Read this on Trains Magazine website. The group has cast a boxpok driver. The first in decades. I always thought their goal of building a PRR T1 a snowballs chance in hell but maybe they have a chance.
http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2016/03/09-t1
https://prrt1steamlocomotivetrust.org/news.php
Replies sorted oldest to newest
One down, seven to go ! This development may cure some nay-sayers, but then probably not. It's my understanding that the T1 will be built literally from the ground up. This would indicate the need for a pilot truck and trailer, once the drivers and related smaller parts are done. While current plans look like a Buick will be the model of choice, I suspect that the modernized T1 will be the ultimate choice, if they intend to run her to any great degree. Good success to you, gentlemen !
well, that casting of the driver was some sight to see! Thank you.
makes me yearn for more heavy casting to be done here in the U.S.
Wow. Nice to see. Question is when will they do the frame? That will be one big casting! 
This is an interesting development. I don't understand why they are doing this but to each their own.
J Daddy posted:Wow. Nice to see. Question is when will they do the frame? That will be one big casting!
With today's modern welding technology, there really is no longer a need to attempt to duplicate the "solid one-piece cast frames" including the cylinders. The English and Germans have proved that combining precision casting components into quite large weldments, equals and exceeds the strength of solid one piece cast frames from the "old days", without the high waste famous in those huge castings.
HW, what would the weight difference be between a welded frame and a cast frame?
A T1 would benefit from the extra weight that could be cast into the frame, as long as it stayed under a reasonable axle loading weight, I would think.
steam fan posted:HW, what would the weight difference be between a welded frame and a cast frame?
Might not be buch difference, but probably slightly lighter.
A T1 would benefit from the extra weight that could be cast into the frame, as long as it stayed under a reasonable axle loading weight, I would think.
Not to worry, as lead can always be added within frame members, just as the N&W did with their "enhanced" Y6b locomotives. EMD also added large steel blocks (melted down from traded-in older units) to open areas within the underframe for those customers specifying higher total weights, such as the BN "extra heavy" SD40-2 units assigned to coal service, i.e. 420,000 pounds.
Pretty cool to see, I still don't see where they will operate at if they get this project completed.
Hot Water posted:J Daddy posted:Wow. Nice to see. Question is when will they do the frame? That will be one big casting!
With today's modern welding technology, there really is no longer a need to attempt to duplicate the "solid one-piece cast frames" including the cylinders. The English and Germans have proved that combining precision casting components into quite large weldments, equals and exceeds the strength of solid one piece cast frames from the "old days", without the high waste famous in those huge castings.
Interesting, so the frame will have to be made in Europe with this new precision cast technology, with new welding technique... sounds expensive.
Hopefully they have a mint to cast the gold bars they're gonna need to pay for it! 
J Daddy posted:Hot Water posted:J Daddy posted:Wow. Nice to see. Question is when will they do the frame? That will be one big casting!
With today's modern welding technology, there really is no longer a need to attempt to duplicate the "solid one-piece cast frames" including the cylinders. The English and Germans have proved that combining precision casting components into quite large weldments, equals and exceeds the strength of solid one piece cast frames from the "old days", without the high waste famous in those huge castings.
Interesting, so the frame will have to be made in Europe with this new precision cast technology, with new welding technique... sounds expensive.
No, I didn't say THAT! I stated that the English and Germans have proved that technology works. In fact, check out EMD's latest Tier 4 demonstrators with the lighter weight , and stronger, fabricated three axle truck frames. There are any number of competent companies right here in the good old U.S.A. capable of such high strength welding jobs.
Rule292 posted:Hopefully they have a mint to cast the gold bars they're gonna need to pay for it!
Well, the British didn't seem to have much of a problem raising the millions of Pounds to manufacture the new Tornado, and they are already fund-raising for a second totally new steam locomotive. All it takes is time and people willing to donate.
Who says it has to be done outside the USA....Europe, China, India ....wherever???? There was some talk a while ago about doing the front and rear engines separately and then permanently joining them. In any event, we still have a ways to go before the frame will be needed. It would be most kool, if we could get Juniata Shops to assemble the whole kit, but this is highly unlikely !
