| Railway Preservation News https://www.rypn.org/forums/ |
|
| T1 Oh Yes !!! https://www.rypn.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8499 |
Page 1 of 3 |
| Author: | terry [ Sun Feb 15, 2004 12:33 am ] |
| Post subject: | T1 Oh Yes !!! |
Can't deny all those problems with the T1.If the diesel wasn't coming I believe they would have perfected that baby.And that could have been some baby. Anyone with doubts about their potential must get a hold of the Autumn issue of the Keystone, a magazine put out by the PRR historical society. Many engineers interviewed with many of 120,130 up to 140mph and 100 mph with a 1280 ton train.No other steam loco in the world could match their speed.You may think these stories are exaggerated but when Bill Withun,curator of transportation for the Smithonian Institute,has the record of a 140 mph timed by a mechanical engineer for the Franklin co.the stories seem true. It's great reading for any steam enthusiast.Someone on an earlier post said the diesels ate their lunch.That's true when you take everything into account but let me tell you 3 units of E-7's wouldn't have had a chance when running through say Indiana or Ohio at flat out top speed.Oh to have seen one of those run. sevengrand@winbeam.com |
|
| Author: | Ed Fritz [ Sun Feb 15, 2004 11:11 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: T1 Oh Yes !!! |
> Many engineers interviewed with many of > 120,130 up to 140mph and 100 mph with a 1280 > ton train.No other steam loco in the world > could match their speed.You may think these > stories are exaggerated but when Bill > Withun,curator of transportation for the > Smithonian Institute,has the record of a 140 > mph timed by a mechanical engineer for the > Franklin co.the stories seem true. I’ve always viewed claims for very high speed with a certain skepticism. Does anyone know what was the highest ***AUTHORIZED*** speed on any mainline in the U.S. as approved by the particular railroad and/or the ICC back then? I’ve read through today’s FRA’s manual on rail maintenance. I would be surprised if there is much Class V (Max authorized freight speed is 80 mph, passenger equipment is limited to 90 mph) or above rail in use today based on the inspection, gauge and uniformity requirements – i.e. cost of maintaining rail to that standard exceeds the revenue that could be produced by trains traveling at that speed. I suppose that it is quite possible that someone threw caution to the wind and could have exceeded authorized track speed to keep a schedule. But other limitations would have started curbing the engineer’s enthusiasm such as oscillations in the consist’s trucks and suspensions which are the principal engineering challenges in today’s Japanese “Bullet” and French “TGV” trains. The FRA track maintenance manual seems to worry as much about track/truck interaction as it does the physical condition of the track in class VI (110 MPH) thorough Class IX (200 MPH) track. Then there are the problems of converting reciprocating motion to rotary motion. While cross counter balancing of the main rod makes possible high speed, it still provides the upper limit to speed based on damaging the road bed or in extreme cases, the engine. For the sake of discussion, using the old principle that the best operating speed of locomotive is the same number in MPH as the drivers are in the diameter measured in inches and establish that as “design” speed or 336 RPM. It is generally accepted that a rotating machine can accept 120% of design speed for some time at the expense of the machine’s longevity. For an 80” drivered T1, 100 MPH equals 420.2 RPM or 125% of our “design” speed. Given that the T1 was a late modern steamer designed for high speed, this might be too conservative. But for 120 MPH, the RPM is 504.2 which is 150% of the discussed designed speed, and 140 MPH would be a whopping 170% of the benchmark. In comparison, a Milwaukee F7 class Hudson with 84” drivers would be turning 400.2 RPM at 100 MPH, for 120 MPH the F7 would be cranking at 480.2 RPM (143%) as compared to the T1’s 504.2 RPM (150%). While specially prepped engines on specially prepped track may have recorded very high speeds, I’d be more interested in learning what railroads thought were the highest practical speed that could be used on the tangent portions of their track. I know from an ICC report that the F7 were routinely schedule at 100 MPH, and that the famed NYC J-3 Hudsons could average 60 MPH between NY City and Chicago on 79” drivers. So I’m hoping that some of the readers could offer some typical speeds that railroads required of their engines as a more meaningful measurement. Ed |
