Why Weren't Duplex Steam Engines Successful?
2022 ж. 6 Жел.
1 460 377 Рет қаралды
To help keep our lights on: / highironvideos
To continue to see updates, photos, and new videos from High Iron, follow us on Facebook: / highironvideos
Soundtrack: All Available from the KZhead Audio Library
-Distant Lands
-A Night Alone
-Swing House
-Subtle Betrayal
-Anchors Aweigh
-Devine Life Society
-Good Gig In the Clouds
-Greaser
-Sunday
-Monument
What's the background music that plays from 2:56 to 5:36?
Description updated with the entire soundtrack. That piece is, "Swing House."
Thank you. I was trying to find it earlier but I was searching for the wrong thing since it sounded quite similar to D'accord by Jake Bradford Sharp.
They were successful... For a very very long time.... But had to be discontinued so the current people don't ask questions...... On the real reason why ...... To hide the actual people whom created this.. Before the repopulation.... Trains have been around for farrrrrrr longer than people are made to believe.
down in ohio swag like ohio
Lol, that is things YT should've offered the host/admin to grant links to, integrating YT like a Video, audio & pic combo search engine, unlike the predominant text scroll internet system classic.
if you spoke to PRR engineers who piloted the T1's the majority of them would say that the wheel slip problem was a myth. The final analysis of this piece of railroad lore was that the engineers were not used to so much instantly available power, and that was the true cause of the perceived wheel slip issue. But as noted, most of the engineers were of the opinion that once used to the available power, and how to manage it, the wheel slip issue was non existent. But rumors, myths and folklore are hard to dispel, especially among non railroad individuals and rail fans.
As a locomotive engineer myself, I was just about to comment on how insulting it is to suggest that engineers as a group simply couldn't adapt to a totally different locomotive. I can tell you that I run an SD40-2, a Dash-9, and an SD70ACE very differently. I cannot believe that the engineers on the PRR weren't capable of the same. I'm sure it took some time to learn the intricacies of a new design, especially one that was so vastly different than what they'd been used to seeing every day for years, but no engineer worth his pay would just blindly grab the throttle and get a bunch of wheel slip day repeatedly.
Bulleid ‘Pacifics’ in the U.K tended to slip when starting due to instant steam availability. Some drivers never got the hang of it..
I thought the wheel slip issue had to do more with a mechanic issue with the poppit valves or whatever they're called.
And it definitely wasn't a myth it absolutely happened there's tons of videos showing it lol usually taking off or at lower speeds . Happens to others sure but not nearly as frequent.
Perhaps the wheel slip could be solved with a different configuration, like the 4-8-8-4, having more wheels to grip. Even then, the Big Boy still slips sometimes. That said, a 6-8-8-6 engine would be freaking MASSIVE, and the weight alone could help as well! Sadly the age of steam ended before that could be materialized or even considered.
What's surprising is how little the steam locomotive changed between 1870 and 1940. Mostly they grew in size and power, the most notable changes in the design were the addition of superheaters and feedwater heaters in the World War I era. No thought was given to a fundamental change such as use of a rotary positive-displacement expander, such as the scroll device patented in 1912. This would have eliminated the dynamic augment issue and greatly increased efficiency, but there was no incentive for change. The railroads had long been a complacent industry, having no competition except other railroads using the same equipment and methods, so they were caught flat-footed when the 18-wheelers and Interstate highways began to appear.
At least in the US, anyway. The UK did have a few unique developments, and while they still stuck with the basic reciprocating piston design the layouts and implementations were different. One good example of this is also one of the most famous locomotives of all time, the Flying Scotsman - or really, the class it belonged to, the LNER's A1/A3 Pacific designed by Sir Nigel Gresley. In addition to the two outboard cylinders, the A1/A3 was also equipped with a third center inboard cylinder, allowing for smoother acceleration, more power and higher wheel RPMs. Other developments on British steam locomotives include designs with fully inboard cylinders to reduce oscillations due to piston movement and tapered boilers which reduced sloshing.
If you consider the motor car you should not be surprised. Progressive refinement has worked miracles, radical changes have failed. Very few features of modern cars had not been thought of a hundred years earlier. They were expensive and impractical at first but refinement has brought them into normal use. Steam engines did have radical changes such as superheating, piston valves, compensated suspension being among them. But in general detail improvement made a big difference to the overall capabilities of the engines.
And just like the locos before them, region influenced design.
@@VestedUTuber Gresley's three-cylinder designs were his philosophy; nothing 'additional' about them! "inboard cylinders" were basic to British railway locomotives, along with 'inside' valve gear. Superheating was adopted early in the 20th century and, latterly, steam-flow improvements made a huge difference to performance (c/o André Chapelon in France).
thats the capitalistic nature for ya. Why spend a lot of money innovating when doing nothing new makes you a lot of cash?
The S-1 still looks absolutely amazing. I wish it had been designed a bit better with its weight. And been preserved...
"And been preserved..." Yes, along with all PRR Superpower. If I'm not mistaken, the S1 was to have been built with advanced lightweight alloys, but the War required heavy mild steel be used, thus a 6-4-4-6.
The S1 was built way before any WPB restrictions. You may be thinking of the S2 turbine. The 'poster children' for fast engines made heavier in WWII were the ATSF 2900-class 4-8-4s (2926 in New Mexico is one)
The very sad story why the Big Engine was not preserved can be traced in the surviving motive-power-department records at the Hagley Museum in Delaware. It was well-acknowledged that 6100 would be the crown jewel of the historical collection, even more important than 460. The problem was that by 1949 PRR was becoming increasingly desperate for income, and the tremendous mass of alloy tied up in the S1 was just too much prospective 'beef on the hoof' precisely as all the advanced steam was being expensively sidelined. Scrap value appears ridiculous in today's numbers -- $37,500 -- but those were Breton Woods dollars at $35 to an ounce of gold; the modern equivalent would be nearly $1 million to put things in perspective. That was just too much for the Board to have to justify to the by-then-increasingly-angry major shareholders...
