T1 Trust Acquires Tender

I think that's great news. I'd love to see an operational T1, which is a beautiful machine and the only Duplex design that made sense.

That tender appears to be a 210F75 with the F meaning freight. It isn't the correct tender for a T1. The tender in the photo was used on I1s, J1, M1 etc, class locomotives. The T1 tender didn't have the notch at the front of the coal bunker as well as many other things that were different such as rounded coal boards and water cistern.

One thing in common was the 4 axle trucks.

I did see one real T1 running in service in about 1950 coming in to Baltimore over the Northern Central. Many folks have told me I am wrong about that as the turntable at Orangeville (Baltimore) could not handle a T1. They are correct but seem to forget the wye that was there also. 

Check out old issues of the PRR T&HS magazine and you will find that the initial T1 tests were performed between Baltimore and Wilmington or Philadelphia as I recall with the T1 backing out of Baltimore station. 

Some days it is good to be old.

Obviously the T1 trust group are pleased with it. Not a lot to choose from.

I hope they really don't need to use all of this time to finish this project!

The Pennsylvania Railroad (PRR) T1 Steam Locomotive Trust is pleased to announce its purchase of the only surviving PRR long haul tender from the Western New York Railway Historical Society (WNYRHS). The tender was purchased on very favorable terms and an agreement was created whereby the tender can be stored at the WNYRHS facility for up to 30 years at a cost of $1 per year.

I'm guessing if they get to a place where they can use the tender that they'd attempt to do some mods to bring it closer to the prototype at that point.

This question is posed with limited knowledge of Pennsy practice, so please limit the drubbing! Might the T1's tender merely be a streamlined version of the 210F75 ?

Good luck to them I say!!  Over here in the uk it is quite common to see something similar modified to re-create the original or at least look right. I hope they succeed.

mark s posted:

This question is posed with limited knowledge of Pennsy practice, so please limit the drubbing! Might the T1's tender merely be a streamlined version of the 210F75?

They look very close when comparing from images.

Perhaps some applied sheet metal and the T1 folks have a reasonable facsimile ?

Or they will just use the trucks on a tender to be built? 

But they still do not have a Jurassic Park to run the thing even if it gets built.

Hullmat991,

The photo you displayed is of the tender from 6200, the S2 turbine. Notice the notches for the locomotive cab roof overhang. The T1 tenders did not have those notches as there was no cab roof overhang from the locomotive.

Dominic Mazoch posted:

But they still do not have a Jurassic Park to run the thing even if it gets built.

Read their website. These guys know what they are doing. They have gotten "letters of intent" from at least 3 "big steam" operators WITH track to run it. 

SJC posted:

Dominic Mazoch posted:

But they still do not have a Jurassic Park to run the thing even if it gets built.

Read their website. These guys know what they are doing. They have gotten "letters of intent" from at least 3 "big steam" operators WITH track to run it. 

Also note the professionals involved with the project are not steam novices, rather people with great resumes.   Is it a huge, risky project?   Sure, but Europe has built new locomotives.   I'd give them money before some other groups trying to restore existing locomotives. 

Originally posted by Mark S:

Perhaps some applied sheet metal and the T1 folks have a reasonable facsimile ?

My sentiments exactly! Hey they did it with the F59... why not this tender?

rheil posted:

Hullmat991,

The photo you displayed is of the tender from 6200, the S2 turbine. Notice the notches for the locomotive cab roof overhang. The T1 tenders did not have those notches as there was no cab roof overhang from the locomotive.

Oops. Thanks for that catch. I guess this is why google shouldn't be trusted for everything. 

This will no doubt be cheaper in  the long run than working to restore the tender they were looking at in Coatesville.  I would buy the Coatesville unit anyway just to get a spare frame and trucks for this project.  After seeing how quickly they got the cab together, this tender conversion should be relatively simple

I wish them the best of luck. Pennsylvania T1 would be a sight to see.

jaygee posted:

This will no doubt be cheaper in  the long run than working to restore the tender they were looking at in Coatesville.  I would buy the Coatesville unit anyway just to get a spare frame and trucks for this project.  After seeing how quickly they got the cab together, this tender conversion should be relatively simple

Where in Coatesville is it ?

SJC posted:

Dominic Mazoch posted:

But they still do not have a Jurassic Park to run the thing even if it gets built.

Read their website. These guys know what they are doing. They have gotten "letters of intent" from at least 3 "big steam" operators WITH track to run it. 

A letter on intent is not a full contract.  But it is better than nothing.

If built it might answer some questions about the engine being so slippery.

