> The T1 was designed for 880 tons at 100 mph.
> Exceeded that during over-the-road tests and
> in service.

There is official PRR correspondence between operating officers during the testing of N&W J's that made reference to them being "good engines at 80 mph...etc, however we want an engine thats good for 1200 tons at 100 mph, i.e. the T1" (quoted loosely) Nick Seman has the doccument in his collection. It's amazing what you uncover when you have access to actual correspondence as opposed to the BS that you read from self proclaimed experts that write picture captions in overpriced books.

I wonder when I'm dead and gone and somebody is exploring the pro's and cons of SD-50 operations on Conrail that they will take time to read the correspondence on what it took to make pretty decent units out of them. If you read the railfan press they were all "no good" too. It's amazing what up-ing fan HP, adding a few more fan blades, Tin Plated pistons and a few other things that I don't want to get into will do for performance and reliability.

EBL


Eric.Levin@Conrail.com

Thank you Mr. Levin!! I'm neither detractor nor booster of the T1, but I want to find out what it was, and wasn't. Most of what was printed in popular publications, books, etc., during the period from 1960-1990+- was not well researched. After that, things improved as people began to consult original source material and get better information. Doesn't make the T1 good or bad, just tells a more complete story (and it's better than any novel).

I would like to find out more about the correspondence you mentioned. I have quite a bit of original correspondence, and it tells a different story than what we were handed in the more distant past.

Eric and all:

Sadly, there's pile after pile of PRR official correspondence in the files at the Hagley archives that tells a grim story about the T1s, as well as the S1 and S2. None of it is good news for T1 fans. Dozens of road failures, long out-of-service times due to shoppings, engines held waiting for arrival of nonstandard parts, major and minor design flaws, etc. Even aggravatingly simple things like the cabs of the T1s not having enough room for the enginemen to place their feet comfortably.

As Eric suggested, with some tweaking it's possible that they could have become the engines their designer (Baldwin) had in mind. What struck me in reading page after page of these memos was that this was so unlike the design and service record experience of the next generation back, i.e. the K4-L1-I1-M1 generation. For the most part, those engines did what their designers asked of them without significant flaws and without a lot of aftermarket fiddling. What also is a mystery is why the gross failures didn't show up (or if they did, why they were covered up) as red flags in the prototype pair built in 1942 (Nos. 6110-6111).

In current technology terms, the T1 reminds me of nothing so much as Bill Gates' MS Windows operating system: Great concept and powerful applications *if* you can get it to work flawlessly. Which no one ever has--even the computer geeks among us aren't immune to Bill's bugs. He's certainly cemented the word "reboot" into the American lexicon.

The T1 was supposed to eat the diesels' lunch, but it turned out to be the other way around. In 1946-48, management had a railroad to run, inflationary costs to wrestle, deferred wartime maintenance and capitalization to catch up on, and new postwar competitors (plentiful autos and tax-funded highways) to fight. PRR declared its first-ever loss in 1946, its centennial year. What a way to celebrate! Both passengers and shippers were deserting in droves; companies were moving plants to the South and Southwest. In short, trying to rely on a marquee passenger locomotive design that was temperamental did only one thing: It fried what little patience management had left.

Jim Symes had been a VP in Chicago (not insulated/isolated as in Philly or Altoona) and was in a position to see first-hand what diesels were doing on the Santa Fe, Burlington, Rock Island, etc. That allowed him to argue persuasively against the entrenched motive power gurus who wanted $1m to spend on developing the proposed V1 4-8-4-8 turbine, when PRR couldn't even get its single S2 turbine, No. 6200, of 1944 to work right.

When the E unit design proved to be nearly as reliable as the GG1, it should come as no surprise that the railroad said, in effect, "Hello, La Grange? We'll take 134 of those--with gold pinstripes, please!"

Mark Reutter covered much of this in far greater detail in his piece "The Great (Motive) Power Stuggle: the Pennsylvania Railroad vs. General Motors, 1935-1949," pubslihed in R&LHS's Railroad History No. 170, Spring 1994.

Dan Cupper
Harrisburg, Pa.

cupper@att.net

Dan -

Thanks for the thorough response. I'm going to try to get the R&LHS back issue. I'm always looking for more T1 info, good or bad, as long as it's accurate. This article may be a big help.

Two comments - First, the troubles with 6110 and 6111 are documented in many memos written by RFE Norm Suhrie in 1942. They are also at the Hagley. There was no cover-up. His observations were very critical, and mostly, IMO, pretty much on target. However, some of the responses from his superiors were pretty sarcastic, and rejected many of his suggestions. They should have paid more attention.

Where I argue with most writers is that the 6110/6111 faults have been applied directly to the 50 production units with no references to any supporting information. It would help the rest of us if they would concentrate on documenting their opinions, or convince editors not to delete references because it would be "too technical". I've found a lot of misinformation regarding the T1, which most take as absolute fact.

Second, when the T1 was designed, it was specified to replace doubleheaded K4's on the "Blue Ribbon" fleet, which I believe were the heavy, limited stop trains. It was not designed to beat the diesel or be the next K4. It appeared to be a narrowly targeted design. Could be wrong here because I've never read the spec sheet.

However, I've often wondered why PRR went ahead with 50 more when they were facing financial troubles and already had E7's on the property. Symes seems to have been the only one to realize what was going on outside PRR.

Also you have to keep in mind the mindset of the people....nobody likes change. The early diesels including some of the "diesels that changed railroading" like the E-7 and E-8 were not fantastic performers in day in day out reliability, that is until specific component reliability was improved. Look how many of them they had to throw at the passenger pool to protect it. And they were on 30 day Federal schedule. The D-27 traction motor was nothing to write home about, neither was the insulation of the day, the A or B block 567's etc. But compared to any steam engine the diesel had it beat.

