 etc and all had dome throttles. So does Frisco 1522.
How about the NYCS H10, and A1a ?
I'm onboard for that Heinz Field PRR Jay ! Why settle for what might have been? If the PRR T1 Trust can build a replica Duplex (and this project IS moving along) then the Stiller Nation will have no problem putting the Big Jay (operating or not) on their front porch. Would fit like a hand in a glove. FWIW, there's still PRR lettered bridges in the 'Burgh, including West Carson St. - where I had one of my most memorable J1 experiences as a kid.
Great posts here from all, I think.
Ted, You need to write a book on this. I personally like the way you explain stuff. If you keep writing, I'll keep learning. Thank you.
Now if I could get you to look at the modern engines too...........
I just got a MTH 2 rail C&O 2-10-4. I need to redo some curves for her. These are some big engines, even as toys.
Great posts here from all, I think.
Ted, You need to write a book on this. I personally like the way you explain stuff. If you keep writing, I'll keep learning. Thank you.
Now if I could get you to look at the modern engines too...........
Which "modern engines"? Steam or diesel?
The PRR J1 2-10-4's were a Lima design, identical to the C&O 2-10-4. Other than the cab and window differences, they were the same locomotive.
Because of that fact, many people say that the J1 was the only "good" locomotive the PRR ever had. It was certainly the only PRR "Super Power" loco.
What?? The PRR had a lot of great locomotives, such as the K4, L1, H10 and M1 to name a few.
The PRR J1 2-10-4's were a Lima design, identical to the C&O 2-10-4. Other than the cab and window differences, they were the same locomotive.
Because of that fact, many people say that the J1 was the only "good" locomotive the PRR ever had. It was certainly the only PRR "Super Power" loco.
What?? The PRR had a lot of great locomotives, such as the K4, L1, H10 and M1 to name a few.
Well, they were GOOD, but certainly NOT "great". They did however, perform very well for the needs of the PRR.
Great posts here from all, I think.
Ted, You need to write a book on this. I personally like the way you explain stuff. If you keep writing, I'll keep learning. Thank you.
Now if I could get you to look at the modern engines too...........
Which "modern engines"? Steam or diesel?
Diesel! Modern diesels that is.
Great posts here from all, I think.
Ted, You need to write a book on this. I personally like the way you explain stuff. If you keep writing, I'll keep learning. Thank you.
Now if I could get you to look at the modern engines too...........
Which "modern engines"? Steam or diesel?
Diesel! Modern diesels that is.
Well sorry but, the subject of this whole thread is "Pennsylvania Railroad J1'1", there really is no need to discuss those darned diesels!
Originally Posted by ES44AC:Originally Posted by OGR Webmaster:The PRR J1 2-10-4's were a Lima design, identical to the C&O 2-10-4. Other than the cab and window differences, they were the same locomotive.
Because of that fact, many people say that the J1 was the only "good" locomotive the PRR ever had. It was certainly the only PRR "Super Power" loco.
What?? The PRR had a lot of great locomotives, such as the K4, L1, H10 and M1 to name a few.
Well, they were GOOD, but certainly NOT "great". They did however, perform very well for the needs of the PRR.
Michael
I think Hot Water is being a bit generous in his assessment of the "greats" PRR steam power.
Those Pennsy steam locomotives may have been good, even very good by the standards of about 1905 for the H10 and 1920 for the rest. The K4, L1 and M1 are all comparable to the heavy USRA designs of the same wheel arrangements. The problem is that the conservative Pennsy kept building them at least five hears later than they should have. By the time the last M1a was built it was technically obsolete. Berkshires and Northerns were already at work on other railroads.
The out of date motive power situation on the Pennsy was compounded by the timing of the depression and the Pennsy's expensive dive into electrification. Electrification meant new power in the Washington - Philadelphia - New York corridor and an overpopulation of hand me down steam locomotives for everywhere else on the system. By 1945 PRR steam power consisted of hundreds and hundreds of obsolete locomotives still pulling frontline duties, dozens of never should have been built duplex drives and 125 very useful and efficient J1 locomotives based on the 1930 C&O design.
It doesn't look like any of the M1's contemporaries had front end throttles as built. I've just perused photos of ATSF 3700s, SP 4300's, C&O J-1 etc and all had dome throttles. So does Frisco 1522.
How about the NYCS H10, and A1a ?
And how about the NYC K5 Pacifics, L-2 Mohawks and the Husdons. I believe all had front end throttles and larger super heaters than their PRR counterparts.
The multiple port front end throttle offered finer control of steam flow with less force than a dome throttle. The front end throttle also left the super heaters open to the saturated steam supply coming into the dry pipe from the steam dome when the throttle was closed. That eliminated the need for dampers in the fire box to protect the ends of the super heater elements when a dome throttle was closed.
