The Pennsylvanian Railroad T1 Duplexes

[JWB]

I think a lot of this discussion stems from the particular "revisionist" views on the PRR duplexes referred to in the OP. It's worth pointing out that the "revisionist" view isn't the only current one, and it's by no means the most respectable. There were several tendencies in PRR thinking that led to the T1s. One was an overall objective of speeding up both freight and passenger trains, which was a pre-WW II trend. The PRR wanted over the long term to run passenger trains over 100 mph over much of the line, and freight trains over 60. They also wanted a major low-grade cutoff route through the Alleghenies. The PRR never seriously had the capital to bring any of this about. However, the T1 was part of this overall objective, compatible in the PRR's thinking with the GG1 in electrified territory. (So was the Q2 -- a major objective of the duplex drive was to reduce the reciprocating weight to be counterbalanced at higher speeds.) A lesser objective was to eliminate double-heading of K4s on passenger trains -- in fact, the PRR tolerated both the less satisfactory S1 and S2 entirely on the basis that they eliminated double heading. The T1 also eliminated double heading, but then, so did E7s, or for that matter Erie-builts. At first only a single 3-unit set of Eries had steam generators, but once the superiority of even those locos established itself over T1s, a large number were converted and stayed in passenger service until more E8s arrived in the early 1950s. So it wasn't just the E7 that eliminated the T1 -- any diesel was superior. And of course the J1s, a C&O design forced on the PRR by the War Production Board, were far more successful than any of the home designs of the 1930s and 40s.

 

Eric Hirsimaki has a very good survey of PRR dieselization in Black Gold - Black Diamonds. He makes the point that EMD was very suspicious that the PRR wanted to pick their brains over how to manufacture diesels so they could set up their own production line in Altoona. The same sclerotic management that was trying to figure all the angles to build their own diesels stayed with the PRR through the 1950s, and it's worth continuing to point out that steam vs diesel was only a small part of the PRR's problems. It had a truly awful safety record from the 1920s onward, with horrific accidents on both main line and commuter operations in the late 1940s and early 1950s.  

[pH]

Thank you for that last post, JWB. Up till then I'd been trying to work out how T1s could have been competing with 30 year old Atlantics in the hauling of express passenger trains! (I don't think diesel.)

[Mike Boucher]

If you guys really want to see some craftsmanship, take a look at a 4.75" gauge T1...  Simply a magnificent piece of work.  He built it from original PRR drawings.

 

Pic of completed engine:

http://www.discoverlivesteam.com/magazine/35/2003_1005_104525AA.jpg

 

Pics of construction/parts:

http://www.physics.upenn.edu/shop/edst1.html

 

The pictures don't do it justice.  I've seen it in person (and some of the parts before it was finished), and it is spectacular.  The poppet gear box alone was simply astounding.

 

Unfortunately, Ed Woodings, the builder, passed away last year.  I met him a few times (at Waushakum Live Steamers and Montreal Live Steamers), and he knew more about the T1 than anyone I had ever met.  If you asked him if the model was as slippery as the prototype, he would correct you with incredible detail as to how the prototype really wasn't.

 

I don't know what happened to the engine, as he was trying to sell it after suffering a stroke a few years back.

[Guest Belgian]

It's always appeared to me that the Duplexes have been considered to be a total failure in real-time use, and their complexity and divided drive is often cited as the cause. 

 

However, many American railroads had far more complex divided-drive steam locomotives, which have been considered a success. The Mallets and even the Challengers, Big Boys etc., were vastly more complicated with their twin engine units than the single frames of the PRR locomotives. Perhaps it was, as the suggestions above indicate, poor design and quality of construction that were to blame rather than the overall concept.

 

JE

 

.

[JWB]

The intent of both Mallets and simple articulateds wasn't exactly the same as the intent of duplexes. Mallets were specifically low-speed locomotives intended mainly for use on grades. However, some railroads with major grades, like the Santa Fe and the PRR, seldom used them, on the basis that even their added complexity wasn't cost-effective. In most cases, diesels wiped out Mallets pretty quickly, since their added power eliminated many helper districts from the start. Simple articulateds, at least the Yellowstones, Challengers, and Big Boys, were intended for wider use and higher speeds. One advantage they had over duplexes was the flexibility of the articulation joint, which may have made them less slippery. However, the PRR duplexes had a maximum of 10 drivers, while the simple articulateds had at least 12.

