Perhaps a review of the thermodynamic and mechanical aspects of the locomotive should occur. With this analysis, one can predict the performance of the locomotive rather than guess at it.

"Nobody knows what he does not know until he knows it." - L.D. Porta

Furthermore, it is possible to apply this knowledge to design improvements to the locomotive that will yield the desired results.

Though the design of the 2100 has many strengths, there is no doubt that aspects of it suffer from being based on trial-and-error experience on an empirical basis.

"No horse will run faster than what is the limit of a poorly fitted horseshoe spike." - L.D. Porta

The 2100s were designed and built with Wootten fireboxes for anthracite culm combustion. It is not surprising that conversion to oil fuel might require some substantial fine tuning, as opposed to what a more common bituminous burner would. Certainly, the 2100s ought to be able to walk away with 6 coaches readily, even on a middling grade. I seem to recall they hauled some impressive coal trains over Perkiomen in the old days. Looking forward to seeing what evolves.

dave

Trust me on one thing gentlemen, the 2100 with a full head of steam, sanders in good working order and a capable hogger can take that mini-train of 6 lightweights and an aux. tender up that hill twice a day 'till the cows come home. The problems to date are not the engine! 'Nuff said!!
Ross Rowland

Is there really any way to tell from trackside how hard an F40 is running? If the HEP was one, the dang thing would scream no matter how hard it is working, no?

Rob

Assuming the 2100 is maintaining the full 240 psig boiler pressure and thereby of delivering the 68,000 lbs of tractive effort to the railhead, it should be more than capable of pulling 6 light weight passenger cars up a 3.5% grade. I remember riding the Reading Iron Horse Rambles up the Frackville grade which is 3.3 %, double headed with 22 Reading Company suburban coaches in the early 1960's. Mr. Rowland's comment's come with much experiance at the throttle of the T-1's and should ring true. But a thought that has come to mind with the troubles they are having with the 2100,could it possible there's a problem with the spring rigging equalization? I seem to remember one of the excursion era locomotives having power related troubles that were finally attributed to the spring rigging being out of kilter,causing uneven weight distrubution on the driving wheels and once she was 'balanced' correctly, she was just fine. Just a thought.

I just went back a reviewed some of the sound and video recordings I have of the 2101 on the Chessie Steam Specials of 1979-1980. After listening to them and then comparing the exhaust sound to the video linked above, in my opinion the 2100 is not operating at full power. The throttle may be physically wide open, but there is nowhere hear 240 psi behind that steam.

With only 6 cars the 2100 should be easily able to go up that 3+% grade unassisted. Back in 1978 I shot about 20 minutes of pacing video of the 2101 pulling 11 cars and an A-Tank up the 2.25% of 17 Mile Grade in the rain at about 12-14 mph (remember those days, Ross?) and the exhaust is deafening! The rather wimpy exhaust evidenced in this video tells me the 2101 is either not operating at full boiler pressure or the throttle is far from being wide open.

You would be amazed the difference a few pounds of steam can make. The 765 is designed to run at 245 psi. Let that steam fall back to only 230 psi and she is a different engine...sluggish and somewhat unresponsive. All the "Super Power" performance is in those last few pounds of steam.

You're probably all correct, but I read that the locomotive had several mics strategically positioned onboard for some sort of professional audio recording.
All the starts and stops and such could conceivably have been scripted stuff that was needed by the folks making the recordings.
Until we hear from someone in the know, we just won't know for sure.

Warren, Rich, Ross and friends, thanks for a very interesting discussion!

That 68,000 lbs. rated tractive effort shown on a number of websites attracts my attention. I realize the T1 has pretty large cylinders and relatively small drivers compared with other 4-8-4's, and can undoubtedly produce TE very impressively with its 400+ ton weight, but can it put 68,000 lbs. on the rail consistently? If that figure reflects 24% adhesion (in ideal conditions) it would indicate a weight on drivers of around 280,000#. A lot safer assumption for operating without a booster would be 18% sustainable adhesion in poor conditions (around 51,000# TE).

Which is interesting because when I calculate 2100's 6-car train (admittedly with weight guesstimates for the canteen and coaches) I am getting around 60,000# grade resistance alone. In comparison the 11-car train on 2.25% that Rich mentions calculates at around 50,000# grade resistance.

I think Warren may be confusing the 3.3% Frackville grade with the nearby 2.8% Locust Summit grade. I rode a number of Iron Horse Rambles in anthracite country and followed others, and I do not recall any traversing the Frackville Branch. Locust Summit was a tough pull for two T-1s with 22 coaches. On the last Ramble I rode to Shamokin, 2100 put on a spectacular show, hammering up the grade at 12-14 mph with 11 coaches.

I think the problem in Tacoma may be that they are unable to maintain maximum working pressure with the present oil firing system. The T-1s were incredibly strong drag engines for locomotives with 70-inch drivers, and 2100 should be able to walk right up the Tacoma grade with six cars. When they were in freight service, they were routinely assigned to 10,000 ton coal trains and were able to acccelerate them to 50 mph in nothing flat and effortlessly keep them rolling.

Ross and everyone,

I have a feeling that the engine is somewhat at fault, but I doubt it was anything the Reading did to it. From what I hear the conversion from coal to oil was pretty much botched. I can't say that this is 100% true but from what I've heard the grates are still in the engine and have just been covered over with sheet metal. From looking at the pictures here and on other sites it does appear that the ash pan is still in place. Also, the oil jet is located on the table for the stoker. So the oil fire is blowing right at the tubes instead of being located under the tubes and blowing towards the back head like normal oil burners. This would explain a couple of things, including why they cant keep the pressure up. 2100's firebox is very large. I can't imagine a jet located on the stoker table can sufficiently heat the side sheets and crown, and it certainly doesn't heat the backhead.

If this is all true, then I think we shouldn't be worried so much about the engine not making it up the hill but what this is doing to the firebox and the boiler. It seems to me that there must be a lot of cold air hitting that warm metal to cool it down to 150 psi so quickly. Warm side sheets and cold air are not a good combo.

DSS

OK, one last time. There is nothing wrong with the fireing on 2100. She carried 240 lbs of pressure all the way up the hill. I do not know who started this CR-P, but is just that.

We did a special sound recording for Warner Bros. for a upcoming movie. Everything was done the way they (Warner Bros.) wanted it. Except for the first stop statring the hill. We had a car brake that didn't release.

Mike Pierce
V.P. GPRR

Hey Rich!
Are you the same Rich Melvin I see (and hear) on Monday nights at 6:00 PM on many Trains and Locomotive shows on RFDTV?

Later!
Mr. Ed

Mike,

If there was no problem with the oil firing and pressure was maintained at 240 psi, please explain why the diesel assist was needed in climbing the hill. As one who worked with numerous film crews, I find it hard to believe Warner Bros. would want a screaming diesel destroying the authentic steam sounds!

Frederick G. Bailey

To Mike Pierce,

Who are the experienced steam personnel working with 2100, and what is their background? From what I've seen on several different forums, 2100 is having a terrible time with a very small train--and some very experienced steam people are among those commenting and apparently willing to help you out. Since big steam is so difficult to operate today, please don't give it an unnecessary "black eye".

Frederick G. Bailey