# Putting the rumours to rest - Accucraft's next engine



## turbohvn (Jan 7, 2008)

Ladies and Gentlemen... 
To put the rumours to rest once and for all, I have heard "from the horse's mouth" as they say, that the next Standard Gauge engine Accucraft is producing is (drum roll) a T1. 

Details known to date: My undertanding is this wil be one of the later versions, not the very first T1 produced. Alcohol fired, with possibly a butane version as well. Price, more that a Royal Hudson, less than a Cab Forward. Pototype being constructed as I write this. That prototype will come to America after completion for thorough review and testing before going back to China for any changes required. That is all I know right now.

This does not mean Accucraft will not produce a Challenger at a later date.

Royce
Quisenberry Station LLC
Live Steam Models


----------



## Pete Thornton (Jan 2, 2008)

Awesome! a 4-4-4-4 Articulated!


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

What T1?? 
there are several T1's!  

Reading T1: 
http://www.nps.gov/history/history/...shs2s3.jpg

PRR T1: 
http://www.railarchive.net/randomsteam/prr5527.jpg

LSWR T1, Great Northern T1, Lehigh Valley T1..

and several more.. 
all very different locos!  

(I would assume PRR T1 is probable! but the Reading T1 is nearly as famous as the PRR T1..)

Scot


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

I was just going to post the same thing--which T-1? The Reading T-1 is great. The PRR T1 is unique.


----------



## Charles (Jan 2, 2008)

One is assuming that the "T1" is the PRR if so, with a large non-articulated frame one of the modifications that would be necessary (IMO) has allow it to "flex" to run on most "garden railways" with 12 feet radius. If it is the Reading T-1 not an issue with the frame and tracking. 
If PRR T1 a very interesting design and art deco style(later version):


Interesting on the Aster offering of the Challenger how many people voiced "TOO BIG" well, if PRR T1 the locomotive length is 122 ft compared to the Challenger 121+ feet. So much for the M1a Mountain....


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Pete Thornton on 01 Feb 2010 10:25 AM 
Awesome! a 4-4-4-4 Articulated! 







The PRR T1 was not articluated! 
it was rigid frame..
think of it as a 4-8-4 with the drivers split into two groups..
and actually a longer rigid wheelbase that a traditional 4-8-4.

Scot


----------



## vmsysprog (Jul 2, 2008)

Can a PRR S2 be far behind?  
Steve


----------



## David Leech (Dec 9, 2008)

Posted By Charles on 01 Feb 2010 10:33 AM 
One is assuming that the "T1" is the PRR if so, with a large non-articulated frame one of the modifications that would be necessary (IMO) has allow it to "flex" to run on most "garden railways" with 12 feet radius. If it is the Reading T-1 not an issue with the frame and tracking. 
If PRR T1 a very interesting design and art deco style(later version):





Hi Charles,
I'm not sure that the flex problem will be that bad on 12 foot radius.
If the 2-10-2 with a driver wheelbase of 22' 10" = 8.55" can get round, then the PRR T-1 with a 25' 4" = 9.5" isn't too much more, is it?????
Now on a 10' radius I can see it getting tight, and anything less, forget it.
It will be interesting to see how it is handled.
All the best,
David Leech, Delta, Canada


----------



## ETSRRCo (Aug 19, 2008)

Is it going to be 1:32 or 1:29 like the K-4?


----------



## Charles (Jan 2, 2008)

David
I guess we will have to wait and see once Dick has a few test runs.....but I think will need lots of lateral motion to do the trick: wheel base is 10.5% increase and I think the F4/F5 was very close to or pushing the limit at 12 (ran okay on our track)'. 


Scale- 

The T1 will be 1:32.


----------



## rwjenkins (Jan 2, 2008)

The GS-4 was offered with the option of blind #2 and #3 drivers for the radius-conscious buyer, presumably they could do the same with the T-1. Another option would be to use an articulated frame on the model, which while not prototypically accurate, would at least look better sitting still on the shelf or running on straight track than the blind driver option. I wonder what they plan to do for valve gear, I'm guessing working Caprotti gear is unlikely. At least the position of the radius rod won't be an issue anyway!


----------



## Dwight Ennis (Jan 2, 2008)

My understanding is that it is indeed the PRR T-1 - the later model without the skirts, etc.


----------



## rbednarik (Jan 2, 2008)

Broadway Limited Imports did the blind driver option on their HO release of the Pennsy T1's, but they also included a flanged set if the owner wished to exchange them. The trouble with the blind drivers was on certain track geometries where the wider tread of the blind driver would rid alongside an opposed switch point or stock rail, causing binding or derailments. I have witnessed this with the blind drivered accucraft GS-4's as well. 

Not to mention that the factor of adhesion on a T1 was not the greatest. Blind drivers are usually raised up so that the tread does not contact the railhead much, allowing for essentially two flywheels in the center of the engine, with the first and last drivers taking the brunt of the strain. 

I hope that the cylinders are not the oversize 5/8" bores used on the AC-12's and other large prototypes for the engine will be far too powerful, and given it's relatively light loading, cause the engine to be extremely slippery and uncontrollable in inexperienced hands (much like the issues the real drivers had with the prototypes). 2 pairs of 1/2" cylinders would do the trick nicely when paired with a heavily constructed boiler for some added traction. 

