A comment on a post summarizes PRR's duplex locomotive program:
Later, Bill posted in a different group and got a comment by Robert Leffingwell:
Bill reposted 20160426 and got the comment:
Eric Risse The PRR S1 was the largest steam locomotive ever built for passenger service (so big it could only run on small portions of the PRR system) Weighed in at a million lbs with the tender, and had 84" drivers.
Matt McClure All that NYC ROW sits fallow now---perfect for dedicated Amtrak tracks east into Indiana. Although a connection at the ex-IC would be way, way faster into downtown that the ex-PRR slugging west of the Dan Ryan. Great photo.
Bob Lalich Both locomotives have had some of their sheet metal removed to ease maintenance.
Stephen Phillips: The idea of the duplex drive , was developed to lessen the effect of "Dynamic Augment" … the effect of the mass of the weight of side rods and main rods slamming down on the track , first one side then the other … by spitting the drive in two the pounding force on the rails would be lessened, and the number of power strokes for each wheel rotation would be doubled when the engines were out of sync..... The S1 of 1939 , the T1 experimentals of 1942 and the (50) production T1's of 1945-46 , the Q1 of 1942 , and the (26) Q2's of 1944-45 …. It's my opinion that the T1's and Q2's were good engines that have gotten a great deal of bad press … the PRR didn't provide the training for engine crews and maintenance crews necessary to operate these new locomotives , so very different from those they replaced …
The S1 and T1s were streamlined by Raymond Loewy.
 |
| Mike Snow posted Pennsylvania Railroad T-1 4-4-4-4 No 6110 seen here eastbound at Gay Street Bridge-Fort Wayne Indiana Photo by Robert A Hadley date not noted. Designed for fastest passenger service the T1 locomotive was everything: beautiful to behold, unusual, powerful, fast, slippery, success and failure. Pennsy's chunk of "too much experimentation" was born too late and died too soon. There were two experimental engines, the first, the 6110, and the second the 6111, both were built in 1942 by Baldwin for the war time traffic. The 6111 was equipped with a Franklin booster in its trailing truck; this added 13,500 lbs. of tractive effort, no other T1's had boosters. In April 1944, the 6110 was sent to Altoona test plant for a thorough instrument check after compiling 120,000 miles of road service. The test reports were excellent and elated PRR motive power men placed orders for fifty engines. All of the engines were built during 1945 and 1946. Altoona built locomotives 5500-5524, plus all the tenders, while Baldwin built locomotives 5525-5549. Only very slight modifications appeared in the design. The T1 was the last steam locomotive to be built in the Altoona Juniata Locomotive Shops. Gregg Leech |
 |
| Bill Molony posted Pennsylvania Railroad class S-1 6-4-4-6 Duplex-type #6100, accelerating eastbound out of Englewood Union Station - circa 1945. |
 |
| Bill Molony posted Pennsylvania Railroad class T-1 4-4-4-4 duplex-type #6110, waiting to depart eastbound from Englewood Union Station - 1944. |
 |
| Joe Malone posted Interior of an S1 if I'm not mistaken....Wow, just a little intimidating. Randy Geep Bradley: Pennsylvania Railroad S1 No. 6100 Class Duplex-Cab. Michael Milner: The backhead looks well organized to me, the engineer and the fireman both have their water glasses and their blowdown valves, the gauges that are important to each of their jobs are in front of them. The stoker controls look well laid out. If the resolution was better you could pick out a lot of the gauges and valve handles and make a good guess as to their function based on the usual placement of these. Rick Giles: The most intimidating thing is peering out that little Raymond Loewy designed cab window down that ultra long boiler trying to see what's ahead. Pat Wilkinson: The only thing more intimidating would be doing it at night in a storm so bad you could not see the front of the loco. Jack Franks: Rick Giles that's why they ran with the window open and their head hanging out. |
 |
| Lew Morris commented on Joe's post Comparable only to a WWII era Gato-class submarine... |