NYC's top passenger engineers had the advantage of experience on several large classes of modern freight and passenger locomotives with front end throttles when the very advanced Niagaras arrived. They apparently made the switch form Hudsons and Mohawks without difficulty. If they had to make the leap from USRA era technology to a Niagara it could have been much more difficult transition.
The PRR T1s had a reputation for being slippery when starting. While some of that may have been due to design issues it could also be that in 1945 and 46 the first locomotive with a modern front end throttle ever operated by most Pennsy passenger engineers was a T1. If the PRR had more locomotives based on the best 1930s technology either they would have realized the T1 was a mistake or their engineers would have had an easier time handling them.
If the PRR had built 4-8-4s based on a C&O design to go with their C&O designed 2-10-4s they would have been much better off. Even if the 4-8-4s were replaced in passenger service by diesels in the late 40s and early 50s they would have been much more useful in fast freight service than the T1s. That would have helped the PRR to make a more orderly transition to diesels and avoid ordering locomotives from builders with shorter delivery times than heavily booked EMD.
Ted, You need to write a book on this. I personally like the way you explain stuff. If you keep writing, I'll keep learning. Thank you.
Thanks Joe. With the end of summer I plan to get back to work on new editions of the O Scale Locomotive Guide. Mikes are coming soon.
With Mountains, Berkshires, Hudsons and Pacifics covered there is some prototype information relevant to the discussion here.
https://ogrforum.com/t...ale-locomotive-guide
New York Central unleashed a detailed questionaire to their travelling public in late 1942, about the improvements they'd like to see in the postwar passenger trains that were being planned. There was a question about what type of motive power they preferred hauling these new trains. Now, Central wasn't really about to let John Q. Public dictate motive power policy, but the Central knew that the overwhelming choice would be Diesel. This gives us a big clue as to where Central top management was headed, even this early in the game. The point is, that with postwar passenger loads potentially at stake, PRR, under Clement and Symes, wasn't about to let Central gain such an advantage. The South Wind EMD E6 order was revived. The production T1 order was too far along at this stage to be dumped, with the frames being cast and other materials gathered. The order for fifty might have been trimmed a bit, but it was not. Too bad PRR did not go with Franklin's type B poppets right out of the box. The point is that the T1 was not the disaster it's been painted as over the decades, but rather, the condition the PRR found itself in by 1945. The other power mentioned above was totally obsolete by this time, but until Diesel power could be obtained, they could get by. Parts were easy, and shop procedures well practiced. The T1 ran into a brick wall of difficulties that stretched far beyond any shortcomings in the basic chooch, not the least of which was the PRR Marketing Dept. Given that the PRR steam picture was about the same for both the passenger and freight pool, from an economic point, it was obvious that the Diesel advantage would be equally applicable to freight too. One of the early "bugs" with the PRR J1 was a track kinking issue that appeared after some use, at speed. This was later traced to improper steel and heat treat in the suspension pins. But that may have been the tipping point in getting approval to build 25 Q2s in 1944-45. But after a short fashion, the bloom was off the rose with the big Duplex, and if you want proof, just look at what PRR management put on their calendars from the late '40s til the last steam appearance....the Big Jay ! What had been state of the art in 1910-1920 was what the Penn would be operating until Diesels completely took over, not by choice in any way, but by circumstance. Their indigenous designs were adequate to the times, but certainly not spectacular.....and in the end we tend to remember them as being perhaps a little better than they actually were.
Jaygee
Thanks for the well informed reply. You detailed account of the situation in 1942-46 reinforces my understanding that the PRR as already in deep trouble at that point.
New York Central unleashed a detailed questionaire to their travelling public in late 1942.....
.....the Central knew that the overwhelming choice would be Diesel. This gives us a big clue as to where Central top management was headed, even this early in the game.
1942 was actually pretty late in the game to realize that the future of railroading would be diesel powered. By 1942 several of the nations premier streamlined passenger trains had been running with diesel power for 4-7 years. And GM's FTs had demonstrated all over the country by then in passenger and freight service. After testing the FTs the Great Northern and Southern had decided they would order no new steam, even faced with wartime traffic to, the FT construction holiday to provide main engines for Navy LSTs and plenty of elderly steam locomotives. Less insistent railroads like the Northern Pacific, Union Pacific and Santa Fe took Northerns that could at least make efficient freight locomotives as well as capable passenger power.
The production T1 order was too far along at this stage to be dumped, with the frames being cast and other materials gathered. The order for fifty might have been trimmed a bit, but it was not.
Wouldn't the Pennsy have been dollars ahead to scrap frames in 1945 that scrap 50 complete locomotives that provided only 5 years of trouble prone service?
Given that the PRR steam picture was about the same for both the passenger and freight pool, from an economic point, it was obvious that the Diesel advantage would be equally applicable to freight too.