You gents are forgetting that the T1, although essentially a 4-8-4 with extra bits added in the middle, has a overall length just a bit greater than 122'. The 16 wheel long haul "coast-to-coast" tender takes up quite a bit of this, but never the less, a T1 locomotive (sans tender) will be 2/3-3/4 the length of a Cab forward (locomotive only). Do take this into consideration when calculating the minimum radius required to run this beast. 

The 2-10-2's previously released from Accucraft have quite a bit of lateral motion built into the driving axle boxes, which allows them to negotiate a 8-10 foot radius curve. Lets hope the T1 employs a lot of lateral motion in the driving axles, although this will be limited by the external reciprocating bits and pieces. 

Richard: 
My guess will be some sort of simplified valve gear (Stephenson perhaps) between the frames. Moreover, slip eccentrics or piston valve reversing would be not only an economical, but also a aesthetically pleasing and mechanically simple way to go. 

Nevertheless, If they do manage to pull off the rotary cam poppet valves, it would be a first in this scale I believe. Having seen Ed Woodings 1" scale T1 built to PRR works drawings (see the next post for a photo), they are certainly impressive locomotives. 


It will be an interesting model for sure. Look forward to the prototype.


----------



## Charles (Jan 2, 2008)

This is a photo of a built PRR T-1 once located at the PLS club(Ed Woodings): Buick style-could be some retrofits happening!


----------



## Britstrains (Feb 24, 2008)

That's Awesome!!


----------



## John Allman (Jan 2, 2008)

How come nobody complains its the size of a Challenger? 

Never mind, I guess that only matters if it is an Aster.


----------



## David Leech (Dec 9, 2008)

Posted By rbednarik on 01 Feb 2010 02:07 PM 

Nevertheless, If they do manage to pull off the rotary cam poppet valves, it would be a first in this scale I believe. 

Hi Ryan,
It has been done in the UK in Gauge 1 quite a while ago.
All the best,
David Leech, Delta, Canada


----------



## Charles (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By David Leech on 01 Feb 2010 05:25 PM 
Posted By rbednarik on 01 Feb 2010 02:07 PM 

Nevertheless, If they do manage to pull off the rotary cam poppet valves, it would be a first in this scale I believe. 

Hi Ryan,
It has been done in the UK in Gauge 1 quite a while ago.
All the best,
David Leech, Delta, Canada

David,

Probably the first mass-produced poppet valve locomotive then? Do you recall where you saw or who did the work?


John:
Said it before...122' 9" in real life is bigger then the Challenger at 121' and some inches.


----------



## CapeCodSteam (Jan 2, 2008)

I recall this loco from Washakum a few years ago. I spent half an hour looking at each and every detail. I'm sure if I stared for ten more minutes I'd have seen the live engineer and fireman. It was one incredible. If I remember right, he told me it was a 15 year labor of love.


----------



## Chris Scott (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Charles on 01 Feb 2010 03:08 PM 
This is a photo of a built PRR T-1 once located at the PLS club(Ed Woodings): Buick style-could be some retrofits happening!











*Butt ugly!* Hopefully Accucraft will awaken from this nightmare.


----------



## Kovacjr (Jan 2, 2008)

Hmm So since Accucraft has pretty much this whole year booked already and even a completely sold out loco is looking at the end of 2010 already that was said to be early 2010. i wonder where it is in the priority. 

Hope everything is good there with 2 good people gone from the company.


----------



## rbednarik (Jan 2, 2008)

Chris,

Interesting opinion on the art deco styling of Raymond Lowey. Coming from one on the left coast...where beauty is often found in such, unusual places...such as:











A face only a mother could love was the first thought that came to mind, not that I would think that, being a bit of an SP guy myself.


----------



## Spule 4 (Jan 2, 2008)

This could be an interesting release, and with the PRR being one of the top three-four modeled roads depending on who you talk to, could be a hit.


...and maybe a more practical E6 and H9 not far behind?


----------



## CapeCodSteam (Jan 2, 2008)

I beg to differ Ryan, the title of "Brick", the title of Brick belongs to the the Acc S-12. Ray just got his Brick, I said that the first time I pulled her from the box, and two other people called it a Brick when they saw it over the summer


----------



## rbednarik (Jan 2, 2008)

Kent, 

At least the S-12 has some color to mask the brick styling...that and some compound curves and angles! 

Now, if you mean built like a brick, that is most certainly true!


----------



## David Leech (Dec 9, 2008)

Posted By Kovacjr on 01 Feb 2010 07:53 PM 
Hmm So since Accucraft has pretty much this whole year booked already and even a completely sold out loco is looking at the end of 2010 already that was said to be early 2010. i wonder where it is in the priority. 

Hope everything is good there with 2 good people gone from the company. 
Jason,
Well let's see.
The Accucraft Royal Hudson was rumoured in mid 2005, prototyped a year later and finally delivered December 2008.
So based on that, PRR T-1 should be delivered July 2013.
Place your bets Ladies and Gentlemen!!!
All the best,
David Leech, Delta, Canada


----------



## David Leech (Dec 9, 2008)

David,

Probably the first mass-produced poppet valve locomotive then? Do you recall where you saw or who did the work?


John:
Said it before...122' 9" in real life is bigger then the Challenger at 121' and some inches.



