StarFoxFan11
New member
No joke, this seems totally legit! http://prrt1steamlocomotivetrust.org/index.php 
PRR T1 #5550 might be rebuilt from scratch!
- Thread starter StarFoxFan11
- Start date
Highly unlikely it will happen. Just not enough people would be interested in donations for it. People have a VERY hard time finding money to restore a locomotive let alone build one. Plus how are they going to cast all those giant parts? Don't see it happening in the near future. I think they should get 1361 back together first, that is if they can find all the parts that are strewn through out PA.:hehe:
Timothetoolman
L.O.V.E.M.U.F.F.I.N
It also took 16 years to build Tornado, and at a big cost, and considering 60136 is about half the size of a T1, that really is a BIG ask. At least with 4014 they have already got something to work on, plus a class 1 RR funding the project.
Not to Mention Victoria started 2 scratch building projects in the last 5 years, one is N 441 which is getting built from K Class frames, and V 499 which is a complete new Build, V 499 only ask people to donate $21 a month, and in several years they've already got about $12,000 and need $15,000 to start building the Tender, something like this is very real if worded the right way to the public and only ask for small donations rather then expecting people to donate big, I am for one who is donating to V 499, have been for over a year
Cheers.
Cheers.
If you're doubting that this locomotive will be built, I absolutely agree. If someone was to build a replica of a locomotive, it would have to be something that would be smaller and less expensive, giving the locomotive more places to run. The T1 just seems too big to be feasible to build a replica. Now a 4-6-2, 4-6-4, or something that size would be more feasible. Building a big, giant 4-4-4-4? Nope.
Putting the price question aside for a minute, wasn't the T1 somewhat of failure? Did it not have a problem with wheel slip? I realize this would not be a major problem with excursion service, but still.
I will say that the money put forth for this project would be better spent on restoring any of the preserved locomotives.
Kenny
I will say that the money put forth for this project would be better spent on restoring any of the preserved locomotives.
Kenny
StarFoxFan11
New member
Well, they already have a green light from the Wasatch Railroad Contractors in Cheyenne, as stated on their FAQ page: http://prrt1steamlocomotivetrust.org/build.php I'm not saying that it will happen, but I am saying that the odds are are above none.
jacksonbarno
Alco Spoken Here
Many people think the reason the T1s were a "failure" was because the engineers didn't want to lose their jobs. The T1s were designed to replace two locomotive crews, so if they operated it sub-standardly, then they hoped the PRR would go back to the two K4s per train. Oh, if they only knew what would happen... In screwing up the T1, they set the stage for dieselization on the PRR.
When the C&O tested a T1, they reported almost no problems with it, and certainly none of the slippage problems.
When the C&O tested a T1, they reported almost no problems with it, and certainly none of the slippage problems.
cascaderailroad
New member
Dieselization was inevitable, I doubt that the T1 had much to do in the decision.
Eisenhower's "Baby", the interstate road construction, doomed the railroads into bankruptcy, and high speed rail was slowly cast aside, with the slow but sure eradication of most passenger trains.
Eisenhower's "Baby", the interstate road construction, doomed the railroads into bankruptcy, and high speed rail was slowly cast aside, with the slow but sure eradication of most passenger trains.
Last edited:
Nickster5171
Railfan
Based on what I heard, the only reason the T1's had wheelslip was because of poor handling; much like you said Benjaminw. I read that there was a certain way that it had to be done in order to avoid that issue (or the vast majority of it). A report I did a while back for school had part of it centered on the T1, and I did a ton of research for it.
Modern wheelslip indicators would solve the wheel slip problem. The Problem is because on an articulated engine, you can tell when your wheel sets (usually the front) break lose, on the T1, because its a single frame, not articulated, it was harder to tell. A simple indicator light like you find in a Diesel would solve the problem. The T1's were not too big to run either, they had rather small drivers for most large engines (only 70 inch), I need to dig up some paper work, but they would be equivalent to a UP 4-12-2, which as all of you know.....had no problems with its ridged wheel base. Plus T1's handled just fine in a yard....which is where the sharpest curves would be.