 |
| BRHS posted Pennsylvania Railroad class T-1 4-4-4-4 Duplex #5535, outbound from Englewood Union Station with PRR train #48, the all-coach Trail Blazer - 1946. Photograph by Robert H. Kennedy. From the Blackhawk collection. |
 |
| David Daruszka updated PRR T1 4-4-4-4 No. 5507 clatters through 21st Street interlocking in Chicago with the Broadway Limited for New York. A T1 on the Broadway is relatively rare, as dieselization of PRR’s top trains came soon after the giant duplexes arrived. Wallace W. Abbey photo Mitch Markovitz: I don't think that's The Broadway with that baggage dorm second out. Seems more like the General. David Daruszka: That's how Classic Trains captioned it. Mitch Markovitz: David Daruszka Good for them but they're wrong. |
 |
| safe_image for share by Mike Salvagtore for: Pennsylvania Railroad: "The Standard Railroad Of The World" Jack Bobby Lou Mulreavy I have read stories about hoggers making up time in these engines on the line from Ft Wayne IN to Tolleston, supposedly "poker" straight. Apparently these locomotives would easily do100 mph with a passenger. Mike Salvatore only with bad engineers, Trains and others have done stories on this. A good hogger could do wonders with these engines. Trains even did a story years ago about a guy who was a EB fireman and the OT he had for a engineer taking a train 30 mins late and coming in 10 mins ahead of schedule with a T1. The local RF called them in and ripped them for thinking they were fighter pilots. Bill Stephens I have heard anecdotes about engineers being written up for breaking 140 mph on that racetrack with T1s. I believe that's why 5550 is being built, to challenge the 126 mph Mallard record. Steven Joseph Not for nothing, The guy that hired me used to run them out of Crestline, OH. His recollection was that they were very quick on their feet, but very slippery when encountering "bad rail". My boss, was involved with the testing process out of Altoona, earlier in his career. The reason they didn't out live the K4, was they had serious design issues. For what it's worth. Alexander Mitchell Bill Stephens the other thing to consider is the precision, or lack thereof, of American mileposts. British mileposts were regularly measured and recalibrated, and fans could even buy booklets that verified the ACTUAL distance between mileposts to assist their amateur timekeeping. Note that American railroad ETTs routinely designated "measured miles," sets of mileposts actually 5,280 feet apart, for checking speedometers. The reality is that without a dynamometer or other precision recorder largely unavailable in steam days, any speed record claims of steam days need to be taken with grains of salt--or a league of several stopwatch timers working off of measured mileposts. LNER 4468 "Mallard" hold the record simply for virtue of hitting 126 WITH a dynamometer car. Bill Stephens Alexander Mitchell - I would think that the PRR would have had such equipment, as they never scrimped on such equipment. If you have ever seen the 1930 movie, "Danger Lights," it has the only known movie footage of a dynamometer car during the steam era. The movie was based around a rail yard on the Milwaukee Road. https://youtu.be/7gb_xMbCqx4 Alexander Mitchell The PRR had a dynamometer car--or at least could procure one from Baldwin or Lima. But you're not going to open up a test train to 130-140 mph without a specific need to do so for a test of some kind, plus written authority to exceed designated track speed, as Amtrak does when they do high-speed testing on the Corridor. And if the PRR needed to run high-speed tests on a T1, wasn't that what the Test Plant in Altoona was for? I suggest you not extrapolate history from movies, lest you think trains in parts of the U.S. West used broad-gauge trains with buffers and hook-chain couplers! Jack Bobby Lou Mulreavy Alexander Mitchell first off, you are talking about railroads before the FRA. They did not need anyone's permission to exceed anything, they did what they had to do to get the job done. Not to be argumentative but the section of line referenced above WAS used as a place to make up time in the schedule and has been documented