We're getting off track here (as usual). The motion on the floor is to build a new replica of a T-1, not to debate whether that's the best way to perpetuate steam operation, or what any individual would prefer to see / ride behind / complain about in the future.

Take the concept as a given - now, what is your response to the manner in which it is being approached? Bruce and I are uncomfortable with the lack of depth and detail about the idea as presented. Ross seems to know more but won't reveal it. The principal of the project either has nothing more of substance to present as of yet, or is keeping it secret for his own purposes. No presumption of impropriety is meant in this statement.....there may be good reasons to not divulge details at this time.

So. what would make you want to support this broad conceptual idea? What would make you not want to do so? this is the kind of feedback that the nameless principal of the project would find useful in terms of deciding whether or how to proceed.

dave

While I appreciate the complimentary posting of Mr. Wilkins and the operating suggestion of Mr. Wowack I want to be clear that I am not endorsing this concept per se and only wanted to say that I have spoken with the individual behind the idea and have found him to be a credible person.

This is certainly a long shot idea but then again so was the Tornado when it was first discussed.

In the interest of truth I must admit that if I hit the lottery my first choice for building a from scratch steam locomotive would be a NYC 6000.

No harm in dreaming.

Ross Rowland

PRR5550, just wondering where do you stand with this project? I this something new or have you actually done any homework and or research on the actual locomotive including spending any length of time trying to gather as much info on the
T1 locomotives as possible? One of the things I found interesting reading about the T1s is that they said that the poppet valves had some metallurgy issues that made them a real problem to use at speeds above 100mph but yet at the same time that crews would routinely bring the locomotives up to very high speeds to make up for lost time resulting in very expensive maintenance bills.

Just wondering if part of your plans would involve fixing those issues? As I wrote before sadly you are a few years too late as the primer T1 expert Ed Woodings is no more. On the other hand as a metallurgical engineer experienced with all sorts of modern aerospace alloys I would think if anyone knew how to rectify the problem or had a better understanding Ed would have been your guy. Did you ever get the chance to meet Ed and gain his insight into the project? I am also really curious as to what caused the wheel slippage issues the locomotive had and what if anything could be done to rectify this is you were to build another one today?

How long have you been researching/working on this one or is the website as far as you have gotten?

There must be something wrong with my calendar. It only shows one April 1st per year, which is obviously not enough. When did that get fixed?

I guess Hicks Car Works won't be bidding on this job! :P

Steve

If those alterations are made, it is no longer a replica of a T1. It is something like a T1 that no longer acts like a T1. The slipping was caused by insufficient adhesion, which is the leading cause of all slippage.

dave

Alright Dave, but look at it like this; why would a railroad host a locomotive, even if built from new, if the problems with the design aren't addressed to make the locomotive safer to operate?

Wait... I thought the slipping was because the crews that ran them most of the time lacked the experience of operating a duplex versus engines like the K4s and the L1s, etc.

IMO this whole thing is a non-starter. This is the USA, not the UK.

There would definitely be some changes and that's fine. For example, you may not be able to get the same roller bearings anymore. Correcting a known maintenance issue or for reasons of safety, regulations, or just to realistically be able to build the thing today are all fine.

But changes to the basic characteristics of the machine would kind of defeat the purpose of building one. You'd have to think long and hard about that.

In fact I've always wondered what would happen if you could connect the two drive units. Obviously, if you did that then it's no longer a T1. But perhaps a better machine. Here's a little bit of armchair steam engineering. Suppose you put gears on the 2nd and 3rd drive axles and connected them via a shaft passing through the 2nd cylinder saddle. Little power flow under normal conditions but it would have to be robust enough when one unit loses its grip on the rails. The advantage would be that it is pretty much invisible and can be disconnected if you want to experience the true T1 to see what it can and cannot do. Then hook it up and see if it's better when no drivers can slip unless they all do.

Steve

More to the point, I'm sure Dave Kloke won't be either, and he's the only one around who has built new working locomotives. But of course he's smart enough to choose small, early designs that can actually be fabricated in a machine shop. We're never going to see an operating T1 -- you know it, I know it, everybody else knows it, even the optimistic David Wilkins....

