For all of You Train Lovers

[Slap Stick]

I'm not crazy about streamlined locos. They are like the fully faired, plastic enclosed motorcycles. All the mechanical workings are hidden.

 

[Photon440]

I'm not crazy about streamlined locos. They are like the fully faired, plastic enclosed motorcycles. All the mechanical workings are hidden.

While they don't have the brute appeal of exposed working mechanisms, and part of the Art Deco styling was just for looks the actual reason for early streamlining was for safety. Air flow tests were conducted to help direct the flow of smoke, ashes and cinders away from the locomotive cab to help the crew have better visibility and reduced particulate matter in their work area, and to reduce down-wash so that sparks had a chance to extinguish themselves before settling onto dry ground. Even the wood and oil burning steamers, which didn't have the coal dust problems inside still suffered from smoke in the cab.

 

[YY1]

Those flat, "elephant ear" looking things on the front of some are called "smoke lifters".

One of the reasons I like the PRR T1 is that despite being streamlined it still looks like it could kick some ***.

 

[Slap Stick]

I like the smoke lifters. I don't like the art deco stuff.

 

[Photon440]

Those flat, "elephant ear" looking things on the front of some are called "smoke lifters".

One of the reasons I like the PRR T1 is that despite being streamlined it still looks like it could kick some ***.

They were magnificent, even if they did last only five years....regularly traveling over 100 mph. Did you know that there's a group that is building a brand new T1?
https://prrt1steamlocomotivetrust.org/

 

[YY1]

Yes.

Even though that is my favorite loco of all time I question why anyone would spend that kind of money to replicate a known poor performing design.

 

[YY1]

Even though PRR never used them for passenger service as most other roads did, I think a restoration of an existing M1 4-8-2 might be a better investment if excursion service is the end goal. Despite not being super power, still a good platform to run with the 4-8-4 power currently on the rails.

...and still very unmistakably PRR.

 

[Slap Stick]

https://www.american-rails.com/duplex-drive.html

 

[polywideblock]

 

[Photon440]

Yes.

Even though that is my favorite loco of all time I question why anyone would spend that kind of money to replicate a known poor performing design.

I'm not sure what you mean by poor performing. It did have issues, agreed. It was so powerful that wheel spin could be a problem even at speed. But a good engineer with careful throttle management could make good use of the power. Most of the service and maintenance issues came not from the design itself but from enthusiastic crews driving faster than the recommended maximum of 100 mph. which was hard on the valves and rods.

Even though PRR never used them for passenger service as most other roads did, I think a restoration of an existing M1 4-8-2 might be a better investment if excursion service is the end goal. Despite not being super power, still a good platform to run with the 4-8-4 power currently on the rails.

...and still very unmistakably PRR.

I think they must have used them for passenger service, most pictures that show more than just the locomotive and tender have it pulling coaches. That was the original design goal. As for "most other roads" I don't know of any others that used this engine at all.

 

[Slap Stick]

The B&O built one of their version.

 

[YY1]

Most roads used the 4-8-2 wheel arrangement for dual service or as an evolution of the 4-6-2 for passenger service. On the PRR, despite having keystone shaped number plates (freight engines generally got round number plates) they were used 99% of the time in freight service.

The 4-4-4-4 T1 was 100% a passenger engine, although prior to being scrapped a member of upper management asked the motive power chief if it would make a good freight engine.
I imagine, given the wheel slip tendencies, the answer was a resounding no.

It wasn't just wheel slip, which is indeed indicative of more power than traction.
The T1 liked to pick switch points- a major issue in complex passenger station trackage.

It was also very difficult to service- partially due to the complexity of among other things, two sets of pistons, one rear facing, and the streamline shrouding.

All of the above conspired to not only limit their useful life, but to confine them to basically the Ohio and Indiana portion of the NY to Chicago run.

It's a GREAT idea in theory. I get it. Everyone else was embracing the 4-8-4.
PRR mechanical design said- we'll go one better and build it with twice the number of power cylinders. That almost sounds like something I would have tried. Unfortunately it just didn't work.

The freight counterpart- the Q2 4-4-6-4 was more successful, but high maintenance (same as the T1 but the Q2 didn't have the other issues) and cheap to operate diesels killed it.

 

[YY1]

Another factor that possibly lead the the wild experiment of the T1 was the fact that PRR had incredible success with the 4-4-2 wheel arrangement. The one that delivered the Lindberg news reel set a speed record. I can see how the motive power dept could basically envision two high powered "two coupled" engines with their lighter rotating mass but with a larger boiler and bigger firebox than even two 4-4-2 frames could allow.

 

[Dibbons]

What's this?

 

[33 IMP]

Freightcar load of virus from china?

 

[MiradaMegaCab]

My collection of O Gauge locomotives, just my Virginian roadname ones...
One EP-5, Two Rectifiers, Eight SD-18’s and 13 FM’s....

 

[polywideblock]

 

[PeteBell68]

View attachment 925007

What a great shot !

 

[polywideblock]

 

[polywideblock]