Steam & Excursion > Steam Files PRR #12

PRR Q1 6130
4-6-4-4 duplex-drive
Altoona Works – 1942
 
As the United States actively entered WWII, it was critical to the nation, the war effort and PRR to have sufficient motive power that could handle the immense flow of wartime traffic. The Q1 was an Altoona design based on Baldwin designer Ralph Johnson’s concept of lower piston thrusts by doubling the number of cylinders and making them smaller, all on a rigid non-articulated frame.  Did Altoona take a look at B&O’s home designed and built 4-4-4-4 “George H. Emerson” built in 1937 for the opposed cylinders concept ?  It didn’t work for B&O, and in fact the Emerson was taken out of service in 1943 with issues that should have been apparent to PRR. Even Johnson thought it was a poor idea.
 
Never the less, the one of a kind Q1 was placed in service on May 31, 1942 and pulled a 125 car, 10,000 ton train from Altoona to Enola. That is about the extent of its success. It was out of service by 1949 with only 165,000 miles, spending the most of her time as a trouble-child shop queen. Primary issues seemed to have been the backwards cylinders against the firebox taking in heat and soot causing premature wear, and the long length steam pipe runs that created power loss.
 
As built, the 6130 had a rather odd, and to me ugly stream-styling, sort of like an anhydrous ammonia tank mounted on an ugly cart, or perhaps a submersible on flanged wheels. I don’t have any photos of it as built, so you will have to google it to see for yourself.
 
The “Q” concept of a super freight duplex-drive locomotive would be more successful as the 4-4-6-4 Class Q2, but even they had a short life with the coming diesels.
 
Specs for this million pound plus, 6000 HP monster with a tender capacity of 19, 167 gallons and 82,640 pounds of coal were:
 
Cylinders (Front) 23 x 28 – (Rear) 19-1/2  x 26 inches
77 inch drivers
300 psi boiler pressure
81,793 lbs. tractive effort
11, 250 lbs – booster
Factor of Adhesion: 4.34
 
Image at an unknown location, unknown photographer.
It shows the locomotive after the stream-styling was removed, which in my opinion makes it look better.
 



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/02/25 08:31 by train1275.

---

Beautiful roster shot.
Bob

Was the PRR's decision to dieselize made by the management that had been in charge for some time or was it made by new management (such as UP and George Ashby as the new president)?

Steve

A magnificent beast! I like the streamlining.

SGillings Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Was the PRR's decision to dieselize made by the
> management that had been in charge for some time
> or was it made by new management (such as UP and
> George Ashby as the new president)?
>
> Steve

Same management that had been there. They just saw the writing on the wall with increasing deficits. In 1946, their Centennial Year, they had their first reported loss and it was over $10 million. By 1949 they were commited fully to dieselization.

Interesting that PRR flipped the wheel arrangement with the Q-2 class.

I wondering if the need was obvious during the Q-1 testing? Knowing how that decision came about would be enlightening. Perhaps the answer is out there if I would just do some internet searches.

Why was PRR so against articulated Locomotives?

Shoulda made a 4-10-4.  I think a few railroads considered doing so but diesel's handwriting was already on the wall.

-John

Yeah, I don't remember seeing an explanation
of why the 4-6-4-4 was replaced by 4-4-6-4s.
Why wasn't the 4-6-4-4 still good as any, after
they moved the cylinders forward?

Based on what you told us about the Pennsy not willing to follow Baldwin's advice on the T1 and the flop of this kind of machine on the B&O, it sounds like Pennsy motive power managers were stubborn and thought they knew it all.

I surmise that if the Pennsy had been in better financial condition and it's steam experiments worked, it might have held off on deselization, much like Norfolk & Western. 

Victor Baird



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/02/25 20:22 by wabash2800.

A few things on the Q1 vs. the Q2.