Ryan,
I'm sure that you are probably correct about the mass-produced bit.
I just dug out my old G1MRA newsletters.
It was, I now see, only PROPOSED by Bob Hines in March 1980 for his model of the British Railway Standard Pacific, number 71000 Duke of Gloucester.
I am pretty sure that he built it, and that there were pictures of it running, but I can't find any, so I could be incorrect.
I will keep looking to see if it did become a reality.
All the best,
David Leech, Delta, Canada


----------



## rbednarik (Jan 2, 2008)

David, 

Thanks very much for the information and research, one can only imagine the maintenance and durability issues that could plague the model equipped as such. 

Look forward to hearing more...may be something that would be of some interest to all of the prospective T1 owners out there.


----------



## Bob in Mich (Mar 8, 2008)

I want one,Hope they make the 3 hole T-1. http://picasaweb.google.com/weltyk/MyPictures#


----------



## Charles (Jan 2, 2008)

Hope for list.....
High on the production priority list 

Early version (Buick port holes & big chin) a piece of locomotive art work!!

Proper suspension so that it can run on most garden/portable tracks

Proper valve setup
No blind drivers
Produced by 2013
Coal fired (well that one is mine!)


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

Butt Ugly?? 
thats a matter of opinion!  

Actually I find the PRR T1 to be one of the coolest looking steam locos ever! 
much sleeker and better looking than many other "plain" steam locos.. 

Actually, I have always found the PRR T1 to be a nicer looking locomotive that the SP Daylight! 
which I have always found garish and rather ugly really.. 

I agree the early T1 is best looking of the bunch: 










a classic. 

(did we actually confirm we are talking about an Accucraft PRR T1? im still not sure!  

Scot


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

Incidentally, that PRR T1 "sharknose" front end is the direct ancestor of the nose on the Baldwin "shark" diesels: 

http://www.railpictures.net/viewpho...amp;nseq=1

Raymond Lowey designed the T1 steam loco.. 
I dont think he had any direct influence on the sharknose diesel however.. 
I think Baldwin simply adapted the Lowey nose from the T1 to the diesel design.. 

the T1 loco itself was designed by the PRR, the "streamlining" was by Lowey, 
and Baldwin built most of the locomotives.. 

Scot


----------



## Pete Thornton (Jan 2, 2008)

Looking at Scott's pic, I can see that 8-axle tender is going to have its share of the tracking issues on curves. 

A friend of mine built an O-scale version and made both sets of drivers into separate, pivoted units - sort of a double Mason bogie. That would take any reasonable curve.


----------



## jfrank (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Charles on 02 Feb 2010 05:04 AM 
Hope for list.....
High on the production priority list 

Early version (Buick port holes & big chin) a piece of locomotive art work!!

Proper suspension so that it can run on most garden/portable tracks

Proper valve setup
No blind drivers
Produced by 2013
Coal fired (well that one is mine!)


If they are going to do one of these Pennsy exotics I would rather see a Q2. It's a much better looking machine. 












The Pennsylvania Railroad's class *Q2* comprised one prototype and twenty-five production duplex steam locomotives of 4-4-6-4 wheel arrangement.[2][3][1]


They were the largest non-articulated locomotives ever built and the most powerful locomotives ever static tested, producing 7,987 hp (5,956 kW) on the PRR's static test plant. They were by far the most successful duplex type. The duplex propensity to slip was combated by an automatic slip control mechanism that reduced power to the slipping unit.


Despite overall success, the Q2s were all out of service by 1951. With dieselization, they were the obvious first targets to be withdrawn since they were only a little more capable than the conventional J1 class 2-10-4s but with far higher operating and maintenance costs.

And MTH has already done one. lol. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8aFOnU3Tv8


----------



## Tom Leaton (Apr 26, 2008)

more (non largescale) T1 trivia at: 
http://bowser-trains.com/holocos/t1/t1.htm


----------



## David Leech (Dec 9, 2008)

Posted By Scottychaos on 02 Feb 2010 07:27 AM 
Butt Ugly?? 
thats a matter of opinion!  

Actually I find the PRR T1 to be one of the coolest looking steam locos ever! 
much sleeker and better looking than many other "plain" steam locos.. 

Actually, I have always found the PRR T1 to be a nicer looking locomotive that the SP Daylight! 
which I have always found garish and rather ugly really.. 

I agree the early T1 is best looking of the bunch: 










a classic. 

(did we actually confirm we are talking about an Accucraft PRR T1? im still not sure!  

Scot 
Scot,
Looking at the photograph, I can see that either buyers will have to take a hammer to the bodywork, or Accucraft will have to use .010" brass to get the correct wrinkled effect!!!!
All the best,
David Leech, Delta, Canada


----------



## rbednarik (Jan 2, 2008)

Interestingly, the troubles with the Franklin oscillating cam poppet valve gear did prompt the PRR to experiment with 2 other, more conventional valve gears (seen below):

Caprotti valve gear, eliminated the servicing issues the Franklin oscillating/rotary cam gear had, but retained the poppet valve setup: 










Then there was the T1a, which was a one off locomotive retrofitted with walschaerts valve gear:










Unfortunately, it was too late for the retrofitted T1 and T1a to make a difference in keeping the T1's on the road. Perhaps Accucraft is planning to model the one off Walschaert valve geared T1a in lieu of the other 48 Franklin poppet engines?


