Yes, it definitely would. I'd be reluctant to build something new using century old technology. I'd make it clear that what I'm building is not a historic replica, but an improved version when marketing the concept. I think this would make it more supportable, personally........

dave

How much of the original drawings, material specs., etc. exist for the T-1 ?

Dave

Really?

Dave did not choose his loco based on size, he built the locomotive based on his plans for the Lincoln funeral train.

Funny how your point hasn't been understood very well yet, huh?
I don't which is more eyebrow-raising, the concept of a T-1 being built new, a project literally coming out of nowhere, or all the people responding that they'd rather see a NYC hundson instead.
If I were the person who originally suggested said PRR locomotive, the temptation to say, "Fine, when will you start building your Hudson, then?" would be very hard to overcome...

The lack of a quorum on this forum that represents a certain lack of focus on the T1 as a project might be indicative of the issues surrounding the project itself. The polar opposite, as a general trend in the UK has been focused... and due to this,successful organisations have been built upon this foundation.

Here in the U.S, we cannot seem to take a linear path of first things first as a matter of course.The lack of an organisation behind the announcement itself, the discussions of Hudsons, the question of where it will run are all over the map as a sort of ADD miasma regarding a essentially simple question..who, what, when and how in regard to the specifics of this project.

The essence of the question is what could this engine do? What could it not do? Is it the best representative of late steam development? I get this sense that appearance is more of a question of form versus function..If I was stuck on PRR power, I would suggest the refined Q2 is a better example. The NYC Niagra is on the short list as well.
The point is this sort of questioning should have occurred before..hey lets rebuild a T!!

To me all of this is haphazard in approach. What this project requires is a compelling reason to move forward, and I have not heard one as of yet..Anyone can tell you you need a basis of consensus to have a successful project, and this one has yet to find one, which is not very surprising.

1. Provide compelling reasons why this project represents the best choice.
2. Have an organisation in place before asking for money.
3. Resolve technical project issues in advance as in having the ducks in a row
4. Involve one of those who have done recent engineering work on steam locomotives as a Project Leader.This will require engineering skills more than construction skills.

I am sure those who have done projects in the commercial arena with other peoples money can tell you these are the ABC's at the core of moving forward providing a sense of security to investors rather than an ad hoc wing and a prayer throwing a project at the wall to see if it sticks.

All of this seems negative, but I am suggesting that these suggestions are based on common sense if this project is to succeed. Then there is the matter of development costs..remember those? Having an engineer on the payroll..paying for a fund raising effort, etc. I have the impression that most comments have not come from those who have faced these issues in the past. None of this is impossible but it requires a focus that appears to be absent at least on the surface of this proposal..lacking any substantive, forthcoming information..if this is to be taken in a sober manner to bring in ...cash toward a bottom line.If you don't build any engine, where it will run is a rather moot consideration.

Another issue are the original design parameters, to run heavy loading at significantly fast passenger speeds..Perhaps the efficiency of this design in terms of today's environment running at a lower speed..needs to be considered from an engineering standpoint. There are many other suggestions that I think are positive but to whom will they be addressed? A ghost?

This project does not need a compelling reason so much as a practical and economic rationale. The REASON is damned simple: a bunch of people with money want to see a PRR T1 replica-of-sorts built. This is as simple as Doyle McCormack's statement that when he's done restoring a former Santa Fe PA as a NKP one, he's going to pull up a lawn chair and cooler, and sit there and LOOK at it. One well-known locomotive operator seems fond of saying in private, "He who has the gold makes the rules!"

The problem we run into is practicality. Simply proclaiming "We want to build a T1 replica" will get you a few quid, pennies, marks or whatever dropped into a bucket. Demonstrating a solid operating proposal, with assurances in writing that such a loco would have opportunity to operate on, say, the Ohio Central, Norfolk Southern, or Amtrak's 110-mph Michigan trackage, and then you may--MAY--attract the "angels", the big-dollar donors that make such projects possible.