 

The basic intent of the PRR duplexes was to operate at significantly higher speeds than even Challengers, as part of the PRR's overall intent to operate in non-electrified territory at the same speeds as the GG1. Duplexes did this by reducing the weight of the siderods and valve gear, which damaged track at high speeds. The tradeoff in the extra pair of cylinders and in some cases the automobile style valve mechanism was one Achilles heel. Another of the PRRT&HS "revisionist" articles recently suggested that the design of the Q2 boiler led to excessive foaming. The S2 turbine can be looked at as another attempt to reach higher speeds with a steam locomotive, and a recent PRRT&HS article on this one suggests the boiler was always a problem, either incorrectly designed from the start or never properly broken in.

 

Poor design, inadequate testing, use of less-than-optimal steel alloys during World War II controls, and plain old-fashioned poor workmanship all contributed, but it's very likely that even if all these problems had been surmounted, diesels (and not just EMDs, but almost any type of diesel short of the Centipedes) would have won out, in about the same time span. The C&O had very good simple articulateds and very recent designs, and they got rid of steam very, very quickly.

[Guest Belgian]

The intent of both Mallets and simple articulateds wasn't exactly the same as the intent of duplexes. Mallets were specifically low-speed locomotives intended mainly for use on grades. However, some railroads with major grades, like the Santa Fe and the PRR, seldom used them, on the basis that even their added complexity wasn't cost-effective. In most cases, diesels wiped out Mallets pretty quickly, since their added power eliminated many helper districts from the start. Simple articulateds, at least the Yellowstones, Challengers, and Big Boys, were intended for wider use and higher speeds. One advantage they had over duplexes was the flexibility of the articulation joint, which may have made them less slippery. However, the PRR duplexes had a maximum of 10 drivers, while the simple articulateds had at least 12.

 

The basic intent of the PRR duplexes was to operate at significantly higher speeds than even Challengers, as part of the PRR's overall intent to operate in non-electrified territory at the same speeds as the GG1. Duplexes did this by reducing the weight of the siderods and valve gear, which damaged track at high speeds. The tradeoff in the extra pair of cylinders and in some cases the automobile style valve mechanism was one Achilles heel. Another of the PRRT&HS "revisionist" articles recently suggested that the design of the Q2 boiler led to excessive foaming. The S2 turbine can be looked at as another attempt to reach higher speeds with a steam locomotive, and a recent PRRT&HS article on this one suggests the boiler was always a problem, either incorrectly designed from the start or never properly broken in.

 

Poor design, inadequate testing, use of less-than-optimal steel alloys during World War II controls, and plain old-fashioned poor workmanship all contributed, but it's very likely that even if all these problems had been surmounted, diesels (and not just EMDs, but almost any type of diesel short of the Centipedes) would have won out, in about the same time span. The C&O had very good simple articulateds and very recent designs, and they got rid of steam very, very quickly.

Thanks for that reply, it helps greatly.

 

I enjoyed a 100+ mile cab ride in the preserved Challenger through the Humbolt and Pallisades Canyons (headed by the 844) and the riding was superb, even at speeds in excess of 60 mph. It was probably the highlight of my railfanning life! I also persuaded Steve Lee to make one of the engine units slip, but it was difficult to get it to do so and it was quite brief. See here for the cab ride and here for the slip.

 

JE

[Ozexpatriate]

The intent of both Mallets and simple articulateds wasn't exactly the same as the intent of duplexes. Mallets were specifically low-speed locomotives intended mainly for use on grades.

Indeed so. And let's remember that the primary purpose of the Mallet was intended for efficiency of water and fuel consumption with the use of double expansion with compound high-pressure (smaller at the rear) and low-pressure (larger in the front) cylinders.

[JWB]

Steam still puzzles me a great deal, and one thing that's been at the back of my mind comes out as a result of Belgian's comment, or at least my answer to it: all the archival railfan films I see -- and there are a LOT of them -- show that the Norfolk & Western used the Mallet compound Y6 2-8-8-2s and the simple A 2-6-6-4s almost interchangeably. The N&W predominantly hauled coal, and it had many more Y6s than As, so naturally the road loco on almost every coal train was a Y6. But very commonly the second loco on a double headed coal train was an A, and it wasn't that unusual to see a Y6 on general freight. So I'm not sure how much the N&W bought itself by having the two separate designs, especially given typical freight train speeds on mountain routes in the 1940s and 50s. Certainly when the N&W seriously dieselized, it was with GP9s and RS-11s, making no distinction between fast freight and coal drag diesels. (The PRR and other lines did make distinctions with diesels, but this was 10 years earlier.)