@@wizlish I remember when I would walk to the 7-11 as a kid, looking for soda bottles to return for nickels. Two bottles would net me a candy bar. Yeah, Banksters stealing through inflation/recession cycles.
@@psycotria, bankers do not cause inflation. The only thing that causes inflation is GOVERNMENTS....... PERIOD.
Discovered this channel only a while ago, definitely one of the best channels for American loco history. 😊
Thanks!
Wait, Azuma aren't you the person always commenting on Sam's trains videos?
@@HighIron t1 prototypes were better then the normal ones and the s1 was good but were too long
oh hi azuma
@@flamedude_1111 Yea you're right...
As a PRR guy the video is mostly positive. They were definitely ahead of their time in many ways especially in terms of electrification and steam technology (hence why the GG1s built in the 30s would refuse to retire until 1983 when they physically got too old) the problem is while they embraced new technologies, they had a habit of keeping the old ones a little too much. That doesn't deny the fact they we're truly "The Standard Railroad of the World" and one of the best fallen flags out there. As for 5550 the organization is actually not far from home (being started in Pottstown PA) and with the lessons learned from her predecessors 5550 will definitely be the ultimate steam locomotive. Certainly looking forward to the completion, besides if the British can build new steam from the rails up like Tornado, we can do it too!
I’m glad I found your videos! Train crash videos are overlooked by people who like exploring plane crash documentaries.
So you're contributing, I assume.
Actually there were GG1s operating in yard service well into the 90s.
I never knew you watched his videos, I have watched both yours and high iron’s videos for years. Small web…
Regardless of how practical or impractical they were, they definitely looked fantastic
I love how the T1s look. They have a very modern appearance.
Agreed. It’s no wonder the prototypes were nicknamed after space age characters. Flash Gordon & Buck Rogers for 6110 and 6111 respectively
Despite being a PRR fan from childhood, I have come to admire the general lines of the J class locomotive as the best looking. Although I am fascinated by the PRR's S1 and T1, their appearances are too long and too massive, respectively. I have never seen a steam duplex in the flesh. I grew up watching PRR's GG1s running freight at full speed across the road from my house, and they were my favorite locomotive until I saw the J1. I have never seen the J1 611 in the flesh, though; it keeps alluding me. I left Pennsylvania before it ever reached there and eventually moved to Roanoke after it left there, for its sojourn in Pennsylvania at Strasburg Railroad.
True
here's to the newest T1 to be built, and hope it can break the steam speed record in the process!
It'd be a hollow victory given all the improvements that CAD and Simulation will allow. It doesn't mean what it meant 84 years ago when it was set.
Why? It’s an 84 year old record, it doesn’t need to be broken, why build a locomotive to just to that, that’s just dumb and selfish
@@threepea1151 it's a side quest of the T1
@@mechamax7919 still, it shouldn’t be broken, people honestly don’t care lol, Mallard has had it for 84 years now, no need to break it after that long, that should stay in the past
@@threepea1151 The main purpose for this project is to operate excursion trains with the 5550. This will be an extraordinary tourist attraction.
I like your theory about the PRR's engineers pulling the T1 throttles too fast. The great mystery is the entire Q Class. The PRR was always a 50 MPH freight railroad, with much of its cargoes being open top coal hoppers. That fact is why the PRR rejected the N&W Class A 2-6-6-4 locomotives, which they tested when they were considering the C&O T-1 2-10-4. That's probably also why PRR did not try the Challenger types (4-6-6-4). So why build such complicated locomotives with 69 inch drivers as the Q's? Thanks for promoting the T1 5550 project!
That a good question. I just think the Q class was pointless
@@gamerfan8445 - And yet, they built 25 production Q2 locomotives, after both the prototype Q1 and Q2. Maybe it was a political decision to reassure the coal mining companies on which PRR relied for its largest share of traffic? It would be fascinating to go through the archives to find the answer to the Q2 Mystery. None of the Q2's was in service more than six years, and PRR bought its first diesels right after the class was outshopped.
The Q2 was justified and built as a wartime engine, able to run trains of appropriate weight at appropriate speed to justify both the high horsepower and the reduced augment. Once peacetime came, and PRR started whining about how its trackwork had been hammered 'in the interest of the Government' but the Government wasn't helping pay for it, PRR went back to a 50mph freight limit where nothing more capable than M1as were needed for M&E. The one thing that the Q2s 'would have been good for' over the J1as would be TrucTrain service, which ramped up only a short time after the Qs were allowed to decay to unrecoverability (see also the lamentable case of the 'return to service' that ruined the reputation of the NYC A2A Berkshires).