Now, if this entire proposal is predicated on the premise of building this loco with someone else's money, well, get back to me after you get the promises of NS, Strasburg, the Greenbrier Limited, the 21st Century Limited, or whoever plans to run this thing, and maybe I'll give you the time of day and a few pence....

[color=#FF8000][color=#FF8000][/color][/color]

You need to present a reason that compels individuals to donate money unless you have millions of dollars in your back pocket or well heeled enthusiasts. The assumption is you will have to convince those who will provide a portion of their personal income on the basis of proverbial nickles and dimes. Not having a reason beyond satisfying a whim, is not much of a closer but as you say anyone can suggest anything..I remember when rebuilding the Titanic was a hot topic. Those who do not require any reason are a fraction of a percent of possible donors...Again, the question of the efficiency of the original design parameters also come into play as you mentioned as running at it's original peak performance is a dim prospect. Personally, I would prefer a project like the 5AT..which is less of a practical mismatch.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5AT_Advanc ... Locomotive

I predict no Class Ones will bite or change horses..as a change of direction to their own historical programs they have already invested in. For me personally, to see what an advanced design from the present could do, is a more compelling project. We perhaps agree on the mismatches this project can represent..as always..time will tell.

Does anyone know where this group can find someone to make a cast engine bed or frame for this project.

The word "practicality" keeps coming up. The A1 Trust in the UK had a practical, attainable goal from the beginning, which is why it succeeded.

I don't see that practical, attainable goal here. Just that simple.

There are many other choices that may be practical and attainable. But has any one of them in the USA shown positive results yet? (Other than a couple beautiful 1860s design 4-4-0s--mechanically simple and small enough to be both practical and attainable.)

It would be one thing if this proposal were being put forth as an intention to build with the funding committed. If that were the case, the principles would be free to choose their engine for replication.

But this proposal sounds like it is based on crowd source funding, which depends on the promise of the Internet to raise contributions from very small donations coming from a large number of sources. The only problem is that “crowdsource” funding requires a crowd, and that is the fatal flaw for building new steam locomotives.

A crowd will never agree on which locomotive to build.

It is not a matter of which engine we'd rather see. A PRR T-1 would be very cool.

The suggestion of a Streamlined Hudson has little to do with the locomotive's technology, though it is a fine locomotive, and far more to do with the fact that it is the locomotive that comes up, time and time again, when folks discuss which engines should have been preserved but were not.

If this gentleman was funding the project with his own money, then fine, he can build whatever he wants. But he's not. He's online begging for donations. If you're going to beg for donations, it is strongly suggested that you choose something that has the largest possible following. That way you accrue far more potential donors.

That is why several of us have suggested "Why not pick a Hudson". If there are a million people out there that would like to see one built, and you can get them each to donate $20, then you're well on the way.

The A1 Trust acted in the same manner. They selected one of the most popular locomotives that people wished still existed.

We don't operate in a vacuum. He can either convince somebody like Bill Gates or Warren Buffet to donate and then build whatever he wants, or he can pick something that is most likely to secure donations from the largest possible pool of donors. We're simply suggesting that approach.

Mr. Travis makes an interesting point. One of the major fundamental issues we steam lovers need to face up to is that each day that passes finds fewer of us above ground.

Those born after the mid 1950's have no personal steam memories or personal associations and thus no strong ties from their youth. There are no doubt a few "youngins" that have been created in the past 30/40 years but the overall audience has shrunk and continues to shrink and that's the sad truth.

Therefore I don't think that " crowd funding" has much of a future here.

Just my 2 cents worth.

Ross Rowland

I doubt the skills/facilities to pour a one-piece cast engine bed still exist. However, I doubt you'd want a cast engine bed for a new locomotive. Welding technology has come a long way since ~1945 and a superior (more durable, less expensive) one-piece engine bed could likely be fabricating by welding. While a welded frame would not be truly authentic if we're talking a "replica" T-1, it'd be a reasonable concession to constructability and 99% of observers would never know the difference.

Just to set the record straight, there already was a class T-1a. T-1 No. 5547 was fitted with Walschaert valve gear in 1947 and classed T-1a. So a new build with any additional modifications would be a T-1b.