----------



## David Leech (Dec 9, 2008)

Posted By Scottychaos on 02 Feb 2010 07:40 AM 
Incidentally, that PRR T1 "sharknose" front end is the direct ancestor of the nose on the Baldwin "shark" diesels: 

http://www.railpictures.net/viewpho...amp;nseq=1

Raymond Lowey designed the T1 steam loco.. 
I dont think he had any direct influence on the sharknose diesel however.. 
I think Baldwin simply adapted the Lowey nose from the T1 to the diesel design.. 

the T1 loco itself was designed by the PRR, the "streamlining" was by Lowey, 
and Baldwin built most of the locomotives.. 

Scot 


Hi Scot,
I just dug out my copy of Loco Profile #24 - Pennsylvania Duplexii, which I will now read in detail when i have time.
I'm sure that there are other books that go into greater detail, but this one has some very interesting photos showing all kinds of variation in side and front casing treatments. 
One thing that I do see, is that for the T-1 production run, numbers 5500-5524 (25 locos) were built at Altoona by the PRR, and 5525-5549 (25 locos) were built by Baldwin, so I don't think that you can either built MOST of the locos.
All the best,
David Leech, Delta, Canada


----------



## tacfoley (Jan 3, 2008)

Include me out. 

tac 
www.ovgrs.org


----------



## markoles (Jan 2, 2008)

Ryan,

Those later photos of the T1 show a machine that looks poorly designed and executed! Looks a lot like a submarine mounted on rollers. Perhaps Accucraft is going to model the T1 in its final form:










Although that is a 1960 Gillette...

In reading about the T1s, I come away with the overall impression that it was a failure. Too slippery to replace the K4 or Mountain 4-8-2 class, it could be argued that its failure helped to expedite dieselization on the PRR. Anyone ever wonder why the 'standard' railroad went away from the industry standard 4-8-4? Just curious. The styling is very distintictive and easily recognizable. 

In any event, hope that Accucarft make it for those who want it!


----------



## Charles (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By markoles on 02 Feb 2010 10:30 AM 
Ryan,

Those later photos of the T1 show a machine that looks poorly designed and executed! Looks a lot like a submarine mounted on rollers. Perhaps Accucraft is going to model the T1 in its final form:










Although that is a 1960 Gillette...

In reading about the T1s, I come away with the overall impression that it was a failure. Too slippery to replace the K4 or Mountain 4-8-2 class, it could be argued that its failure helped to expedite dieselization on the PRR. Anyone ever wonder why the 'standard' railroad went away from the industry standard 4-8-4? Just curious. The styling is very distintictive and easily recognizable. 

In any event, hope that Accucarft make it for those who want it! 
Mark
Not so....here is a good read of what the true nature of the T1 was both in testing and service (also so good discussion point about NYC, PRR N&W C&O steam power):

Duplex steam locomotives: PRR


----------



## Shay Gear Head (Jan 3, 2008)

I'm still waiting for the live steam version of the WSLCo #15 Shay!


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

From what I've read, the Duplex design was in large part about the problem of rail pounding and the damage it caused. A big heavy 4-8-4 just tore up the track and roadbed. And at around 100 miles per hour you started to run into serious problems with reciprocating valves, so they tried the poppet valves. As I understand it--and again I'm no engineer-- the T1s mostly did pretty well. And they might have been perfected except that dieselization was just too far along


I love the idea of a T1 model. It represents just about the end of the line for steam development. It's completely distinctive. I like the roller bearing side rods. I would not be able to run one on my layout, but it's a great idea anyway!


----------



## rbednarik (Jan 2, 2008)

Mark:
The concept was developed in the early 1930s by the Baldwin Locomotive Works, the largest commercial builder of steam locomotives in North America, under the supervision of its then chief engineer, Ralph P. Johnson.

This is taken directly from one of Johnson's books:

"As locomotives got larger and more powerful, their reciprocating machinery had to get stronger and thus heavier, the problems posed by imbalance and hammer blow became more severe. Speed also played a factor, since the forces became greater and more destructive at higher wheel speeds. The growing size and piston thrusts of existing express passenger locomotives could not be sustained with the by-then conventional 4-8-4 2-cylinder layout. In addition, he (Johnson) became convinced that a single pair of cylinders with conventional valve gear and piston valves was approaching the limits in terms of steam flow and expansion rates." 

The T1 was only the start of Johnson's duplex designs, it was the first to be produced in mass numbers for a class 1 railroad. Their complexity meant that availability and reliability proved poor, and while a very capable locomotive engineer (driver) could extract great performance from a T1, the inexperience and unwillingness of the drivers to feel out the locomotive, compared to other PRR designed engines which could be driven by the worst of the "truck driving" hoggers, caused both unfavorable results and left a scar on the T1 throughout it's short working career. 

The T1 was also a light engine for it's size, and having a rather large power-adhesion ratio meant that the engines were prone to slipping if the engineer did not learn to run the engine on the thin line between maximum power and loss of traction. 

The C&O leased out a T1 for testing purposes in the late 1940's, and dispelled many of the myths. While undergoing tests, the T1's:


* They handled trains well, particularly at higher speeds.


* They kept schedule and made up delays on most runs.


