was wondering if the PRR S1 duplex ever pulled freight cars when PRR cut off all her skirtting?
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
Nope. When the S1 wasn't in the shop at Crestline, she pulled passenger trains between Crestline, OH and Chicago.
The skirting was taken ( left) off to make maintenance easier when in the shop.
The S2 turbine, however did pull freight trains to obtain performance data.
Originally Posted by pennsyk4:
The skirting was taken ( left) off to make maintenance easier when in the shop.
The S2 turbine, however did pull freight trains to obtain performance data.
I knew about why they took the skirting off for... thought after they took the skirting off they would proubley demote her to freight service? since she dont look good for passenger service.? Id liked it unskirted,looks more meaner..I got my 3rd rail S1 duplex pulling freight cars..because Id thought they did? is that so bad?
Charlie from South Jersey - Was any of the S2 Pennsy turbine freight test data recorded? Any you might be able to share? Sounds interesting! The turbine alledgedly had a pretty high horsepower rating........in forward gear. Alas, in backing, she had the equivalent of a lawn mower motor, so probably would not have been much of a freight locomotive in "real life"!
Originally Posted by mark s:
Charlie from South Jersey - Was any of the S2 Pennsy turbine freight test data recorded? Any you might be able to share? Sounds interesting! The turbine alledgedly had a pretty high horsepower rating........in forward gear. Alas, in backing, she had the equivalent of a lawn mower motor, so probably would not have been much of a freight locomotive in "real life"!
I know that speeds less then 50 mhp it consumes alot of water and coal..anything over 55+ its a speedster..Bet if they changed the fins in the turbine proubley wouldve made a difference.I also have the 3rd rail S2 turine too..
Guys,
The latest issue of the Keystone (PRRT&HS publication) has an in depth article on the S2, including results of test runs, assignments, performance, test dept. results, etc. The main problem that plagued the locomotive and was it's major downfall was not the turbine, but constantly leaking staybolts which affected steam production, thus proper operating steam pressure. Bolts were constantly replaced, only to leak again after a short time.
Google PRRT&HS for information on obtaining a copy of this masgazine.
Buzz
Charlie and joseywales,
What "skirting" are you referring to? I did not know the S2 ever had any.
Originally Posted by mark s:
Charlie from South Jersey - Was any of the S2 Pennsy turbine freight test data recorded? Any you might be able to share? Sounds interesting! The turbine alledgedly had a pretty high horsepower rating........in forward gear. Alas, in backing, she had the equivalent of a lawn mower motor, so probably would not have been much of a freight locomotive in "real life"!
The initial test by Westinghouse indicated a Rail horsepower of 6.600 at 70 mph and 15 psi backpressure.
There were 2 freight runs on the fort Wayne division
April 3, 1945 75 cars, 4,346 tons Chicago to crestline
April 6, 1945 73 cars, 4,538 tons Chicago to Ft Wayne
Keystone Vol45, No3
There were many modifications to the S2 over the time in service.
Some of the lowered the drawbar pull and reil horsepower capability.
Thank you, Charlie! Sounds like she just filled in on assignments regularly handled by M1a Mountains.
Originally Posted by John Sethian:
Charlie and joseywales,
What "skirting" are you referring to? I did not know the S2 ever had any.
The original poster, in his initial post, was discussing the S1, NOT the S2.
I don't have it in front of me, but I recall an anecdote in Don Ball's book, "The Pennsylvania Railroad, 1940's - 1950's" about the S1 pulling a freight at high speed through a small town attracting the attention of the local police. No idea if this was true or just one of the many apocryphal tales attributed to "The Big Engine". If it was used on freights it probably didn't happen often and I have no idea if this was before or after the skirting was removed to allow for easier maintenance.
--Reed
Mark
there are no records of the S2 being assigned to freight service
The four freights of record are with a Dynamometer car to collet data with a heavy train.
In particular the drawbar pull.
Originally Posted by pennsyk4:
Yes, the S1 skirting was removed for easier maintenance and eventually not replaced
T bad the desiners couldnt make the sides flip open like the 20-30 fords and plymonths cars hood..hinged the sides...two ways.. flip the whole side or split it in half and have 2 flip skirts on both side. You would think after making the S1 they wouldve thought of that with the first T1 and Q1..