as such in writing. I do believe that the tangent track on the FT Wayne line was longer than the longest stretch of straight track on the NY Division, which only stretches from New Brunswick to just north of Trenton. Gerald M Rudy My Uncle Bill Tenny who ran K4s talked about running K4s at speeds well exceeding 100 mph. He said that they were really smooth at high speeds. I don't recall him telling stories about T1s, but I'm sure those were capable of speeds far exceeding 100 mph and being a later engine, I can imagine them being exceedingly smooth at high speed too. Chuck Kulesa The text from PRR Pennsy Power shows the T1 and the caption said ... paraphrasing ... "Put'em on level track, point'em in the right direction and watch'em go" ... Bill Semmett Were they really that bad? As I have been told: Once management comprehended the reality of diesel economy ALL the steamers were history regardless. Christopher Bost No, they were not that bad. PRR wouldn't have had 50 production models built if they were. More expensive to maintain than the older stuff? Yes. Which is why when PRR acquired enough diesels, they were the first to go. Kyle McGrogan My engineers would differ with you. The two on the Panhandle had the reputation of being very slippery to start in most conditions, worse on black rail, curves or grades. I suspect it was too much unbalance due to the rearward water surge on starting, and too much power in the lead engine. Once started, on the level they could run like the wind. They were, nothing more then the steam version of the PRR centipedes, which were another batch of lemons. If PR had just built a modenized M1 they could have had a reliable machine at less cost. |
 |
| Heritage Railway Magazine posted John E Josai: Steam is an awesome power source but requires loads of fuel. I absolutely love this picture wow a steam streamliner. I was one of the last few men to work on a 27000 hp steam engine at WSX. It was used in the blooming mill to roll out 40000 lb. ingots you had to see it to believe it. GE couldn't make an electric motor to reverse as quickly so it stayed their until 1993. Oh by the way it was put into service in 1927 and was floated down on the Erie channel. [A comment implied that 52 were built.] |
Paulo Coelho posted three photos with the comment:
The Pennsylvania Railroad (PRR) T1 6110 was one of the two initial prototypes of the T1 class¹. This masterpiece was produced by the Baldwin Locomotive Works in 1942. The T1 6110, along with its sister prototype, was designed for fast passenger service across the Pennsylvania Railroad's lines.Here are some technical details about this locomotive:- Power type: Steam- Designer: Ralph P. Johnson and Raymond Loewy- Configuration: 4-4-4-4- Gauge: 4 ft 8 + 1⁄2 in (1,435 mm)- Driver diameter: 80 in (2,032 mm)- Total weight: 944,700 lb (428.5 t)- Fuel type: Coal¹- Maximum speed: Over 110 mph (177 km/h)- Power output: 6,500 ihp (4,800 kW)This locomotive was ambitious, technologically sophisticated, powerful, fast and distinctively streamlined by Raymond Loewy. However, it was also prone to wheelslip both when starting and at speed, in addition to being complicated to maintain and expensive to run. Despite these challenges, the T1 6110 remains a significant part of railroad history
Paulo Coelho shared
Bob Leverknight: The "slippery" was and is a railfan myth created by David P Morgan.
Their biggest failure was the day the first production T-1 was delivered for service in Harrisburg.
Across the river, the first pair of EMD E-7s were placed in service.
By the first month's milage totals, the T-1 was just blown away by the service record of that pair of E-7s
99% availability. Lower costs across the board. Higher passenger-miles.
If the T-1 had one fault, it was crews accustomed to "beating" the K-4 with brute-force operating techniques, where the T-1 (and Q-2 or J-1) needed a softer touch.
When the N&W tested a T, they had no tendency to slip at low or high speeds.
The often repeated story of the T-1 "hanging up" on Scary Hill, well, the C&O's own J-3a Greenbriars and H-8 Alleghanies were also known to stall there too.
[Some comments discuss the replica that is being built.]
