In a reversal of their long-touted plans to build a loco from thin air, the T1 Rust is going to re-purpose a famous PRR survivor and perennial RyPN fave, K4 #13-something or other.
"That engine's been apart so long, no one even remembers what the original number was." stated T1 Rust Principal J. Pierpont Mitchell "We're taking a page from our old arch-rivals, the Reading (say Redd-ing) railroad and rebuilding that chunk o' steel into a brand-spanking new T1 4-4-4-4-4-4.....oops, I always forget where to stop with that number..." "We also plan to buy the Harrisburg to Pittsburgh route from those Horsey Guys, so we'll have plenty of space for the T1 to slip her drivers."

More information can be found at the T1 Rust Website, if they ever get it completed.

In other news, B&LE 643 was last seen operating east of Pittsburgh on their newly constructed track built from super alloy steel shaped like a fat I with new anchor bolts, "spikes are a thing of the past, they loosen with every wheel" says Glenn Campbell, "We'll never turn a rail this time". The track has been nicknamed the "Orr Line" given the similar shape the model streetcar track is. "It's bolder, thicker, taller, and can run anything you can throw at it, the mainline railroads should listen up. They had the chance to run my engine and get lots of attention, advertising, profit, and they said no, too bad." Glenn is planning a steam expo and is inviting the newly restored Big Boy, the 4-12-2 and the 3985 challenger to run a quadra-header on his line, "It can take it, lets party."

I think I read somewhere that those new rails will be made of Rearden Metal.

This just in! Harry Slammerhammer, CMO for the T1 Rust, was quoted as saying:

"Pierpont may not have heard, but we've solved the driver slippage issue. Our engineers have determined that it is possible to connect the number two and number three drive axles with a Spicer drive, which should end any possibility of the lead engine slipping independently. Only problem that remains to be addressed is the drive shaft tunnel through the second cylinder block intersects all the steam passages; current thinking is to just make the second set of cylinders dummies. The fans will never know; all those other engines out there with eight drive wheels seem to do just fine with only one set of cylinders."

I will confirm that. We are representing Ms Taggert and the Rearden estate.
GME

> Our engineers have determined that it is possible to connect the number two
> and number three drive axles with a Spicer drive, which should end any
> possibility of the lead engine slipping independently. Only problem that
> remains to be addressed is the drive shaft tunnel through the second
> cylinder block intersects all the steam passages; current thinking
> is to just make the second set of cylinders dummies. The fans will
> never know; all those other engines out there with eight drive wheels
> seem to do just fine with only one set of cylinders."

This would be funnier if it were not so clear -- by actually inspecting the locomotive drawings, for example -- that a conjugating shaft will NOT "intersect all the steam passages". The T1 has Franklin type A valves, for heaven's sake. We are discussing the rear engine, which does not have an exhaust stand nearby. There is plenty of room for a conjugating shaft (and in fact for a center bearing if desired) in the transom area between the rear cylinders. Dennis, I expected better from you.

A slightly less ignorant funny comment would have been to note that a Deem conjugation shaft would have to run right through the 'upended' nightmare box for the rear Franklin type A drive ... but that's one of the reasons 5550 would have type B (or C) drive, which is external right up to the camboxes between the valves.

As to having the rear cylinders, rather than the critics of the rear cylinders, dummies... if the T1 stalled during C&O testing with four small short-stroke cylinders, why would you think it would 'do just fine with only one set'? On the other hand, it would certainly address the slipping issue to anyone's reasonable [sic] satisfaction...

In any case, the 'actual' 5550 is likely to use proportional modulation of the independent brake for slip control, so why not have a good laugh at conjugational overkill...


Meanwhile, in other news, the Coalition for Sustainable Rail announced that it is proposing to take over the rebuilding of another forgotten high-speed locomotive as a more practical follow-on to Project 130. Jay Ward IV, head of the development team, noted that another iconic locomotive in parlous shape could benefit from the full range of modern steam technologies -- ex-PRR 1361.

"Since the boiler requires extensive redesign to be safe to operate, we are planning to replace it entirely, with a stainless-steel unit featuring our patent-pending torrefied-fuel combustion system, LaMont circulation, and more effective steam stripping. We will also be installing a second set of 12" valves inboard of the existing valves to provide the steam supply necessary to reach 125+mph speeds, and modifying the front and rear truck systems with three-axis compliance. Although of course the new boiler will be of all laser-welded construction, we are following in the footsteps of the previous 'restoration' effort by providing an imitation of riveted structure in the stainless fabrication.

Funds will of course be provided to restore 1361 to its original, inoperable, unsafe condition following the conclusion of the high-speed testing. If the funding holds out, and the creek don't rise.

I thought the modern 'pear rail' revival was going to use Richard C. ("Gary") Cola's bainite steel. Now cryogenically tempered. The problem with welding sections of this material together, as required for any real-world rail steel application, is what was handled with modified Ferris Bueller Persuader technology...

When asked for comment on Mr. Slammerhammer's technical revelation, J.P. Mitchell stated: "While Mr. S-H has made some interesting points, it turns out he was looking at the incorrect set of digitized blueprints. Our engineers did evaluate the Spicer drive, but found it not to be cost-effective at optimizing the slip angles when axle load decreased below 18 tons."

"We have re-evaluated our position and will be licensing a full scale version of the Tie-Co Drive (tm), which consists of lots and lots of rubber bands stretched around the #2 and #3 axles. The coefficient of friction of the bands will counteract the slippage rate when steam flow exceeds 250# per minute, transferring additional grip to the rear engine assembly."

Walter, you win. :-)

No, there's no topping that.


What I want to know now is the maintenance procedure they will use to get all the 'power drive bands' on and off when the locomotive is serviced, since they will have to go through slots in the transom between the cylinders. That's going to be some stretchy rubber... and finding the 'top' band each time one of them has to be stretched is likely to be a troublesome task; might be easier just to 'cut the Gordian knot'.

Now might not be the time to bring up the Gates Rubber Company and the use of a poly-V belt and Weller tensioner to implement multiple-axle drive on a trailing truck from a conventional booster... :-0

Actually work on that locomotive has now been completed, though the budget was "scaled down" a bit.

You'll find photos here:
http://tracks.lionel.com/mr-toothpicks-8-foot-train/