Just think how much more orderly the diesel transition could have been if instead of the Ss, Qs and Ts the PRR had a fleet of 75-80 Northers to bump to freight service as E7s arrived. PRR Northerns in freight service would have made impressive running mates to the Js. The M1s and L1s could have moved to well earned retirements as F3s and F7s arrived.
What had been state of the art in 1910-1920 was what the Penn would be operating until Diesels completely took over, not by choice in any way, but by circumstance. Their indigenous designs were adequate to the times, but certainly not spectacular.....and in the end we tend to remember them as being perhaps a little better than they actually were.
Unfortunately the circumstances at the PRR in 1942-55 were created in large part by PRR management in 1925-42. Too much spending on the east end of the system and too few modern steam locomotives left the PRR with many outdated dirt floored shops trying to maintain obsolete steam and many oddball diesels in the 1950s. Add impossible government regulations and the wreck of the Penn Central does start to look inevitable.
One has to take into account the PRR and NYCS mechanical depts. in the years leading up to, and during most of WW2. There was a ton of momentum for steam power still alive in these organizations. Yes, the Diesel was proving itself in a variety of locations and services, but the one that probably had the most influence was not so much AT&SF or Uncle Pete....but down home, and local B&O. These guys operated in direct competition to both big Eastern roads, and was already mopping up with the EMD EA and E6 models. There are no secrets in railroading, and even if there were, GM would make sure that ANY potential customer heard all about these most excellent machines. Another issue landing in the lap of the T1 was it's use of a huge number of "hot-rod" aftermarket high performance parts, much of this being due to Baldwin's involvement with the two prototypes. PRR was willing to put up with this inconvenience at the the time, but it became a major cost issue later on. These were parts and designs that could not be cranked out at Juniata, because of patents and licencing. The poppet valve issues were largely solved by late 1948, but re-emerged in 1951, when Franklin raised the prices for the parts. The quick arrival of Diesel power, even if it wasn't the time tested EMD good guys, still kept a lot of expensive to operate steam off the track, even with the costs and confusion of operating multiple builder models and types. Keep in mind too, that we - looking back, have the benefit of hindsight when you talk about this time period. Penn's management thought that they had nearly de-bugged the T1 when the production machines were ordered, and construction started. Same is true with many of the new Diesel models purchased with confidence in the mid to late '40s. I'm sure the Penn expected some initial teething problems as you get with any new system, but certainly nothing like the rolling (sometimes) disasters the likes of the Baldwin Centipede ! On my first visit to Altoona station, an old timer told us that when they were in good shape, the J1 was equal to anything on the road, if not better. The key was "good shape" as PRR steam usually wasn't, from around '55 onward. Won't tell you what he said about the Centipedes !
Another issue landing in the lap of the T1 was it's use of a huge number of "hot-rod" aftermarket high performance parts, much of this being due to Baldwin's involvement with the two prototypes. PRR was willing to put up with this inconvenience at the the time, but it became a major cost issue later on.
Yeah, it seems the the good old Pennsy had more of a "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" mentality when it came to new innovations for steam power. Still love to watch 'em go, though.
Stauffer and Pennypacker nailed it pretty good in Pennsy Power 1 when they said - PRR tended to standardize on smaller, conservative designs, realizing that any thing they built would have to be double headed over most of their topography anyway. At the time of their best designs, the Penn was doing well financially, and could look forward to the day when the current locomotive fleet would be replaced by newer builds of their own design. After the M1 4-8-2 of 1923, the road just sort of fizzled out. Pennsy did have a fair excuse in their back pocket, as they expected to run the juice all the way to Pittsburgh at one time. Had this actually occurred, it opens up a whole plethora of scenarios for the postwar period. OTOH, given the crumbling PW economic picture for big industry in PRR territory, one wonders if things didn't work out better the way they did.
PRR did test N&W's J Class 4-8-4, and found out: That it didn't fit everywhere, and that despite the 70" drivers, the machine was capable of high speed running on the West End. PRR did not like the high machinery speeds associated with this locomotive, but otherwise gave the "J" good marks. The Penn was already too far down the road with the T1 by this time. But consider this: Building 26 or so Class Js instead of the twenty six Q2s, and operate them as dual service machines. Not all PRR passenger operations had to be run at 100+ MPH. Now that would have been something !
Imagine if you will, had the trials of the N&W J impressed the Pennsy; a J "chassis" with the Loewy sharknose "bodywork" atop.
>Sorry, I grew up reading and re-reading PP 1 and 2 (about 2 miles south of the panhandle in Cols in the 70s) , I will always be the slobbering Pennsy freak.
Heck, I was nine years old and welled up reading the "farewll Pennsy" montage at the end of PP 2 for the first time.
Access to this requires an OGR Forum Supporting Membership