* They had no excessive tendency to slip.

The full article about the C&O test runs can be viewed here


----------



## Spule 4 (Jan 2, 2008)

The ran like a scalded cat according to our long late neighbor that operated them out of Columbus, OH.


----------



## markoles (Jan 2, 2008)

Thanks Ryan and Charles! Good reading on this distintictive looking locomotive. Looking forward to seeing T1s racing K4s!! 

Mark


----------



## CapeCodSteam (Jan 2, 2008)

I agree with you Charles, that porthole loco is incredible looking


----------



## rbednarik (Jan 2, 2008)

For those interested in hearing what a T1 sounded like working up the famous Horseshoe Curve, have a listen to the following clip:



Note how sharp the exhaust beats were, this is a result of the poppet valve gear giving precise admission and timing.


----------



## jfrank (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Shay Gear Head on 02 Feb 2010 10:59 AM 
I'm still waiting for the live steam version of the WSLCo #15 Shay!


So am I.


----------



## jfrank (Jan 2, 2008)

Here are some movies of the exotics in action: 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E703c-OxADI


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

I one of those films you can see a very bad case of the wheel slip the T-1s were supposed to be known for. The forward set of wheels slips badly. Interesting


----------



## Chris Scott (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Chris Scott on 01 Feb 2010 07:50 PM 
Posted By Charles on 01 Feb 2010 03:08 PM 
This is a photo of a built PRR T-1 once located at the PLS club(Ed Woodings): Buick style-could be some retrofits happening!











*Butt ugly!* Hopefully Accucraft will awaken from this nightmare. 
Posted By rbednarik on 01 Feb 2010 08:23 PM 
Chris,

Interesting opinion on the art deco styling of Raymond Lowey. Coming from one on the left coast...where beauty is often found in such, unusual places...such as:











A face only a mother could love was the first thought that came to mind, not that I would think that, being a bit of an SP guy myself.












Ryan:

Rather than the above Cab Forward looking half way to the scrap heap and without its running gear, the picture below does the cab forward more justice in its glory. (Well you tried to be subtle, maybe too clever by half?) ;-))












Beauty? I'm not going there. Besides that is way above my pay grade. ;-))

The Cab Forward is an great example of "form follows function" design. A locomotive designed to keep the crew from being asphyxiated by the exhaust as they hauled freight over the Sierras though the many tunnels and snow sheds. The T1 was typical of the Art Deco period, "design for design sake." The cowling, bulbous chin and pointed nose had no useful purpose or function save to hide the piping, pumps, etc. It looks like it could use some work by those Hip-Tuck boys.

Art deco was Moderne for modern's sake; born out of the roaring 1920's and through the 1930's depression era. In the case of the latter, it provided hope in the guise of "...the future and the modern" for the masses; the masses loved it. Art Deco's prime mover's views were somewhat different amongst themselves,

"Art Deco and Streamline Moderne were not necessarily opposites. Streamline Moderne buildings with a few Deco elements were not uncommon but the prime movers behind streamline design (Raymond Loewy, Walter Dorwin Teague, Gilbert Rohde, Norman Bel Geddes) all disliked Art Deco, seeing it as effete, falsely modern, essentially a fraud." (The Art Deco Architecture site) 

Nostalgia and the historical reality of a period are quite different. 

But some just love ugly ducklings like that T1. After all, somebody's got to. *;-D*

_The key question is, Which locomotive would you rather drive for a day, Cab Forward or T1 _ * ?*

_Put another way, Abram's M1 or HumVee_* ?*


----------



## Dwight Ennis (Jan 2, 2008)

You guys want *BEAUTY?????*


----------



## Chris Scott (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Dwight Ennis on 02 Feb 2010 08:14 PM 
You guys want *BEAUTY?????*



















*Beauty you can believe in !!!* 

*It's not just beauty, it's ART !!!*


----------



## rbednarik (Jan 2, 2008)

Chris, 

The picture of the AC-6 had nothing do do with it being in the deadline and more to the fact of it looking like a 1st grade art project...in fact your picture of the AC-12 is as it stands today, stuffed and mounted, still proves the point of that...unique...left coast styling, although it at least employs some angles other than 90* in the cab design.  

Art deco/streamlined design being unnecessary? Let's face it, many people prefer the shiny and new red ball over the dingy looking old one, even today. 

I believe that the draw of the T1 is; the Pennsylvania RR, a standard in function over form as well as conservative in locomotive design for numerous decades, took a radical step in a direction no one else dared to go. PRR had 425 K-4 pacifics, which for the most part, all looked the same: simple and spartan in design, with very little styling differences, rather boring after a while. They were reliable, easy to maintain and still fairly attractive. 

For the PRR to take a design such as the T1 and apply it into their reserved and set-in ways of locomotive building is intriguing. It is unexpected at first, and becomes more interesting as one looks into the rationale of why they did it. It is not something you see everyday, and at least, here on the east coast, the T1 ranked up there as an example of modern steam passenger locomotive design. One is hard pressed to find another locomotive that can pull 16 cars, 900+ tons, at 100mph for an extended period of time and do it fairly reliably. 

I always believe in function over form, no arguments here. 

To each his own. As long as it is steam, it will always have my undivided attention, no matter how flat the face, ugly the paint, or big the chin is. 