[CraigZ]

One did not really see Class A engines pulling coal in the coal fields; one would see it east of Roanoke or heading toward Portsmouth and Cincinnati, Ohio along the river.  The wonder of the Y class was not that they were outstanding low speed mountain engines as intended, but that the N&W designers also made them where they would cruise along effortlessly at 50 mph.  The A class would do pretty well in mountains but would move 14,000 tons of coal at 30 mph start to stop average but also pull two dozen heavyweight passenger cars troop trains or a 125 car manifest at 60 mph.  And the J?  The J would start 14 car passenger trains on mountain grades, but would move that same train at 90 mph across the dead flat swamps of southside Virginia.  It was a railroad whose longest run was 675 miles from Norfolk VA to Cincinnati yet got 15,000 miles a month on the J engines and 6,000 miles on the Y6s.  That's some utilization. The Y6 was the ultimate development of the USRA 2-8-8-2, which itself was based on the N&W's pre WWI Y2 class design.

 

The western roads' steam engines always seemed, to me, to get more attention from the railfan press here.  Big Boy, Challenger, Santa Fe's 2-10-4s, Cab Forwards.  I've felt that until the past few years that the N&W's genius was overlooked - just not as glamorous I suppose...just some Appalachian hillbillies in Roanoke building steam engines.  But I've seen it said that if one was going to design the ultimate modern steam roster that one could a lot worse than use the N&W's last designs.  Y class for heavy drag freight/mountain service; A class for manifest high speed freight; J class for passenger; and the S2 0-8-0s for the yard (yes, the S2 was essentially an updated USRA design but still...)  There's an anecdote in one of the Kalmbach steam books where somebody asked a Lima salesman if he called on Roanoke.  His reply was, "What could we tell them about steam power?" I saw the A and the J running in excursion service - darn near a religious experience.  Magnificent, enormous machines.

[trisonic]

Brilliant reminder, Craig! Many thanks.....

 

Best, Pete.

[roundhouse]

A T1 model which is owned by one of our operators is pictured at the coaling stage on ROUNDHOUSE.

 

This is an old Bowser model that has had a sound decoder fitted in the tender. Plenty of room in there!!

 

[JWB]

The western roads' steam engines always seemed, to me, to get more attention from the railfan press here.  Big Boy, Challenger, Santa Fe's 2-10-4s, Cab Forwards.  I've felt that until the past few years that the N&W's genius was overlooked - just not as glamorous I suppose...just some Appalachian hillbillies in Roanoke building steam engines. 

Although you can't rule out that Trains was pretty much the only serious railfan publication in the late 50s and early 60s, and it gave O Winston Link his main venue. The advantage of the N&W was that you could get down to Roanoke in one hard push on a Friday night after work if you worked in New York (which as I understand it is what Link did), then spend Saturday and part of Sunday shooting, so it got its share of attention -- but keep in mind that PRR steam was active through 1957, and I think the attitude in the east was that the N&W was a second choice after the PRR (which of course was a closer drive from New York anyhow, especially given the K4s on the NY&LB).

 

The other side of the coin was that two major railfan writers and photographers, Lucius Beebe and Richard Steinheimer, were in California, and Trains was giving them play, too,

[CraigZ]

Although you can't rule out that Trains was pretty much the only serious railfan publication in the late 50s and early 60s, and it gave O Winston Link his main venue. The advantage of the N&W was that you could get down to Roanoke in one hard push on a Friday night after work if you worked in New York (which as I understand it is what Link did), then spend Saturday and part of Sunday shooting, so it got its share of attention -- but keep in mind that PRR steam was active through 1957, and I think the attitude in the east was that the N&W was a second choice after the PRR (which of course was a closer drive from New York anyhow, especially given the K4s on the NY&LB).

 

The other side of the coin was that two major railfan writers and photographers, Lucius Beebe and Richard Steinheimer, were in California, and Trains was giving them play, too,

All true though I bet making the drive from NY down to Roanoke in those pre-Interstate days would have been a major grind...down US 11 out of Harrisburg or something like that.  Ouch!

 

My railway interest started long after steam died - mid/late 1970s.  The Kalmbach and the Carstens publications were thick with big Western steam, PRR steam, NYC steam.  Southeastern stuff was thin on the ground in the press...we were the red headed stepchildren of the railfan world except for the Southern's steam program.  Or so my memory tells me.  But I will say that my friend Phil Clark who lived in Alton, Hants said that he felt typical of a UK railfan - little or no exposure to anything but the big western roads, the PRR and NYC.  When he came into the hobby shop where I worked in the mid/late 1980s he was quite surprised by the variety and interest of the southeastern roads, especially the Seaboard and the ACL.  He told me on many occasions that they were virtually unknown in the UK world of US outline modeling in those pre-Internet days.

[peach james]

If you guys really want to see some craftsmanship, take a look at a 4.75" gauge T1...  Simply a magnificent piece of work.  He built it from original PRR drawings.