Yes, this project is a Pipe dream, but guess what, so was Tornado. This has just as much chance of success as Tornado did, so rather then sit and say it will never happen, say positive things, and help make it happen with the hope that it will succeed, rather then immediately dooming it to failure.
Yes, this project is a Pipe dream, but guess what, so was Tornado. This has just as much chance of success as Tornado did, so rather then sit and say it will never happen, say positive things, and help make it happen with the hope that it will succeed, rather then immediately dooming it to failure.
StarFoxFan11
New member
And considering the fact that one of the backers is John Rimmasch (Worked on the Tornado project), I'd say that the project is in good hands.
Nickster5171
Railfan
Yes, this project is a Pipe dream, but guess what, so was Tornado. This has just as much chance of success as Tornado did, so rather then sit and say it will never happen, say positive things, and help make it happen with the hope that it will succeed, rather then immediately dooming it to failure.[/QUOTE]
I agree completely. While it may seem like a long shot as of now, that doesn't mean that it's doomed to be a failure from the start. I mean, the T1 was a successful engine, with it's only major issue being wheelslip; and it's service life was cut short because of dieselization, so Pennsy never quite got a chance to see it to its true potential. It was equipped with Poppet Valve gear just for the sake of fewer reciprocating parts, which therefore means less maintenance. And Raymond Loewy knew what he was doing when he designed the streamlining for it. On top of that, I read that just the two prototypes that were made during WW2 were able to outperform a standard 4-unit diesel (go steamers!). In the end, I honestly think that this would be a great project to undertake if taken to the right people.
I agree completely. While it may seem like a long shot as of now, that doesn't mean that it's doomed to be a failure from the start. I mean, the T1 was a successful engine, with it's only major issue being wheelslip; and it's service life was cut short because of dieselization, so Pennsy never quite got a chance to see it to its true potential. It was equipped with Poppet Valve gear just for the sake of fewer reciprocating parts, which therefore means less maintenance. And Raymond Loewy knew what he was doing when he designed the streamlining for it. On top of that, I read that just the two prototypes that were made during WW2 were able to outperform a standard 4-unit diesel (go steamers!). In the end, I honestly think that this would be a great project to undertake if taken to the right people.
stevelerro
Owner of K&L Trainz
The T1 were so powerful, the wheels could slip randomly at anytime with just enough throttle application. Not to mention, it had a similar problem to the S1 6-4-4-6: not enough weight on the drivers to provide traction. The bulk of the engine weight from the firebox and smokebox are on top of the pilot wheels and trailing truck....NOT the wheels that actually power the locomotive. That is a MAJOR problem at slow or high speeds when too much throttle is applied and it slips. A wheel slip at 80+ mph would be devastating to the running gear.
Not to mention, 122ft long, and a rigid frame makes the engine inoperable in most areas and almost impossible to turn anywhere.
I'd love to see one run, but we have to think logically here. Any idea where the T1 foundation assumes it's engine will run?
Not to mention, 122ft long, and a rigid frame makes the engine inoperable in most areas and almost impossible to turn anywhere.
I'd love to see one run, but we have to think logically here. Any idea where the T1 foundation assumes it's engine will run?
I think I read on the O gauge railroading forums that the Pennsy Portion of the NEC would be chosen. That really made me laugh.
I hate to tell you this, but the length has NOTHING to do with what sort of curves it can go around. Frankly with modern CAD work, I bet you could buy a little more lateral movement in the engine, allowing it to take even tighter curves then the originals. Also the wheel slip was a matter of poor engine handling, and poor training. PRR never had special training for articulated engines like others roads...partly because they never owned any, however with 4 cylinders, the T1's act like an articulated engine in some ways, but not in others because of the ridged frame. Basically K4 engineers were thrown on T1's with no extra training besides where the valves and oil spots were. The two were VERY different engines.
A modern wheelslip indicator, proper crew training, the T1's will have no problems.
Also, I know John Rimmasch, good friends with him actually. So I think the project with him being consulted is off to a very good start. Besides, how many people on this forum work on steam engines? How much do you really know about their inner workings. If the answer is no....then you really have little room to talk. (I've rebuilt 3 so far....although all narrow gauge)
T1 drivers were 80" the standard passenger driver size.