@@wizlish Interesting! I actually considered the T1's could be adequate for such a service. Such tonnage running at passenger train speeds would've been just about within the comfort zone of the T1's...assuming they were refitted with Frankly B-2 valves and rotary cam of course. Not the mention the route availibility of the 4-4-4-4's was the lowest not just of the duplexes, but of any of the Pennsy's "superpower" designs, including the S2 and J1's. That said the Q2's would've benefitted from this work too, had the permanent way been kept up. They had the capacity to give the Pennsy a proper fast freight design or even dual-service design. Sure, the J1's _could've_ fufilled this role given they had the same drivers as a Challenger, but I see the 2-10-4's beeing more at home on heavier manifests and drag freights with all of their drivers coupled together
The PRR actually had several different classes of freight trains. They also had extensive amounts of flat terrain in the western half of the system, compared to relatively steep grades and sharp curvatures in PA. As a result, PRR actually had three sets of tonnage ratings where grades were involved - fast freight, general merchandise, and drags - i.e. coal trains. The PRR never attempted to run coal drags fast - a complete waste of money. And by the mid-30's, the PRR realized that for express and merchandise, they would be competing against trucks. Prior to the 1930's, the PRR was not a 50 mph freight railroad (neither were other roads - steam engines burn more coal and consume more water to go faster, and tonnage ratings drop at higher speeds.) So the PRR really did not have many high speed freight engines until they developed the M1 - their first freight locomotive that could sustain 50 mph for long runs with significant tonnage in trail. The M1 was used in dual service in some locations, and was the freight locomotive of choice in the 1930's where helpers were not required. Especially on the west end. When WWII hit, the PRR was desperate for locomotive power, and while they bought the J1 based on the C&O T1, the original J1 deliveries were improperly balanced and immediately tore up the mainlines they were deployed on (the entire initial batch had to be re-shopped - this is documented in the J1 distribution during WWII.) As J1's deployed out on the west end of the system (Clearances were too tight initially for J1's east of Pittsburgh), the displaced M1's that had been deployed west of Pittsburgh were moved east of Pittsburgh as fast as the J1's were delivered to help with WWII tonnage east of Pittsburgh, and most M1s were deployed east of Altoona, and were even used under wire as GG1's and P5's were in short supply with wartime traffic demand. Back in the mid-30's, the PRR established freight schedules designed to move express freight 400 miles per day, with twice daily service between major city pairs. But depression era traffic levels could be satisfied with the 300 M1 and M1a locomotives. WWII traffic, the estimated post war traffic, and the emerging long-haul trucking sector that was expected post war is what drove the desire for sustained 50 mph (and possibly faster west of Pittsburgh) high tonnage freights. That provided the impetus for the Q1/Q2 concept. The smaller Q1 couldn't beat the J1's, but the Q2 could from a performance standpoint (while the J1 was marketed as a "super power" locomotive, it was usually run at lower speeds to take advantage of its peak HP, which was at a lower speed than the Q2). The Q2's were designed to operate in the western half of the PRR system, since clearance limitations couldn't support operation of the Q2's east of Pittsburgh. After some track realignments made during WWII the J1's could reach Altoona after the war, but cold not venture east of Altoona due to more clearance limitations. Outside of the nearly pure coal hauling RR's like the N&W and C&O, there was nothing special about the Q2's being replaced by Diesels - Diesels were just much more economic to operate than steam, and very few classes of steam were not considered walking dead post-war - the speed of replacement was more a function of diesel locomotive production capacity and the profitability (cash on hand) of the RR buying them. And steam locomotive maintenance was very expensive. Ignoring all of the urban legends about keeping coal companies happy, and being biased by owning GM stock, a review of the PRR's dieselization shows three trends - (1) the PRR did not fully understand that there wasn't the need to deploy specific types of diesel locomotives for the various service types as the railroads did for steam locomotives, (2) the PRR underestimated utilization rates for diesels compared to steam (overbuying some diesel types early in the transition era), and (3), recognizing the significant reduction in maintenance costs that quickly became evident, the PRR placed diesels at the outer edges of the system first so they could close distant steam maintenance facilities (which is why PRR steam's final stand was almost entirely near Altoona). The reduced maintenance costs is a key reason why all west end steam, including the Q2's, were replaced relatively early (and the Q2 class only numbered 25 locomotives - why sustain maintenance for such a small class?), while the 300 M1's and M1a/b's continued to operate in PA, and were phased out as they required boiler replacements, given that the PRR could not buy enough diesels to replace their entire fleet of steam quickly. Bottom line - the duplex steam locomotives were not "singled out" for early retirement compared to other classes of steam - they were the victim of a whole host of other factors that resulted in PRR classes with smaller fleets, deployed distant from Altoona, to be retired first. BTW, the N&W J class was an amazing locomotive , but its large cylinders also did not fit in many PRR passenger stations, making it unrealistic to use in PRR passenger service)
I’m not a train nut like most of you on here, but damn these things are beautiful. Something about more wheels, just looks amazing
sir i am a PRR DUPLEX STEAM TRAIN NUT 😆
Yes
I worked at the Eddystone plant in the 1980's where I was doing prototype work on the V22 osprey. The locomotive works was at the time was the main assembly building for the CH47 Chinook Helicopter. the large facility worked well for 2 reasons the large gantries were good places for assembly of large components, and their location on Delaware bay was a good relatively safe place to conduct initial check out flights in the crowded Philadelphia area.
The power required to propel the locomotive itself was considerable. Such an interesting video.
For every great aspect of the duplex, there’s always a drawback and that kinda why I like them. Especially the T1’s. I always figured the T1’s were a tad too powerful for what Pennsy crews were used to, and this basically confirmed that. Something else to note about the T1’s trials on the C&O was _their_ experience with some of the T1’s qualities. Staff were already rather familiar with multi-cylinder engines, even if they had a hinge in the frame, and they would’ve had some experience with poppet valves thanks to the recently rebuilt L-1 Hudson’s and possibly the L-2-a’s. The PRR wasn’t familiar with either of these so of course they would slip with a yanked front-end throttle. Splitting the drivers was probably a detriment in that regard, since each driving set had less wheels to recover from a slip than a Pacific or Northern type. In that regard, it was probably for the best that the Pennsy chose a 2-10-4 for its War Baby rather than a 2-6-6-4…
It's not that the T1s were more powerful; it was that (as he said in the video) the combination of the much better-flowing and quicker-opening front-end throttle and the poppet valves made low-speed power control, where the T1s already suffered due to their short stroke and high pressure, difficult. Remember that these engines started with a FA of about 4.48, which is ridiculously high (compare Voyce Glaze's J-class FA!) and this was actually increased further with the sleeving program. The real problem here was that there were not separate throttles, or a trim or 'traction control', on the two engines of the T1. (There is, as designed, no real room to put in separate throttles for the two steam circuits). It was also apparently difficult to tell from the cab when the front engine was slipping. It has been pointed out that this problem could be partially addressed by having differential-slip indicator lights in the cab that would indicate a slipping engine, but the response would still have to involve horsing the throttle in and then out again -- and PRR passenger-engineer reflexes were set. (I find the level and type of PRR training on these engines to be frankly appalling) The amusing thing about the C&O testing was that it wouldn't have mattered if the throttle were or weren't horsed: the problem was stalling, primarily due to the short stroke, not slipping as traditional lies tried to have it. Dave Stephenson attributed that to the extra-long 18-car train C&O ran for the test.... to 'take advantage of' the nominal higher horsepower at speed.