My understanding is there were adhesion issues with the Q1 that were corrected (or at least partially corrected) when they went to the 4-4-6-4 arrangement and some sort of anti-slip device, which I do not understand. Thinking why, reminds me of RS-3 diesels where they had a control switch that allowed for forestalling the lead unit in an MU consist to Notch 2, 4 or 6 or allowing for Notch 8. The idea was to limit the lead unit to "cut a path" and sand and then let the trailing units power through in whatever actual throttle notch the lead unit was in. In other words with the throttle in Notch 8 and the switch in #4, the lead unit would only load to Notch 4, but the rest of the units in the consist would load to Notch 8. Maybe the same principle, let the two lead power axles "cut through" and then the 3 following axles bite in and go. I haven't thought that through really, but that is what it reminds me of. It sure would be interesting to read through the engineering papers and tests. One criticism made of the PRR in later years of steam development was perhaps they relied too much on the test stand at Altoona and not enough on real world tests where the rail conditions were not perfect and actual physical conditions and train handling and tonnage were what made or broke a certain part of the design.

As to the reversed cylinders, I have heard that it allowed for a shorter rigid wheel base than the conventional placement like on the Q2. Since I do not have drawings I have no idea how valid that might be.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 07/02/25 17:12 by train1275.

The source of the story is lost to me, but I remember reading that the PRR's decision came when the someone in Philadelphia saw a report prepared by the roundhouse supervisor at Harrisburg comparing a set of EMD E7 demonstrators painted for PRR and given to them by EMD against the T-1's they were supplementing between Harrisburg and Detroit. The disparity in maintenance costs and availability were very revealing, and the decision to fully dieselize came not long after that discovery.
—Mac

wabash2800 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I surmise that if the Pennsy had been in better
> financial condition and it's steam experiments
> worked, it might have held off on deselization,
> much like Norfolk & Western. 
>
> Victor Baird

N&W was being stupid. Top brass fudged the studies because they wanted to look good to the coal companies.

The huge reduction in railroad employment in Roanoke after the passing of steam said it all. (I learned a little bit during my thirteen years of residence there, albeit 14 years after the end of steam).

MacBeau Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The source of the story is lost to me, but I
> remember reading that the PRR's decision came when
> the someone in Philadelphia saw a report prepared
> by the roundhouse supervisor at Harrisburg
> comparing a set of EMD E7 demonstrators painted
> for PRR and given to them by EMD against the T-1's
> they were supplementing between Harrisburg and
> Detroit. The disparity in maintenance costs and
> availability were very revealing, and the decision
> to fully dieselize came not long after that
> discovery.
> —Mac

The two E7's were delivered in September 1945 off Order E-671 (not demonstrators). Originally placed in a Baltimore, Harrisburg, Detroit pool for testing, initially by L.M. Morris Assistant Engineer of Tests.

They were then placed on Trains 68 and 69 between Harrisburg and Detroit, and later Harrisburg - St. Louis and then Harrisburg to Chicago where they performed very well. I do not doubt when the maintenance costs from Harrisburg hit Philadelphia that there wasn't an epiphany in the corporate offices.

If we looked at the other side of this locomotive, wouldn't it appear to be a 4-4-6-4? Unless I am confusing it with a different one, this engine's 10 driving wheels were all connected as one set through the 3rd set of drivers.
Very nice photo of a locomotive I always found fascinating. Until your posts I did not know of the problems.

> Unless I am confusing it with a different one, this engine's
> 10 driving wheels were all connected as one set
> through the 3rd set of drivers.

I bet no engine in the US did that.

I remember reading that Pennsy thought EMD was using cheap wheels on the E7's because they kept wearing out so quickly. Then they looked at the monthly mileage figures. Ohhh.....

CPR_4000 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I remember reading that Pennsy thought EMD was
> using cheap wheels on the E7's because they kept
> wearing out so quickly. Then they looked at the
> monthly mileage figures. Ohhh.....

There was an excellent article in Trains Magazine by Mr. Willard A. (Bill) Gardner, about his early experiences with the new EMD E7 units, when he was a Mechanical Foreman for the PRR. It is definitely worth reading!

The January 1979 issue?

HotWater Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> CPR_4000 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I remember reading that Pennsy thought EMD was
> > using cheap wheels on the E7's because they
> kept
> > wearing out so quickly. Then they looked at the
> > monthly mileage figures. Ohhh.....
>
> There was an excellent article in Trains Magazine
> by Mr. Willard A. (Bill) Gardner, about his early
> experiences with the new EMD E7 units, when he was
> a Mechanical Foreman for the PRR. It is definitely
> worth reading!

I'd love to see that article!

Posted from Android