|
| Author: | Alexander D. Mitchell IV [ Sun Feb 15, 2004 12:04 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: T1 Oh Yeah??? |
> Many engineers interviewed with many of > 120,130 up to 140mph and 100 mph with a 1280 > ton train.No other steam loco in the world > could match their speed.You may think these > stories are exaggerated but when Bill > Withun,curator of transportation for the > Smithonian Institute,has the record of a 140 > mph timed by a mechanical engineer for the > Franklin co.the stories seem true. 1) Franklin designed the poppet valves, so they're hardly "impartial" observers. 2) The only recordings of speed from the steam era generally accepted by "the authorities" (i.e., the Guinness Book of World Records and those they would deem authoritative) are dynamometer chart records. The LNER A4 "Mallard" still holds that record. U.S. stopwatch records against mileposts (which I believe is what was used to allege a 127.1 mph sprint by a PRR E6s) are usually disregarded because American mileposts are notorious for inaccurate placement. 3) I have no doubt a PRR T1 hit 140 mph in service. Of course, the DRIVERS were going 140 even if the train was going far less...... <;-) LNER4472-NOSPAM-@bcpl.net |
|
| Author: | G. Jenista [ Sun Feb 15, 2004 2:16 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: T1 Oh Yeah??? |
> I have no doubt a PRR T1 hit 140 mph in > service. Of course, the DRIVERS were going > 140 even if the train was going far > less...... <;-) To further cast aspersion upon the T1 [smile], it seems to me that rival NYC took one of their (Niagara?) steamers, mounted it on a dynamometer, and steamed it on greased drivers to a theoretical 164 mph, giving the fastest steaming rate of any locomotive... hi_plain@yahoo.com |
|
| Author: | John D [ Sun Feb 15, 2004 4:10 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: T1 Oh Yeah??? |
> To further cast aspersion upon the T1 > [smile], it seems to me that rival NYC took > one of their (Niagara?) steamers, mounted it > on a dynamometer, and steamed it on greased > drivers to a theoretical 164 mph, giving the > fastest steaming rate of any locomotive... I thought the NYC's test was done on one of their Hudsons (mentioned in the Swanberg book New Haven Power, in the chapter on the New Haven's 4-6-4s). |
|
| Author: | Superheater [ Sun Feb 15, 2004 4:38 pm ] |
| Post subject: | 140 MPH? EVEN IF TRUE, USELESS |
Even if this was true, it was useless, indeed proof of a very poor design. Een today, except for that rare Acela working-with its active suspension and electronic monitering, such a speed is a rarity in the US. If the engine was designed for 100MPH plus sustained running, it was a waste, 140 MPH was well outside the operating envelope of the track, rolling stock and monitering of the time. Steam was beaten because it had lower availability, more required maintenance, less modularity, less range, less flexibility and a whole series of things not related to maximum speed-so any design effort in that direction was frivolous and misdirected. superheater@rrmail.com |
|
| Author: | dave [ Sun Feb 15, 2004 7:32 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 140 MPH? EVEN IF TRUE, USELESS |
Could the 140 MPH have been achieved in the Altoona test plant? Difficult to imagine what section of track could support that velocity for any extended length. dave irondave@bellsouth.net |
|
| Author: | Bruce Manwiller [ Mon Feb 16, 2004 5:21 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: T1 Oh Yeah??? |
> 1) Franklin designed the poppet valves, so > they're hardly "impartial" > observers. If they wanted repeat railway business, partiality wouldn't get it. > 2) The only recordings of speed from the > steam era generally accepted by "the > authorities" (i.e., the Guinness Book > of World Records and those they would deem > authoritative) are dynamometer chart > records. The LNER A4 "Mallard" > still holds that record. U.S. stopwatch > records against mileposts (which I believe > is what was used to allege a 127.1 mph > sprint by a PRR E6s) are usually disregarded > because American mileposts are notorious for > inaccurate placement. Trust the milepost markers on the Standard Railway of the World. Mallard trailed the PRR (E2, not E6s) 7002. Period. > 3) I have no doubt a PRR T1 hit 140 mph in > service. Of course, the DRIVERS were going > 140 even if the train was going far > less...... <;-) Engineers able to get a PRR T-1 into triple digits did it without wheel slips. And, the Fort Wayne was noted for smooth track and high speed over flatland. bruceman2@earthlink.net |