 |
| 1 |
 |
| 2 |
 |
| 3 |
S1
 |
| Mike Snow posted PRR (Pennsy) 6100 S1 6-4-4-6 with e/b Golden Arrow and 12 cars west of Warsaw Indiana The first experimental duplex on the PRR was the S1, a huge rigid frame duplex locomotive of the 6-4-4-6 wheel arrangement. This engine was over 146' long! This locomotive was built by the PRR at Altoona in 1939; it was hailed as the largest locomotive ever built. The look of this locomotive was designed by Raymond Lowey, whose first assignment for the PRR was to redesign a trashcan at Penn Station, and later designed the look of the T1. When it was completed, it did not see revenue service right away. It was sent to the New York World's Fair and was put on display along with other railroad's latest motive power to show the world first class, cutting edge technology. This locomotive had impressive statistics. 84" drivers meant that she could really make tracks! It is said that going 100 mph was not uncommon, even though the speed limit on the Ft. Wayne mainline was 80 mph for passenger trains. The S1 was completely streamlined, a cosmetic shrouding that many railroads were adding to their locomotives to enhance the appearance and, hopefully, along with other comforts on board, lure riders from their automobiles and back onto the train. As impressive as it looked, this was a huge headache for the roundhouse crews that had to work on these locomotives. The problem was that it interfered with access to the stuff underneath. And when you had a recurring maintenance item, it was most frustrating to waste time removing it, doing the work, and then replacing it. Turning the S1 here in Crestline was obviously not done on the turntable. It was turned on the "wye" which was just west of the roundhouse and one leg of it crossed Bucyrus St. During the War, Crestline was one of several facilities that were used to train military railroad personnel. One day a clerk was relieved from duty early and was "railfanning" near the roundhouse and came upon the S1. Its hostler saw him and asked if he could throw switches so he could get the S1 to the wye and then into stall #30. After an affirmative response, he climbed up into the cab and went for a smooth ride, throwing switches where necessary. When it first entered the wye, the S1 slipped badly and came to a stop. The hostler is reputed to have said, "Soldier, if this stiff-legged, blank, expletive, blankity blank is on the ground!" The soldier got down to take a look, and sure enough, the rear set of drivers were on the ties. This brought on some more blue language from the hostler. After he cooled down, he said, "Soldier, go tell the house foreman this animal is on the ground again." I've read somewhere that when the S1 was to be turned on the wye, some people from town would go down to the roundhouse to watch the event. If it did happen to come off the rails, it must surely have added to the excitement. The speedometer only went up to 110 and once while riding the loco, a road foreman, noticing it buried, pulled out his stopwatch and clocked the train for a distance of about 3 miles btw known locations. He clocked the train with 12 heavyweight cars doing about 134 mph! This was chronicled in a 1941 issue of popular Mechanics magazine. Photo taken 8/17/41 by D. Allen Bauer Lawrence Smith Another rumor has it running 156 mph. Rail history literature is full of stories of speeds made by the PRR on the Ft wayne Div under steam. A good read is "90 mph and beyond" in the Keystone mag (Oct 2014). It's beyond me they could do this on jointed rail with ABS but no ATC of any kind. here is a link to the 1941 article - on p 11. Ken Durkel Look at that razor sharp ballast line! [Lowey's first Pennsy contract being a trashcan was rather interesting.] |
 |
| AltoonaWorks posted This photo shows the PRR's huge S1 6-4-4-6 locomotive under construction right here in Altoona at the Juniata Shops in 1939. Nicknamed "The Big Engine," the S1 was the longest reciprocating steam locomotive ever (just over 140 ft); it was too big for many PRR curves. Along with wheel slippage, this limited the S1's usefulness. No further S1 models were built as focus shifted to the T1 class. The S1 called the Crestline, OH roundhouse its home until scrapped in 1949. The cost of the S1 was $669,780.00, equal to $11,413,500 today. |
 |
| Korry Shepard posted Scott H. Brown Very cool! If I'm not mistaken there was only one S-1 made? Korry Shepard Only one, and it only ran between Chicago and Crestline. |
 |
| Bill Molony posted Pennsylvania Railroad class T1 4-4-4-4 Duplex-type #6111 and New York Central Railroad class J1e 4-6-4 Hudson-type #5344, ready to depart eastbound from Englewood Union Station on November 4, 1944. Thomas J. McAllister shared Will Davis: Check out the Scullin driving wheels on the 5344! |
 |
