The Pennsylvania Railroad T1 Steam Locomotive Trust

A worthy project, but I would rather see the K4 or an M1 run again - or maybe our Harriman ten wheeler.  Folks still know how to make boilers that size.

I totally agree with bob2. A Pennsy T1, really? 

The choice for the T1 crowd is fairly simple....the NYCS Hudson people have a LOT more, and therein lies the problem.  You'll have to make about seven different Hudsons to satisfy the whole crew!  Me, I want a J1e 5344...exactly like the Lionel 700E, even down to the aluminum grey Roman lettering font !   My only question for the T1 builders is the choice of the Buick front end.  I'm guessing this will get dumped as the loco gets close to final completion.

Why a T1? Because there were enough like-minded people willing to put in the time, money, and effort to get it off the ground. Also, It was a landmark Art-Deco design by probably the most famous industrial designer ever. And it had huge unrealized potential. I can't think of a more appropriate engine to capture both railfan and non-railfan attention. Go big or go home...

Why would anyone interested in trains be AGAINST ANY steam loco being built? You want XYZ to get restored or in this case built? Then get involved. That's the only way it will happen. The T1 is one of my personal favs, but I've also contributed to others that aren't. I don't understand the "Why that one when they could have done what I like. Not getting my money" mentality.

I don't think people really understand how powerful crowd-sourced funding really is. A lot of small donations can generate enormous capital. Think about it... If each person on this forum purchased one less freight car this year and donated to the KickStarter campaign they would likely hit their goal of $20k to cast the wheels.

We wouldn't have the wealth of operating steam that we have now if people just sat back and did nothing. I'm sure Rich could share dozens of stories about getting the 765 back on the rails. Time, Skills, Money... that's what makes a project go. I don't have time or skills right now so I am contributing money.

My personal feeling is that I want to be involved and make my contributions to projects like this, Historical groups, and Tourist RRs so that they are around for generations to come. I want my grand kids and great grand kids to know that I contributed in some small way to keep these treasures around for them to enjoy. That won't put another train on my wall for me to brag about to all my buddies, but it will provided something far more valuable. IMHO...

It's the same reason why there are people who'd give a bundle to such a project if they really want to see that exact type of (extinct) locomotive run again.

You should know how many train fans are, in that they're so focused on a very tight interest, they simply couldn't care less about anything beyond it. Just like some baseball fans love one team but wouldn't cross the street to see any other team playing, even if they were paid to do so. Many train fans are most interested in one railroad, or even one locomotive or car type.

Same reason why many US train fans can't muster much interest in, say, trains running in a different country.

Crazy? Perhaps. But is it something new? Nope, not at all. Any real train buff has seen this countless times.

Not understood by whom?

Interesting to read the replies here, the pro's the cons...

I can understand the need to resurrect a unique part of history - the PRR T-1 was an experimental hot rod steam engine that was the future of steam technology...

However the more I look at this project the more questions I have...

Is this a build to print locomotive?

If so, why spend the money to digitize it? Just send the drawings out and make the parts, assemble and...

If it is a digitized design this would offer other software tools to analyze and perfect its performance such as: Finite Element Analysis, Mold Flow Analysis, Kinematic balancing, optimized tooling, Part verification, fatigue analysis, GD&T... etc...

Thus this newly redesigned locomotive would be more of a "super-locomotive" that would pass regulatory requirements before one dime is spent on tooling?

Is this "system design" complete? And if it is what affect would this have in the Drivers, Drawbars, Steam chest, Frame, bearings, pilot and lead trucks, fire box,and other vital components?

Thus I did not understand just making a set of drivers and say here is our progress, unless the project assessed the complete locomotive, its performance/ requirements, manufacturing feasibility, and its risks...

I know if this was done, it would be nice to hear about it and I would feel much more comfortable about shelling out a few 20's the cause...

I think they need an overall plan and a reasonable percentage of the money committed before they start construction, otherwise they're likely to end up with some really large paperweights!