|
| Author: | Dave Stephenson [ Mon Feb 16, 2004 9:06 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: T1 Oh Yes !!! |
I don't believe Bill Withuhn ever said he had the logbook Franklin is alleged to have kept at the instruction of Julius Kirchoff and Ray Delano. In the original article published in the Railroad Enthusiasts Bulletin, March 1976, pgs4-5, he relates the story, but does not cite any written reference for it. |
|
| Author: | David M. Wilkins [ Mon Feb 16, 2004 9:06 am ] |
| Post subject: | Mallard -vs- 7002 |
> Trust the milepost markers on the Standard > Railway of the World. > Mallard trailed the PRR (E2, not E6s) 7002. > Period. I don't think the record people at Guniess trust the Standard Railroad of the World on this one. Remember, a stop watch that is a fraction of a second off, or a milepost a few feet less than a mile can significantly impact the speed claim. The LNER had mile posts, half mile posts, and quarter mile posts, all accurately spaced. They may have even had 1/8 mile posts, but I can't be sure. Also, the Mallard had a dynamometer car behind it. The test record created from the run of the Mallard provides solid proof. Proof is what you need, the record is recorded on the paper. Any test such as a speed test needs to be conducted in a way that it is verifiable and even repeatable. In other words, given the same circumstances, the test record would give enough information that it could be repeated. As much as I like the PRR, I think Sir Nigel's creation by far outsped the 7002, at least officially. david.wilkins@bardstown.com |
|
| Author: | Dave Stephenson [ Mon Feb 16, 2004 9:13 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 140 MPH? EVEN IF TRUE, USELESS |
The highest test speed at Altoona for the T1 was 420 rpm, about 100 mph. This was achieved during test nos. 1420, 1421, 1448 and 1467 (from Test Report, 8/23/44). > |
|
| Author: | Bruce Duensing [ Mon Feb 16, 2004 11:17 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 140 MPH? EVEN IF TRUE, USELESS |
> Even if this was true, it was useless, > indeed proof of a very poor design. > Een today, except for that rare Acela > working-with its active suspension and > electronic monitering, such a speed is a > rarity in the US. > If the engine was designed for 100MPH plus > sustained running, it was a waste, 140 MPH > was well outside the operating envelope of > the track, rolling stock and monitering of > the time. > Steam was beaten because it had lower > availability, more required maintenance, > less modularity, less range, less > flexibility and a whole series of things not > related to maximum speed-so any design > effort in that direction was frivolous and > misdirected. The T1 was beaten by the enormous economic pressures brought to bear on the road which compressed the timeframe for practical development of any design to an impasse. The NYC Niagra as well as Porta's work seem to demonstrate a provocative argument to the contrary, which again over time the world's oil supply will be rationed sooner than later. What will the roads do? Electrify? They can't afford capital costs for increasing capacity at this point to keep their existing service levels.I think steam will re-enter the equation to some degree while modern road power will eventually be sitting in a museum somewhere. ACE was to far in advance of the curve. B_Duensing@msn.com |
|
| Author: | Alexander D. Mitchell IV [ Mon Feb 16, 2004 11:21 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Mallard -vs- 7002 |
Let's also remember that the British developed train-stopwatching and performance measurement to a fine science. Even to this day, one can purchase little train-spotter booklets that specify exactly how far apart (and far off) each milepost, platform end, etc. is. Railway Magazine has published for almost a century a column of monthly train timing and performance analysis, and their columnists were/are part of any independent timing group, should a record be attempted. And the British freely admit that an unofficial record is just that. Comparing a PRR stopwatch record to a dynamometer is like comparing a Case tractor to a C&O Allegheny. Today, if we wanted to claim an Acela hit 150, there's supposed to be a event recorder on board that could hopefully verify that. The PRR 7002 and T1 didn't have that; if they had done so verifiably, is there anyone here who doesn't think the railroad would have milked it for all the PR they could muster? LNER4472-NOSPAM-@bcpl.net |
