Those of us who follow the industry have been aware of the transition for some time. The question here is did the promoters intend the testing to be done on behalf of the FRA or by the AAR on its own account?

GME

Sometimes it seems that no matter what I post, the same old same-old comes back up as if I hadn't.

Except for those complaining about excess detail or bloviation.

Any high-speed testing would be CAREFULLY preceded by multiphysics modeling, and probably operation on the roller rig, to determine emergent harmonic issues. Correction (e.g. by going to zero overbalance) would be carefully designed and implemented before any physical railroad high-speed testing.

I suspect that regardless of 'ownership', the T1 will not run at TTCI, Fast Loop 'to the max' or otherwise, without instrumented wheelsets. The Trust is aware of this. It is not a 'particularly' showstopping concern, but would need to be actually done before any of these superspeed fantasies 'eventuate'.

There are two issues concerned with some of the recent invocations of places to run high-speed reciprocating steam. The first is that the track mechanics for LGV are not designed around either augment toleration or lateral guiding, particularly at the lead driver pair. Locomotives to run optimally at high speed can be designed, but they will not be high-drivered locomotives with side-rod drive. High-speed rail vehicle design uses very different premises and design from any practical reciprocating locomotive, including the Besler constant-torque as designed.

Chapelon famously designed a locomotive for "150mph" speeds (a drawing and rudimentary discussion is accessible to non-French speakers in Carpenter's 1952 translation of LLAV). A quick perusal of the detail design is not tremendously convincing (to me) that the locomotive could be operated at that speed sustained, although the classical elements for "high speed steam" are invoked.

By the time you reach 120mph you're at the range where very careful detail design and balance of the running gear becomes critical. In my opinion, the high speed of both the Milwaukee A and Mallard can be related, in part, to the comparatively small frontal area, perhaps more of a factor than Cd (as reduced by the DR 05 class). (This despite my frequently pointing out that frontal streamlining is comparatively unimportant in trains of adequate horsepower at speed overcoming aerodynamic resistance...) That PRR went to such design extremes for a locomotive with a 100mph nominal speedometer is indicative of more than design conservatism. You see a whole raft of problems arising above 'the magic ton' sustained, not least of which is stress in the main pins and their seats as witnessed on the Milwaukee F7 on at least one occasion, and I suspect on several occasions on Niagaras. That is more than usually severe in prospect, because if the near-impossibility of detecting it cost-effectively before it proceeds to catastrophic failure.

Can we PLEASE stop discussing the supposed Frankin engineering "high speed"? Until testing resolves concerns with high-speed-slipping dynamics on the T1 duplex chassis, I think it is safe to assume that any 'speed recorder' (or locomotive-indicator) readings of 135mph and over were NOT due to actual road speed. (Particularly not without implementing the planned 1948 valve improvements, but that is another set of issues for a different discussion.) I think that 125mph is a quite reasonable 'highest practical sustained speed' for any reciprocating design that is to be used in actual railroad service... and even there, it would have to be special service or duty indeed.

Sometimes it seems that no matter what I post, the same old same-old comes back up.

Except for those complaining about excess detail or bloviation.

Any high-speed testing would be CAREFULLY preceded by multiphysics modeling, and probably operation on the roller rig, to determine emergent harmonic issues. Correction (e.g. by going to zero overbalance) would be carefully designed and implemented before any physical railroad high-speed testing.

You will not run at TTCI without instrumented wheelsets. The Trust is aware of this. It is not a 'particularly' showstopping concern, but would need to be actually done before any of these superspeed fantasies 'eventuate'.

There are two issues concerned with high-speed reciprocating steam. The first is that the track mechanics for LGV are not designed around either augment toleration or lateral guiding, particularly at the lead driver pair. Locomotives to run optimally at high speed can be designed, but they will not be high-drivered locomotives with side-rod drive.

Chapelon famously designed a locomotive for "150mph" speeds (a drawing and rudimentary discussion is accessible to non-French speakers in Carpenter's 1952 translation of LLAV). A quick perusal of the detail design is not tremendously convincing (to me) that the locomotive could be operated at that speed sustained, although the classical elements for "high speed steam" are invoked.