I wonder if PRR went for an FG over the J for their War Baby if the Duplexes would have left a better impression. With the Duplexes on their own, PRR crews could get away with saying "this new thing just doesn't work" for a while, but if there were just handed a proven working type right before getting the shinny new Duplexes than some answers might have come up sooner. "This works elsewhere, so it's something about the crews here".
i always wonder what old technology would be like with modern 2022 equipment etc.. i still think steam powered vehicles need to be revisited. but then again [SHELL] might make everyone disappear.
@@wizlish That's more or less what I was getting at, they made steam quicker and were ready to use it quicker than what crews were familiar with, but this is a far more detailed explanation. I find the T1's quite similar to the Bulleid Pacifics from Great Britain in this regard. Both types were quite radical for steam engines, with the first few examples spitting in the face of wartime restrictions, but their complexity lead to bad reputations with the operating department in spite of how well they handled heavier trains. Hell, I even found out that the slipping problems relating to both classes is largely tied to how quickly they produced steam
As I recall they were rigid frame with larger diameter drive wheels... this did not Add to their tractive effort and caused them to be slippery and prone to losing their adhesion on curvy tight radius winding track C&O evaluated one found it to slippery on these surfaces compounded by wet icy sections of track where sun light was blocked by mountainous terrian.
I’m from Darlington, England. The world’s first passenger locomotive was built about 100 meters from where I grew up! The new steam locomotives, Tornado and Prince of Wales were also built at the same location and now run on the main line between London and Edinburgh (and stopping at Darlington of course).
I've never heard of "duplex steam engines" before, what an interesting concept. I was lucky enough to see and ride behind the N&W J 611 in the 2015 debut after restoration in 2014-2015 and what an amazing experience having seen it so often in the museum wondering what it would be like with such a machine to actually move under its own power.
Great video on some of the Pennsy’s greatest engines. It just so happens that my channel gained 5k subscribers today, and I changed my PFP to reflect more of the Pennsy’s heritage, so seeing this video today is a bit of a good omen.
That attitude of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" allowed steam to run for almost 120 years on my local line. There was resistance when British Rail tried to force diesel out, hundreds of local jobs were centred on maintaining these gorgeous engines, diesel cocked that up.
Once met someone involved in C&O’s testing of the T-1. He said (which has been backed up by other sources), that the C&O liked the T-1 except when they tried to test it in the New River Gorge. The results were that the T-1 couldn’t maintain much speed through the Gorge, the constant turns and grades were hard on the T-1. The biggest problem was that it was simply too long to make the turn at Hawk’s Nest going the right way (eastbound and westbound tacks are separated by the river from Sewell to Hawk’s Nest). So the T-1 and its train had to back all the way back to Sewell (about 10-15 miles), and then proceed west on the eastbound mainline so they could avoid the curve
I love the contrast between all these high end cutting edge Trainz models and that exact same S1 model from like 2009, has nobody ever tried updating it? lol
Good S1 blueprints haven’t been sourced until last year.
Reminds me of some of the absolutely gorgeous machines from the flying boat era, such as the Saunders-Roe Princess and the Boeing 314 Clipper. The jet age came along and jet engines became the standard for truly large aircraft, plus the boom in passenger travel saw ground-based airfields transform into massive airports as we know them today. Flying boats just weren't needed anymore and that unique era of aviation passed into history.
The flying boats is now the flying yatch , with strange fin like architecture that allows the yatch to hover above the water surface at great speeds.
They may not have been the fastest or most reliable, but they sure were good looking.
But they were the fastest (allegedly). Perhaps the T1 Trust will solidify that claim.
@@trekintosh As long as it's not a case of erroneously-distanced mileposts.
Simply excellent in all facets - script, narration, visuals, audio. There's a story in a book I have somewhere (which belonged to my father) of a crew on a T1 testing its speed on a straight flat stretch in Indiana. IIRC no record of the speed was made but the dispatcher (?) chastised the engineer, winked at him and quietly said "never do that again". Given the T1's specifications I thought that it should have been able to break the LNER Mallard's world speed record for steam. Maybe the valve gear would have given out. FYI I have an owned an HO undetailed T1 for about 35 years.
One thing I have always wondered was why trains have an open steam system. Ships operated with Triple Expansion engines for over a century. These systems had a closed loop system that sent the spent steam through a condenser and back into the boiler, so they didn't keep having to refill their boiler tank. Trains just dumped the spent steam out the piston. It seems to me that a system where the steam is pumped through internal pistons and a condenser, back to the boiler, and those pistons then transfer motion to the wheels through a cam system would be much more efficient and have much fewer moving parts, especially exposed on the outside. This would also eliminate the need for frequent stops to re-water. I'm a fan of Railroad Tycoon, and have had a few occasions where I had to spend the money to add a little junction station somewhere useless to install a Water and Sanding tower for trains passing through (particularly in rough areas) or along long high-value stretches.
The big snag was lack of space in railway locomotives. There were a few condensing engines (on the London Underground for example!) but they didn't work terribly well; the water tended to get too hot and was then difficult to feed back into the boiler. So generally it was easier just to top up the water from tanks or troughs periodically. Condensing of course also works extremely well in power stations and allows much more power to be generated from the turbines.
Boats have an unlimited source of cool water for condensing the used steam.
I believe that South Africa operated some steam locomotives with condensers, but if I recall the condensers were bigger than a tender. But then there are areas in South Africa with very little water. In the eastern US, both the PRR and NYCentral used track pans between the rails so that scoops lowered from the tenders could refill the water tank while at speed.
The exhausted steam provides draft for the fire, doesn't it?
Excellent video! I myself am a heavy duplex fan. Even though it was infamous, PRR 6100 is my second favorite steam locomotive. And I believe that if diesels didn’t interfere, the duplex could’ve reached its full potential and maybe have kept steam in revenue earning service for a longer time.
