I've been reading up on the T-1s ever since this... plan got public.
They tested one on the N&W and at least one other RR. Those tests showed that while not a perfect design, it seemed to be very useful for high speeds which is what it was built for. The crews, from what I've read, liked how they rode.
PRR apparently tried to sell their T-1s to the N&W when getting rid of steam, but N&W decided to just build more Js instead.
It's been hinted that Baldwin didn't have that great of quaility control when they built the T-1s, a comment I an skeptical of but will allow for the possibility.
But in all fairness, I don't think it's right call the T-1 a 'flawed' anything in regard to what they were built for.

And just imagine if even half of that money was given to actual preservation projects.

A project estimated at ten million dollars in 2015 money, paid incrementally over a 15 year construction span, is no longer a $10 million project. It ends up being considerably more expensive, and against an annual cost escalation of 15% that is typical in building locomotives, the run up in the price is very impressive.

PC

I don't usually like to get into these discussions, but consider this: if you like the project, send it money, if you don't, then don't. The $10 million (or whatever the number ends up as) spent on the project isn't necessarily going to go to other preservation projects as it is coming from people who are excited about this particular idea - otherwise that money might just sit in their bank accounts and not help any project. Whether any mainline steam is running in 10 years is something no one can accurately forecast regardless of the locomotive.

However, I submit that the process these folks are undertaking to unearth the original blueprints, digitize them, do the engineering, and then build brand new parts of this scale has value in and of itself for long term preservation of other equipment. Plus the completed locomotive itself will make for one amazing display and story at a museum even if they don't get mainline access...

Food for thought...

Im rebuilding the UP coal burning turbine 8080.........anyone with ridiculous amounts of money and no hope of seeing it please donate !


Mike Pannell

I vote for the Erie triplex.

There is a false argument out there that Ed has illustrated perfectly. I don't know why railroad preservationists think that there is only a single pot of money for all rail heritage projects, and if some of it is used for one project that means that another one goes without. Perhaps that is true for small scale funding from railfans, but it is absolutely not true for large gifts. Billions of dollars a year are given to nonprofits in this country, with rail projects taking but a tiny fraction of it. A T1 project can appeal to donors who would never consider giving to a steam locomotive restoration, precisely because it is a new build.

To take seventy year old engineering drawings and build a machine from scratch has a certain appeal that doing a 1472 on old number 9 will never have. It is an exercise in applying new techniques, materials and processes to old school heavy American engineering.

My only concern is that the T1 Trust has set itself up to cross two hurdles, when one would have been sufficient. Their first hurdle is to build the locomotive. The second and unnecessary one is to try to beat some sort of steam speed record, which will certainly increase the cost and complexity of the project. Just having a locomotive that will run at normal excursion speeds will be more than sufficient, in my opinion.

Those with the serious "moneybags" that might be inclined to donate to this project did not, presumably, get their monies from lottery winnings or happenstance gold vein discoveries. They (presumably) got them from sound and prudent fiscal management. And people with such prudence are going to ask the same demanding question many of us are: "What can you do with it once you build it?"
Now, someone who made $30 million in poker or with a winning Powerball pools ticket that wants to underwrite it all? Sure thing. Talk to us when you find him or her.



No.
The second hurdle is finding a place where one can run it AND the owners of said place are willing to let it run, aside from three hundred feet of track laid outside a hypothetical enginehouse--Amtrak, Norfolk Southern, BNSF, UP, Genessee & Wyoming, Strasburg, wherever. Some of the "steam-friendly" short lines of the past are now under different management, or management that has reappraised its priorities--Blue Mountain & Reading, Ohio Central, etc. And even some of the other theoretical possibilities depend on the good graces, health, and financial well-being of one individual or so.

It may turn out that the cost of finding (or building) a place where a replica T1 could safely exceed 100 mph (or is it 127 mph?) may make the cost of the loco itself pale by comparison. To want to build such a loco is possibly a rational desire that is technically possible. To want to go really fast with it is not rational.

Of course it's ridiculous. That said, if they pull it off and can find a place to run it sure would be interesting to see whether these engines were in fact much better than their reputation and if poor crew handling was to blame, which is what some more recent rail historians have surmised.

Maybe it gets built maybe it doesn’t. But the further along it gets the better for the whole Steam “renovation” sector. Having a younger crowd immerse itself in 73 year old industrial technology can’t be a bad thing. I believe more than a few on this board and other places have written about the fact that a tremendous pool of knowledge is passing on without replacement. Just contemplate what will have to be designed and figured out to make a boiler, superheater manifold, or any of a number of components for this thing. Somehow that process and level of detail may come in handy years from now when its sadly time to retire the boiler or replace a complex part on your favorite locomotive. The “white paper” work on this thing alone can have enormous payoff to the steam preservation establishment. Think positive this is a good thing we are seeing. In the meantime send a buck or 2 to your favorite loco’s organization.

It could take a few turns around the track at Pueblo, with or without instrumentation.

It could be set on a roller dynamometer, similar to the S-1 6-4-4-6 at the 1939 NY World's Fair, or the Altoona Test Plant. No need to ask a Class One to "let 'er rip" on their rails, just load up the dyno resistance and have the throttle all the way out! Plenty of people would buy a ticket for that show!

Howard P.

The real issue is getting such a locomotive from point A to point B. From wherever it is constructed to wherever there is a "test plant" willing to entertain testing. Or from wherever it is being g built to the test facility at Pueblo. We all know how cooperative CSX is for special movements of non-revenue RR equipment. On the other hand, a reimagined T1 may be the closest thing to meeting current interchange standards. But even at my age I don't think I can hold my breath that long.

I remember reading somewhere with $200,000 anyone can show up and test on the Pueblo test track. All they would have to do is get there. If they can move a Reading T1 by flatcar across the country, I am sure they can do the same with this 4-4-4-4.

I have read on their forum that they plan most operations will be at 30-40 mph with a one-time run at the record (I assume Pueblo) I think they would likely use the same business model the 765 currently uses and 611 will likely use. The T1 group has several 765 guys on their committee including their president and CMO.

In their member forum, they talk a lot about the fixes PRR used to correct the wheel slip issues. One issue was the spring rigging. This was fixed on the 50 production units built. The biggest single issue was training. The PRR records show their engineers treated the T1's like the K4's and M1's and that they needed better training. Properly trained engineers had little or no problems and most talked about how great they were.

Most of the nay-sayers here are saying the same things the British guys saw back in the early 90's while building the A1. It took them 18 years but they did it despite the fact there were more reasons not to do it than to do it. The A1 guys carved the way for at least another 12 new build projects. It is likely the T1 guys will do the same thing and we may one day see a Hudson or another extinct loco. I hope to live that long.

Naysayers always bring up the "where will it run" argument. If we were discussing that in the context of running it in 2016 that would be worthwhile. But we are talking maybe 20 years from now, or perhaps 25.

Alex, do you have a copy of the 765's excursion schedule for the year 2035? Can't find it? Surely you know where the 4449 will run that year. Still coming up short? OK, I'll settle for the 2035 schedule for 261, 611 or one of the Santa Fe northerns. Aw come on, don't you know with certainty where ANY steam will run 20 years from now?

Now, if you demand that the T1 Trust knows where their new T1 is going to run in 20 years, then you must know where all the other steam will run in two decades.

I hope I have made my point. Nobody can predict the future. All we can do is set goals, try to reach them and hope for the best. If every project out there had to wait until every question was answered with 100% certainty before doing anything, nothing would ever get done.