By the time you reach 120mph you're at the range where very careful detail design and balance of the running gear becomes critical. In my opinion, the high speed of both the Milwaukee A and Mallard can be related, in part, to the comparatively small frontal area, perhaps more of a factor than Cd. (This despite my frequently pointing out that frontal streamlining is comparatively unimportant in trains of adequate horsepower at speed overcoming aerodynamic resistance...)

Can we PLEASE stop discussing the supposed Frankin engineering "high speed"? Until testing resolves concerns with high-speed-slipping dynamics on the T1 duplex chassis, I think it is safe to assume that any 'speed recorder' (or locomotive-indicator) readings of 135mph and over were NOT due to actual road speed. (Particularly not without implementing the planned 1948 valve improvements, but that is another set of issues for a different discussion.)

I would certainly defer to Mr. Ellsworth and others much better qualified to discuss the engineering issues pertaining to planning to have the new Pennsy T1 attempt to set a new world steam locomotive speed record.

I've had the pleasure and honor to operate the 614 at high double digit speeds and from those experiences believe with some additional "fine tuning" ( new tires, carefully re-balance drivers etc.) she can readily attain modest triple digit speeds although my gut is not to the 130mph plus range???

My further gut is that with the talents involved with the T1 team that she'll be fully capable of becoming the new world steam locomotive speed record holder if the team decides to go for it.

I hope they will. Ross Rowland

I think Ross is quite correct in the capability of locomotive 614, and I would like to see the experiments tried...

It would be interesting to me to see whether some of Voyce Glaze's balancing details would improve the high-speed potential of 614 -- personally I suspect they would, but I am unfamiliar with the port and passage design on the J3 locomotives to tell if there is any valve limitation on speed (as there is with the ATSF 3460 Ripley Hudsons).

Certainly what I have learned about the 614's real-world high-speed performance indicates the principal limitation was balance and suspension 'limited' and I'd expect relatively easy 'improvement' if higher-speed stability were desired at any future time.

In my humble opinion there is a potential issue with the detail design of the front end that produces excessively high superheat at high speed; I do not know whether that was in part a consequence of the way the engine's cutoff is controlled (there were some similar issues in initial high-speed testing of the UP 800s IIRC). That might be a priority to address if it puts the difficult-to-replace elements at 'risk'...

... and at least some of the Trust's research into the somewhat-infamous Turbo-Inspirator might make water-rate reduction via effective modulated feedwater heating a "promise kept at last" ... along with a set of Snyder combustion-air preheaters as tested on C&O...

Here is a link to a picture of the boiler section in the parking lot where the PRRTHS convention:

https://old.reddit.com/r/TrainPorn/comm ... isburg_pa/


Brian

That picture is a "tonic". I certainly hope the rest of this locomotive comes together in due time, but rapidly enough that I will live to see it happen. Looking at the assembly of this single locomotive, albeit a "prototype" in many ways, staggers the mind at Altoona and Baldwin churning them out in fleet numbers.

Hello,

Perhaps the PRRTHS still has a scale model competition? Back in the day Mike Byers had entered his phenomenal scratch built S scale PRR F3Oa flat cars and may have won best in show.

If the Trust enters the T1 as a 1:1 scale model, the other contestants make accuse them of sandbagging! ;-D

Regards,

Randy

I'd express regret at being a buzzkill, but I have none.

To expose a unique, artisanally produced asset to the potential of ruinous damage or destruction by operating it at or near the boundary of its physical maximum for the sake of prurient curiosity or an adolescent fascination with speed would represent the height of imprudence. You would think anybody who knows anything about Harry Daghlian or Louis Slotin would know the inadvisability of tickling the dragon's tail.

I say this as somebody who enthusiastically got into a Pontiac Trans-Am in my very early twenties with three other imbeciles and allowed the chief imbecile to "see what this baby can do" on a lonely road near State College,, before selling it to finance one last semester.

The speedometer topped out @ 120, but we imputed our speed from the tachometer @ 136.