 The song SLIP SLIDING AWAY comes to mind when the subject of the T1 comes up.

Dominic Mazoch posted:

SJC posted:

Dominic Mazoch posted:

But they still do not have a Jurassic Park to run the thing even if it gets built.

Read their website. These guys know what they are doing. They have gotten "letters of intent" from at least 3 "big steam" operators WITH track to run it. 

A letter on intent is not a full contract.  But it is better than nothing.

If built it might answer some questions about the engine being so slippery.

 The song SLIP SLIDING AWAY comes to mind when the subject of the T1 comes up.

Another uninformed post. You obviously have not read up on much of the more recent technical articles on the PRR T-1, over the last few years.

A steel mill in Coatesville Pa. ( I don't know the company offhand, but this was covered on the Trust website a while back)....has the cast frame and trucks from what likely was a T1 tender.  There were even photos of it around.   The NY tender will save the trust a boatload of extra work.

and $$

I don't see anything but good coming out of the deal of the T1 group getting this tender. RRs swapped tenders all the time and not very many around waiting to bepicked up.

I can tell you this, if the T1 get's built and runs, I could give a flip less what tender is attached to it.  It would be optimal for it to be near exact to the original, but to me not a show stopper by any means.

These guys keep on surprising me, pleasantly so, and I will keep watching.  I love the T1, my second favorite streamliner.  Since my first favorite already runs being a daylight GS4, this would be some real icing on the cake.

This group seems well qualified and is constantly making progress, so I am enjoying the run so far.

TexasSP posted:

I can tell you this, if the T1 get's built and runs, I could give a flip less what tender is attached to it.  It would be optimal for it to be near exact to the original, but to me not a show stopper by any means.

These guys keep on surprising me, pleasantly so, and I will keep watching.  I love the T1, my second favorite streamliner.  Since my first favorite already runs being a daylight GS4, this would be some real icing on the cake.

This group seems well qualified and is constantly making progress, so I am enjoying the run so far.

I think it's safe to assume the Trust will have all the body and fender work done to reconfigure the tender to (or near) T1 specs.  It's simple compared to getting the locomotive itself built.

And yeah, the trust is surprising me, too.

Rusty

Rusty Traque posted:

TexasSP posted:

I can tell you this, if the T1 get's built and runs, I could give a flip less what tender is attached to it.  It would be optimal for it to be near exact to the original, but to me not a show stopper by any means.

These guys keep on surprising me, pleasantly so, and I will keep watching.  I love the T1, my second favorite streamliner.  Since my first favorite already runs being a daylight GS4, this would be some real icing on the cake.

This group seems well qualified and is constantly making progress, so I am enjoying the run so far.

I think it's safe to assume the Trust will have all the body and fender work done to reconfigure the tender to (or near) T1 specs.  It's simple compared to getting the locomotive itself built.

No doubt.  I was just illustrating the point that in the grand scheme of this project the tender is small potatoes in comparison.

And yeah, the trust is surprising me, too.

Rusty

The real learning curve will be how do you run a steamer with poppet valves?

Dominic Mazoch posted:

The real learning curve will be how do you run a steamer with poppet valves?

Why would there be a difference for the Locomotive Engineer?

mark s posted:

Perhaps some applied sheet metal and the T1 folks have a reasonable facsimile ?

looks like that is their plan. This is from their website:

Dominic Mazoch posted:

The real learning curve will be how do you run a steamer with poppet valves?

The same way you run a steam locomotive with ANY type of valve gear. It has a power reverse and you have to set the cutoff properly as the locomotive accelerates.

From the engineer's point of view, there isn't much difference.

I often wondered why poppet valves weren't adopted sooner on steam engines. According to a research article I read, the sliding valve like earlier steamers used weren't as efficient.  Maybe cost & maintenance was a factor ??

jim pastorius posted:

I often wondered why poppet valves weren't adopted sooner on steam engines. According to a research article I read, the sliding valve like earlier steamers used weren't as efficient. 

First, "slide valves" had to be replaced with spool valves, when superheating was developed and adopted. The older "slide valves" could NOT handle the seriously increased steam temperatures of superheated steam.

Maybe cost & maintenance was a factor ??

Absolutely! Maintenance of the poppet valve operating/drive system was higher maintenance, although probably offset by the increases in efficiency of steam usage.