Hot Water posted:J Daddy posted:Hot Water posted:J Daddy posted:Wow. Nice to see. Question is when will they do the frame? That will be one big casting!
With today's modern welding technology, there really is no longer a need to attempt to duplicate the "solid one-piece cast frames" including the cylinders. The English and Germans have proved that combining precision casting components into quite large weldments, equals and exceeds the strength of solid one piece cast frames from the "old days", without the high waste famous in those huge castings.
Interesting, so the frame will have to be made in Europe with this new precision cast technology, with new welding technique... sounds expensive.
No, I didn't say THAT! I stated that the English and Germans have proved that technology works. In fact, check out EMD's latest Tier 4 demonstrators with the lighter weight , and stronger, fabricated three axle truck frames. There are any number of competent companies right here in the good old U.S.A. capable of such high strength welding jobs.
Ah then you are specifically talking about a NEW MIG weld technology for Large Weldments on a CNC 6 axis machine for steel plate that is still being developed at our company today... yes than I am with you. Would be cool if this could be use on the T-1.
Hot Water posted:Rule292 posted:Hopefully they have a mint to cast the gold bars they're gonna need to pay for it!
Well, the British didn't seem to have much of a problem raising the millions of Pounds to manufacture the new Tornado, and they are already fund-raising for a second totally new steam locomotive. All it takes is time and people willing to donate.
Most certainly. A group of dedicated folks with passionate interests can accomplish much.
You ready to fire a T1?
"Pretty cool to see, I still don't see where they will operate at if they get this project completed."
I'd suggest the Ohio Central, as much of their right-of-way was where the T-1's originally romped. And they'd have that snazzy AOS backshop nearby!
Jon 
Exciting on it's face, tempered with the fact that it's estimated it will take up to 20 years to do the project and have a completed engine (meaning it will be 25 years, if at all), and most of us probably won't live to see it.
They've built some steam engines from scratch in England, but the only way these things get done within anything approaching a reasonable time frame is with tremendous funding. The T-1 trust estimates 10-20 million dollars (meaning 20 million) to complete the job. Given that, the reality is that it is very possible, even probable, that this project will "run out of steam" at some point in the coming years. It took something like 5 years for the 261 group to get the money together for and do just a required maintenance overhaul of their engine.
Given the many years it would theoretically take to get this engine built, it is useless to speculate on where it would run. Who knows what railroads will look like or how they will operate 25 years from now?
breezinup posted:Exciting on it's face, tempered with the fact that it's estimated it will take up to 20 years to do the project and have a completed engine (meaning it will be 25 years, if at all), and most of us probably won't live to see it.
They've built some steam engines from scratch in England, but the only way these things get done within anything approaching a reasonable time frame is with tremendous funding.
It took something over 10 years for the new Tornado in England.
The T-1 trust estimates 10-20 million dollars (meaning 20 million) to complete the job. Given that, the reality is that it is very possible, even probable, that this project will "run out of steam" at some point in the coming years.
It took something like 5 years for the 261 group to get the millions together just to do a required maintenance overhaul of their engine.
I don't recall it being THAT long for the 261, and it really was NOT a "money issue", but the FRA mandated 15 year inspection was all done with volunteer labor. Same as the SP 4449 FRA mandated inspection, money was NOT an issue, just the volunteer work force.
i've been watching this project through various reports for some time now but this would be my first comments/questions regarding the building of a new T-1 locomotive. Assuming that the group can somehow get the financing, arrange for production, develop designs, locate a proper building, employ a staff of qualified personnel, plus all the other complications connected with building an example of an obsolete form of technology some 60 years after such engines were commonplace, my question is: Why choose the T-1 as the locomotive to replicate? While I'm not a Pennsy fan, per se, I was familiar with the RR through reading about it over the years.
