J Daddy
The PRR ran the Timken locomotive for thousands of miles before it ever made it out the the NP. Why didn't the PRR take that data and profit "off the backs of other railroads that spent engineering and design money" on a fine locomotive like Four Aces?
Two dozen Timken type locomotives could have resulted in the layoff of half the passenger helper crews in Altoona and sent 50 K4s to scrap.
Ted Hikel posted:J Daddy
The PRR ran the Timken locomotive for thousands of miles before it ever made it out the the NP. Why didn't the PRR take that data and profit "off the backs of other railroads that spent engineering and design money" on a fine locomotive like Four Aces?
Two dozen Timken type locomotives could have resulted in the layoff of half the passenger helper crews in Altoona and sent 50 K4s to scrap.
Ted- cannot answer why the PRR did not go forward with new technology developments. Maybe since the K4 was such a successful design? Maybe because Design and Engineering budgets were tight?
The S1 was not a complete failure at the time... otherwise the T-1 would not have been built.
The S1 was the fastest engine that could pull up to 1000 ton trains over 140 mph... no other railroad could claim that... it just could not negotiate the PRR main line radii and the main drivers slipping would tear up its tires... which plagued its service life...
BTW - on paper the NP designed the first Northern and worked with the Timken roller bearing people before it even hit the rails...
T1 was a beauty !! PRR-NS The Juniata Shops !!
jim pastorius posted:T1 was a beauty !! PRR-NS The Juniata Shops !!
Yessiree! Now we are back on topic!
Tom
Kelly Anderson posted:J Daddy posted:The S1 ... it just could not negotiate the PRR main line radii and the main drivers slipping would tear up its tires... which plagued its service life...
Or fit on the turntables at either end of its run, not too handy.
As I understand it, the S1 was built as an advertising stunt to outshine NYC's display at the 1939 World's Fair. Operationally it was an outsized one of a kind orphan that was too big to be a practical fit in the PRR's infrastructure. It's service life was what, about five years?
Actually for a failure it was in service much longer... last run was in 1945, scrapped in 1946... there was a service facility located in Ohio with that had a wye track used to turn it. the facility was up until the mid 2000's then was torn down. It had a elongated stall in the roundhouse especially made for the S1. Now were did I put those photos...
Here we go - Crestline Ohio was the location. When I drove by 2 years ago the roundhouse was torn down. Your can see the S1 in the lower LH corner...outside of its stall.
I think the reason why I like the S1 and T1, as well as the Streamline K4 is that there was at least an attempt to add form to function, especially considering the prevailing economic situation at the time.
Yes, we need to celebrate the creations of this period in the spirit of the men who moved these projects forward.
Charlie
J Daddy posted:Ted Hikel posted:J Daddy
The PRR ran the Timken locomotive for thousands of miles before it ever made it out the the NP. Why didn't the PRR take that data and profit "off the backs of other railroads that spent engineering and design money" on a fine locomotive like Four Aces?
Two dozen Timken type locomotives could have resulted in the layoff of half the passenger helper crews in Altoona and sent 50 K4s to scrap.
Ted- cannot answer why the PRR did not go forward with new technology developments. Maybe since the K4 was such a successful design?
In 1918, yes it was. But by the time the truly "high speed"passenger service to Chicago increased train size for ever increasing passenger capacity, the K4s locomotives had to be doubleheaded, in order to maintain schedule.
Maybe because Design and Engineering budgets were tight?
Then why did they spend so much money on designing/engineering those various duplex locomotives when other railroads were already using and advancing 4-8-4 locomotive designs? Think N&W J Class.
The S1 was not a complete failure at the time... otherwise the T-1 would not have been built.
Well, the T-1 wasn't all THAT successful either. The article written by the late W.A. (Bill) Gardner for Trains Magazine about his experiences with the two new EMD E7A units during the same time the PRR was trying to improve the monthly mileage on the T-1s, is REALLY informative. The T-1 duplexes could produce unbelievable performance, when PROPERLY operated by a VERY experienced and knowledgable Engineer & Fireman, which was NOT the normal situation between Crestline, Ohio, Fort Wayne, Ind., and Chicago.
