I suspect because it gets many stary-eyed enthusiasts and curious "outisders" all fired up and excited. It's one way to garner support, and is a pointer towards what some in the trust have said is "the most advanced reciprocating steam locomotive ever built"- another pitch they have used.

"Fastest" is an eye catching buzzword that teases the imagination. The trust has said they'd like to try to, not promising that they will try at the record.

In my opinion, if you're going to attempt a project of the size and scope of the T-1, you need to pull every trick out of the hat to get the money and support base. The speed record is one part of that, even if it's never actually attempted.

I don't think any resources have even been invested towards setting a new record. The Trusts' priority has been towards whatever supports the construction of the locomotive first and foremost.

-Sam

They first off need to get her built and then broke in. Then they can go for any records they want. The T1 trust in my eyes is doing things the right way. They want to make sure they have a chance to do everything they are setting out to do. First off just building a new steam locomotive is not cheap. Then picking one of the most complex designs ever built is not exactly easy either. It is not like they decided to build a 4-4-0 or a Consolidated. No they picked something that has a totally different valve gear setup was known for being hard to handle and also one of the largest engines built.

You're absolutely correct Boilermaker. Including the possibility off going for the world steam locomotive speed record adds an element as you say gets peoples imaginations flowing.

If even some of the hype regarding the true potential of this locomotive are true she should be able to easily set a new record.

Time will tell. Hope to be there. Ross Rowland

While some of the very early T1 Trust Web pages were 'big' on the idea of demolishing Mallard's record, both the organization and its goals have significantly matured since then.

It may not be obvious to Supe that engineers understand something about both speed and safety, and that all the work toward making high-speed running safe would have been done long before any physical record "attempts" would be made. Those steps specifically include both dynamic and multiphysics models of the locomotive, construction of a test facility (that doubles as a transport chassis), and careful instrumentation of the wheelsets and suspension to determine any potential areas either of resonant critical speed or stress potentially breaking components as designed or tested.

I would agree -- I confess, grudgingly -- that operating a significant 'historical' locomotive at high, or 'ultimate', speed would be difficult for serious preservationists to justify, and require potentially 'replacement value' insurance coverage as well as any non-waivered collateral damage or injury. (I am tempted to note that this would involve any subsequent iesues from the BRS package 'escape tower' lifting the cab module should disaster overtake 5550... but I wouldn't be entirely serious.) But 5550 does not even remotely qualify under any particular preservation description -- the closest thing to "legacy" components are in the tender structure, and I don't think anyone seriously suggests that damage there would irremediably ruin what remains of the 'historic fabric' there.

When we talk about 'high speed' with 614, we're not discussing wildly higher speed, but the issues with catastrophic failure in the PRR J-locomotive testing were valve and valve-gear related, and had nothing to do with the stability of the chassis. We might gainfully look at the braking of the locomotive after a seized-valve failure: I have not read any Supe-style FUD regarding either the engine's stopping or complex showstopping repairs needing to be made to it afterward. Along with the PRR motive-power department, we might note that machinery speeds and balancing concerns would be lower on a 74"-drivered locomotive; it would not be difficult to determine any critical speeds or valve lubrication limitations (there's that crazy-high superheat coming to rest at our chamber door again...) with a little judicious 614T2 testing -- if the money can be arranged. It's Mr. Rowland's engine to risk, and his responsibility to establish escrow sufficient to rebuild any level of damage a la Nashville's requirement for 576.

Very well presented Overmod. Here's where I'm at. If the folks in charge of the new T1 tell me that they've done the necessary advance design work, followed by a quality build, followed by extensive break-in runs and they're confident she can achieve 130 mph plus and stay together.............I'm all in and ready to go.

Dream no small dreams................... Thanks, Ross Rowland

[quote="Overmod"

It may not be obvious to Supe that engineers understand something about both speed and safety, and that all the work toward making high-speed running safe would have been done long before any physical record "attempts" would be made. Those steps specifically include both dynamic and multiphysics models of the locomotive, construction of a test facility (that doubles as a transport chassis), and careful instrumentation of the wheelsets and suspension to determine any potential areas either of resonant critical speed or stress potentially breaking components as designed or tested.

[/quote]



On the contrary, I'm fully aware of that fact. At one point in life, I harbored ambitions of getting a BSME and designing cars. I remain interested in what I could not master thanks to a youthfully inadequate work ethic.

I'm also fully aware that finest engineers used the best available methods on the Tacoma Narrows, Ponte Morandi and FIU pedestrian bridges, the Columbia, Challenger, The WTC (and no, I'm not talking about 9/11 but discovery of structural inability to withstand aerodynamic torsion in the initial designs, discovered by a grad student). Let's not forget the 737-Max.

As for modeling; finance is filled with its own spectacular failures (the failure of Long Term Capital Management and Value at Risk Models in the last crash).

I suggest you get a copy of N.N. Taleb's books. He specifically addresses use of models and the perils of over-reliance in a variety of fields, including engineering. The most important point he makes is that models are not reality. He calls reliance on models as fully representational of reality as the "ludic fallacy". There are always the "unanticable unanticipated" or Black Swans.

It's also useful, ala the economist Frank Knight to distinguish between "risks" which are contingencies that can be plotted on a distribution curve and "uncertainties" which are contingencies that cannot be so quantified as to magnitude and occurrence.

The question for me as donor and potential future donor is what is the mission of building this locomotive? Proving that a duplex locomotive can work in ordinary service and be an ambassador of the past.


Is it as an engineering exercise, a proof of concept regarding its capacities or an enduring exhibit of the past. The implicit promise of the upper strata of the donor inducements is the latter. I'd certainly be interested in dropping a significant amount only if I'm doing so as a bequest to the future.

