PPR S1 and T1

[FoxtrotZero]

These are some interesting trains. Not particularly anything of extraordinary remark, but containing some interesting ideas. I particularly think the streamlined look is pretty interesting. If i'm not mistaken, thats the boiler over the cab.

PRR-S1

​

The PRR S1 class steam locomotive (nicknamed "The Big Engine") was an experimental locomotive that was the largest rigid frame passenger locomotive ever built. The streamlined Art Deco styled shell of the locomotive was designed by Raymond Loewy.
The S1 was the only locomotive ever built to use a 6-4-4-6 wheel arrangement. Also, the S1 class was a duplex locomotive, meaning that it had two pairs of cylinders, each driving two pairs of driving wheels. Unlike similar-looking articulated locomotive designs, the driven wheelbase of the S1 was rigid. The S1 was completed January 31, 1939 and was assigned locomotive number 6100.
The S1s extreme length, (140 feet 2½ inches/42.74 metres), made it was incapable of negotiating curves on most of the PRR track system. This problem, combined with a wheel slippage problem limited the S1s usefulness. No further S1 models were built as focus was shifted to the T1 class.

--Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRR_S1

PRR-T1

The Pennsylvania Railroad's 52 T1 class duplex-drive 4-4-4-4 steam locomotives, introduced in 1942 (2 prototypes) and 1946 (50 production) were their last-built steam locomotives, and their most controversial. They were ambitious, technologically sophisticated, powerful, fast, and uniquely streamlined by Raymond Loewy. However, they were also prone to violent wheelslip both when starting and at speed, complicated to maintain, and expensive to run. In 1948, the PRR vowed to place diesel locomotives on all express passenger trains, leaving unanswered whether the T1's flaws were solvable. However, a Spring, 2008 article in the Pennsylvania Railroad Technical and Historical Society Magazine revealed that the wheel-slip problems were caused by the failure to properly train engineers transitioning to the T1, resulting in excessive throttle applications, which in turn caused the wheel-slips on this very powerful locomotive.


--Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRR_T1

A T1 prototype leaves Chicago's Union Station in February 1943 with the Manhattan Limited to New York.

Personally, i find these to be sort of interesting trains - the S1 was a duplex train, i believe, and it has what looks to me like one of those retro-modern styles to it. I'm sure if anyone bothered modeling and implementing them, they would be a beautiful addition to Trainz.
​

 

[picture]

The S1 has already been made and is on the DLS. I believe the username is mrtrain.

Matt

 

[UP5521]

Yes I agree with both of you and one of these locomotive classes had been tested on the N&W,sure they maybe powerful but the severe slipping and curveture of the track did indeed affect their performence which is why both of them did not last long and from what I was thinking I think the pennsy would had better luck with the 4-8-4 northern!

 

[Alex99al]

PRR 4-8-4

The 4-8-4 would have solved Pennsy's problems, then they could have retired many of the class K4s 4-6-2 "Pacific" type steam locomotives. It woukd have had to be classified class R2, due to the fact that they had an R1: 4-8-4 electric locomotive, numbered 4800 originally then 4899 (GG1 #4899 "Old Rivets" became 4800) then finally 4999, this was because of the increasing and ever so popular GG1.

 

[LoudTrain]

Raymond Loewy!

If I'm not mistaken, that man standing proudly on the first engine shown above is none other than Raymond Loewy. In my mind, he was to industrial design what Frank Lloyd Wright was to architecture. In addition to the bullet-nose train, he designed the Studebaker Avanti, the Shell and Exxon logos, the 1960s soda fountain coke dispensers, and an incredibly diverse host of other things. He was definitely one of my heroes!

-- Russ

 

[bendorsey]

One of the ideas behind the duplex design was to reduce the weight in reciprocating motion (connecting rods). The greater the weight the greater the wear-n-tear on the loco and track. They did reduce it which allowed higher speeds and smoother operation but the longer wheel base and increased driver slippage pretty much offset the advantage.

Still are pretty tho.

Ben

 

[Alex99al]

If I'm not mistaken, that man standing proudly on the first engine shown above is none other than Raymond Loewy. In my mind, he was to industrial design what Frank Lloyd Wright was to architecture. In addition to the bullet-nose train, he designed the Studebaker Avanti, the Shell and Exxon logos, the 1960s soda fountain coke dispensers, and an incredibly diverse host of other things. He was definitely one of my heroes!

-- Russ

That is Loewy and you're forgetting, he designed the 5 stripe design on the legendary GG1.

 

[LoudTrain]

Loewy & GG1

I did not know that! (It might be easier to ask, "What DIDN'T Loewy design in the 20th Centrury?" )

This blog ...

http://obviousmag.org/en/archives/2008/04/the_wondrous_locomotives_of_raymond_loewy.html

... has a picture of Loewy in front of the 5-stripe design. The same picture shown above is also in that blog.

-- Russ

 

[michael2541]

Actually, the C&O tested the T1 as well and reported no problems. If you go on the wiki page for the T1 at the top, look for the C&O tests T1 link.

 

[UP5521]

Actually, the C&O tested the T1 as well and reported no problems. If you go on the wiki page for the T1 at the top, look for the C&O tests T1 link.

if the C&O did not report any,what about the N&W, I'm sure there were some kinks that needed to be worked on to make the locos perform better!

