[N&W] Re: Pennsy on the N&W

[nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org]

how realistic would such a test be if the railroads used different coal grades?
PRR used lower quality coal, did they not?

Mike Rector
___________________________________________________________________
Don Ball Jr. comments the PRR T1 testes in N&W in his book  "PRR 1940s - 
1950s".

The PRR 4-4-4-4 T1 was comparative tested against N&W 4-8-4 J in August 
1948. Tests were set up in heavy grade territory on the Radford Division 
between Roanoke, Elliston and  Christiansburg, Va. and in low grade high 
speed territory, on the Norfolk Division between Poe and Suffolk, Va. The 
final conclusion was: "The class T1 locomotive showed up unfavorably by 
comparasion with the class J at other than high speeds". The T1 was a 
racehorse, nor a mountain climber. She was slipery but could manage a 1000 
ton express at 100 MPH.

Luiz Saraiva
___________________________________________________________________
Jerry:

You might want to check out pages 65-69 of the book Norfolk and Western 
Class J. I covered the tests with the T-1, both on Radford Division and 
Norfolk Division. The T-1s were returned shortly after completion of the tests.

I have more details now on the Pennsy use of the Class J, but that is in 
the revised edition of the book (some years down the road).

Ken Miller
___________________________________________________________________
Jerry -

The PRR T1 has been surrounded by considerable
misinformation (urban legends) over time, so be
careful what you believe based on reading past
accounts.  I've seen the same comment you did
regarding the "real locomotive" phrase.  This is an
example of editorializing that has made realistic
assessment of the T1 difficult.  It masks facts and
inflames emotions.  Neither is good for history.

To answer your questions (likely with TMI, but still
omitting many relevant points for brevity):

As far as a swap is concerned, there is mention of a
Y6 test on PRR, somewhere around March 1948.

PRR tested N&W J 610 from 12/5/44 through 1/3/45.  Two
trips were made on freight and 12 round trips between
Crestline and Chicago were made on passenger.  PRR had
high praise for the locomotive with respect to
steaming, acceleration and riding qualities.  The two
areas it was found wanting for PRR's service was its
inability to make up much time with trains of 16 cars,
and that machinery speeds were too high for sustained
running at 100 mph or more.  This info is taken from a
PRR memo dated 1/6/45, and portions of the PRR test
report.

PRR T1 5511 was tested several years later on N&W,
between 6/9/48 and 6/26/48.  Tests were made between
Roanoke and Christiansburg 6/9/48 to 6/14/48, and were
compared to similar tests made three years earlier
with N&W J 604 in 1945.  Consequently, these tests
were not run "side by side".  Variable tonnages were
used to evaluate performance at speeds of 40 mph or
less from Elliston to Christiansburg. During the
Christiansburg tests, the J pulled heavier trains at
higher speeds than the T1 on the 1.3% grade.  This was
due to the J's significantly higher drawbar pull in
the under-40 mph speed range.  The tests were run out
of Roanoke.

Additional tests were made between Poe and Suffolk
from 6/17/48 to 6/26/48.  Here both PRR 5511 and J 604
were tested simultaneously.  The J showed performance
superiority in the 65 and 75 mph tests.  The T1 showed
superiority in the 85 MPH tests.  This was due to the
T1's higher drawbar horsepower above 65 mph.  These
tests were run with 21-car trains.  N&W made the
following comment: "The class T1 showed up unfavorably
be comparison with the Class J at other than high
speeds.  In normal operation on the N&W, and we
believe on most roads, there is not enough
uninterrupted running at high speeds to offset the
large disadvantage shown for the high wheel, short
stroke T1 locomotive when handling trains on medium to
heavy grades, when accelerating from starts and slow
down and when running in rolling or light grade
territory at medium speeds."  This info was taken from
the N&W test report, File 6115.

The above N&W quote reflects why it designed the J.
It needed a locomotive with the ability to handle
15-car (+) trains anywhere on the system, start and
start frequently, accelerate from many speed
restrictions, climb significant grades, and still
sprint to 90+ whenever necessary.

The T1 was not designed to these parameters.  It was
designed to replace double-headed K4s in "Blue Ribbon"
train service (limited stop, first class trains), and
to make up time with these trains when required.  For
the short time they operated, and contrary to
considerable lore and legend, they were successful in
accomplishing this task in PRR's demanding passenger
service.  It is not generally realized how serious PRR
was regarding timekeeping.  Lost time was to be
recovered, particularly on the Chicago and St Louis
lines west of Pittsburgh.  These were the areas where
sustained high speeds were possible.

Comparison of these two locomotives is difficult.  The
only similarities I've found is that they have eight
drivers and weigh about the same.  Their designs were
optimized for opposite ends of the operating spectrum,
the J for the low and medium speed ranges, and the T1
for the higher speed ranges.  Both did what they were
designed to do for their respective roads.  Neither
was suitable for the other's operation.

Yielding the soapbox to the next speaker.....
Dave Stephenson
___________________________________________________________________
It was not a swap, although PRR had tested N&W J #610 in 1945, at which 
time it did 110 mph near Crestline, OH. N&W tested PRR #5511 in August 1948 
between Roanoke and Christiansburg and between Poe and Suffolk, Va. A J was 
tested at the same time and places for comparison. N&W concluded that the 
T1 was inferior to the J at all speeds up to 75 mph. A more complete 
description of these tests is on page 36 of Don Ball's The Pennsylvania 
Railroad 1940s - 1950s.  Jim Nichols


N&W Mailing List wrote:
>I understand that at some point the N&W and Pennsy swapped a Class J for a
>T1 for experimentation. Did N&W keep the T1 around Roanoke, or did it roam
>elsewhere?  Someone told me that upon the return of the T1 it was remarked
>something to the effect that N&W tried, but even they could not turn the T1
>into a real locomotive! Truth or urban legend?
>
>Thanks for any information you can provide and any reading material around
>that gives detail into this swap.
>
>Jerry A. Shepardson
>
>N & W -Precision Transportation