Railway Preservation News
http://www.rypn.org/forums/

PRR T1 Build Update
http://www.rypn.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=40050
Page 6 of 9

Author:  M Austin [ Sun Feb 04, 2018 1:43 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: PRR T1 Build Update

Baldwin's magic mass production number was 10.

Attachment:
magic10.jpg
magic10.jpg [ 175.55 KiB | Viewed 1819 times ]

Author:  PMC [ Sun Feb 04, 2018 5:56 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: PRR T1 Build Update

M Austin wrote:
Baldwin's magic mass production number was 10.



That's interesting. What do you suppose they would have done with a frame for a single model like this one, or had they stopped agreeing to one-offs by that point?

Author:  david griner [ Sun Feb 04, 2018 7:26 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: PRR T1 Build Update

Actually, the Baldwin Magazine, Vol. 2, Number 2 (Second Quarter, 1945), page 7, notes that BLW considered using a welded frame but elected to go with the cast frame.
Dave

Author:  Kelly Anderson [ Sun Feb 04, 2018 7:29 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: PRR T1 Build Update

filmteknik wrote:
The biggest concern has always been the frame. Have they determined if the capability to cast such a large, complex shape still exists anywhere in the world?

That ability has gone away simply because it is obsolete and not needed any more. If you need a large complex shape today, you weld it together. PRR was experimenting with fabricated cylinder blocks in the 1930's. There was no shortage of large steel foundries back then, so why would they have bothered? Because they recognized that fabricated construction promised many advantages over castings. Advantages that are routinely exploited today.

Rest assured that if Rudolph Diesel had choked on a sausage as a young man, and the big three were still building steam locomotives today, you can be sure that their frames would be built up by welding together steel shapes.

Author:  Rick Rowlands [ Sun Feb 04, 2018 8:00 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: PRR T1 Build Update

For an example of what is possible with steel weldments, just Google image search "heavy weldments".

HK Porter was a pioneer in welded steam locomotive frames. J&L 58's frame is a heavy weldment.

Author:  Overmod [ Sun Feb 04, 2018 10:13 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: PRR T1 Build Update

Quote:
"M Austin wrote:
Baldwin's magic mass production number was 10."


But this is for boilers, which have no relation to modern frames whatsoever. Furthermore, they apply to the sets of tools used to form the boiler plate for riveted construction, something that wouldn't apply anywhere to 5051.

As a potentially interesting aside, a similar set of progressive dies is used in forming the eyes of Timken light-alloy rods. Precise drawings and information for these exists in the N&W archives, and this qualifies as an 'intermediate stage' between the absence of the tooling and, as Baldwin noted, the existence of the tooling from a previous order.

Baldwin obtained cast beds from its subsidiary in Granite City, and I do not know by how much (if at all) the cost of one of the 25 T1s they produced was reduced by having all the cores and patterns made up to make the beds. None of that is even remotely relevant to the situation involved with making a new cast-bed equivalent. And certainly Baldwin provided plenty of bids for locomotives (or via GSC even for individual cast beds for other people's projects) in small quantities.

Author:  Kelly Anderson [ Mon Feb 05, 2018 12:20 am ]
Post subject:  Re: PRR T1 Build Update

The only time that I know of where a minimum order came from Baldwin was (going from memory only) I recall reading that the White Pass approached them for a couple (?) of new 2-8-2's in 1952. Baldwin had been out of the steam locomotive business since 1949, and replied that a minimum order of ten locomotives was needed to justify reopening steam locomotive production. White Pass declined and bought the GE shovel nose diesels instead.

Author:  Robby Peartree [ Mon Feb 05, 2018 10:17 am ]
Post subject:  Re: PRR T1 Build Update

david griner wrote:
Actually, the Baldwin Magazine, Vol. 2, Number 2 (Second Quarter, 1945), page 7, notes that BLW considered using a welded frame but elected to go with the cast frame.
Dave



Yes and some people at the Nevada Northern considered welding on flat spots on a tire until the issues of doing that were understood. Just because something was considered and mentioned in an article does not make it feasible.

Robby Peartree

Author:  Overmod [ Mon Feb 05, 2018 11:27 am ]
Post subject:  Re: PRR T1 Build Update

Quote:
"Just because something was considered and mentioned in an article does not make it feasible."


Suggest you carefully read the patent PRR filed regarding the transformation of the T1 to the "T1a", with specific reference to attaching the new valve chests, and then come back here and try to make the implicit claim they 'didn't know enough about welding then' again.

Now, based on my somewhat cursory understanding of Baldwin diesel history, I'd tend to doubt Baldwin advising a fabricated instead of GSC-cast frame for this locomotive, in the absence of more specific evidence that it was more than a wild-hair idea. I can see some 'justice' for the idea based on the frame distortion forces being much less, nominally, in the duplex configuration than for the equivalent-capacity 4-8-4. But it flies in the face of the by-then-established value of the precise assured alignment that the cast beds would provide. (And it essentially short-routes a Baldwin subsidiary.)