The S1 was the fastest engine that could pull up to 1000 ton trains over 140 mph... no other railroad could claim that... it just could not negotiate the PRR main line radii and the main drivers slipping would tear up its tires... which plagued its service life...
BTW - on paper the NP designed the first Northern and worked with the Timken roller bearing people before it even hit the rails...
MNCW posted:How is this one?
Tom
Cool looking but, truly a TOTAL DISASTER!!!!!! It could/would break staybolts by the dozens and dozens almost every trip.
Ah yes, the Pennsy! My chosen Prototype to model since starting in O scale 2R. One photo displays my personal choice of the Pennsy at work. As diversified as it was with the multitude of different view of it at work...this particular one with a branchline view just makes me smile...
Bob
Hot Water posted:No other railroad invested in high speed passenger service like the Pennsylvania railroad!
So the New York Central, the Union Pacific, and the Santa Fe railroads were all chopped liver?????
Not to mention the Milwaukee Road :-)
Here is one I just found recently. PRR K4s #5409 @ Trenton in 1947. This engine is awaiting transfer of a passenger consist from a GG-1 from NYC. She is running the Nellie Bly route from NYC to Atlantic City.
I have an MTH Premier 5409 in Tuscan. :-)
Hot Water posted:J Daddy posted:Ted Hikel posted:J Daddy
The PRR ran the Timken locomotive for thousands of miles before it ever made it out the the NP. Why didn't the PRR take that data and profit "off the backs of other railroads that spent engineering and design money" on a fine locomotive like Four Aces?
Two dozen Timken type locomotives could have resulted in the layoff of half the passenger helper crews in Altoona and sent 50 K4s to scrap.
Ted- cannot answer why the PRR did not go forward with new technology developments. Maybe since the K4 was such a successful design?
In 1918, yes it was. But by the time the truly "high speed"passenger service to Chicago increased train size for ever increasing passenger capacity, the K4s locomotives had to be doubleheaded, in order to maintain schedule.
Maybe because Design and Engineering budgets were tight?
Then why did they spend so much money on designing/engineering those various duplex locomotives when other railroads were already using and advancing 4-8-4 locomotive designs? Think N&W J Class.
The S1 was not a complete failure at the time... otherwise the T-1 would not have been built.
Well, the T-1 wasn't all THAT successful either. The article written by the late W.A. (Bill) Gardner for Trains Magazine about his experiences with the two new EMD E7A units during the same time the PRR was trying to improve the monthly mileage on the T-1s, is REALLY informative. The T-1 duplexes could produce unbelievable performance, when PROPERLY operated by a VERY experienced and knowledgable Engineer & Fireman, which was NOT the normal situation between Crestline, Ohio, Fort Wayne, Ind., and Chicago.
The S1 was the fastest engine that could pull up to 1000 ton trains over 140 mph... no other railroad could claim that... it just could not negotiate the PRR main line radii and the main drivers slipping would tear up its tires... which plagued its service life...
BTW - on paper the NP designed the first Northern and worked with the Timken roller bearing people before it even hit the rails...
I believe the Great Depression pretty much put a damper on newly engineered and designed locomotives after the development of the K-5 and M1a ... at this time the main thrust was move towards electrics. When allot of the eastern divisions where electrified, there was a glut of steam locomotives which were moved to the western division, this maybe another reason why the PRR did not move to the newly developed 4-8-4 locomotive.
It also may have have been a factor that the Pennsylvania railroad was working with Baldwin Locomotive Works on the development of the next large steam passenger locomotive and the NP was working with the American Locomotive Company... which was originally spec out as a dual purpose locomotive... fast freight and fast passenger service with larger tonnage.
Hot Water posted:Exactly!
PRR = standard.
All other railroads = Deluxe.
There's more truth to your statement than meets the eye Jack... at least in my opinion.