This is a great vid. Best one of these so far i think. The shots of the streemliners going at high speeds makes me FEEL
Found this channel today and promptly subscribed. I've a budding interest in the subject, and anxious to learn more. Thank you for the quality vids.
This video caught my eye because I play a lot of Fallout, a game taking place in a world whose history split from ours in the late '50s. The old train engines in there look like they're later evolutions of the T-1 series, especially the 6110.
It's funny how PRR liked the N&W J-Class so well. An engine built to climb the routes up and down in the mountains of Virginia, West Virginia and, Maryland fit so well in the hills of Ohio.
love the shoutout to the T1 trust!
Howdy! Always excited for a new video from High Iron!
Thanks!
Hey, PA. Just wanted to say how very flipping cool it is to see you guys putting the T1 back together. That's just so awesome.
Very informative and well-presented video. Thanks for posting this!
I'm glad to see this covered by this channel. Really glad to see the mention of the C&O trials as it is often left out when people want to claim these as failures. It's even sadder that many forget about the Q2, which depending on what measurement you take was more powerful than the Big Boy that so many love (such as in Horse Power). I'm also very happy you mentioned the T1 trust at the end, hopefully we won't need to wait too long before 5550 can attempt to prove the claims of it's impressive speed.
Going by drawbar power, even the S1 outclasses the 4-8-8-4's. Then again, the S1 was never meant to haul more than ~1,000 tons, and the Big Boys never could've hit triple digit speeds
I’ve always wondered what we could do with steam now in our current technology environment.
Maybe in an alternate timeline, an Art Deco steampunk based advanced society.
Live with most of reciprocating steam locomotive's basic design flaws.
Steam wouldn't be allowed; I'm surprised that they're allowed to build a new one. Remember, The Government wants to get rid of all fossil fuels, even your gas stove. Something that burns that much coal is heresy, and MUST BE SUPPRESSED!
Trust me, nobody's interested. I came up with a closed system using laser produced instant steam, which, after use, is rerouted to an intercooler to turn back into water... All i get is negative feedback regarding it. People today dont think the way we used to, that there aren't any real problems, just solutions waiting to be found. Today, its all developmental costs and legal liabilities. If not that, the oil companies will get rid of you. I dont see much progress today, just complications while moving along the same lines.
@@HarborLockRoad*laser produced steam*????
Awesome video! As a huge fan of the PRR, I own two brass steamers in N scale. The post war T-1 Duplex, with the side shrouding partially removed for easier access and a slightly different front - and the J1. Both are stunningly beautiful locos. I read as much as I can about steamers, but there is still so much that evades me. Always great learning something new.
Can’t wait for the newly built 5550 to be put together and put into service!
Nice video. I’d love to see a history video on the B & O railroad. They seem like a pretty cool yet rarely mentioned part of Appalachian, Chesapeake, and Northeastern Railroad History.
My favorite of these engines is the Norfolk & Western 611 shown in your video it is on display at the Strasburg railroad in Strasburg, Pennsylvania. I recently visited it and road on another of the locomotives.
Nice straight-ahead narrative style, without any silly glitz. More please.
KZhead seems to be doing well on recommendations recently. Just found your channel as a train nerd and am happy to subscribe
KZhead just recommended me this video, and wow what a gem! Great presentation, narration as much as visualization. Interesting and easy to follow. May I ask what Software you are using for these animations? --EDIT: nevermind, should have watched to the end credits before asking :)
With today’s technology, T-1 5550 will be better than any other duplex steamer ever built! Edit: how did this get 114 likes?
I think we have a real chance of re-claiming the land steam record!
@@BMMEC6000 doubt it
@@tylergreen4843 why not? Give me a solid reason why.
@@BMMEC6000 1. The T1 suffered many of the same problems most duplexes on the Pennsylvania railroad suffered: *wheelslip* 2. It will be expensive as hell to run it and maintain it 3. Finding a good long stretch of flat track to run it at high speed 4. Damage to the locomotive IF it beats the speed record, OR an accident
@@tylergreen4843 1. It’s already been proven that their wheelslip was mostly thanks to the crews not being used to them and their design (something that is going to be tweaked by the T1 Trust). 2. Yes but you can say the same thing about any locomotive! Plus people are willing to pay a pretty penny to even see this thing let alone ride behind it. 3. The U.S. has test tracks that are used for high speed testing. 4. Although this is a very good point it really all comes down to who operates it and how well it’s maintained prior to the speed test. And if she wrecks. Then that’s a tragedy. We’ve handled much larger ones.
The K-4 Pacific shown at 1.47 to 1.51 is an original K-4 built in 1914. Note the small tender, spoked wheels on the trailing truck, and the oil lamp.
Beautifully animated well crafted documentary 👏 Thank you!
PRR T1 my beloved ♥️ Excellent video as always Mr. High Iron, keep it up
Called "The Big Apple" on the B&O because it was mostly in service between Baltimore and Jersey City, which is sorta New York. It had a water-tube boiler, which did not seem to catch on as locomotive type. It was reputed to have made 100 mph on the Jersey Central, a company related somehow to the B&O. My father, a locomotive engineer for the B&O, related that story to me, which is no doubt a story related to him and so on. Could be true though.
Ever been to the B & O museum in Baltimore? I have, and it’s a really fascinating look into B & O history. You might be able to find more info about the stats, routes, and locomotives and etc. there. Either way, really interesting story about locomotive history.
@@jmdibonaventuro I have, but it's been a while.
The 'relationship' of the Jersey Central is that it was an integral part of the B&O's New York extension, together with the Reading.
Excellent research, animation, storytelling. Thanks!
Very well done! Good info with excellent narration.
I love unique locomotives. I wish it had more time to stay awesome. I'd keep one as a restoration project if I could. Fantastic pacing and research done for this video. Thank you for the cgi showcase. I never got to see these in their golden years ;(
The S1 6100 is my favorite steam locomotive of all time!