One of the things I am impressed with these folks is they seem to be pragmatic, they aren't it looks like insisting that everything be exactly the same as the original, ie that things be cast versus forged, that the tender be rivet by rivet identical and so forth. The point of this is to build a working T1, and if the paint isn't lead based, if the drivers use modern alloys, if there are 10 rivets/inch while the original had 9, if the valve gear is slightly different, if they have some kind of high tech monitoring of the systems on the engine, so what? If they get this off the ground and running we will be seeing something that is a working version of what once ran the rails. Rivet counting and authenticity is all great and good, but i kind of wonder how many projects in anything don't happen because of people fighting over 'what is authentic'. Drove me nuts in the car world (Yes, I understand that matching numbers and original equipment makes a car more valuable, but on the other hand a car is something made to be driven and driving a 60's muscle car with high quality disk brakes, a good suspension, added fuel injection, good quality radial tires,makes driving it more fun, and the purists may not like it, I might not be able to get top dollar, but I likely would drive the car until I dropped dead anyway and the amount it got or didn't get wouldn't matter to me). If these guys can build an engine that runs, that I can hear its whistle and see it roaring down the tracks again, none of that matters; and if compromising means getting it running versus searching for the correct rivets or wheels or tender and paying a ton of money that could be used for other things, compromise is the way to go

Speaking of slide or D valves, I ran across this interesting comment by John H. White Jr. in his excellent book American Locomotives: An Engineering History. 1830 -1880  (p. 203).

"The ordinary D valve suffered from one major defect. That was the rapid wear of the valve seat and the friction generated because of the great pressure exerted on the top of the valve body by the steam. An ordinary locomotive might have a "load" of from 8 to 10 tons on each valve and expend 25-30 horsepower to work each valve.   ..."

"According to a test performed by the Central Railroad of New Jersey in 1886, the rapid wear of ordinary slide valves was given as one thirty-second of an inch for every 6,000 miles. ... The same railroad recorded only one thirty-second of an inch of wear for to 65,000 miles when balanced valves were used."

White goes on to say that a lot of patents and designs for "balanced" slide valves (in which steam would not bear down on the top of the valve) were introduced, but none was universally accepted or adopted, partly because of expense, and partly because of technological advances.  "Before a balance slide valve had firmly established itself, it was superseded by the piston valve about 1910."

bigkid posted:

One of the things I am impressed with these folks is they seem to be pragmatic, they aren't it looks like insisting that everything be exactly the same as the original, ie that things be cast versus forged, that the tender be rivet by rivet identical and so forth. The point of this is to build a working T1, and if the paint isn't lead based, if the drivers use modern alloys, if there are 10 rivets/inch while the original had 9, if the valve gear is slightly different, if they have some kind of high tech monitoring of the systems on the engine, so what? 

Yes, they're certainly taking a page out of the "Tornado" UK crew's playbook. Those folks decided to make a modern locomotive that was, in their eyes, what British Rail would build today if they'd wanted a new loco of that class with the modern techniques and materials. And they got something that appears to be quite reliable and capable of well over 100 MPH as they proved recently.

I see the T-1 group doing something along the same lines for their overall concept. Very smart of them.

I must be honest, I laughed at the overall idea as a pipe dream, same as many others. Now, I'm not laughing and I wish them well. I think they really could make this happen if everything falls into place and the money doesn't stop flowing.

This discussion prompts a question:    Pennsy M1a 4-8-2's and I1sa's showed up with 210F75 tenders in the last days of steam employment. These were not original tenders as the decs had 8 wheel tenders and the M1's had 8 wheel and 12 wheel versions, when built. What locomotives donated these tenders? Q2 4-4-6-4's? Might a T1 tender have made it to an I1 (the ultimate in ironies !)  ?

While the S1 Duplex tender wound up on an I1sa, this was unusual with the larger tanks. AFAIK, the T1 as a class were sold to the two scrappers in Sharpsburg intact with original tenders. The Penn built a number of these 210 series tanks for use with both I1 and M1 class locomotives shortly after the war.  Of course the deck height had to be correct for the locomotive applied.  The J1 tanks were never swapped to other classes.  Some of the 210 series had stoker motor provision on the starboard side, hence the "a" and "b" sub classes.

mark s posted:

This question is posed with limited knowledge of Pennsy practice, so please limit the drubbing! Might the T1's tender merely be a streamlined version of the 210F75 ?

Mark, you hit on the right answer, or so an old friend of mine that worked at the engine hvy service facility in Indianapolis Indiana back in the early 50's on until his retirement......I sent this to his family to show him, and basically ask him what his take was ?...The 1st thing he said was that the tender was in fact designed for freight engines, and modified for some of the big passenger engines, which was done at the initial New Construction, and not some after thought......For what ever this is worth........!