My understanding was that the T-1 was not a particularly successful engine. It only lasted 6 or 7 years in actual service before being scrapped as a complete class. Not one was thought to be important enough to save, unlike the examples of many other Pennsy engines that have been saved. I understand, also, that the engine had traction issues with one or the other of it's driver sets prone to loose traction. i'm also told that because of it's particularly long fixed wheelbase, it was restricted to locations that it could be operated on. Heard other stories about the difficulty in servicing the engine during regular operation.
I understand that they were fast, reported incidents of speeds exceeding 100 mph, are common. But that isn't too unusual for most modern engines with roller bearings, lightweight materials and large driving wheels. Sure, Pennsy fans like to eulogize the T-1, but I just wonder if this was the best choice for a modern replica of a steam engine.
Paul Fischer
Too many people reading too much old RR press. Throw out your 1952 Trains, and get some 2001 onward Keystone..if you really want to know about the PRR T1. This project would never be happening if the prototype was some kind weirded out basketcase......like 90% of Baldwin Diesels !
fisch330 posted:i've been watching this project through various reports for some time now but this would be my first comments/questions regarding the building of a new T-1 locomotive. Assuming that the group can somehow get the financing, arrange for production, develop designs, locate a proper building, employ a staff of qualified personnel, plus all the other complications connected with building an example of an obsolete form of technology some 60 years after such engines were commonplace, my question is: Why choose the T-1 as the locomotive to replicate? While I'm not a Pennsy fan, per se, I was familiar with the RR through reading about it over the years.
My understanding was that the T-1 was not a particularly successful engine. It only lasted 6 or 7 years in actual service before being scrapped as a complete class. Not one was thought to be important enough to save, unlike the examples of many other Pennsy engines that have been saved. I understand, also, that the engine had traction issues with one or the other of it's driver sets prone to loose traction. i'm also told that because of it's particularly long fixed wheelbase, it was restricted to locations that it could be operated on. Heard other stories about the difficulty in servicing the engine during regular operation.
I understand that they were fast, reported incidents of speeds exceeding 100 mph, are common. But that isn't too unusual for most modern engines with roller bearings, lightweight materials and large driving wheels. Sure, Pennsy fans like to eulogize the T-1, but I just wonder if this was the best choice for a modern replica of a steam engine.
Paul Fischer
Paul,
There are various factors reported for the demise of the T-1 as a class. I've heard that they did have a wheel slip problem, but also that the advent of diesels was the primary cause for the short service life. The T-1 was meant to replace the K4s. Electrification of the northeast corridor created a surplus of K4s and L1s locomotives, all of which were pressed into service for World War II. With all these extra engines available after the end of the war and diesels proving themselves economically, it didn't make sense to retain and expand a new class of steamers. As a result, the K4s outlived its potential replacement. Wrong place, wrong time for the T1. That's my understanding.
George
Oooh! One wheel is done.
Not to rain on anybody's parade but this project will never get done at the pace it's moving. I will not donate to a project that will not be done for 20-25 years or more.
Looking more and more like a scam.
G3750 posted:fisch330 posted:i've been watching this project through various reports for some time now but this would be my first comments/questions regarding the building of a new T-1 locomotive. Assuming that the group can somehow get the financing, arrange for production, develop designs, locate a proper building, employ a staff of qualified personnel, plus all the other complications connected with building an example of an obsolete form of technology some 60 years after such engines were commonplace, my question is: Why choose the T-1 as the locomotive to replicate? While I'm not a Pennsy fan, per se, I was familiar with the RR through reading about it over the years.
My understanding was that the T-1 was not a particularly successful engine. It only lasted 6 or 7 years in actual service before being scrapped as a complete class. Not one was thought to be important enough to save, unlike the examples of many other Pennsy engines that have been saved. I understand, also, that the engine had traction issues with one or the other of it's driver sets prone to loose traction. i'm also told that because of it's particularly long fixed wheelbase, it was restricted to locations that it could be operated on. Heard other stories about the difficulty in servicing the engine during regular operation.
I understand that they were fast, reported incidents of speeds exceeding 100 mph, are common. But that isn't too unusual for most modern engines with roller bearings, lightweight materials and large driving wheels. Sure, Pennsy fans like to eulogize the T-1, but I just wonder if this was the best choice for a modern replica of a steam engine.