All I'm saying was the T1 was one fantastic concept and one fantastic piece of machinery...it wasn't a K4, a K5, M1, EP-20, FP-20 etc....

Eric.Levin@Conrail.com

Ed -

Poppet valves tended to reduce the back pressure in the cylinders by more precise timing of valve events. Back pressure normally had at least one beneficial effect because it served as a kind of "brake" if the loco motive slipped. Poppet valves reduced this effect. Whether all locomotives equipped with poppet valves were slippery I don't know. ATSF 3752 had the reputation of being a very smooth starter. MP 6001 (4-6-2) was noted for its high performance, but I never heard any mention of its adhesion.

Poppets may have contributed to freer running, but coefficient of friction between the drivers and rail is the controlling factor. Bad rail conditions produce problems for any locomotive.
My opinion at this point - I believe the T1's major problem is that it had two-axle engines. This arrangement would always be more sensitive to bad rail conditions than a 4-8-4 (of 4-6-4 for that matter). If you lose one point of contact, the remaining three points have absorb the same force, making the engine more prone to slip than a 4-8-4. If you lose one point of contact in a 4-8-4, there are still seven remaining to absorb the cylinder input. Makes the loco more forgiving when things aren't exactly right (never are, in real life).

I know of no tests regarding the T1a (5547??) equipped with Walschaerts gear. Another T1 was equipped with rotary cam gear (outside drive) instead of oscillating cams. That wasn't tested either. Both applications eliminated the inaccessible inboard drive boxes of the OC Type A gear. Both were too late to make any difference.

> *Someone offered to buy out the East Broad
> Top from the Kovalchicks for a suitcase full
> of cash years ago; they were rebuffed.

I heard that "someone" was the State of Pennsylvania, and that the suitcase was very small!


TyburnRR@cs.com

I have heard the same thing about NKP engines. I know that the guys at the C&O shop in Huntington, back in the mid 1970's swore up and down that whenever the order came out from Cleveland to get another engine ready for a park, they picked the worst performer in the lot and painted it up and sent it off. They didn't ever want to have to put it back in service again. At least that's what they told me...

prr8404@aol.com

> William Moedinger - Some tourist was alleged to have remarked how expensive it would be to have to fill the boiler with antifreeze.... <

What about the tender's tank? Would that take a lot more?

TyburnRR@cs.com

> What about the tender's tank? Would that
> take a lot more?

Data is available relating boiler volume to tender volume if this is a serious question.

mike211@yknet.ca

Well actually Dan, the Idea was floated around for a few years since the government knew, if the nukes started flying, the Diesels and electrics would be dead.

When an Atomic Bomb explodes it created a huge static pulse, EMP (elecrto-magnetic pulse) which shorts out anything electrical. Thus if it happened, a steamer would be the only thing running until the diesels could be rebuilt.

Rich

> Not sure whether this is urban myth or tall
> tale, but it's one or the other.

> Around 1969 I was a college student riding a
> Penn Central passenger train on the former
> PRR main line, heading to Penn State at the
> beginning of a term. As it passed the
> Altoona shops, four of the PRR's preserved
> steam engines were parked outside (M1b 4-8-2
> 6755, G5s 4-6-0 5720, H6sb 2-8-0 2846, and
> H10s 2-8-0 7688).

> PC had pulled these four from the
> Northumberland, Pa., roundhouse where they'd
> been stored with the rest of the PRR
> historical collection. They were brought to
> Altoona to be repainted as a preliminary
> step toward being sent to Strasburg for the
> eventual creation of the RR Museum of
> Pennsylvania. (Kurt, you listening?)

> Aboard the train, the sight of the steamers
> actually caused a stir. Several passengers
> remarked to a trainman, who blithely
> explained: "Oh, the Government makes
> the railroad keep 100 steam engines on hand
> at all times for national security."

> (Right. Like a K4 would do anybody any good
> with the US and USSR then pointing nukes at
> each other.)

> The passengers nodded at this bit of insider
> knowledge, swallowed it whole and went back
> to what they were doing.

> I was tempted to ask the conductor how
> PRR/PC kept so many engines hidden so well
> that the railfan nation couldn't find them.
> Knowing that I still had more than an hour
> to go before my station stop, I held my
> tongue.

> But most of all, I wished that it were true.

> Dan Cupper
> Harrisburg, Pa.


rcizik5519@earthlink.net

Doesn't the EMP only impact solid state circuitry? So wouldn't the older 1st generation diesels be able to operate? I have no clue, just thinking of what I have seen James Bond do.

G. Mark

Look at our Revamped Website
aw90@comcast.net

> Doesn't the EMP only impact solid state
> circuitry? So wouldn't the older 1st
> generation diesels be able to operate? I
> have no clue, just thinking of what I have
> seen James Bond do.

> G. Mark

Without getting too far OT, the EMP tends to be more effective in destroying solid state circuitry because of less tolerance for momentary over voltage/current flows. The current/voltage is caused as the EMP propagates through space. Normally we move the wire through the magnetic field, but in the EMP, the field is moving and the wire is stationary. The electrical grid is at most risk because the long straight transmission runs allow significant voltages and currents be generated. Short runs and/or motors and generators arenÂ’t as at risk because the coils counteract the current generation when moving the field vice the wires. Generally, if the diesel locomotive is still structurally intact, itÂ’s probably electrically intact as well. The holding of steam for war reserve, if it actually occurred, would have been to protect for an expected increase in traffic, aka, WWII.

Ed

I'm thinking that another component of the story is that supposedly "Old Maude" was set aside, and for whatever reason was cut up in the end. This was long before 1972, of course.

whitby@SPAMLESSerols.com