PPR S1 and T1

[gfisher]

Not to be mean but, 4800 still survives today preserved at the Railroad Museum of Pennsylvania along with 4935 "Black Jack".

I'm glad to hear that, as I just assumed it had been scrapped.

 

[SR6900]

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).

Standard amongst itself but different to everything else. :hehe: Not many of their designs were comparable to anything amongst the other railroads.

 

[Sampug394]

...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...

Seeing that the Pennsy lasted as long as it did, I think the K4s worked just fine for them. No need to replace if you can keep them going...

 

[UP5521]

Seeing that the Pennsy lasted as long as it did, I think the K4s worked just fine for them. No need to replace if you can keep them going...

I agree with that!

 

[UP5521]

well as far as the T1 & S1 are concerned,they had a history of slipping on the tracks especially when the weather was bad and trying to start a heavy train up steep grades,and part of the problem which resulted in their demise was weight on either the first set of drivers and/or the second set,had they added more weight to the front end of the locomotives,the chances of slipping would have been reduced and the performace could have been better compaired to the diesels that replaced the steam locomotives that were in service at that time the steam to diesel replacement was in effect!

 

[Alex99al]

Seeing that the Pennsy lasted as long as it did, I think the K4s worked just fine for them. No need to replace if you can keep them going...

I agree, three.

 

[farecoal]

well as far as the T1 & S1 are concerned,they had a history of slipping on the tracks especially when the weather was bad and trying to start a heavy train up steep grades,and part of the problem which resulted in their demise was weight on either the first set of drivers and/or the second set,had they added more weight to the front end of the locomotives,the chances of slipping would have been reduced and the performace could have been better compaired to the diesels that replaced the steam locomotives that were in service at that time the steam to diesel replacement was in effect!

While the S1 slipped due to not enough weight on the drive wheels, ( which was a design problem) the T1 slipped due to their crews applying far too much power at once on the strong locomotives. I would love to see the T1 in trainz.

 

[gfisher]

Someone started a T1, but it has apparently become vaporware like a lot of steamer projects.

 

[motorbreath]

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.

That's a fact most people over look, "presented for improvement". I have nothing against Raymond Loewy, aside from the fact that he seemed to have no issue taking full credit for the GG1's design, as opposed to having made some cosmetic changes to it, as in a welded instead of riveted car body and paint schemes. Rivets (4800) was designed by Donald Dohner, at least in exterior appearance.

 

[UP5521]

That's a fact most people over look, "presented for improvement". I have nothing against Raymond Loewy, aside from the fact that he seemed to have no issue taking full credit for the GG1's design, as opposed to having made some cosmetic changes to it, as in a welded instead of riveted car body and paint schemes. Rivets (4800) was designed by Donald Dohner, at least in exterior appearance.

and the same should go to the S1 and T1 steam locomotives!