A good analogy to the PRR would be today's UPS. UPS is pretty "standardized" in their fleet. No show trucks, all work trucks. Nothing fancy, off the shelf single axle and twin screw day cabs and drop bed trailers. Their P&D trucks are their own design with an off the shelf drive train.
Not much different philosophy from the PRR with their equipment. They took solid designs and kept them working. And in many cases, LONG after their design life left them obsolete and worn out.
And I just happened to be along the NEC over the weekend and marveled at the PRR "transportation plant" as described in the immortal words of Al Stauffer.
Mabye not romantic but certainly legendary in size and scope.
Were those comments from the Strasburg guy, right across the road from the shrine? Mercy me. Actually, the PA. deserves a bigger and better museum, with track to run trains, but l guess govt. Is involved. I wonder how many PA. cabooses Brother Love has been commissioned to do? Some of us acquired this PA. xenophobia from seeing train sets with Belpaire steamers and N5c's gaily lettered for the UP, ATSF, and even NYC, this last probably viewed as sacrilege in some quarters. I don't even like Monon cabooses with caved in walls on their cupolas. The problem is not that the PA. was not a great railroad, it was just not the only one.
Rule292 posted:Hot Water posted:Exactly!
PRR = standard.
All other railroads = Deluxe.
There's more truth to your statement than meets the eye Jack... at least in my opinion.
A good analogy to the PRR would be today's UPS. UPS is pretty "standardized" in their fleet. No show trucks, all work trucks. Nothing fancy, off the shelf single axle and twin screw day cabs and drop bed trailers. Their P&D trucks are their own design with an off the shelf drive train.
Not much different philosophy from the PRR with their equipment. They took solid designs and kept them working. And in many cases, LONG after their design life left them obsolete and worn out.
And I just happened to be along the NEC over the weekend and marveled at the PRR "transportation plant" as described in the immortal words of Al Stauffer.
Mabye not romantic but certainly legendary in size and scope.
My father used to say that UPS was run like the military. And as you pointed out, their equipment is all standardized.
My son-in-law works for them in the lower corporate level. He does the public relations for most of the East Coast. He's on call 24/7.
I think it would be fair to state that what made the PRR the "standard railroad of the world" was their commitment to keeping everything consistent that their hands touched., From their rolling stock to their locomotives and their stations to their tunnels everything was very well designed and engineered. Of course the old PRR relics of yesteryear can't hold up today's infrastructure, but for its hey day and when comparing to other railroads, the PRR was definitely in a class of its own.
We can nit pick all day about locomotives and motive power to determine what railroad was best, but IMO that's futile. You have to take a broad spectrum approach. If you just look at motive power, the ATSF, SP, NYC, UP, NKP, and N&W etc. were all a class ahead of the PRR, but in broad areas not typically thought of with railroads like general infrastructure and operations the PRR really showed how its done. I find it no coincidence the Nazis picked Horseshoe Curve as a site to bomb within America. They knew of its engineering importance in the shipping of goods in the American wartime machine and in a way that really speaks volumes to the way the PRR could operate as a business and maintain the bottom line.
Guess the GN was no good because they had locos with Belpaires.
This is a what if, but could PRR taken the J class boiler (2-10-4) and placed it onto a 4-8-4 running gear? Could such an engine fit in some of the tight places PRR passenger trains had to go?
Dominic Mazoch posted:Guess the GN was no good because they had locos with Belpaires.
That has NOTHING to do with the PRR subject!
This is a what if, but could PRR taken the J class boiler (2-10-4) and placed it onto a 4-8-4 running gear?
No.
Could such an engine fit in some of the tight places PRR passenger trains had to go?
No.
I don't know but you would need dimensions to try and figure it out. Maybe someone has them and could help??
Some of my PRR books
Another Pennsy thing .....
The Rockville Bridge is still in service for NS!
There is a video of an NS freight crossing the Rockville on RailPictures.net. Read about the Johnstown Flood and what the PRR did after that. Great history.