A friend's grandfather was a mechanical eingineer for the Santa Fe. As young engineers at school we read his reports on front end design (stack, draft and cylinder exhaust), coal testing, valve gear and other subjects with fascination. In its heyday rail was a huge industry featuring in every day life across the country and not so much in the background as it is today. Coal quality testing was done with dynomometer cars and a test engineer over a standard section of track with a dedicated test engine so that consistency of the testing would be assured. One of the best parts of the reports was the professionalism and precision exhibited. No sloppy opinioneering was seen.
This video was very nicely done. Lots of good information and easy to understand. 👍🏻👍🏻
What program do you use for the simulations? It looks lovely!
Awesome video and great information about something that nobody really knows anything about during this transition time from steam to diesel/electric. Thanks for making this happen. As a novice Lionel Train collector, I found this very fascinating. 😊
Excellent presentation! I learned a lot on this complex subject, and compliment you on your wonderful illustrations that accompany the valuable information presented. 🚂
I hope once the T1 trust is built, hoping she will be able to redeem and be successful for her duplex concept at least which I'm hoping so that the duplex design can once again get the final results we always wanted.... was the duplex good design or not? I hope we get that once she's finished.
Exactly where are they going to run this thing extensively under conditions it was designed for? This is needed to acquire data about its performance.
@williamclarke4510 I think the T1 Trust organization said where they might run it but idk because they took some design modifications to the original to make it like an inch or 3 inch shorter height to account for the bridges
@@williamclarke4510 Well, someone already paid for them a trip to the loops in Colorado where they test high speed trains
Lovely history video! Always love them!
Thanks!
Excellent video! You just popped up on my feed, watched, liked and subscribed! 🤜🏻🤛🏻
This was the best birthday surprise I could have asked for ❤
Had a family member on my mom's side do a inspection of around 6 or so of the pennsy t1's according to his notes left behind plus some cab blueprints and other schematics.
I didn't know this is what I needed to listen to while finishing up some sociology work at college at 9:25 on a cold Thursday morning, yet here I am!
Great information, I love the Trainz footage so that we can see it in action, thank you.
I believe the S1 could beat the British speed record.
Possibly, but they weren’t smart enough to try one day, which is good since Mallard actually deserved it lol
The costs of doing so, on the day with all the extra equipment, subsequently with the repairs required, will mean it never happens. A4'Mallard' was damaged doing that speed run but effecting repair was no hassle - all the facilities to do so existed anyway.
@@EllieMaes-Grandad I guess we'll have to see what the S1's younger sister can do.
@@EllieMaes-Grandad The A4 big-end design was rather promptly remediated, and had another run been made I suspect Duddington's belief that he could get 130mph out of an A4 might have been achieved, even with overtravel on the conjugating gear. That, in turn, could have been eliminated by using stiffer (larger-diameter hollow) cross-shafts in the Australian conjugating gear design...
@@wizlish Interesting notions. One must then wonder why it didn't happen, and why it hadn't already been done.
I heard that the t1s slipping was largely due to the crews being used to the k4s and not being properly trained on the t1s
You’d think that problem would be only temporary. Like a beginner learning how to operate the locomotives, through trial and error they would figure out this was the problem. But it was never remedied. Imagine a truck driver who never learned how to properly drive a truck. They would be given a bit of leeway in the beginning but eventually they would either figure out how to drive better or be fired.
You’d think that problem would be only temporary. Like a beginner learning how to operate the locomotives, through trial and error they would figure out this was the problem. But it was never remedied. Imagine a truck driver who never learned how to properly drive a truck. They would be given a bit of leeway in the beginning but eventually they would either figure out how to drive better or be fired.
@@gregrowe1168 exactly
It wasn't temporary, engineers of the day were extremely resistant to change and real jerks who knew it all. Huh, I guess not all that much has changed.
Yes - the T1 had a front end throttle that was much more responsive than the K4's dome throttle. A lot of reports have since been found documenting that there were PRR engineers that did not have the problem with slipping once they realized the differences, and yet others just beat the locomotive regardless of the class. If you want to learn more about operating a steam locomotive, and the difference a good engineer can make, I would recommend the book "Setup Running" if you want to learn more (although that PRR engineer never operated a T1 or S1) It is one of the best books documenting the skill and art of a steam locomotive engineer. Other documentation on T1 operations can be found in a few issues of "The Keystone" - the publication of the Pennsylvania Railroad Technical and Historical Society. Those issues are out of print but you may find them on-line or at a train show.
Excellent video!!!! Well done 👏 Really enjoyed this. Thanks!
Nice video! I saw a model T1 at a layout display today! The wheel slipping noise is scary!
It's really a shame that none of these interesting steam engine designs have survived, particularly the beautiful streamline ones.
The Norfolk & Western J and the New York Central Niagara were in my opinion the epitome of conventional steam locomotives. Does anyone know if th PRR had any financial interests in the N & W?
At one time, the Pennsy owned the Norfolk & Western entirely and used it as a cash cow until the N&W bought out the Pennsy during the '30's
Yes they had planned to merge with it however it was shot down by the ICC and the Pennsylvania railroad had to sell it's stake in the N&W when it merged with the New York Central railroad
The UP 844 4-8-4 is an outstanding locomotive as well,
More than a small interest. At the time, PRR controlled them. This makes the absence of an R 4-8-4 with 77" or 80" drivers particularly strange. Part of the issue is that PRR's idea of a "5/4-scale M1" was the Q1, combining divided drive with higher drivers, steps in the wrong direction for how PRR actually ran M&E. Note the very interesting history of the continuation of V1 turbine development on N&W after PRR dropped the idea (for mechanical complexity and high effective water rate). It reached quite an interesting, if in my opinion more than slightly misguided, state by 1952, in a form that has very little in common with Baldwin's TE-1 a couple of years later.