What possible relevance this could have to 21st-century practice with effective controlled-atmosphere, directed preheating, and laser keyhole welding is, at best, head-in-the-sand obscure to me.

Author:  DWH [ Mon Feb 05, 2018 12:37 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: PRR T1 Build Update

Robby Peartree wrote:
david griner wrote:
Actually, the Baldwin Magazine, Vol. 2, Number 2 (Second Quarter, 1945), page 7, notes that BLW considered using a welded frame but elected to go with the cast frame.
Dave



Yes and some people at the Nevada Northern considered welding on flat spots on a tire until the issues of doing that were understood. Just because something was considered and mentioned in an article does not make it feasible.

Robby Peartree


The Navy welded armor plate on new/damaged battleships. Certainly more than feasible.

Author:  joe6167 [ Mon Feb 05, 2018 4:15 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: PRR T1 Build Update

I've seen some massive weld repairs on the frames of several of the CNR engines that I've crawled around, from 2-6-0's all the way up to Northerns.

Attachments:
IMG_6287.jpg
IMG_6287.jpg [ 315.79 KiB | Viewed 1024 times ]

Author:  Robby Peartree [ Mon Feb 05, 2018 10:54 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: PRR T1 Build Update

Dear Overmod.

Place yourself where Baldwin was when the T-1 were developed. It is during WWII, development of new techniques is limited due to the war effort. The only thing everyone has in large quantities is demand for war effort products. Are you going to spend the time on developing weldaments or are going to use a casting operation that has already proven efficient and the industry is perfectly capable of producing a good product without much development. What would you have chosen? Now, your company’s magazine needs to show that you are forward thinking and working to reduce costs, would you put in the magazine that you considered something “innovative” no matter how long you considered the process. Absolutely you would put it in there. The N&W developed the movie “Modern Coal Burning Steam locomotive” to help explain their continued use of steam over the new diesel.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gH_o5xZ8wRU

Dear DWH,

They also built a lot of liberty ships by an all welding technique. Some did well some did not.
https://metallurgyandmaterials.wordpres ... -failures/

Dear Joe6167

I have seen some impressive welding where Baldwin was doing thermite welding on new locomotives on the El Paso & Northeastern 2-6-2. While welding frames is nothing new, the use of welding was closely monitored by the railroad community. Remember at this time a fully welded boiler would then be heat treated to reduce internal stress. Seeing that they used casting over welding may speak to many issues.

The era this work was done in is very different than today and that may very well have driven the decision process in ways we may never know.

Robby Peartree

Author:  Stationary Engineer [ Tue Feb 06, 2018 12:19 am ]
Post subject:  Re: PRR T1 Build Update

The liberty ships show that when you try to do something new, there is a learning curve. An early British jet airliner had somewhat similar design flaw of square corner windows, and at least one of them crashed. At least we can learn from the failures of the past. Someday there maybe a need to build a one off steamer for a tourist line. Welding maybe cheaper than casting. PRR fabricated some drivers by welding. It would be nice to know how long they lasted in service.
Tom Hamilton

Author:  Dougvv [ Tue Feb 06, 2018 2:02 am ]
Post subject:  Re: PRR T1 Build Update

Hi,

IIRC, theT1 Trust already made sure they had a place to cast the frames before embarking on this quest.

I think I'll not worry about the casting of frames at this time.

Doug vV

Author:  Randy Musselman [ Tue Feb 06, 2018 7:08 am ]
Post subject:  Re: PRR T1 Build Update

Hello,

In the late 1980's in my 1st job out of school, the company where I was employed routinely poured stainless steel castings in the 2000-3000 lb range. They constantly struggled with porosity and had to air arc the the defective areas, grind and fill with weld metal. A well seasoned engineer who had been with the company for years incessantly complained about the quality of these castings. So much so he used to declare the blow holes required to clean out the porosity were so large you could "throw a cat through them"! He was a strong advocate of fabrication. The company eventually tried a few large fabrications but did not make a wholesale switch. They may have had design concerns and were not comfortable with the concept completely.

In my first summer there I had an internship to develop a database on many of the castings to determine the numbers of gates and risers needed for mold set-up. In that early exposure it seemed was casting was a difficult art to master well. Today there maybe computer programs to assess flow, shrinkage and section sizes. Back then it seemed like accumulated experience was a very strong factor. Lots of risers can feed metal into the the casting but then you must remove them after shake out. If you have been around an air arc it's a violent dangerous process, you had better be wearing all leather so the molten beads of metal roll off you after they have been blasted out of the casting!

Fabrication is great alternative as long as stress relieving is part of the process.

Looking forward to seeing the Trust start the frame construction.

Sincerely,

Randy

Page 6 of 9 All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/