PRR T1 Build Update

Randy Musselman · **Posted:** Sun Aug 20, 2017 7:24 pm

Hello,

Great development for the T1 Trust!

So this tender is the same base unit and the PRR added the cowling for the T1? Impressive! Huge savings. The 8 wheel trucks alone are worth the purchase but assuming the tender frame is a water bottom one piece casting, that is just as or more valuable. I must admit the streamlining and hunkered down look with the low skirting makes the appearance superb. Heavy duty steam railroading at its finest!

If this tender was used for diesel fuel storage, it likely helped save the casting.....albeit getting down in the caverns of this casting to prep and paint will be an adventure!

The Trust is really gaining momentum, hope I live to see it run.

Sincerely,

Randy

Alexander D. Mitchell IV · **Posted:** Sun Aug 20, 2017 7:50 pm

Randy Musselman wrote:

So this tender is the same base unit and the PRR added the cowling for the T1?

I've read conflicting information on this; I believe it all depends (sincerely) on exactly how one defines "added the cowling."

I'm inclined to say that 1) it's not quite as simple as "just adding cowling" but 2) in this case, almost anything is better than having to re-cast truck frames, fabricate a chassis, and the like. And 3) I would strongly suspect that there will be even more modifications made, pursuant to making operation in the 21st century more practical and reliable (a compartment for something like a grease gun, for example?).

jaygee · **Joined:** Sat Oct 19, 2013 12:36 pm **Posts:** 14

This tender mounts both the stoker and train phone gear in compartments built into the sides of the tank. The stoker motor door shows up in the left side view of this tender. The trainphone compartment can be used for whatever the need is at the time of completion.

Alexander D. Mitchell IV · **Posted:** Tue Aug 22, 2017 12:49 am

More from the PRR-FAX Yahoo group:

Quote:

While not explicitly stated in the article, the T1 Trust will need to convert the 210F75 into a 180P84 for use with the future T1 5550.
In the photo at the link below, there's a bit of a mixed message; the photo shows the 210F75 (approx 21,000 gallons water capacity) with the 180P84 tender specs (approx 18,000 gallons water capacity).
https://prrt1steamlocomotivetrust.org/s ... info/tinfo

In a separate article on the Trains Magazine website (not behind their subscriber wall, so anyone can access it), the T1 trust will restore the 90F82 tender that I1sa 4483 was retired with to its original condition. The 90F82 was modified by Westinghouse during its years of display for that company.
http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/20 ... ust-tender

From the Trains article:

Quote:

The long-haul tender was originally acquired by the historical society to replace the gutted-out short tender for their Pennsy 2-10-0 I1sa-type locomotive. As part of the purchase agreement, the T1 Trust has agreed to fully restore the I1’s tender tank to its original specifications as part of the historical society’s planned cosmetic restoration of the I1 locomotive. The cost of the tender restoration is estimated to be approximately $75,000.

The T1 Trust has also made arrangements to store the tender at the historical society’s museum site, the Heritage Discovery Center, in Buffalo, N.Y., for up to 30 years at a cost of $1 per year where it will be displayed alongside the Pennsy I1. Historical society President Joseph Kocsis Jr. expressed much enthusiasm for the agreement, “We’re grateful to partner with the T1 Trust to make 5550 a reality. They bring a great deal of expertise to the table and we look forward to working with them in the restoration of our I1 tender and seeing the long haul tender return to its intended use”.

T1 Trust members will travel to New York to complete a renovation of the brake system and replace the oil in the roller bearings. In addition, the Trust plans to sandblast, prime, and paint the tender in the appropriate Brunswick green paint scheme. The overall cost of the tender preservation effort is at least $45,000. About half of the work will be donated, and the T1 Trust is seeking donations to cover the remaining cost.

David H. Hamley · **Joined:** Tue Aug 24, 2004 3:07 pm **Posts:** 653

While climbing over multiple T1's awaiting the torch at the Deitch Co. in Sharpsburg, PA in the mid-1950s I recall that it was (at least) the cab signal equipment that I thought was in that side compartment of the tender. Possibly train phone too, but I recall seeing the US&S logo on a number of different devices. Was this just cab signals, just train phone, or both? Were there any other places for electronics on the loco itself?

kevin kohls · **Joined:** Tue May 03, 2005 8:35 pm **Posts:** 228

You are correct, there was US&S equipment in the side compartment of the tender and I believe that it was for Cab Signals.