@@IndustrialParrot2816 Yes - the irony... The N&W, hauling mostly coal and only a small amount of passenger trains, maintained profitability through the transition era, while the PRR was doomed as the government forced the PRR to run a huge number of nearly empty passenger trains through the 50's and into the 60's, while losing a large percentage of merchandise traffic (which was much greater than PRR coal traffic), to the trucks and the interstate highways. PC goes bankrupt, the feds deregulate rail, making it profitable, and 50 years later, NS ends up owning some of the most productive portions of the PRR, without having to incur the costs of maintaining the Northeast corridor and lots of commuter rail long after the PRR stopped being profitable. As far as I am concerned every NS locomotive needs a Keystone on it somewhere.. Sigh...
A little off-topic, but the B&O class V at 5:08 is an absolutely gorgeous locomotive. One of the best looking US locomotives I have seen
It does look quite nice
I'm just trying to imagine standing next to the tracks when that fire-breathing monster comes screaming by at 110 mph. Must have been something to see.
Hmm. Really good video! I’m much more familiar with railroads that operated west of the Mississippi River. Mainly because I live west of the Mississippi. However, this raises a lot of questions for me. Why did they not continue electrification? Was the capital investment for that more expensive than the R&D and building *50* new locomotives? Cus my impression is that the GG1 was the best locomotive they were operating at the time. (I mean there was more going on than that but there’s a reason they were operated into the *1980S!*) Also why tf did they not buy the J class if it performed so well? And, tbh, looked way better?
Pennsy just didn't have the traffic density west of Harrisburg to justify the capital expense of further electrification. Whereas the steamers could operate essentially all over the system. Have wondered about why the Pennsy didn't buy J1s or at least license the design myself. I'm sure there is a reason, but what it was - I dunno.
Pennsy would have been much better served by a standard 4-8-4 design, ANY 4-8-4 design.
@@michigandon If they had been equipped with Rotary poppet valves, the 50 production T1's would have outperformed any Northern at the higher speeds on the west end of the PRR system. We may get to prove that with 5550 (which will have rotary poppet valves similar to the backfit on only one of the original T1's - locomotive 5500). Data collected at 100 mph suggests that poppet valves might increase horsepower output by 20% without consuming more steam. At 100 mph the pressure drop through conventional cylinder valves was significant - steam from a 300 psi boiler might not even reach 275 psi at the end of the intake stroke at the cylinder piston. It is similar to the improvement in intake and exhaust flow between a flat head V8 and a modern dual overhead cam V8. Huge improvement. 5550 will answer that question - stay tuned. 5550's hp versus speed curve could be very educational. To my knowledge 5500 with rotary poppets never pulled a dynamometer car..
The Duplex was the wrong answer to the problem of counterbalance. Baldwin did a poor job of counterbalancing the New Haven I-5 4-6-4 and Atlantic Coast Line R-1 4-8-4. The correct answer was shown in the Norfolk and West J 4-8-4, Union Pacific FEF series, and New York Central S-1 4-8-4. Light weight rods, with roller bearings (NYC and N&W), and proper balancing of the drivers. The N&W J ran over 110 mph while running on 70" drivers, without any damage to itself or the track. In hindsight, Pennsy would have probably been better off building a 4-8-4 based on the M1a 4-8-2. Keep the running gear the same, but add a larger firebox on a four wheel trailing truck, plus cast bed fames with roller bearing axles. The engine would have easily fit the same clearance diagram of the M1a, but would have been capable of higher sustained speeds thanks to the larger firebox and better chassis design.
Actually the duplex was a fine approach to eliminating the issues of balancing, even (potentially, and only with Langer balancers) allowing zero overbalance. (The long chassis gave even better nosing control with stiff leading and trailing truck lateral a la N&W J) The answer was a 4-8-4 capable of PRR's evolutionary requirements to replace the M1s (as embodied in the specs from which the Q1 was designed as a "5/4ths" increase over the M1, with slightly higher drivers. Trying to accommodate high speed on a 10-coupled rigid wheelbase is a bit much for Timken thin=sectinn rods -- Chapelon was convinced that the only reason they could physically work, with 2/1000s required precisely-aligned clearance, was that they were flexing in buckle on every stroke... I agree that the R2 would have been a splendid locomotive, but it would have involved as much more boiler and more specifically radiant heating surface as the Niagara did over the late Mohawks. The M1 boiler was a good one, but it was designed before the better understanding of Woodard's Super-Power culminating in the double Belpaire... under which PRR could not have fit higher than 76" drivers in any event, but with modern balancing that would have been 'sufficient for actual requirements'.
And it does have to be said, in Baldwin's defense, that they used the then-current AAR balancing spec when building the R1s. It is interesting to note the tremendous effective evolution of balancing practice between the R1s and the noted FEF development (which, interestingly, specifically avoids roller rod bearings on a 100mph+ design).
@@wizlish UP had only two locomotives with Timken roller bearing rods, the 4-6-2 and 4-8-2 which were streamlined for the Forty Niner train. Fro.what I've read UP felt that the Timken rods were too "stiff."
Timken thin-section rods were anything but 'stiff' structurally; Chapelon notes (with a certain careful alarm!) in LLAV that in order for them to work at all they're essentially buckling around the spherical rod eyes at every stroke (!!!) I don't know if it's cause and effect, but UP did very careful and well-thought-out development for non-roller rods for their actual sustained high-speed locomotives (the two rebuilds were protection power for motor-train Streamliners, and one of them, IIRC the 4-8-2, had the distinction of not once being in the place where it could, in fact, help with a road failure! See the Timken article circa 1936 that explains the "100mph" rod system. Those details were a key component both of the two geometries used on Voyce Glaze's balancing of the N&W Js and of the change of the Niagara from just another medium-size 4-8-4 into the 6000ihp high-speed locomotive it became.
