Although not at 80+ this shows what can happen with improper crew training.A wheel slip at 80+ mph would be devastating to the running gear
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E54HUQYeFNg
Kenny
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Although not at 80+ this shows what can happen with improper crew training.A wheel slip at 80+ mph would be devastating to the running gear
I'll say that in any circumstacums, anything is possible. it be nice to see a t1 replica as well alongside with the NYC Hudson replica as well.
I wonder, why didn't the Pennsylvania railroad rebuild their t1s into streamlined 4-8-4s instead? it would be awesome.
Smash, from what I saw, that looks excessive.
Because the cylinders were cast integrally with the frame, and you just cant torch through that much metal, let alone bandsaw it. Also, you would need a larger pair of front cylinders, which once again, leads to an all-new frame. Expensive part to try, not to mention long time in the shop, when dieselization was pretty much decided.
Further, it would look pretty darn awkward trying to space the wheels out to take up the full frame to reduce pitching, but that would lead to longer heavier side rods and main rods, exactly what the PRR was trying to reduce. So therefore, a waste to convert to 4-8-4.
They could've made the rods lightweighted, like the N&W j class, and the streamlined 4-8-4s in Australia look like the t1s, so think about it, imagine those two merged with the t1, and you got yourselves a pennsy lightweighted 4-8-4.
so there you go. hope this is understandable.
If they made them any heavier, I expect they'd cause some seismic tremors.
That could have helped, though I suppose it may cause some restrictions.
If anything, I'd just fit them with enlarged sandboxes and have only specially trained crews work them.
Weight restrictions were exactly what I was referring to. Although, a T1 would be restricted even further as a result of its rigid chassis. Lines with sharper curves are out of the question, so there are probably not many routes it would be able to run outside of the former PRR main lines they ran on.What do you think?
Is it wrong of me to assume that you're talking about weight restrictions?
Adding weight is a bad idea, just as is reducing weight. Look at the goals we want to accomplish: do we want total perfect replica, or a good operational locomotive that looks like a T1? IMO, just modify the springing and related rigging, that transfers more weight to the drivers and reduce boiler pressure. Hence, reduced TE with higher axle loading kills the slipping mostly and minimizes the required re-engineering.You wouldn't have to add more weight, just remove wheels. Too much of the T1's weight was on the pilot and trailing truck. 25% of the weight was on each set of drivers, this meant that the TF was low. Adding more weight to the locomotive wouldn't do any thing as the weight is still on 4 set of wheels.
Picture this, remember when you where younger and you still had training wheels on your bike? And youd hit a patch of sand. No matter how much weight or jumping up and down you did, the tire still spun because the training wheels where holding you up. T1 had the same problem.
If they had built it as a 0-4-4-0, it would have been fine, or even a 2-4-4-2. This would have put more weight on the drivers and thus boosted the TF. But they didn't. And adding weight would be BAD. Yes, bad. How so? There comes a point with any thing that if you add more weight, you need more power to move it. If they made the locomotive heavier, it would have to work harder just to move it's self. Make it heavy enough and it wouldn't have enough power to move it's self.
Think of it as a shopping cart. It rolls nice and easy. But as you add stuff too it it gets harder and harder to push. Until you cant even get it to roll down hill. (Yes, mass can induce enough friction on the wheels bearings to prevent them from moving.)
Adding weight is a bad idea, just as is reducing weight. Look at the goals we want to accomplish: do we want total perfect replica, or a good operational locomotive that looks like a T1? IMO, just modify the springing and related rigging, that transfers more weight to the drivers and reduce boiler pressure. Hence, reduced TE with higher axle loading kills the slipping mostly and minimizes the required re-engineering.