Kevin K.

hamster · **Posted:** Tue Aug 22, 2017 7:57 pm

Discussions of what early electronics were aboard the T1 are moot as none will be applied to the facsimile. In fact, controls and communication equipment not even dreamed of back in the day will be required. And it will be small enough to not even require a dedicated electronics bay!

crij · **Joined:** Sun Aug 22, 2004 12:15 am **Posts:** 490

Remembering comments about the problems with the steam turbine - electric locomotives experimentals (N&W Jawn Henry, C&O M1, UP 1 & 2), I assume there will have to be a dedicated electronics bay. Damp Coal dust and Cinders don't play well with electrical devices, and modern equipment hates excessive heat & humidity, so the bay probably will have to have Air Conditioning & air filtration for the PTC & Cab Signal computers.

Then again I am not part of the T1 Trust so I could be wrong.

Overmod · **Joined:** Thu May 24, 2012 1:37 pm **Posts:** 1042

In all probability there will be controlled-atmosphere enclosures for any noncustomized equipment.

It is also possible to 'ruggedize' many modern forms of electronics to permit their operation without needing 'clean-room' environment; in my opinion, this is by far the preferred design alternative when putting 'modern systems' onto steam locomotives. I have no doubt that any systems required can be provided in such form when required.

J3a-614 · **Posted:** Thu Aug 24, 2017 9:48 am

I wonder if any of the electronic components, or at least the cases for them, are still in the compartments. It would certainly be an addition, even if only cosmetic, to have those in the compartments as part of the "educational" value of this locomotive.

Although using modern electronics, it's my understanding that Amtrak's cab signal system in the NEC, and that used by CSX on the former RF&P, is essentially the same as what the PRR used, including the inductive receiving coils at the ends of locomotives and MU cars. I've seen photos and videos of Acela cab interiors, and prominently displayed is a modern version of the PRR's cab signal indicator, mimicking the signal indications with a position light display!

dinwitty · **Joined:** Wed Oct 22, 2008 8:18 pm **Posts:** 2226

electrical components have always had a -military grade- version for years, heat can alter electrical components working situation, but you may more want a solid encloser to keep dust/grime/etc out.

David H. Hamley · **Joined:** Tue Aug 24, 2004 3:07 pm **Posts:** 653

In looking a multiple photos of T1s in service I noted what I interpret as the "cab signal box" mounted above the #1 driver on the RH side. Since most cab signal gear would be on the loco and the "Train Phone" antenna was atop the tender, it would seem reasonable that the box noted above was the cab signal decoders and amplifiers and whatever was mounted in the side of the tender had more to do with the Train Phone system. But, if the tender also had pickup coils for reverse cab signal reception, then there may have been some cab signal gear in the tender compartment too. The root question here is; "Did PRR mainline steam locos have the pickup coils necessary to receive cab signals when moving in reverse?"

All of which is academic, since any modern cab signal/PTC gear would likely be tiny relative to 1940s gear, one little box hidden somewhere would suffice for a replica loco.

Rick Rowlands · **Posted:** Thu Aug 24, 2017 12:52 pm

I saw somewhere that an operational steam locomotive was placing the electronics in the space under a cab seat.

Dennis Storzek · **Posted:** Thu Aug 24, 2017 1:47 pm

Rick Rowlands wrote:

I saw somewhere that an operational steam locomotive was placing the electronics in the space under a cab seat.

Where will they put the explosive charge for the soon-to-be FRA mandated ejection seat?

Overmod · **Joined:** Thu May 24, 2012 1:37 pm **Posts:** 1042

"Where will they put the explosive charge for the soon-to-be FRA mandated ejection seat?"

You may be amused to learn that there was actually some research into using a BRS-style package for an appropriately-encapsulated safety cab (not just the seats or the 'crew refuge' although those were discussed). (Yes, it was designed to eject at an angle to avoid catenary, but it was a pathetic thing to observe how some people thought catenary was constructed!)

The project was dropped not just for reasons of basic rocket safety, but also because it was impossible at the time to predict the position of the locomotive with respect to tunnels, bridges, specific parts of overhead wire lines, and other "problem areas". And as Tom Lehrer said: ' ... the rockets go up, who knows where they come down/That's not my de-pawt-ment, says Wernher von Braun...'

No. There won't be any ejection-seat mandate, funded or unfunded, from the FRA.

PRR T1 Build Update

Who is online