Originally Posted by Buzz5495:
Guys,
The main problem that plagued the locomotive and was it's major downfall was not the turbine, but constantly leaking staybolts which affected steam production, thus proper operating steam pressure. Bolts were constantly replaced, only to leak again after a short time.
Buzz
As I recall from the story in Classic Trains, when the throttle was opened in starting a train the boiler pressure would briefly go from popping down to about 50 pounds until an equilibrium was reached.
I can see that that woulld be tough on staybolts . . .
EdKing
Josey Wales - Re your hinged panel thought, don't know how other streamlined steam locomotives were designed for ease of maintenance, but the Burlington's 2 stainless steel, streamlined 4-6-4's had lifting, hinged panels as you suggested, by the firebox, which facilitated ash handling and firebox work, or at least so on my PSC Aeolus. Have a friend who's Grandfather was a "Q" engineer who ran the 2 Aeolus locomotives and who said they "sounded like a tin can", rattling at speed! The streamlining went on in '37 and '38; was off by the end of '41. The E5 diesel locomotives arrived in 1940, eliminating the need for Zephyr protection power.
Originally Posted by Edward King:
Originally Posted by Buzz5495:
Guys,
The main problem that plagued the locomotive and was it's major downfall was not the turbine, but constantly leaking staybolts which affected steam production, thus proper operating steam pressure. Bolts were constantly replaced, only to leak again after a short time.
Buzz
As I recall from the story in Classic Trains, when the throttle was opened in starting a train the boiler pressure would briefly go from popping down to about 50 pounds until an equilibrium was reached.
I can see that that woulld be tough on staybolts . . .
EdKing
Historical footnote
The PRR J1's 2-10-4 initially were plagued with leaking staybolts when they first arrived on Lines West and was not do to fluctuations in steam pressure.
I find it hard to believe that PRR never tried the S1 on freight at least once,
most likely when the loco was fairly new. I mean they just had to know what
they'd bought for their 600K+ investment! Just because we can't find a photo
of it doesn't mean it never occured. As for Jays with leaky stay bolts, this was
almost certainly a contractor issue, or (highly doubtful) a workmanship issue.
The C&O T1 didn't have a bad rep for staybolt problems, although it did happen.
Guys,
The most important thing to always remember about the PRR is never to say "never". As soon a you do someone will find the exception.
I believe all the J1 & J1a locomotives were built at Altoona (Juniata) so there were no outside contractors involved in the major construction. Small parts such as generators, injectors, feedwater heaters, etc, etc. were bought, but the general fabrication and assembly was done "in house". Also, they were built during the war years so some of the skilled labor force might have been serving their country, not building locomotives.
Buzz
Originally Posted by Buzz5495:
Guys,
The most important thing to always remember about the PRR is never to say "never". As soon a you do someone will find the exception.
I believe all the J1 & J1a locomotives were built at Altoona (Juniata) so there were no outside contractors involved in the major construction. Small parts such as generators, injectors, feedwater heaters, etc, etc. were bought, but the general fabrication and assembly was done "in house". Also, they were built during the war years so some of the skilled labor force might have been serving their country, not building locomotives.
Buzz
I think what the guys ment by contractor, really to me the manufactor of the bolts where the proublem..you would think just one company makes them? I know one proublem with the S1 and T1 was wheelslipages.. Do to designer putting to much of the weight on the trucks..bet if they made the trucks 1"shorter in hight the trains wouldve have great traction and maybe articulated it too...And the T1 wouldve replaced the popit valves with a different version.
Reduced weight on the drivers..or axle loadings, if you prefer, was part of the
T1 formula by descision in Philly. Could they have used a bit more weight?
Sure! The T1s with bushed cylinders picked up some additional weight plus
reduced TE, for an increased factor of adhesion. #5500 also retained her
internal gearboxes and non occilating equipment within her frames, plus the
weight of the Franklin Rotary B gear, to produce a hefty increase in weight
over a "standard" T1. I'd guess about 8-10K lbs. #5547, with piston valves
may have picked up additional poundage via her conversion a year later.
Tales of T1 slipperiness are largely the result of misshanding by extra board
K4 crews, with little or no experience on the road's E class Atlantics...a
slippery class of chooch if there ever was one! Had the Tees been built
some ten, or even five years earlier, they would have been touted as a
big success, but Diesels would have killed them in the same time frame
anyway.
Jaygee,
Look for Classic Trains' Steam Glory 3 special this fall. Feature article on the PRR T1. Will confirm what you just posted.