Go back to Pennsy Power 1   by Stauffer and Pennypacker. Read the T1 section of the book.  Even in this record, if you "read between the lines", the real T1 story starts to come through.   Case: "liked by about half the Enginemen who operated them". and so forth.  Point being....if you were an old hogger with time on the road's E class Atlantics, you were probably going to do well on the T1. E class engines would slip if you just looked at them wrong. The K4s crowd learned different skill sets, and this applied to the shop people as well as operators.  Today's steam crews should do fine with this new Pennsy mill.  Now in all fairness, My J1e Central fantasy chooch would build a little simpler (and cheaper) than the T1, but would lack the warp speed capability that we're all after ! And finally, to put all this in proper perspective, The whole T1 project will still be cheaper than fixing an already built GG1 juice jack....and likely cheaper and quicker than 1361 !

All I know is I've read a lot of conflicting stuff in books, magazines and online over the years about how effective the design was and several people have commented over the years that the T-1s weren't used very well and that the design had issues.

Then you should read the TRUTH by David Stephenson, in that Classic Trains Magazine article.

I did. Along with a bunch of other truth in other magazines over the years. Lots of conflicting stuff out there, something you really should have already known.

Frankly, I'm not sure what to believe about the T-1s...

Obviously they had their share of issues like any other mechanical equipment but, as HW posted earlier, it seems mishandling was also a factor in them receiving bad press from crews who were unable to maximize their capability.

Not any different than putting an inexperienced driver behind the wheel of a AA fuel dragster or a 200 MPH Nascar vehicle. The vehicles won't perform as they should.

I recall reading in either TRAINS or CLASSIC TRAINS some years ago a vignette about an SP crew that was handing off their GS something 4-8-4 to a new crew. The out of service engineer told the new crew that the locomotive was performing terribly and would not steam properly. Seems that a few other SP guys asked the new crew for a lift to their destination somewhere down the road and rode in the cab with the new crew.

The new engineer was a young guy who ran the GS properly and the deadheaders smiled at his success running a "defective" locomotive.

Really?  You're equating an experienced engineer of other PRR steam engines with inexperienced drivers?  The T1 may have had operational differences, but I doubt it was like getting out of a VW and trying to fly a 747!  I think we're branching into fantasy land here.

Yes I am. Having spent a number of years drag racing I have seen firsthand what a difference a driver can make in the same vehicle.

Dave Strickler was able to frequently cut .2 seconds off other drivers times in their own vehicles. 11.8 cut to 11.6 was a tremendous difference. Guys could spend thousands of bucks to get 1/10 of one second improvement.

Well, you would be wrong with that analogy. You don't think putting an Engineer familiar with K4s locomotives isn't that same as going from a VW to a Pro-Stock race car? Comparing a VW to ANY sort of aircraft is obviously ridiculous, since VWs do NOT fly!  But marginal Engineers on K4s locomotives, suddenly thrust into the right hand seat of a T1 with out any appropriate training, was just WRONG! That is exactly what the PRR did, along with the Q2 locomotives as well.

I agree with J Daddy,

Today there exists a numerous array of software tools which could conceivably discover and improve upon the design of the locomotive.  Just as J Daddy noted there are kinematic, fatigue, finite element and flow analysis tools.  However there are also tools available that could be modified to study a locomotive's powertrain performance and fuel efficiency.  Having been in the powertrain simulation business for over 25yrs I've seen a lot of interesting in-house developed software tools that can simulate and predict with incredible accuracy the powertrains engine performance, fuel efficiency, hydraulic, electrical and fluid/solid mechanic behavior.

In short this engines design could be checked out electronically with incredible accuracy. Thus saving potentially thousands of dollars while improving the locomotives performance without the need of a costly prototypes.  

If all this sounds far fetched just look to Boeing, several years ago they designed and built an entirely new plane from scratch via using only software tools and they were able to successfully launch an entirely new plane (x-32?) without having to build ONE prototype.  "Boeing proved that its simulation tools predicted actual in-flight performance within 2 percent or better accuracy. In addition, some predictions were made up to two years prior to the actual flight tests, further underscoring the validity of these processes."

Hopefully the T1 project will meet it's targeted goal of building and running a Pennsy T1. I look forward to the day seeing this thing on the rails.