Regarding the T1's mileages, be careful what you read and what you believe. As a glaring example of the myths surrounding T1 mileages, I've often cited the above referenced article in January 1979 Trains mag, part of which compared the T1 and two new E7's on test from EMD (pp48-50). It shows how entertaining but unsupported hearsay can get much wider distribution and have more influence than dry, dusty old facts. I’ve found considerable reason to question the quoted T1 mileage during the time from Sept 1945 through April 1946, the 6-month period mentioned in article. During that time, the E7's ran 69,000 miles, about 11,500 miles per month. The author was told that the highest mileage T1 during that period ran only 2,800 miles. According to mileage reports I have from the CMP's office, 5504 was the highest mileage T1 at the time, posting 40,642 miles since its in-service date of 12/5/45. This is an average of about 8,294 miles/month. For the month of April 1946, it posted 10,793 miles, only slightly less than the E7's at that time. Also during April, 5512 posted 11,442 miles and 5508 posted 10,942 miles, also about the same as the E7's. Maximum mileage figures for the T1 fleet stayed in this range until March 1947. I could never understand where the 2,800 mile figure came from. It’s certainly not supported by any existing data.
Offsetting this, the fleet average for the 30 T1's in service in April 1946 was about 7,244 miles/month, substantially less than the two E7's. For comparative purposes, the K4 fleet was averaging about 6,186-7,016 miles per month, based on the previous 3-month's data.
More telling than that, diesel mileage increased as time went by, so that by Oct 1947 the fleet average was about 19,620 miles per month. By this time, T1 fleet's mileage had slowly declined to about 6,738 miles per month. The K4's decline was more significant; they were down to about 4,808 miles per month. So the T1's had a bit more staying power than is sometimes thought. However, the real trend was clear enough with diesels setting the pace going away. It was all over but the shouting, regrettably......
My bad !! The video is on AltoonaWorks.
As far as stumbling in innovation after the 1920's, we have to remember that the Federal Government was deciding what could be developed and by which companies during the years around the World Wars. I have read, the Pennsy held onto steam too long and resisted the change over to diesels. When they did decide to change, they did it with gusto. It is a very interesting study in how businesses adapt to change.
It would be interesting to study the engine fleet size, the average age of the fleet, the investment in their coal facilities and the speed of dieselization. Did the bigger RRs take longer o convert to oil ?? Opinions??
Since the "Standard of the World" was a devoted user of Belpaire boilers, the Grande, the Burlington, GN, SP, UP, Rock, Sou., B&O, C&O, and every other Class 1 went even deeper into debt to replace all their power to meet that "standard" and roll out new fleets of Belpaired locos. Huh, what? They didn't? None of them did? So...How does being an odd duck make one a standard? In the model world they are, for all kinds of roadnames are found in Belpaires and N5c's.,
With all this blathering about a corporate slogan created many years ago, you should consider two facts. First, there is more to railroading than firebox design. Second, WW II(remember that one??) had a significant impact on all railroads, especially the PRR.
At the end of the day every railroad had it's success's and it's failures and we all know which one the world tends to remember.
That standard design for a turntable was still being used by NS at Conway yard a few years ago.
Penn Station Pittsburgh is still a beautiful piece of architecture.
And all those stone arch bridges with the keystone. Panhandle Trail, Midway, PA. Old Pennsy.
You travel the NS main line between Johnstown and Altoona and there are plenty of old PRR stone bridges and overpasses still in use. The steel bridge over the Beaver River which connects New Brighton with Beaver Falls still has the Pennsy name on it and so it goes. The Pennsy still lives.
MNCW posted:Some scenes from the art deco designed Suburban Station, Philadelphia.
Tom
Beautiful piece of architecture. For so many years we took it for granted.
jim pastorius posted:You travel the NS main line between Johnstown and Altoona and there are plenty of old PRR stone bridges and overpasses still in use. The steel bridge over the Beaver River which connects New Brighton with Beaver Falls still has the Pennsy name on it and so it goes. The Pennsy still lives.
I didn't know that Jim, I'll look for it next time I'm up there.
It is on the Beaver Falls side of the bridge.
Access to this requires an OGR Forum Supporting Membership