By the way, if I were running this hoax, I would have chosen the S1 instead, but that's just me.

Alright Dave, but look at it like this; why would a railroad host a locomotive, even if built from new, if the problems with the design aren't addressed to make the locomotive safer to operate?[/quote]

Why would it host a foreign steam locomotive in any case, new or restored? Apart from flaky foamy proposals not deserving of serious consideration, in for a penny in for a pound.

If you include changes, it isn't building a replica T1 any more. This is fine, and practical.....but then let's not call it a replica T1. Let's call it a T1a. Let's also be clear about that from the initial announcement on for clarity and integrity.

About crews knowing how to run them......it is true that even slippery locomotives can be eased into motion with careful handling, but at some point the ability to control the power applied overcomes the totality of factor of adhesion and rolling resistance of the load...at which time any amount of skill isn't enough to counteract the laws of physics. So, my comment was sort of tongue in cheek, since slipping is by definition a lack of adhesion......which can be caused by many factors such as greasy rails, no sand, poor handling and engineering issues. I've driven a small mallet and starting the front engine could break loose and spin while the rear engine alone started the train - so, not just a duplex design issue.

dave

I have lots of thoughts here. I first read this proposal yesterday morning, and the whole thread 'grew' (exploded?) while I was at work. Most of my thoughts have been already expressed, (who is we, how much will it cost, where will it run, etc.), but if its a not-for- profit organization, shouldn't the 501C3 already have been in place before going public? It would greatly add to the group's creditability.

I agree with all the others who feel that something like an NYC Hudson, or else some other 'lost', but more successful design, would be a far better endeavor. Or else 'adopt' some already existing locomotive, as suggested. Something like an NKP Berk can run on just about any mainline, not so A PRR T1.

From what I have read, preservation in Great Britain is much more organized than over here. I remember reading that the A1 group had people all over the country making weekly pledges; I believe one of the pledge levels was equated to giving up a pint of beer at the local pub per week. I don't think you could get the American railfan to make that commitment. And how much support will the typical West-coaster (UP, SP, WP fan, et al) give to a PRR project?

Going back to the first page, there was the idea expressed that the T1 was articulated; not so for the real one, but the Penn Line, Bowser version was. Perhaps that articulation could solve some of the tracking and wheel slip issues, but like changing the metallurgy or roller bearings the engine would become a T1a, not a T1.

I've been taught to never say never, but this one seems unlikely...

For the record, there were minor design changes made to the A1 Tornado replica in the U.K. I seem to recall that one change was a fabricated frame instead of a cast frame. Now, of course, none of these were of the nature of changing a 4-4-4-4 into a 4-8-4, or changing valve gears or whatever.

The justification made at the time by the A1 chaps was that this was a simple "continuation" of the "construction program"--that had loco construction continued, running changes would have been made just as they are incorporated into modern automobiles midway through production years/cycles as various parts are improved or flaws discovered.

Remember that the ultimate objective of the A1 Project was not simply to replicate an A1 Pacific. It was also to produce a main line capable steamer that the TOCs (train operating companies) and Network Rail couldn't find an excuse to ban from their lines. Therefore, modern touches like roller bearings were mandated. Mind you, they've never been as Draconian in their standards as companies like CSX, UP, or whatever, but still.......

Alexander beat me to it, according to Wikipedia the following changes were made to the A1 design in England;


I hardly think using a more modern material to improve life on some high wear parts in a poppet valve assembly that no one but its creators and maintainers would ever see with some more modern material, or perhaps using a little modern Finite Element Analysis to correct for some original issues would be anything but prudent practice in making a replica locomotive. A whole lot has happened in the world of metallurgical and mechanical engineering since 1930's-1940's .

In my opinion fixing known flaws that doomed the locomotive wherever possible would not only be good design practice but mandatory to this project. Maintaining these locomotives in revenue service was expensive and in fact eventually what doomed them, so wouldn't it be only smart that an organization looking to make and actually run a new one fix these wherever possible?