Dwight;
#21 is certainly one of my favorite narrow minded, err, gauge engines.









Can't wait to see it again this summer...not sure I will recognize it with that fancy new paint job.


----------



## CapeCodSteam (Jan 2, 2008)

YEAH, DWIGHT'S TRAIN!!


----------



## Steve S. (Jan 2, 2008)

Dwight, you did an incredible job.


----------



## tacfoley (Jan 3, 2008)

Posted By Chris Scott on 01 Feb 2010 07:50 PM 
Posted By Charles on 01 Feb 2010 03:08 PM 
This is a photo of a built PRR T-1 once located at the PLS club(Ed Woodings): Buick style-could be some retrofits happening!





Butt ugly! Hopefully Accucraft will awaken from this nightmare.




At last we agree.

Proposed sales of this loco in the low hundreds to make it viable?

I think not.

Let's have a 'Selkirk' instead - there sure as heck were lot more of them. 


tac
www.ovgrs.org


----------



## tacfoley (Jan 3, 2008)

Posted By rbednarik on 02 Feb 2010 09:07 AM 



Then there was the T1a, which was a one off locomotive retrofitted with walschaerts valve gear:



Unfortunately, it was too late for the retrofitted T1 and T1a to make a difference in keeping the T1's on the road. Perhaps Accucraft is planning to model the one off Walschaert valve geared T1a in lieu of the other 48 Franklin poppet engines?



Charles, much as I value your opinion, I venture to suggest that any company modelling a unique example of a what is already a unique type of locomotive confined to just one road is heading for a heap of disappointment in the salesroom.

ANY Northern, and I mean anybody's, would be a better seller than this. It's not as though we don't have enough Northern still running to use as examples. 

tac
www.ovgrs.org


----------



## Charles (Jan 2, 2008)

Terry
I would agree with the Selkirk. I also have indicated that the PRR Mountain- M1a or any Mountain locomotive would be a much better choice given that no one has produced in live steam.


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

They did well with the cab forwards, didn't they? That's an ugly and unique loco used on only 1 RR. Didn't they sell out? And they were very pricey. 


A Northern would make sense, agreed


----------



## tacfoley (Jan 3, 2008)

Posted By lownote on 03 Feb 2010 07:42 AM 
They did well with the cab forwards, didn't they? That's an ugly and unique loco used on only 1 RR. Didn't they sell out? And they were very pricey. 


A Northern would make sense, agreed 


Sir, there is a whole world of difference between the words 'ugly' and 'wacky'. As for only one railroad having them.......well they DID have 256 of them...

tac
www.ovgrs.org


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

Let us drop "ugly," then, as being in the eye of the beholder!

Wikipedia says only 20 AC-12s were produced, while there were 52 T-1s.


But it is true there were more than 200 "cab-forward" locomotives of different classes, and they were the signature look of the SP, much as the swooping streamlined style became the signature look of the PRR, the largest RR in the world. 


If we are going to include others classes, then you'd have to include the Q-2 freight engines, of which 25 were built, and the 3 prototypes, which puts us at 75. Less than half as many, it's true. But 75 duplex engines were produced by the world's largest RR at the end of the steam era, as a bold and failed attempt to keep steam power viable in the age of dieselization. Seems like a good argument for a model. Historical significance, distinctive, evocative look. Sounds like the AC-12!


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

The largest railroad at what time? What range of years? I think India has us beat, for sure now, and they were all consolidated in 1951. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## ETSRRCo (Aug 19, 2008)

Here are some facts on the Pennsy. The PRR was the largest railroad by traffic and revenue in the U.S. throughout the first two-thirds of the twentieth century and was at one time the largest publicly traded corporation in the world. At its peak, it controlled about 10,000 miles (16,000 km) of rail line. During its history, the PRR merged with or had an interest in at least 800 other rail lines and companies. The corporation still holds the record for the longest continuous dividend history: it paid out annual dividends to shareholders for more than 100 years in a row. At one point the budget for the PRR was larger than that of the U.S. government; at its peak it employed about 250,000 workers.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

First 2/3 of the 20th century would be until 1966. India has 40,000 miles now, so I will look up what they had earlier. 

In 1880, there were 9,000 total miles in India, but it was not consolidated to one company until 1951. The government took over all railways in 1946. 

Surely in 1946, it was larger than the PRR, so I could buy "first half of the 19th century", but no later. 

I found that in 1947 it was 55,000 kilometers, that,s OVER 34,000 miles. Over three times the size of the PRR. 

Not wanting to start a war, but while the PRR was big in the US, there were several other rail systems under one "ownership" that were larger. 

No, I don't want any models of Indian trains ha ha! 

Regards, Greg


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

You are talking to a historian--at the time of the construction of the T1, it was generally considered the largest rr in the world in terms of miles of track, rolling stock, and income.It was also for a time considered the largest corporation in the world. But that title was also held by US steel and Standard oil, also now gone. 


Also "railroad" as used here refers specifically to a private corporation--the PA RR, the B&O RR, the SP, the UP etc. A national govt. entity would have more tracks but would it be a railroad. It's not an accident they called in "Amtrak and not "Amroad."


