The 5550 Trust just took part in a recent podcast interview on the "Roundhouse." I found it it an interesting listen.

https://theroundhousepodcast.com/2021/1 ... zUggLjd-g0

Thanks for this. It kinda sums up much of this thread from the T1 Trust's perspective.

Their approach makes more sense after listening to this podcast.

The Trust put a picture on their social media of an assembled prow, smokebox, boiler, and firebox. A very impressive display.
Link

Anybody going to the open house in Harrisburg this month? We can’t, so you’re all going to have to take all the pictures and look at everything.

Looks like they've got it all ready to go, Becky...

https://prrt1steamlocomotivetrust.org/open-house-2022/

I got the last shirt (that fit me) at the previous open house. The back says “It Can Be Done.” We need new ones—“It Is Being Done,” followed in due time by “It Is Done.”

Great progress !! Dream no small dreams as they fail to stir men's ( or woman's ) souls.

There will be plenty of places to run her when the time comes. I am submitting my name to be the engineer when she runs to break the steam locomotive speed record ( 127.5 mph) set in 1927 which won the Brits the coveted SST ( steam speed trophy) which they've held since then.

Let's shoot to make those runs in 2027 between Princeton Jct. and Trenton on the NEC. We can run the T-1 on # 2 main and have an Acela 2 consist on # 3 main and let them run a race against both the clock and each other on that Class 6 tangent track.

It will be quite the show. Can't wait.

Onward & upward. Ross Rowland.....hogger in waiting.

Havent you already broken enough speed limits on NJT?

SaD bUt TrUE

NO.

Ross Rowland

You heard it here folks. Ross Rowland has not broken ENOUGH speed limits. The man must have a lead foot... er I mean a lead throttle hand.

Start a fund to get it Pueblo, where one can go as fast as one has the nerve to try.

I think all preservation groups need to take a page out of the T1 Trust's book when it comes to fundraising transparency and showing where the money goes.

They raise a lot of money because they show the progress and have regular updates. This goes a long way and makes people comfortable with donating. Kudos to them!

(The re-incarnation of EBT has also been doing a great job with this, I don't want to discount their efforts!)

The primary issue with stalling in the C&O tests was the extreme short stroke. In Baldwin's presentation in Atlantic City in 1941, it was brought up that the limit on stroke reduction was the strength of the web between the axle and the main pin ... and that the main pin itself is cround eccentrically, so the main-rod stroke is less than the side-rod throw.

I have mentioned the issue with Crosby's story: all the T1s were fitted with Jones-Motrola speedometers, which only read to 100mph. Note that in the story he said his speedometer 'pegged' at 120mph; he didn't say he was timing mileposts to get the speed.

The 'correct' version of a high-speed T1 was the substitution of rotary-cam drive, but this interestingly didn't use the Franklin three-valve system (as tested on ATSF 3752); it re-used the four-valve-per-end type A valves (cast into the beds) with bridges to actuate the valves in pairs. That is what 'type B-2' is.

The throttle issue was addressed by providing a Franklin servo air throttle actuator -- this was in fact one of the very first drawings provided to the T1 Trust (obtained courtesy of Bill's Pennsy Photos). As this has proportional actuation regardless of position or degree of pilot poppet opening, there should be no issue with fine admission control, and no 'horsing-related concerns.

It was not low-speed slipping that was the critical issue on duplexes (and in any case this was something Riley Deem had addressed by the early 1980s). The problem is that a double-Atlantic at very high speed encounters a great many shocks that upset the suspension or cross-level enough to unload one or more drivers when very high power at optimal cutoff (which for a wide range of engines proves to be about 40-43%, cf. Mallard at 125mph). If one of eight drivers momentarily loses adhesion, the effect is less than if it's one out of four; the valve gear tolerates greater acceleration in the spin; the Timken rods and rollers are not tolerant of the sharp shock that can result when the engine re-acquires adhesion. E.T. Harley (in his book on the Q2) relates riding behind a T1 at about 70mph in rain with a heavy consist; he could feel the repeated slow surge as the engine lost adhesion and regained it.

There is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that this was the effect producing the "135mph speeds" Vern Smith reported the Franklin engineers observing. Not the actual road speed, but the angular speed of the drivers in a slip as recorded by peak measurement. Note that the supposed speed was not confirmed dynamometrically (e.g. as actual locomotive speed)... not that I think a T1 can't reach those speeds in practice with some care).

