This is a group that I really want to succeed. Just as the article states, we have so many existing traditional types of locomotives preserved that this is worth completing.

I would like it to succeed as well.

The problem is how you define "success." And the related problem is that, by the standards the vast majority of participants and enthusiasts would define "success" in this case (getting to ride behind it at speed on ex-PRR trackage or over Horse Shoe Curve), the power to make this a "success" will always be in other entities' hands. And they are taking a multi-million-dollar crap shoot that one of those entities will co-operate with them.

Why, pray tell, is it so important to so many folks that this locomotive, if it ever becomes a reality, operate over Horseshoe Curve? Historically, T-1's rarely made un assisted trips westbound over the Curve. Even on fairly light trains, they doubleheaded with a K-4s or even an L-1s, not because they couldn't make the grade, but to keep train speed up. I'd be much more interested in riding from Altoona east to Harrisburg or from Pittsburgh west, where the beast could really get out and stretch its legs.

My wife's grandfather was a special duty engineman on the Middle Division during the time that the two prototype T-1's were testing between Altoona and Harrisburg, and he was often the man on the right-hand seatbox. He told some fairly hair-raising tales about the post-construction modifications and tweaks made to the locomotives as the PRR engineering folks evaluated their performance.

Because the modern railfan, and a good portion of modern rail historians, see the Curve as the symbol of the Pennsy. Personally, the first time I learned anything about the PRR was on a trip to the Curve. A similar situation I've experienced is people wanting to see anything Lackawanna-related run over the Tunkhannock Viaduct.

The real goal of this project is not the five minute thrill of shooting some video of the T1 going around horseshoe, it is in the thinking and planning and the making of each of the parts and assemblies and in the assembling of the locomotive.

Alex, every owner of an operable mainline steam locomotive makes the same crap shoot. Fort Wayne does not own the trackage that 765 runs on. VMT does not the mainline that 611 will run on. Neither do the owners of 261 or 4449 among others. Yet they seem to get out there on the mains. Instead of the constant harping on the "where are they going to run it" canard, maybe it would be a bit more useful to discuss the finer points why it is important to attempt to build a large steam locomotive this many years after the end of steam.

Call me a heretic, but a Q2 would be much more impressive, and was a much more successful, practical machine. About the ultimate High Horsepower SuperPower Locomotive, with as much or more raw power as the storied Big Boy.

Can you please elaborate???!!!

I'm in too, Wayne.

dave

This may be true for the people who actually get into the shop and cut/mold/forge/etc. hot metal. Those folks will be VERY few and far between. For the VAST majority of contributors, that five minutes on the Curve, or departing Chicago Union Terminal or Pittsburgh or whatever--onboard the train OR trackside--is literally all the satisfaction they can or will hope for.

And you know what? That is, in a great many cases, enough for them. Even if they have to watch the YouTube or streaming video from their deathbeds, and ask that their ashes go into the firebox to clean the flues.


Discuss away.
Right now, in my hand, I'm holding Pere Marquette 1225, Milwaukee 261, Santa Fe 3751, SP&S 700, Soo Line 2719, UP 3985, Frisco 1522, A&WP 290, C&O 614, Reading 2100 and 2102, and N&W 1218. And somewhere in the deck is SP 4449, SP&S 539, UP 844, and Santa Fe 2926 and 3463.

Recently leafing through a book I found in the local used bookstore, Production Processes, by Roger W Bolz, The Industrial Press, 1963, I found a photo of the bed casting for the T-1 on page 563. It is pretty amazing with all of the detail there. Photo was courtesy of Eddystone Steel Castings Co., whom I assume is long out of business. Looking at the photo, I was reflecting on whether there was a still a foundry in business that could still cast something that huge?

While this is an interesting project, if $20 million is available in the Northeast railfan community, I can't help but think that it would be "better" to restore the East broad Top RR? The place to run is there, all the facilities for maintenance and operation, and lot's of authentic Pennsylvania history.......nothing needs to be re-created.

I have no doubt in my mind that, IF the Friends of the East Broad Top had a signed sales contract allowing them to purchase the entire railroad property for preservation if $20 million could be raised in a reasonable set period (a year or two), and the FEBT had, either by themselves or in partnership with another entity (Pa. Historic & Museum Commission, Strasburg, RR Museum of Pa., whoever) a solid, rational management plan to fundraise and preserve the railroad, that $20 million would be raised in short order.

(And as long as I'm dreaming, can I have a SmartCar, an old-school Jeep Cherokee, and a new house and ten acres?)

The difference here is that if you pledge to save the EBT, the results will be quite tangible and predictable, even if eventual operation may need replica coaches and "foreign" steamers to preserve the originals. The future of a replica PRR T1, aside from a big thing just sitting there, is less predictable and tangible--so far.

According to the group's forum, they have identified at least one operating foundry in the US capable of casting objects of similar size. Alternatively, the frame could be built as a welded fabrication either from plate or separate smaller castings.

Yup, my vote is to put the money into existing iron. There are so many objects that are real and in front of us right now that need attention, the idea of devoting huge resources to this long shot does not impress me.

In Britain, they basically don't have any engines left to restore. So they built a new one to absorb their cash.

Which makes me wonder, can't we get those guys to take on sponsorship of an American project?

I think they have several examples of the locomotives we sent over to Europe after the war.....but with brake a coupling systems useful for them. The one American appearing locomotive at NRM in York is actually Chinese.

There does appear to be an interest among the British in our western railways - I think since we used them to open huge amounts of territory for expansion, unlike their systems which connected well developed centers and sources of resources. I think the larger examples of our technology also, given the loading gauge in the US allowed for it.

Perhaps we can reach a point at which we can find some consensus on what we would wish to consider a "standard American locomotive" and create a wide range of regional support for a program.....the bar famed wagon top 4-4-0 os an obvious possibility, but Kloke is building them for any interested party. If that would fly, you'd think we'd have more interested parties. We made more 2-8-0s than any other type, but there's wide variation among that group - 1890 or 1930?

The bigger challenge might be cultural.

dave

The T1 trust has greatly professionalized itself in the last year. I think that is an improvement. They've realized if they want people to take them seriously, they have to present a "serious" public face. I'm glad they have.