|
| Author: | Alexander D. Mitchell IV [ Mon Feb 16, 2004 12:31 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Going for an off-topic citation....... |
> The T1 was beaten by the enormous economic > pressures brought to bear on the road which > compressed the timeframe for practical > development of any design to an impasse. The > NYC Niagra as well as Porta's work seem to > demonstrate a provocative argument to the > contrary, which again over time the world's > oil supply will be rationed sooner than > later. What will the roads do? Electrify? > They can't afford capital costs for > increasing capacity at this point to keep > their existing service levels.I think steam > will re-enter the equation to some degree > while modern road power will eventually be > sitting in a museum somewhere. ACE was to > far in advance of the curve. There's only one problem with this rationale: All the conversion from diesel to steam does is shift the type of fossil fuel, unless you find a way for the ACE to burn household garbage. Frankly, on a global millennia-long scale, both coal and oil are far too valuable as petrochemical sources than they are as fuel, and the most foolish thing we can do is burn either at 1000+ times the rate it can be produced. And no matter what we try, steam locomotives will still emit greenhouse gasses. (I'm not touching the "is global warming happening?" debate on this forum, thanks.) The ONLY practical way at this point to eliminate fossil fuels of any sort on the rails is via either electrification using non-fossil fuel generation (geothermal, hydroelectric, trash-incineration, or nuclear--solar isn't and probably never will do the job), or via some unforeseeable technology such as "unobtanium" (hydrogen fuel cells, nuclear-reactor locomotives, or the like). LNER4472-NOSPAM-@bcpl.net |
|
| Author: | terry [ Tue Feb 17, 2004 1:29 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: T1 Oh Yes !!! |
> I don't believe Bill Withuhn ever said he > had the logbook Franklin is alleged to have > kept at the instruction of Julius Kirchoff > and Ray Delano. In the original article > published in the Railroad Enthusiasts > Bulletin, March 1976, pgs4-5, he relates the > story, but does not cite any written > reference for it. The T1 WAS DESIGNED TO PULL AN 800 TON TRAIN 100 MPH.That was Pennsy's intention.They were not looking for a 140 mph locomotive.As those engineers would tell you back then,if you were behind schedule you were expected to make up the time if you could.With the T1 you could.The K4 no,being good for a max 0f under 100 mph.Those T1 speeds weren't condoned and heads were turned the other way but the engineer who kept the schedule got the accolades. Pennsy had probably the best maintained rail and trackbed undoughtedly sufficient for those speeds.Who else had 152 lb rail.B&LE and maybe one or two others.When they made the 4 track mainline those milemarkers are right on. As for the Niagara doing 164 mph on a stationary plant there is no way the Niagaa could attain the T1speeds on the road.Six or eight coupled wheels versus the 2 four coupled wheels with a short stroke no way.In other ways though the Niagara was a superior locomotive. As far as those speeds being useless,if you want to look at it that way,I guess any extraordinary achievment is useless.If the diesel didn't make the inroads they did and Pennsy did perfect the T1 just think the highspeed service that could have been developed especially in lew of the competition with NYC. That log book of Mr Withun's if not on display at the Smithsonian Institute museum is in their possession.I'm pretty sure he had shown it at the Pennsy railroad museum in Lancaster during a PRR gathering in which he made a presentation. I don't think the Franklin man was bragging about those speeds being his company was the culprit in many of the problems the T1was having. These high speed claims are not made by one or two engineers but by many,with good details of the runs.Conditions,location etc.All doubters get that issue.It's much more convincing than my message. sevengrand@winbeam.com |
|
| Page 1 of 3 | All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|