----------



## Chris Scott (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By tacfoley on 03 Feb 2010 06:09 AM 
Posted By Chris Scott on 01 Feb 2010 07:50 PM 
Posted By Charles on 01 Feb 2010 03:08 PM 
This is a photo of a built PRR T-1 once located at the PLS club(Ed Woodings): Buick style-could be some retrofits happening!





Butt ugly! Hopefully Accucraft will awaken from this nightmare.




At last we agree.

Proposed sales of this loco in the low hundreds to make it viable?

I think not.

Let's have a 'Selkirk' instead - there sure as heck were lot more of them. 


tac
www.ovgrs.org 


Tac:
Let's not get too excited about what might possibly be just a freak accident. ;-))


----------



## Steve Stockham (Jan 2, 2008)

"Putting the rumors to rest" and we're on the _seventh _page! (Ya gotta love it!)


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Hmm, T1 production was in 1946 ( 2 prototypes in 1942)... so I will assume 1946... the Indian government controlled all the tracks in 1946.... in 1947 it was 34,000 miles... no contest in terms of size... Wikipedia has all of these facts with references. 

So it was not the largest railroad at that time. It might be that people were only considering "privately held"... but that caveat was not given... until your last post... that I will concede if you add "privately owned"... 

Regards, Greg


----------



## Dan Rowe (Mar 8, 2009)

Posted By ETSRRCo on 03 Feb 2010 10:48 AM 
Here are some facts on the Pennsy. The PRR was the largest railroad by traffic and revenue in the U.S. throughout the first two-thirds of the twentieth century and was at one time the largest publicly traded corporation in the world. At its peak, it controlled about 10,000 miles (16,000 km) of rail line. During its history, the PRR merged with or had an interest in at least 800 other rail lines and companies. The corporation still holds the record for the longest continuous dividend history: it paid out annual dividends to shareholders for more than 100 years in a row. At one point the budget for the PRR was larger than that of the U.S. government; at its peak it employed about 250,000 workers.

The statment made did not say that the PRR was the longest railroad. I just checked "Centennial History of the PRR 1846-1946" page 701 and the facts as stated are correct. They did not even have the largest system in the US in 1946 simply measured by track miles.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Got it, I missed (doh!) the "by traffic and revenue" part... revenue for sure, India's RR almost went broke several times. Traffic I could see, India was more biased towards passenger traffic I believe. 

Long live the PRR! (In history at least) 

Regards, Greg


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

Posted By Steve Stockham on 03 Feb 2010 11:46 AM 
"Putting the rumors to rest" and we're on the _seventh _page! (Ya gotta love it!) 

Now that's funny!

I may indeed be completely wrong!


I'd still maintain that this is one fabulously preposterous piece of mid 20th century machinery


----------



## David Leech (Dec 9, 2008)

Posted By rbednarik on 01 Feb 2010 09:31 PM 
David, 

Thanks very much for the information and research, one can only imagine the maintenance and durability issues that could plague the model equipped as such. 

Look forward to hearing more...may be something that would be of some interest to all of the prospective T1 owners out there. 

Hi Ryan,
Okay, I have heard from one G1MRA member who has a loco with Poppet valves.
A brief history is as follows:
Gauge One LNWR Claughton class loco fitted with Caprotti valve gear and Poppet valves.
Built in 1937 by a Huddersfield Mill Engineer. 
Two cylinders with poppet valves that are sprung shut with two valves for each valve chest, one for the inlet and one for the exhaust.
Drive from the driving wheels by a sprocket chain.
Reversing by a slip cam.
Coal fired boiler, but currently is alcohol fired. 
Current owner is the fourth owner and says that it still runs well.
I wonder if in 2083 owners will be saying that our 'current' locos are still running well? 
I must admit, I am not sure about the 'two valves for each valve chest, one for the inlet and one for the exhaust'.
I would have thought that you needed one of each, for each end of the cylinder?
More info on other locos as I obtain it.
All the best,
David Leech, Delta, Canada


----------



## highpressure (Jan 2, 2008)

Gentleman, Ladies also if you are interested. The "BRICK" first came on the Steam Scene in the 1970's, a product of Archangle. You can view it at: http:www.sidestreetbannerworks.com/locos/loco110.html. Its a Lovely little thing, not ???


----------



## rbednarik (Jan 2, 2008)

ATTENTION ACCUCRAFT-
A case in point for building the early version of the T1 as proven with a successful model for the market place by Fine Art Models:

Fine Art Models T1 


So, if they sold 100 electric versions close the price of live steam- it is a bargain: 

Scale : 1:32 Release : 1993 Limited Edition : 50 of each built/retired
Price : $6,500 Model Size : 47"L x 4"W x 6"H Base Type : Mahogany Base/Case Size : 51"L x 8"W x 9"H Availability : SOLD OUT 

Already proven product for potential buyers. Therefore the theory of a single application limited to a particular road name does not necessarily doom a production (unless it is the "Edsel")


----------



## Shay Gear Head (Jan 3, 2008)

Ryan but all those who bought the electric version previously are not to be Accucraft electric customers so their market just got smaller!


----------



## Charles (Jan 2, 2008)

Bruce
Or as in our case, have or will have sold their electric versions and converted to the dark side. 


For it to be true that once an electric version was done and due to its impact on a steam version, then neither Accucraft nor Aster would have offered some models with either option (GS4) electric/steam. Another good example is the Allegheny produced by Fine Art Models in 1996 and then Aster followed in 2002. 