 

Pic of completed engine:

http://www.discoverlivesteam.com/magazine/35/2003_1005_104525AA.jpg

 

Pics of construction/parts:

http://www.physics.upenn.edu/shop/edst1.html

 

The pictures don't do it justice.  I've seen it in person (and some of the parts before it was finished), and it is spectacular.  The poppet gear box alone was simply astounding.

 

Unfortunately, Ed Woodings, the builder, passed away last year.  I met him a few times (at Waushakum Live Steamers and Montreal Live Steamers), and he knew more about the T1 than anyone I had ever met.  If you asked him if the model was as slippery as the prototype, he would correct you with incredible detail as to how the prototype really wasn't.

 

I don't know what happened to the engine, as he was trying to sell it after suffering a stroke a few years back.

 

The most telling was when I met Mr Woodings in Montreal in 2000, when I asked what he intended to do with the model on his completion of it- and his answer was that it was going to _run_.

 

He told a story about the first set of tender trucks he made, where he had about 600 hours in them, and then welded them together.  They heat distorted...and he went railfanning.  Somewhere on the road home from Horseshoe Curve to his house, there is a pair of slightly bent, quite rusty (~15 years ago...) tender trucks at the bottom of a bridge.   600 hrs or 0, it didn't matter, it wasn't right enough and they went out.

 

He had full working brakes on the trucks I saw in Montreal, operated by CO2.  (including the brake stand).  I would imagine he was planning on using air when the engine was done.

 

_supremely_ impressive workmanship, and a very kind gentleman.

 

James Powell

[Allegheny1600]

Hi All,

It has been fascinating re-reading all of this about the T1's and so on but I simply had to resurrect this thread with this;

http://prrt1steamlocomotivetrust.org/index.php

They want to build a new one!!!

Incorporating lessons that have been learnt from the originals and the likes of the ACE3000 etc. Interestingly, they have also taken lessons on board from our own 'Tornado' experience.

Here's wishing them well.

John E.

[scots region]

I wish someone would throw up a new Niagara as well, still if the 'new steam' trend crosses the Atlantic, I heartliy endorse it. 

[Mike Boucher]

Hi All,

It has been fascinating re-reading all of this about the T1's and so on but I simply had to resurrect this thread with this;

http://prrt1steamlocomotivetrust.org/index.php

They want to build a new one!!!

Incorporating lessons that have been learnt from the originals and the likes of the ACE3000 etc. Interestingly, they have also taken lessons on board from our own 'Tornado' experience.

Here's wishing them well.

John E.

 

I'm curious how they plan to build the frame.  Not to minimize all the work that the team that build "Tornado" did, but building a plate steel frame is significantly easier than fabricating the massive cast frame the T-1 used.  (remember, the T-1 was a rigid frame engine, the "duplex" was to try to reduce the forces which need balancing

[jamie92208]

I'm curious how they plan to build the frame.  Not to minimize all the work that the team that build "Tornado" did, but building a plate steel frame is significantly easier than fabricating the massive cast frame the T-1 used.  (remember, the T-1 was a rigid frame engine, the "duplex" was to try to reduce the forces which need balancing

If you go on the website they are talking about making the frame in several smaller pieces and then welding them up but designing the patterns with this method in  mind.  I think they are on to something there as the foundry technology is probably the hardest lost skill to reproduce.

 

Jamie

[Allegheny1600]

Here's an update for you, "Q&A for the T1 trust";

http://cs.trains.com/trn/b/staff/archive/2015/02/18/10-questions-and-answers-for-the-t1-trust.aspx

Enjoy,

John E.

[alfsboy]

It was locos like the T1 and the NYC streamliners that first got me interested in US railroads .As a very young kid in the  early 50's I used to get out of our local library an American book on how to draw  locomotives .it was all very inspiring and included dramatic 3/4 views of Americas finest .,GGi's duplexes and NYC streamliners .This coupled with  Gamages  huge Christmas layout of classic Lionel  and I was well away .Never got any  such model though ,no space,I did get to paint  many US brass versions of most of them for other people  .I still look at the various versions  available with lust but still no space to justify them .

[jamie92208]

At the moment here is a very good article on the Trains website about the project with a series of questions about eh project being answered.  They are setting a budget of $10,000,000 and a finish date of 2030.  They've found a place to store all the components when they are made with craneage and access and have also located a foundry that they think may be able to cast the engine bed in one go.  The slight problem is that no one now know the exact weight of the engine bed casting with a 20 ton difference in estimates from different sources.   Apparently the foundry has a finite one pour capacity which will cope with the lower estimate but not the upper one.   If they can't source it n one piece they are considering fabrication.using modern techniques.

 

Jamie