 

[RooRocz]

Didn't Loewy design the GG1 itself and not just the paint scheme...?

 

[Alex99al]

GG1 design

Didn't Loewy design the GG1 itself and not just the paint scheme...?

To be honest, Loewy designed the GG1 the way we know of it in appearance.

 

[cascaderailroad]

To be honest, Loewy designed thwe GG1 the way we know of it in appearance.

Actually, maybe, perhaps it was: Oscar Salpino-PRR Middle Division Track Foreman, who was enjoying coffee & doughnuts with PRR Head Road Foreman Giulio Brandimarte in the break room of the Juniata Shops, when Oscar brought up the novile idea, that his friend Micheal Gwin's second wife once removed, had suggested the GG1 steamlined carbody & Yellow 5 stripe paint scheme to him over desert, at Christmas dinner at Oscars home, one evening...and Andrew Carniegie, who just by chance was taking a guided shop tour, and he accidentally, on purpose, overheard the two of them talking...and decided that he himself would swipe the brilliant new idear, and he inturn, passed it on to Raymond Lowey who was attending a rich and famous, black tie party, in Pittsburgh, and Lowey underhandedly decided to take credit for his OWN ingenious self thought up, brilliant, new idear. Who, really knows, exactly, what happened in 1933-1934 ?

 

[teddytoot]

Didn't Loewy design the GG1 itself and not just the paint scheme...?

Pennsylvania Railroad by Shafer & Solomon quote:
"At the same time they also had Baldwin and Westinghouse construct a rigid-chassis electric of the railroad's own design, essentially an enlarged version of the P5a featuring a 2-D-2 wheel arrangement. ....... The PRR hired Raymond Loewy, one of the nation's best known industrial designers, to refine the GG1's streamlined carbody. (It is often mistakenly believed that Loewy provided the overall design for the GG1 carbody; he did not.) Loewy suggested using an all-welded carbody, such as those being used for automobiles, and he also adjusted minor styling details. One of the most remembered aspects of his treatment were the famous five gold stripes known as "cat whiskers" which nicely augmented the locomotive's stately Brunswick green paint."

 

[SPNGTyler]

The 4-8-4 would have solved Pennsy's problems, then they could have retired many of the class K4s 4-6-2 "Pacific" type steam locomotives. It woukd have had to be classified class R2, due to the fact that they had an R1: 4-8-4 electric locomotive, numbered 4800 originally then 4899 (GG1 #4899 "Old Rivets" became 4800) then finally 4999, this was because of the increasing and ever so popular GG1.

I heard that the Pensy did not want 4-8-4s for a number of reasons...

1) Rival NYC had 4-8-4s, not having them was a sign of difrence, did NYC have 4-8-2s? No. Pennsy? Yes

2)Pennsy also said that the 4-8-4s would not work well on their line. They said, "Those engines are made for flat fast running, not mountain like we go over". So they had 4-8-2s and I belive they also had something bigger but I canot remember the exact wheel arangement (4-10-2? 2-10-4? 2-12-2?)

So yea, if anyone can think of more reasons please add.

 

[SR6900]

I'm pretty sure NYC had 4-8-2's. In fact, two of them survive today.
They had 2-10-4s.

Actually the GG1 was orignally designed by some one else (can't remember who). The original style is seen on 4800 or "Old Rivets". Loewy later took the design and smoothed up the curves and made it a welded carbody. He also refined the paint scheme and removed some ugly features (like access steps on carbody ends) creating the GG1 we know today.

I can see why PRR may have gone with a 4-4-4-4 vs a 4-8-4. Think how much more power (theoretically) you would have if you used 4 cylinders vs two for the same amount of wheels.

 

[gfisher]

As I recall the original GG1 prototype that was presented to Loewy for improvement was of riveted construction. It was retained as built and became known on the PRR as "old rivets" as it was a one of a kind. It had a long career before finally going to the scrap yard.

 

[Alex99al]

I heard that the Pensy did not want 4-8-4s for a number of reasons...

1) Rival NYC had 4-8-4s, not having them was a sign of difrence, did NYC have 4-8-2s? No. Pennsy? Yes

2)Pennsy also said that the 4-8-4s would not work well on their line. They said, "Those engines are made for flat fast running, not mountain like we go over". So they had 4-8-2s and I belive they also had something bigger but I canot remember the exact wheel arangement (4-10-2? 2-10-4? 2-12-2?)

So yea, if anyone can think of more reasons please add.

Probably another reason was due to electrification, the Pennsy had plenty of steamers on hand to do the work.

 

[Alex99al]

PRR 4800

As I recall the original GG1 prototype that was presented to Loewy for improvement was of riveted construction. It was retained as built and became known on the PRR as "old rivets" as it was a one of a kind. It had a long career before finally going to the scrap yard.

Not to be mean but, 4800 still survives today preserved at the Railroad Museum of Pennsylvania along with 4935 "Black Jack". Loewy also designed the famous dark brunswick green five stripe scheme that swerpt across the GG1.

 

[cascaderailroad]

Irregardless...Being that the PRR was the "Standard of the World", There are far too few of the huge PRR Steam/Diesel/Electric locomotive roster created on DLS or on 3rd party sites.
http://www.northeast.railfan.net/prr_steam1.html
http://prrsteam.pennsyrr.com/

Iwanna...Hippo-potomus...for Chrismas (H10's).