Steam & Excursion > Pennsylvania 5550 T-1 Trust

In my last post concerning NP 759 some made a valid point of not adding the same type of locomotive that already has one of it's own currently in service. So what about bringing one back that's been "extinct" for over 60 years? Say the Pennsy T-1 4-4-4-4? There's currently a project underway to try and actually build one. It's certainly an original project and never been done before no question about that. Would it be best to build it as exactly as the originals were, or would this be a great time to incorporate some newer technology in some parts of it? (where money would allow )

They'd be crazy not to do that.

Especially since it wasn't a successful design...

Realist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They'd be crazy not to do that.

Geez, the perfect excursion engine, yah, on the Northeast Corridor at a buck twenty five!
Actually the design was successful, you just had to pick the right definition!

Out

Sorry but the T1 did not do what the PRR designed it to do. It took a very good engineer to run them, average ones had trouble. The PRR didn't know how to properly maintain them either.

Posted from iPhone

As I said, it was successful by some definition though as you say, not what the
railroad had intended. Hell, the things pushed 7,000 HP at nearly 90 mph and
wheeled 20+ cars at a 100 plus. Now, the maintenance to keep one doing that was
maybe a bit excessive and a heavy handed hogger wasn't a good idea but it'd be
cool to see it running 100 plus on the NEC.

Out



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/27/14 20:04 by callum_out.

Gentlemen,

refer to the below posted thread, if you want some real and truthful info about the T1.

http://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?10,1587638,page=1

Bob Callahan
Monticello, IN

As I stated earlier, restore the Reading T-1 4-8-4 #2124 at Steam Town (Steam less town right now).
This locomotive is roller bearing and could haul a large passenger train for excursions.

ClubCar Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As I stated earlier, restore the Reading T-1 4-8-4
> #2124 at Steam Town (Steam less town right now).
> This locomotive is roller bearing and could haul a
> large passenger train for excursions.

Restoring /building a PRR T-1 has nothing to do with
restoring #2124. It's not an either or, and rarely
ever is. Besides, work progresses on the B&M #3713.

http://www.prrt1steamlocomotivetrust.org/

http://www.project3713.com/


/Mitch

Although I'm biased, I'll reinforce Bob's link to a lot of good PRR T1 info in two pages.

To refute a comment above, the T1 exceeded PRR's spec of 880 tons at 100 mph. It could make that figure with over 1,000 tons.

Its all opinion of course, but I think it would be more practical to build a NYC Hudson than a Pennsylvania T-1. I would love to see a T-1 operate, but the NYC Hudsons were universally iconic American engines, they were VERY successful for what they were built for and they could go more places. Don't get mew wrong, I would love to see a T-1, but I vote for a J3 any day... For those who will say, "Oh, but Hudsons already exist," I will respond with, "Not an NYC Hudson!" There is no existing Hudson that possesses the great track record and beautiful industrial designing of the NYC Hudsons. The scrapping of the Hudsons was on of the biggest mistakes in American Railroad preservation. At least we still have 2 NYC Mohawks, but they don't quite have the class of a high drivered 4-6-4.

All opinion, of course, but that's mine.

steam290 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Its all opinion of course, but I think it would be
> more practical to build a NYC Hudson than a
> Pennsylvania T-1. I would love to see a T-1
> operate, but the NYC Hudsons were universally
> iconic American engines, they were VERY successful
> for what they were built for and they could go
> more places. Don't get mew wrong, I would love to
> see a T-1, but I vote for a J3 any day... For
> those who will say, "Oh, but Hudsons already
> exist," I will respond with, "Not an NYC Hudson!"
> There is no existing Hudson that possesses the
> great track record and beautiful industrial
> designing of the NYC Hudsons. The scrapping of
> the Hudsons was on of the biggest mistakes in
> American Railroad preservation. At least we still
> have 2 NYC Mohawks, but they don't quite have the
> class of a high drivered 4-6-4.
>
> All opinion, of course, but that's mine.


Since we're in fantasy land anyway, how about we settle on a Dreyfuss 4-4-4-4 painted in rainbow colors?

