Steam & Excursion > PRR T-1 World Land Speed Record

The T-1 trust folks are making amazing progress towards the final assembly of all the parts and pieces that will make up this amazing machine that will represent the first newly built mainline steam locomotive in No. America in 7 decades. 

    On May 10th. they will be hosting a public viewing of the just completed frame that will be the " backbone" of the new giant. The open house ( free ) will be from 3-6pm at the Blair County Convention Center ( parking lot) , 1 Convention Center Drive, Altoona, Pa. 16602

    That evening they are hosting a fund raiser dinner at the U.S. Hotel Tavern from 7-9pm at which T-1 Trust GM Jason Johnson will give a comprehensive update on where the building of the locomotive is now and the timetable towards completion. Also, the featured speaker that night will be Mr. Paul Nichini the Owner/CEO of the New Hope & Ivyland and Pa. Northeastern Railroads. Paul is an accomplished steam locomotive engineer in addition to being the CEO of 2 very successful freight and passenger railroads and will share his many steam experiences including his times running the C&O 614 on NJTransit at track speeds. 

  Attendance at the dinner is limited to just 160 people and tickets are going fast. Go to www. T1Trust.org/dinner to secure your seat. Tickets are $ 90- $ 110 .

   I highly recommend anyone who can afford it to attend both events as I'm confident that you'll be VERY impressed with the progress they've made towards this exciting steam event.

   Personally I intend to lobby the Trust leadership to hire me to be their Chief Test Hogger so I can have the honor of being the Hogger running the 5550 when she establishes a new Land Steam Record and takes that title back from the Brits who have owned it for over a century. My WAG is that she should be able to set a new world's record in the 145-150 mph range, maybe even a little higher???  

    I bought a ticket for the dinner and hope to meet some of you there. 

    Thanks, Ross Rowland 



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/23/24 08:18 by co614.

Where in the U.S. do we have track that's rated for 150 mph besides on the NEC and I'd guess, the FRA test track in Colorado?

The main advantage of the duplex drive system is reduction
in reciprocating masses, typical of conventional 8-wheel drive 
systems.

Piston thrusts are reduced by smaller piston diameters, and the 
elimination of the tandem-siderods typical of common Timken 
bearing, tandem side rods, connecting crankpins on drivers #2 to #3.

N&W sought similar weight reduction advantages by reconfiguring 
and eliminating one of the two tandem rods.  That allowed them to use 
shorter ( weight-saving) crankpins on #2 & #3 drivers.  They also 
cast and applied all new driver centers with smaller counterweight cavities,
and reduced crankpin lengths.   

Roller bearing crankpins use individual rollers, inner and outer races, an 
bronze rings at each roller-bearing location.  

The challenge is getting enough lateral free-space to allow slight 
displacement necessary to navigate track curves.  The lateral shifting,
allowed by side-to-side, 'lateral-motion' spring- loaded, centering devices applied 
on one or more driver axles, allows the long, fixed driver wheelbase flexibilty 
in navigating track curves. 

On conventional drive systems, the drivers float between the free-space
at each driver hub; one axle has two flat wheel-center hubs, that bear against
each journal-box hub-liners, while navigating curves.
 Timkens precision axle bearings have no similar 'end-slop' of plain-bearing
driver journal-boxes. So, driving boxes have more free-space to move 
while navigating curves....

In order to exceed the permissible allowed endwise axle-shifting,
lateral, spring-centering devices are applied at one or two driver axles.
Such centering devices allow the close-tolerances of Timken's 
axle bearings to shift by an inch or so, while navigating track curves.
The axle centering springs re-center the shifted axles, when the frame 
gets back on tangent tracks.  And also comply with FRA allowed maximum 
axle hub-clearance allowances.

The challenge with allowing 'axle shifting', is that the crankpin distances 
necessarily lengthen, driver-to-driver, and 'binding' in navigating the curves.

With conventional side-rod crankpin bearings, such 'free-play' is allowed 
at the crankpins, with liberal clearances at each crankpin, producing
noticeable 'siderod clanking' with light throttle openings.  That clanking
goes away while navigating curves, and the axles shift slightly, up 
against the hub-liners.  The old adage about rod bearings is true:
"I'd rather hear them, than smell them!"

Timken solved the problem of side-rod shifting and necessary freedom 
to allow for crankpin distance variances.  When on level, tangent track
the parallel axle spacing equals the crankpin spacing. axle to axle.
The individual crankpin circles, when axles are all 'centered', 
are all on the same vertical plane... As axles shift, reaching the shifted 
planes ( driver-to-driver), means lengthened, crankpin distances

On straight track, the crankpins are all on the same vertical plane.  
As the axles shift slightly with respect to each other, that shift moves
the crankpins to describe crank circles on different vertical planes,
from each other.  That slight axle-shift causes the fixed-distance crankpins
to bind at the bearings.  

Plain bearings use their permissible-slop to allow navigating curves.
Timken's solution was to use multiple, individual, two-hole siderods.  
So,  their tighter tolerances, if at several crankpins and multiple siderods
could allow for slight changes in distances, crankpin to crankpin.. 
while navigating curves.   