Sure loved it when that 400 V-8's hood scoop opened up and started ramming air in the four barrel-and we thought "now that's what the screaming chicken on the hood stands for". It was decidedly less exciting when we felt increasing aerodynamic instability.

The other three guys were Penn State engineers; so I expect they understood that at 136MPH, you have 6.1 times the kinetic energy to control than at the then legal max of double nickels. Ironically, I don't remember any of my cohorts' names; which is ironic since we all had tickets in the same suicide lottery and we won without realizing we played. Best part of the ride was emerging from the car with unsoiled shorts.

Of course now I have age and guile, rather than youth and a bad haircut (to borrow a phrase from the late P.J O'Rourke) on my side.

Now, if you can mitigate against the risks and uncertainty with an appropriate bond or insurance-good luck. Sure hope you don't produce images that persist in the collective mind like those of the Hindenberg @ Lakehurst. (Just passed the 85th anniversary a week ago, it now seems forgotten)

One final thought: for all the times posters have conjured up largely imagined fears than Class One managers and execs are lurking this board to buttress a poor opinion of preservationists or enthusiasts, because of some tangential topic or disputative response; if there is any poor image being fomented here in those minds; it is because of threads like this.

My thanks Supe for naming two traits that I most certainly have and very much enjoy.

From extensive personal experience and good fortune I am glad to share the total satisfaction I have derived from being behind the throttle of a steam locomotive hauling a long passenger train at high speeds thrilling countless track side folks many of whom were expecting to see this antique tea kettle come through down at walking speed.

Never gets old.

Some years back ( 1976) People magazine did an article on the AFT and my time running the steam engine powering the train and in answer to the lady reporters question of " what's it like being the master of that huge machine" or something to that effect. I glibly answered" running a big steam engine at speeds over 70 mph is better than sex" . IIRC she left out the speed qualifier and it got me in serious hot water at home.

Anyhow I am most hopeful that the T1 folks do go after the world steam locomotive speed record and that I'm chosen to be her hogger.

Nothing would massage my prurient curiosities and adolescent fascinations better.

Onward & Upward. Ross Rowland

Getting back to the test track(s) East of Pueblo.

The TTC is the Transportation Testing Center outside Pueblo CO. It is owned by FRA and until recently was leased by the AAR. Ensco won the contract for the new lease is currently transitioning with an effective date of October 2022. Website is https://ttc-ensco.com/

TTCI is a corporation formed by the previous lessee, AAR, to manage TTC. It has recently rebranded itself as MxV Rail, and plans to build a competing testing facility, also East of Pueblo. MxV Rail is still using its old internet handle: https://www.ttci.tech/

See also: https://www.ttci.tech/latest-news-updates/mxvrail

Neither is to be confused with the Toronto Transit Commission. https://www.ttc.ca/

Phil Mulligan

Weren't some people here trying to insinuate that Mallard's 126-mph record was invalid because it was on a downgrade?

"I glibly answered" running a big steam engine at speeds over 70 mph is better than sex" . IIRC she left out the speed qualifier and it got me in serious hot water at home."

Although I used your quote as my foil, my objection is the thread that has asserted the utility of high speed operation but has not answered the question as to why a locomotive should be run at extraordinary speeds for no other purpose than doing it. It's not personal.

But good grief man, even I would never give that answer. I'm just lucky to have found a woman who understands that when I put a size 12 in my gaping piehole on a regular basis, it's because I don't have a check valve that allows me to tell "little white lies", so I'll never tell whoppers about working late at the office-especially now that it's the living room chair.

it wasn't the omitted speed qualifier isn't what got you in trouble.

The first rule of "Fight Club" is you never talk about "Fight Club"

I'm guessing you made a florist happy with repeat orders.

Actually no. I ended up trading in that wife for a new one who was a fellow foamer so no further flowers or explanations were needed.

Onward and upward. Ross Rowland

I fully support the T1 project but cannot figure out why trying to make a new speed record is even a goal. Seems very wasteful of resources that could be better spent in other areas.