There is a rule in risk management that one does not willingly assume a potentially catastrophic risk, irrespective of the potential reward.


"God help us; we're in the hands of engineers."

Dr. Ian Malcolm, Jurassic Park

I find that superheater's comments regarding running the T1 at max speed (on a purpose-built test track, mind you) being somehow irresponsible or reckless come off as condescending. There's no "historic fabric" being tarnished or even put at risk here (a dubious argument at best), and provided that due diligence is done, there is a very low likelihood of catastrophic failure.

The T1 Trust is building this locomotive because they can, and they ought to. The T1 was an engineering marvel, and was never fully realized. It is both a proof-of-concept and an enduring exhibit of the past. One need look no further than the A1 Trust for a shining example of such an idea. They built the A1 not only as proof-of-concept (both in that they were the first major organization to reconstruct an extinct class of steam locomotive, and that they built it to run over 100 mph, which it did successfully), but also in order to restore a lost link in the chain of British Mainline Steam. The A1 was even christened as such by the late designer's wife.

To insinuate that such endeavors, or any such endeavors that are done not for utilitarian needs but for simply "seeing what can be done," are irresponsible because, in the past, some engineers have been incorrect in calculation is frankly stupid. Superheater would have been the man in DC constantly asking why any money was being spent on the Apollo Program.

Even if the locomotive were to go belly-up during the test, I would not regret sending them a single dollar.

mcgrath618 1, superheater 0

Ross Rowland

As has been said before, the "purpose" of the T1 replication is to bring a copy of the locomotive into existence, and to demonstrate if possible that the design was not the flawed 'dog' it was commonly reputed to be.

If the locomotive never turns a wheel in excursion service, let alone operates above its intended service speed of 100mph, those goals will be realized.

In addition a very great amount of 'lost knowledge' has been replicated (or improved on) in developing the design and the methods to construct it. In a sense, that alone was worth the effort (even were the locomotive never finished).

"The goal is simple; to provide mainline steam excursion service, and to set the World Speed Record for a steam locomotive."

On the T1trust website today.

Mike

I really don't think any organization with a suitable test track (Amtrak or FRA's TTC) will run this engine at speed without thoroughly testing its rotating, oscillating and reciprocating parts and their attachments. No one in the US has built a high-speed steam locomotive since 1950.

True, BR 60163, Tornado, a new build, ran at 100 mph, but only after it had run for several years at slower speeds.

Ross, have you wondered what 614 could have done if it had been built with Franklin Type B poppet valves as were installed on C&O's L-2a 4-6-4's?

Phil Mulligan

With the preface that seven or so years from now can be a near-eternity in terms of management personnel and attitudes, perhaps a plan for testing/break-in for the T-1 could look something like this:

Since it looks like final assembly will take place in PA, and R&N has shown a commitment to the long-term operation of steam (spending big bucks restoring 2102 to operation and buying additional passenger equipment), doing the initial break-in operations and some fundraising excursions with them at up to 40 mph could be a beginning.

Then moving on to higher speed operations (again with an operation that has a track-record of allowing steam/excursion operation at-speed), runs at up to 79 mph on Chicago METRA.

Then, and only then, would the locomotive be moved, probably cold and main rods off, to the TTC at Pueblo, CO for any record attempts.

The incremental test plan, including the ways the equipment will be sourced and provided, has been thoroughly discussed, and essentially worked out at the time of the initial feasibility plan... after all, that was back when a 'speed record' was still deemed an important mission for the completed locomotive, so "feasibility" included that discussion.

Aside from the thorough multiphysics modeling and 'virtual prototyping' dynamics (which, among other things, will establish where the likely problems are, and test potential solutions) the locomotive would be extensively tested on the roller rig before actually operating on rails. Naturally a careful regimen of progressively faster and heavier testing would be conducted once the engine is put on rails. I certainly have no objection to Mr. Woodring's proposed progressive testing locations.

There was some question about the most effective ways to demonstrate the phenomenon of high-speed slipping. It is of course possible to modulate either 'side' of a given roller to simulate a low joint, but the drop and strike of a conventional frog is more difficult. That at least implies that higher-speed operation with sufficient load to produce 'adhesion at the limit' whether or not at temporarily reduced pressure or "excessive" cutoff may be necessary, on a railroad with appropriate features, to the extent this sort of trackwork isn't available at a test facility. That was the only initial requirement for higher speed -- here, probably no more than 79mph as E.T.Harley remembered experiencing the phenomenon around 700mph -- on the actual 'general system of transportation' as opposed to the Fast Loop or equivalent.

One point of the instrumented wheelsets and suspension is that most of the potential emergent problems that might not have been fully or correctly modeled can be detected before "issues arise". The discussions for 5551, which would have active suspension elements and magnetorheological damping, involved ways in which detected dynamic issues even with fast onset (one study of the DR 05 class indicated a harmonic onset to (relatively stable) limit within about 20 cycles at 122.5mph) would be made to allow safe deceleration without potentially-destabilizing use of the independent brake.

THIS IS NOT A MATTER THAT HAS BEEN CONSIDERED ONLY AT RAILFAN LEVEL.

Can't wait. she'll be quite the sight roaring past the Princeton Jct. platform at 140 + in both directions as she brings the World Steam Locomotive Speed crown back to the USA.

With a good bit of luck perhaps an admirer will win the lottery and accelerate her build schedule.

Hope springs eternal.

Ross Rowland

A Hacker community's take on the T1 "replica".

Bob Milhaupt