The Pennsy T1 is my favorite steam engine.  I probably saw one as a little guy.

I would love to see one at this stage of my existence and would definitely sign up for a railfan trip behind the T1 rebuild.

I will contribute to the fund.

Norm

That doesn't surprise me to see you say that you agree with my thoughts BessemerSam. I'm 41 and over the years on this forum I have noticed a pretty big difference in the way I see things and the way most of the Baby Boomer generation members see things. I'm glad to see someone younger than me on here. There is hope for the future

Ok, comment from "Wet Blanketsville": where would the new T1 run?   It's long, fixed wheelbase would require broad curves, which implies mainline trackage. Big railroads are pretty resistant to steam operation. Would they welcome a new entrant with open arms?

I hope that the Boeing analogy re estimating performance "within 2%" did not apply to altitude.....!

The PRR T1's were designed to replace doubleheaded K4's, or, stated simply, were designed to reduce crews by half. I am certain that the potential reductions in crew dispatches were also a contributor to "mishandling".

I do remember a very old Trains magazine, I believe in the smaller format, that contained a short letter to the editor proposing a solution to the slipperiness of the T1. The writer proposed a lower coupler height and adapter to the first car of the train that would reduce the tendency of the T1 to "rear up and slip", which he compared to a horse drawn vehicle. What a lower coupler height would do to reduce tendency to slip is a mystery to me, but his intentions were honorable. The T1's were evidently equipped with an "air assisted throttle" per an early technical writeup. I do not know what this was, but if true it certainly would reduce the feel of the front end throttle, which was new to many PRR enginemen.

Just the difference between a dome throttle and a front end throttle is an order of magnitude.  

Comparing apples to onions:

The T-1 had a rigid wheelbase of 25.25' 

The N&W J has a rigid wheelbase of 18.75'

The NYC S1 4-8-4 had a rigid wheelbase of 20.5'

The Santa Fe 2900 class 4-8-4 had a rigid wheelbase of 21.25'

The Santa Fe 5001 class 2-10-4 had a rigid wheelbase of 26.2' 

So, a T1 should be able to go pretty much wherever the Santa Fe 5001 class could go.

Rusty

Rusty: Would any of these locomotives be welcomed on Class 1 railroads, other then N&W #611? The railroads are not interested in baskets of onions and apples, or steam locomotives intervening in their conveyor belts of profitability!

Who really knows what the class 1 situation will look like in fifteen years.  I do suspect that once the frame and drive pieces are acquired that donations will come a lot quicker.  I'm not too worried about where this locomotive will run at 40 - 45 MPH.. . .. a little more concerned where we can run her at 140 - 145 MPH ! 

Don't get me wrong --- I would be happy if every train in North America was being pulled by T1's!!

In the 15-20 years it would likely take to build the T1, the environment for running any steam locomotive on the main or secondary lines could change, either for the better or the worse. 

In that time, even the mighty NS (assuming it still exists as an independent railroad) may ban all steam from it's rails.

Rusty

Well, does anyone know if you could take a 2-10-4 anywhere on lines where the T-1 might run?

PRR was able to take the T1 to Atlantic City, and Wilkes Barre.  Not sure if a Santa Fe 5001 or 5011 would make it.  Of course this leaves the Sandusky Line wide open !

Can the Chinese still build these things?  They were pretty good at it two decades ago.

They have both been in Louisville, Ky Yards. I believe both may have been turned in the Pennsy yards, in Jeffersonville, not for sure on that one.

I was in the cab of of a J1a, back in the late 40's, in the Louisville Yard.They could turn Decapod's/Mikado's and K-4's on the turn table, but nothing longer. The longer engine/tender config, had to be Y'd.

 Just remember seeing a picture of the T-1 on the office wall of the Master Machinest. He had taken pictures of steam locomotives they had serviced there, or so the story was told.............Brandy!  

IIRC, all the QJ 2-10-2s are fab framers.  Anyway this T1 chooch really needs to be built here, if we're serious about rebuilding a knowledge / experience base for the future.