One of the key PRR M1 design features was the large "combustion space" ahead of the firebox, but before the boiler tubes. The M1 delivered just as much hp its "super power" contemporary Berkshires with their four wheel trailing trucks, yet the M1 weighed ten percent less than the Berks. The PRR discovered that radiative heat transfer within the burning flue gas was responsible for a lot of combustion efficiency - not radiation from hot surfaces. The PRR found that a larger fire grate wasn't necessary, just a longer dwell time in the combustion area before entering the fire tubes (where combustion by radiative heat transfer quickly stopped.) The PRR developed other locomotives with long combustion chambers that did not require four wheel trailing trucks to support a massive firebox grate. The PRR only went to larger firebox grates over four wheel trailing trucks when the PRR sought to generate a LOT more horsepower than an incrementally larger M1 class could ever deliver. The T1 boiler could deliver a lot more steam than the M1 boiler because it was designed for high speeds (testing showed that the T1 consumed 1,000 horsepower just to overcome the locomotive's aerodynamic drag at 100 mph!)
New to the channel. Really great stuff. Thanks.
I know that name, Baldwin, it was in Eddystone, PA. The factory was bought by Remington in 1913, and made rifles for WWI.
Right as the explanation of the concept ended, I knew this thing was bound for failure. Okay, maybe not the B&O Northern as that one seems fairly logical in regards to putting the drivers closer to each other. ok maybe the Q2s were ok but i still don't see any potential in Duplexes.
The potential in duplexes was lower dynamic augment. It was easy to achieve this even as early as 1935 by using Timken thin-section rods with roller bearings, hollow piston rods, and all the other improvements since Eksergian's observations in 1928. Where the duplex earns its keep is in practical operation at very high speed, where few if any railroads would actually regularly (or economically) run -- this being precisely the niche that diesel-electrics filled much, much better by the time duplex detail design had its kinks worked out. Note that a conjugated duplex solves, at least in theory, most of the difficulties except for double the cylinder maintenance costs.
To be fair, I like Niagaras more, why can't we have a replica of one of those
55 seconds ago, nice.
Congrats
Always weird to see my hometown on KZhead lol, great video!
Love this channel btw! What is yhe game or simulation you use for the trains?
I think I speak for all rail fans when I say when prr 5550 is finished being built I'll go ride behind it
Unlikely, they don't have any track to run.
@@tonyburzio4107 Someone has already paid in full a trip to the test track in Colorado where they test high speed trains. So, there’s there. And also a few places, like the Cuyahoga Valley RR, have offered to host the engine there.
@@tonyburzio4107 Read the T1 Trust website
I have yet to find a person who doesn't think that the Q2s were pretty cool.
Yeah the Q2 class is awesome
Well done video! Thank you. My great uncle said his 4-8-4 freight locomotive could easily slip. Just ease the throttle out slower and be ready for any slip.
3:03 "The Baltimore & Ohio build the world's first duplex locomotive." LNWR Dreadnought class 2-2-2-0 duplexes of 1884: Are we a joke to you? We were the first and the PRR got an engine in 1889 based on our design.
Hate to say this, but Francis Webb's three-cylinder compounds were something of a joke to everyone else at the time. They had two small HP cylinders exhausting into a huge single LP cylinder. Webb's conventional locos were apparently quite workmanlike designs, but the 'compounds' were erratic in their performance. But still, they pre-dated the PRR's efforts by several decades.
As did the James Toleman locomotive described in Sinclair's history of the locomotive engine. It should be noted that the early duplexes were made for a different engineering reason: rod-connected drivers were supposed to have more mechanical losses than 'singles' at the time. Certainly the Premier Line ran a great deal of its traffic behind Webb Compounds for quite some time... but note how quickly they were replaced when Frank was no longer there to mandate them...
Very interesting and well done video, thank you! 🙂
idk why youtube reccomended this as I never knew anything about trains but yeah lets hope they build a good duplex engine
I like this kind of content! Can you make videos on the garrat steam locomotives and maybe one the also unsucessful triplex locomotives?
Makes me want to play rail simulator again. Very interesting upload.
Hi. Each year many coal miners were killed on the job, and this was one major reason for the switch to diesel. After the "Manhattan Project" began, the government became aware that coal burning released radioactive elements into the air, along with the usual cancer causing combustion bye-products. Nice to see that scientific information was able to displace "vested interests". I suspect we'll see more of that in the future. Good work, Cheers, P.R.
As someone that doesn't know a lot about steam locomotives, I found this fascinating.
Very well done!
From my perspective, this video is very well produced. I'm not particularly interested in trains and this video kept me intrigued. Thank you!
Very good explanation! Thank you!
Man I love the smooth diesel punk designs of these duplex engines.
I dont know much about trains but tye duplexes are absolutely amazong looking
I love this guys voice. So wholesome.
I love this channel I'm already hooked. Does anyone know what game some of the footage is from?
The prr t1 duplex is one of my favorite steam locomotives
Excellent documentary, perfectly executed both in terms of information, visualisation and narration! Besides, could anyone tell me the number/name of the majestic northern shown at 18:35 ? Unfortunately I´m not too familiar to the american rolling stock.
By the 1930s, it was only a matter of time before diesels made steam locomotives obsolete. Their only downfall in the beginning was lack of power. But even then, it was clear they were more economical. Multiple units could be lashed together and controlled by one crew, something that you couldn’t do with steam locomotives. It literally took until UP built the 6600 hp Centennial locomotives that they could equal in one unit the power of the largest steam locomotives like the Big Boy. Yes they also had the gas turbines before that with even more power but they were also expensive to maintain and operate just like steam locomotives. Modern diesels don’t have that much power per unit but are much more fuel efficient.
The groundwork for doing this with steam locomotives was done too, it ties in with one man operation.
The interesting thing is that everything needed for effective 'engineer control' was worked out in the United States by 1922 (the back-pressure regulated cutoff control) and the electronic developments for mandated automatic train control up to 1928 would quickly make it sensible. That leaves the need for 'firing attendants' or a clear all-weather corridor between 'units' for the inevitable things that make autonomic firing on reciprocating locomotives much, much, much more difficult than typical railfan engineers recognize it is...
Hopefully, the new T1 will break the record as the fastest stream locomotive ever!!!-- looking forward to it!!!-- thanks for your great, informative presentation!!!