I predict the butterfly device, even though it would have worked on Q2s with better actuation (despite being sophisticated for its era, it still used bang-bang actuation of the butterflies, and required seals and packing in 300psi superheated steam lines to be kept lubricated without moving most of the time, not exactly a recipe for good service) will still be inadequate compared to easier alternatives -- one is to modulate the independent-brake foundation by analogy with antilock brake action. TheOne "correct" solution is traction control via lateral air-over-hydraulic floating calipers acting on cheek plates on one or more drivers, but this had entirely the wrong appearance for a 'replica'...

The issue with testing on the fast loop at TTCI, which is the answer to shut up all the ignorant who can't figure out where high-speed testing would be conducted, is that instrumented wheelsets are required. To my knowledge, although the ESC brought up this issue, the actual driver centers cast so far have no provision for this, although in my opinion it would be comparatively simple to provide the multiaxis sensing and processing required. The original ESC plan in the feasibility study involved making the design a 'contest' for college engineering students, to be overseen by a panel of instrumentation professionals donating their time.

An issue we might discuss gainfully here, and that I think Dave Stephenson has commented on, is how the balancing ought to be done. The entire reason the N&W J locomotives could reach high speed was Voyce Glaze's balancing (part of which involved leaving only enough overbalance in the mains to compensate the vertical component of piston thrust at intended maximum speed, 100mph, with load). It is interesting to note that in the same balancing book that contains the J information, Glaze has notes on the T1 locomotive -- I have not read this due to pandemic restrictions, but will assuredly be traveling when access and digitization of the balacing book become practical.

A valid argument is that a locomotive of the length, rigid wheelbase, and lateral accommodation of the T1 chassis, with outside-bearing trucks fore and aft, ought not to require any overbalance at all to work properly (using stiff lateral to steer any nosing or rolling induced in the chassis, and better damping instead or reliance on snubbing effects). The Westinghouse Langer balancer, intended to reduce the effect of surge, could be easily applied (without much if any visual impact unless you knew where to look) and the result would be a locomotive with close to or zero overbalance at high rotational speed... in essence, no more augment-limited than Kiefer's tested J3a that reached 161 to 163mph indicated on greased rail during the 1947 augment testing...

What I think is great is that before the British Peppercorn "Tornado" was completed, very few ever took it seriously that anyone would build a new steam locomotive capable of anything other than park or freight drag speeds.
Now, well, never say never, right? That's the "Tornado" legacy; serving as a reminder that anything is possible with enough love, devotion, and money.
Heck, why not? Ross probably has more higher-speed steam experience than anyone else currently capable of running steam these days in the US.
That said, I wonder if the group is going to make a real attempt at the record. I'm sure they'd wanna do a lot of break-in runs before even getting to the 3-digit mark, especially on a design that hasn't run in well over 50 years (and from what I've read, wasn't well understood even at the time, by some in the PRR).
I'm quite sure the 'pucker factor' (ask a pilot if you don't know what that term means) was very high when the crew of "Tornado" made their 100 MPH run in 2017.
Mallard's 1938 record of 126 MPH has been broken a few times if you believe the anecdotal evidence. The Germans claim to have broken the record right before WW2 and we all know how a few steam engineers claim to have broken it on various railroads. The T1 factors into those stories as some claim they went much faster than 126 (though why, at the end of the steam era where nobody would be worried about the effects on a locomotive, nobody tried it officially, I'll never understand).
Heck, it might not ever be broken, in a timeframe where I'd think anyone would be terrified to try it (don't forget, Mallard was seriously screwed up at the end of her record run) with a steam locomotive today.
When I realized UP was really gonna restore a Big Boy to run, I thought, "Well, now I've really seen everything," but the idea of a replica PRR T1 taking to the high iron and making a go at the speed record, well, I just don't have the words for that.

IIRC they already intend to go to Pueblo, when they have the money.
Though I do think that they should set that speed on the NEC for brownie points. One can dream...
Maybe, in keeping with higher speed tradition, the T1 can run on NJT! Specifically to AC, where the track is straight and service is sparse. Ross can even run! Not nearly as many grade crossings to worry about this time!