Not that it means anything, my vote would be for the J3.

pennengineer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
>
> Since we're in fantasy land anyway, how about we
> settle on a Dreyfuss 4-4-4-4 painted in rainbow
> colors?


Let's talk to the Brits about their Tornado fantasy...

Also, please consider the long wheel base of the duplex drive engines. It couldn't really run in the state of Pennsylvania. Thus, they were largely relegated to the Crestline, OH-Chicago line. If you want something new go with something more practical... A Reading T-1? How about that NYC Mohawk? Instead of building a NYC Hudson from scratch, use an existing one. NKP 170 is a fine looking engine.

I've said it before and I will say it again. A PRR T-1 is a silly pipe dream that makes no practical sense. Hard to operate and limited to straighter track. Why bother? The Q-2 was the only duplex that really worked well, but it's even longer... And, most would say, not as pleasing to look at.

-Froggie

steam290 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> pennengineer Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> >
> > Since we're in fantasy land anyway, how about
> we
> > settle on a Dreyfuss 4-4-4-4 painted in rainbow
> > colors?
>
>
> Let's talk to the Brits about their Tornado
> fantasy...


A beautiful piece of work and a great achievement. However, she is also a teakettle by comparison, runs on publicly-owned infrastructure with open access, and the project had the good fortune to be conceived in a country with a firmly ingrained culture of preservation (be it steam, rail in general, or otherwise) and a national appreciation--nay, love--of its railways.

This is all silly talk - the "build this _______ instead".

Someone or some group of folks (and many railfans in several polls)
have selected the T-1 because of their love of the PRR and the engine
design itself.

They don't want to spend the time and effort to build what someone
else likes.

It's not as if a government grant using public funds was issued to
Steamtown and this engine was randomly selected on looks alone or was
the outcome of a 4 year viability study. No - a group of people -
dreamers with the drive and ambition to back them are out to build
what THEY want to build. As a railfan that shares that same goal
and dream, I've made donations and proudly wear their t-shirts often
at most railfan events. And there are some big names supporting this
projects. And a lot of forward momentum, as well.

As a side note - I thought I heard some discussion by this group on
the possibility of building into the frame some articulation. Perhaps
other improvements will make it into the design as well, all without
changing, at least too drastically, the look of the new T-1.

/Mitch

Mgoldman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This is all silly talk - the "build this _______
> instead".
>
> Someone or some group of folks (and many railfans
> in several polls)
> have selected the T-1 because of their love of the
> PRR and the engine
> design itself.
>
> They don't want to spend the time and effort to
> build what someone
> else likes.
>
> It's not as if a government grant using public
> funds was issued to
> Steamtown and this engine was randomly selected on
> looks alone or was
> the outcome of a 4 year viability study. No - a
> group of people -
> dreamers with the drive and ambition to back them
> are out to build
> what THEY want to build. As a railfan that shares
> that same goal
> and dream, I've made donations and proudly wear
> their t-shirts often
> at most railfan events. And there are some big
> names supporting this
> projects. And a lot of forward momentum, as well.
>
>
> As a side note - I thought I heard some discussion
> by this group on
> the possibility of building into the frame some
> articulation. Perhaps
> other improvements will make it into the design as
> well, all without
> changing, at least too drastically, the look of
> the new T-1.
>
> /Mitch

I'm not disrespecting the PRR or anyone's dream of a T-1. People have the right do build locomotives as they please, and if they raise enough money, I hope they are able to build an improved T-1. I've always wondered why they didn't make her articulate.

(Since we are still dealing in the realm of hypothetical), I would personally like to see an NYC Hudson built, and if I were rich enough, I would fund it. I don't expect it to ever occur, it's just fun to think about, and if someone could build a T-1, why not?

Good luck and Godspeed on the 5550 project!

It would be interesting to see how much we could fabricate domestically and actually
an articulated frame structure would be easier than a one piece bedded casting or
similar weldment. The cylinder blocks might be a challenge and certainly the required
variety of "accessories" but might make an interesting study and if you were going
to start, a grant for that most likely could be found.

Out