However, all of those tandem rods and side rods made for heavier,
total side rod weights, compared to plain-bearing equipped locos,
like UP 800s , SP 4400s, etc. to have lighter total siderod weights,
compared to Timken's common arrangement of many two-hole siderods.
Those roads that kept  plain side-rod bearings, used renewable brass
bearings at each crankpin, and were easily replaceable, with new.

Roanoke's 'solution' ( in trying to reduce side rod masses) was to eliminate
the tandem rods, axle #2 to axle #3.and they cast new driver centers and
used smaller, lighter counterweighting.  When N&W tried using the J's 
in freight service, their comparative rigid frames would find poorly 
spiked sidings and the J's derailed too frequently to serve in freight
service; that experiment ended poorly.

PRR decided to use only 2-coupled axles, on a divided drive. 
Another advantage PRR had was large diameter drivers, and
lighter counterweights.   Lighter because, at high driver RPMs,
the effective centrifugal forces ( because of greater distance from
the axle centers) increases ithe apparent mass, to aid at the piston-reversing
points at the cylider heads.

It will  be interesting to see how good the balancing will be when the 
new loco is completed.  If they don't get the counterweight balancing right,
they could have a rough-riding engine, and might damage the track.
There is no way to determine exactly how much counter weighting 
is 'right'.... that's determined by testing, at various driver RPMs.

​W.




 



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/23/24 10:28 by wcamp1472.

CPR_4000 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Where in the U.S. do we have track that's rated
> for 150 mph besides on the NEC and I'd guess, the
> FRA test track in Colorado?
As I have stated on here before and made some people get so upset, this is a waste of time and money.  This running of this proposed steam engine, if it does get completed, will not get to run anywhere near 150 MPH as it cannot operate on Amtrak's Northeast Corridor as they will not allow this and there is not another place in the country where it could be accomplished.  I've said before, I wish them the best in this adventure; however, I sure wish this money was being spent on something much more practical like restoring another existing Pennsylvania Steam Engine that could be operated on possibly a regional railroad.  Again, this is just my opinion.
John in White Marsh, Maryland

The polite saying is that " Opinions are like noses,
everybody's got one, and they all smell"

There's another, less polite* version, in everyday talk.

​W.

( *Referring to different part of the anatomy..).

I'd be happy to ride behind a T-1 at 40 mph.

40 mph?

A more plausible possibility...

​W.

Brightline on the Vegas line, should be good for 200 mph! Now about the tie-in to live rail......

Out 

If you watch their videos you come to the realization that there's a group of steam age rocket
scientists building this locomotive. The stress calcs required to transform a casting into a fabricated
frame are akin to one of Mr. Musk's rockets. I have no doubt about their success but I do agree
that finding a host might be a daunting issue. There's not a lot of 7+ track available.

Out 

Which railroad(s) connect(s) with the FRA facility in Pueblo?

-John

I'll be interested in the cylinder/block castings, with ports and 
passages for the poppet valves.

I'd bet that there's 'rights' and 'lefts' for casting patterns.
Its almost the most challenging part of the project.
The poppets are opened by the cams, closed by return-springs.
The main advantage of using poppets is the separation of 
admission port timing and exhaust port timing.
Admission timing varies in port-opening timing
both in advancing admission timings, as well as 
keeping the exhaust ports open, during the full return stroke.

On conventional spool valves, the exhaust port is closed-off, as the
admission timing is shortened.   The exhaust events are independent,
of fixed duration & entirely separated from the timing of the admission
poppet "event" timing.   With separated timing and ports, poppet valves
are superior to the spool valves.

As I've stated, the individual main pistons are relatively small, thus
the power, per-piston, is relatively small.... That's important in 
reducing the relative masses of the driver counterweights,
compared to conventional 2-piston locos.

It will also be interesting if Timken decides to "engineer" the design 
of suitable side rods and applicable, side-rod roller bearing assemblies.

I had inquired, several years ago about the possibilities of using 
Titanium for the poppet valves, and the discussion expanded 
to explain the applicability of Titanium valve springs, as an ideal
material.  The main advantage of Titanium for the valves is 
reduced weight and mass.  Lighter valves means lower mass 
return springs, and less battering to the valve seat inserts.
Weaker return springs, means greater valve seat durability.

PRR wrestled with suitable valve springs.  There was a lot of problems
with the valve seats, which were individual valve-seat inserts pressed 
in-place.  

The T-1 crew was in favor of the Titanium poppets. 
We'll see.  There's a lot of speculation on my part.

​W.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/23/24 14:06 by wcamp1472.

jcaestecker Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Which railroad(s) connect(s) with the FRA facility
> in Pueblo?
>
> -John

BNSF.

The perfect place to do the World Land Steam Speed Record attempt is on the NEC through Princeton Jct. NJ. There's a 17 mile long tangent there of Class 7 track. It's where the Acela achieves its brief few miles at 150mph. 

     I'm confident that when the 5550 is ready to go that there will be a way to get Amtrak behind the effort and a supporter.  

     Onward & upward.    Ross Rowland 

The Titanic was said to be unsinkable. 145/150 mph, what could go wrong?