| Bill Molony posted Pennsylvania Railroad class S1 6-4-4-6 Duplex #6100 with The Trailblazer, racing New York Central class J3a 4-6-4 Hudson #5448 with the Advance Commodore Vanderbilt eastbound from Englewood Union Station. Jerry Jackson Any idea of the year? Bill Molony The NYC's streamlined J3a Hudsons were built in 1937 and 1938, and the PRR's #6100 was built in January of 1939, so this photo was most likely taken in about 1940, give or take a year. Jeff Delhaye Both of them are missing some skirting, so I'd tend to add in 3 or 4 years Garry Hendricks posted There must be countless pictures of this daily event between the Broadway and the Century. I have never seen any pictures of this event when both trains were being pulled by diesels. I am beginning to wonder if any such pictures exist. David Burhenn Is that the S-1 on the left? Great contrast between Loewy and Dreyfuss streamlining. Bruce B. Reynolds It is the S-1 on the left, already missing many panels of its shroud for better access for the maintenance folks. David Burhenn Even though I am a big Pennsy fan, and love the S-1, I have to say that the Dreyfuss Hudsons were just perfection. Dreyfuss understood how to streamline a steam locomotive without hiding all the interesting bits (and allowing crews to maintain them). Jon Roma These trains did not leave their respective stations simultaneously throughout their entire lifetime, plus a minute difference in loading time at Englewood would affect where the two trains ran neck-and-neck, and I'm sure there were days when they were far enough apart that they couldn't "race" each other before the two lines separated east of the state line. With ample power, either train could quickly make up a minute or two delay getting away from Englewood without breaking a sweat. Lawrence Smith also PRR was at mercy of the lift bridge at 21st street. IF it was up trains had to wait. NYC could move directly to Englewood assuming 16th st jct was clear. |
Later, Bill posted in a different group and got a comment by Robert Leffingwell:
In the 50s, the Broadway and the 20th Century left Englewood at the same time.
Bill reposted 20160426 and got the comment:
Eric Risse The PRR S1 was the largest steam locomotive ever built for passenger service (so big it could only run on small portions of the PRR system) Weighed in at a million lbs with the tender, and had 84" drivers.
 |
| David Daruszka: Exposure adjusted. |
Bob Lalich Both locomotives have had some of their sheet metal removed to ease maintenance.
The T1 Trust is building another T1.
%20Marty%20Bernard%20-%20https___www.trains.com_trn_news-reviews_news-wire_r...%20_%20F.png) |
| Feb 2024: Marty Bernard posted a link for Reading T-1 No. 2100 has boiler tubes installed, undergoes first hydrostatic test Andy Hughes: Why restore the 2100 when you 2101 and 2102? Stuart B. Slaymaker: Andy Hughes : 2101 was in a roundhouse fire, years ago. It is a cosmetic restoration for display, only. Mechanical appliances were damaged in the fire. Treasurer and restoration crew volunteer Forest Nace explained: “Hydrostatic testing is actually a multi-step process where after filling the boiler all the way up with water and heating to between 70 and 120 degrees and pressurizing with a pump to 125% of working pressure —which is 300 psi for the 2100, as its working pressure is 240psi. You begin to look for leaks,” Nace said. “With this method, if there are leaks or a failure water leaks out and the pressure is released in a safe, non-destructive manner. “Once any leaks are discovered, depending on the nature of the leak, it can sometimes be addressed with further tightening if threaded parts are the source, or a process known as “caulking” where using a hammer and a blunt end tool one mashes the metal together as it is of a softer tensile strength to allow for expansion and contraction. The gaps or holes being sealed using this technique are incredibly small, in the few thousandths or tens of thousandths of an inch. It is also possible for these microscopic leaks to naturally seal themselves with rust, as when the boiler is drained after each hydro test, rust will form and can completely seal the spot. “For firebox sleeves or caps that cannot be sealed, replacement with new components is the only solution. This, however, along with any welds to the wrapper (the outer firebox shell) to replace any deteriorated metal, may cause other issues with the surrounding sleeves. On the 2100, the sleeves are threaded into the wrapper. When heat is applied from welding, the slight expansion and contraction of the surrounding metal can possibly lead to slight leaking of an adjacent sleeve where it meets the wrapper. This is why multiple hydro tests usually need to be performed, to ensure all repairs, and the surrounding areas, are completely sealed before the FRA comes to perform its hydro inspection.” Donations can be made here. |
No comments:
Post a Comment