Paul Fischer
Paul,
There are various factors reported for the demise of the T-1 as a class. I've heard that they did have a wheel slip problem, but also that the advent of diesels was the primary cause for the short service life. The T-1 was meant to replace the K4s. Electrification of the northeast corridor created a surplus of K4s and L1s locomotives, all of which were pressed into service for World War II. With all these extra engines available after the end of the war and diesels proving themselves economically, it didn't make sense to retain and expand a new class of steamers. As a result, the K4s outlived its potential replacement. Wrong place, wrong time for the T1. That's my understanding.
George
I agree with George. Consider that the NYC S-1 4-8-4's were out of work almost as quickly as the PRR T1 4-4-4-4, despite being a conventional design.
Stuart
Hot Water posted:I don't recall it being THAT long for the 261, and it really was NOT a "money issue", but the FRA mandated 15 year inspection was all done with volunteer labor. Same as the SP 4449 FRA mandated inspection, money was NOT an issue, just the volunteer work force.
Down time for the rebuild: 261 was down from Sept. '08 until it ran on it's first excursion after the rebuild in May '13, a total of 4 years and 8 months.
A few quotes about financial problems with the rebuild:
"Railroading Heritage of Midwest America, the non-profit operators of Milwaukee Road 261 and a fleet of passenger cars, are making good progress in rebuilding 261 for operation. Much of the work is being done by volunteers as time and money are available."
During this time, the engine was also sold, then purchased. There wasn't enough money for the rebuild, and significant fundraising efforts were undertaken. This from the 2010 time frame:
"Last fall, the museum (Green Bay) put No. 261 up for sale through broker Sterling Rail for $225,000. It found a taker in a California businessman who hoped to buy the engine and have the friends overhaul and operate it. That deal fell through this March, and the museum then contacted Steve Sandberg, the friends' chief operating officer, offering to sell it. This week, a purchase agreement was signed and the sale went forward.
In a TRAINS interview, Sandberg describes the sale as a winner for both sides. "We're pleased that we were able to purchase 261 and that it can now be overhauled," he said. "While it was not originally our intention to buy the locomotive, after the museum offered it to us, we decided that was the only option if 261 was to run again," he said.
While Sandberg's group now owns the engine, hurdles remain. The group had to use much of the cash it had originally earmarked to restore 261 on the purchase, which means it now doesn't have enough money on hand to complete the rebuild. Sandberg said that while crews will resume work on the 261's rebuild immediately, the group would also concentrate on fundraising."
fisch330 posted:My understanding was that the T-1 was not a particularly successful engine. It only lasted 6 or 7 years in actual service before being scrapped as a complete class. Not one was thought to be important enough to save, unlike the examples of many other Pennsy engines that have been saved. I understand, also, that the engine had traction issues with one or the other of it's driver sets prone to loose traction.
But then, apparently no one thought NYC Hudsons were important enough to save, either. 
I was looking at a little information about the T-1 and it's infamous traction issues. Looking at "the rest of the story" (which people rarely do these days ), apparently there was a relatively minor design problem that was quickly corrected, after which the engines no longer suffered from the problem.
david1 posted:Oooh! One wheel is done.
Not to rain on anybody's parade but this project will never get done at the pace it's moving. I will not donate to a project that will not be done for 20-25 years or more.
Plus by 2036-2041, there may not be any railroad willing to host a steam locomotive.
Rusty
A few thoughts:
1. What if FWRHS had decided not to do the rebuild in the early 2000's because "there may not be any railroad willing to host"?
2. Please carefully read the T1 website. All the supposed issues with this locomotive are addressed.
3. While you are on the website, note some of the persons involved in the project. Off the top of my head, I recall Gary Bensman and Wes Camp, who are two VERY knowledgeable steam locomotive experts.
4. The frame - again, read the website, they've already talked with companies in the USA that can make it.
Is it a big dream? Yes, but a great goal with a true American spirit that could happen. Examples are the locomotives built from scratch in Europe. We can do it too!
Access to this requires an OGR Forum Supporting Membership