Posted from Android

ClubCar Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As I have stated on here before and made some
> people get so upset, this is a waste of time and
> money.  This running of this proposed steam
> engine, if it does get completed, will not get to
> run anywhere near 150 MPH as it cannot operate on
> Amtrak's Northeast Corridor as they will not allow
> this and there is not another place in the country
> where it could be accomplished.  I've said
> before, I wish them the best in this adventure;
> however, I sure wish this money was being spent on
> something much more practical like restoring
> another existing Pennsylvania Steam Engine that
> could be operated on possibly a regional
> railroad.  Again, this is just my opinion.
> John in White Marsh, Maryland

There is nothing to stop you from organizing an effort to begin work on another steam locomotive you deem more worthy of restoration to operation.

It's basic to the development of the. T-1 that 
extensive testing will take place, before attempting 
to make headlines.

The performance characteristics will be well defined and 
well tested, prior to any dramatic demonstrations.

At the driver RPMs we're talking about, the correct counterbalancing 
of the drivers will be critical..... and arriving at those counterbalancing 
compromises will take a lot measuring and rebalancing.
Its going to take a LOT of testing in the field...

There will be design problems to be solved, and weak areas will
be revealed, and require redesign, and further testing.
Count on it..

Electronics wil play a much bigger role on the T-1 than on any other
predecessors... Both for safety devices, signaling, and communications
as well as loco operational monitoring.

​W.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/23/24 20:13 by wcamp1472.

Another thought...

I heartily approve of the frame being made from rolled 
steel.  Such steel is much stronger, and flexible.  Flexibility
allows for distortions to occur, and then returns to its original 
shape.

Cast frames tend to be more brittle, and crack easier.
If one was to construct multiple copies, the expenses of 
building wooden 'patterns', and with an immense pit,
it might be more economical to replicate many cast steel frames.
For only a few copies, the welded steel frame is ideal.

I'm wondering what the comparison is between cast vs. built-up
steel frames, when it comes to different frame weights? 
My presumption is that the built-up steel frame will be lighter,
and stronger that a cast frame,
But, slippery T-1s need all the weight that they can get!

The greater steam-distribution effectiveness of the poppet valves, allows
powering the wheels with great efficiency---   A wheel-slip occurs when the
power applied exceeds the maximum friction that a $quarter-sized contact area,
between tire and rail-head.  Once a spin starts, the contact area at the rail liquifies,
so that the friction-factor goes to zero, in a shower of molten-steel SPARKS.
The tiny area of wheel-contact at the rail, liqufies the rail at the point of contact.

The steam in the long delivery pipes --- between the engineer-closed throttle and 
the valve-chests, supplies plenty of steam pressure to keep the T-1 drivers 
spinning on the liquified steel, until the delivery pipe steam pressures
approach Zero-PSI steam pressure.

So, the cast steel frame will be a wonderful solution for this engine;
but, the class of T-1s was noted for their 'slippery-ness' .  A lighter,
stronger steel frame is a definite advantage; but, I hope the designers 
compare the different weights between cast and fabricated steel frames.

A solution to aid the design engineers' attempts at wheel-slip control, 
would be applying circular dampers, at the 4 steam chests, to contain the
residual steam pressure in the delivery pipes.  

The dampers would pivot 90-degrees, preventing pressurized steam
pipes from keeping the drivers spinning --- until the pressure in the
steam delivery pipes was relieved.

The anti-slip steam-dampers would have to be electronically closed
in order to be effective ---- if driver rpm's exceed the true track-speed,
the dampers would automatically reduce the steam flow to the pistons.

You would NOT have to block the steam-flow by 100%, but a damper 
design that reduced the full-flow by 80%, would allow the trapped steam 
to dissipate in the delivery piping, without spinning the drivers.

Now is the time to compare the weight differences between the cast
and the fabricated-steel loco frames, and to devise appropriate engineered 
solutions for this easily-anticipated vulnerability in the original T-1 steam design.

See you guys at Altoona, in May!  

W. 

 ( I'll be the Tall guy).



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/24/24 08:07 by wcamp1472.

Nobody asked me but I can assure you that there are a number of us who could do hydraullically controlled
poppets that with electronic controls would produce a hell of a locomotive. But, Wes has it correct that even
with that level of control we would be at the mercy of that nasty steel to steel coefficient of friction. 

Out



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/24/24 15:33 by callum_out.

co614 Wrote:
--------------------------------------
> The perfect place to do the World Land Steam Speed
> Record attempt is on the NEC through Princeton
> Jct. NJ. There's a 17 mile long tangent there of
> Class 7 track. It's where the Acela achieves its
> brief few miles at 150mph. 

The longest tangent is about ten miles. When PC
timetables allowed Metroliners 160 mph on Track 3
for test purposes, the curves were supposed to be 140.
Maybe they still are?

Timz I think you're correct. 10 miles of tangent with 140 mph curves leading into it should be plenty long enough to do the job. If you enter the tangent at say 120 you've got lots of track to get up to your maximum speed with room left for slow down. I believe the rules are that you must take the speed on a measured mile and run it in both directions??  Anyhow that track is plenty good to facilitate the attempt. 

     Ross Rowland