As you know the point was the the early version of the T1 is a marketable item with a proven customer based across the various RR hobby gauges and will be so in live steam!


----------



## CapeCodSteam (Jan 2, 2008)

Ryan, 

That Fine Art model is awesome, the details are great and small. A live steam T-1 could then be super-detailed by "cutting" a Fine Art loco shell and "pasting" it to the Accucraft. See how easy that was? Next...


----------



## rbednarik (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By David Leech on 03 Feb 2010 01:10 PM 
Posted By rbednarik on 01 Feb 2010 09:31 PM 
David, 

Thanks very much for the information and research, one can only imagine the maintenance and durability issues that could plague the model equipped as such. 

Look forward to hearing more...may be something that would be of some interest to all of the prospective T1 owners out there. 

Hi Ryan,
Okay, I have heard from one G1MRA member who has a loco with Poppet valves.
A brief history is as follows:
Gauge One LNWR Claughton class loco fitted with Caprotti valve gear and Poppet valves.
Built in 1937 by a Huddersfield Mill Engineer. 
Two cylinders with poppet valves that are sprung shut with two valves for each valve chest, one for the inlet and one for the exhaust.
Drive from the driving wheels by a sprocket chain.
Reversing by a slip cam.
Coal fired boiler, but currently is alcohol fired. 
Current owner is the fourth owner and says that it still runs well.
I wonder if in 2083 owners will be saying that our 'current' locos are still running well? 
I must admit, I am not sure about the 'two valves for each valve chest, one for the inlet and one for the exhaust'.
I would have thought that you needed one of each, for each end of the cylinder?
More info on other locos as I obtain it.
All the best,
David Leech, Delta, Canada 
David,
Excellent! 


I can certainly see using caprotti valve gear in a Ga 1 model, as it is relativley easy to model, since all the bits are on the outside. Chain drive as well, very clever. Not sure I can understand one intake and exhaust valve per cylinder, and I agree there should be one of each; intake and exhaust for each end of the cylinder.

The T1 is a bit more complex, using Franklin rotary/oscillating cam valve gear to actuate the poppet valves. 


I highly doubt some of the more "affordable" models will have the same robust qualities as a hand built model or one that has high tolerances on the reciprocating parts, without having some sort of rebuild to correct problems and give preventative maintenance. We own engines that are at least 10-15 years older than I am, and are still as good as the day they were built. Given the proper maintenance, I would think that 200+ running hours should be an achievable goal.


----------



## David Leech (Dec 9, 2008)

Posted By rbednarik on 03 Feb 2010 06:34 PM 
David, Excellent! 


I can certainly see using caprotti valve gear in a Ga 1 model, as it is relativley easy to model, since all the bits are on the outside. Chain drive as well, very clever. Not sure I can understand one intake and exhaust valve per cylinder, and I agree there should be one of each; intake and exhaust for each end of the cylinder.



Ryan and All,
More confirmation about the gauge 1 Claughton.
Clarification just received:

There is a valve box for each cylinder end .These are arrangedso that one cam shaft operates the 4 valves .

I thought that the original statement would be hard to make work.
All the best,
David Leech, Delta, Canada


----------



## aankus (Jan 5, 2008)

Here comes the 'virtual reality man' attempting to 'bambozzle' the LS crowd with his 'knowledge' of history as he has done with his 'mastery' of electronics with the 'sparkie' crowd..... 

Best go back, as it ain't gonna happen here.....


----------



## jfrank (Jan 2, 2008)

Here is the engine they should be doing:

http://www.broadway-limited.com/prrq24-4-6-4.aspx


----------



## Cougar Rock Rail (Jan 2, 2008)

No, no, no...you guys are all wrong! What they SHOULD be doing is a Pennsy Turbine! Now THAT would be a cool engineering challenge for them. 

Keith


----------



## wetrail (Jan 2, 2008)

I completely agree with John Frank - The Pennsy would be a treat !

Jerry Reshew


----------



## Charles (Jan 2, 2008)

Jerry
The introduction of an east of the Mississippi road name is a good start, PRR an excellent road name but the T1, and Q2 are large fixed frame locos and considering Accucraft just did a relatively large fixed frame: the SP 2-10-2 maybe another direction could have be better. 
Selecting a locomotive needs the perspective what has been produced relative to what is best recognized in the equation of what is to be the final decision. Since no live steam Mountain or a smaller gauge one engine( such as an Atlantic or G5 ten wheeler) live steam could have offered more of a connection to the hobbyists ( I would venture that most hobbyist could identity with the E6 Atlantic or G5 ten wheeler over the T1 or Q2). But such is speculation and wishes of those who do not have the ear of the powers to be with Accucraft!


----------



## Shay Gear Head (Jan 3, 2008)

I'm still patiently waiting for the WSLCo. #15 Shay!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Charles (Jan 2, 2008)

Bruce
Could be all of us will have to be much more patient:
For the second time in less than five weeks, China’s central bank has moved to limit lending to consumers and businesses by ordering big commercial banks to park a larger share of their deposits at the central bank.


----------



## jfrank (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Charles on 12 Feb 2010 11:47 AM 
Bruce
Could be all of us will have to be much more patient:
For the second time in less than five weeks, China’s central bank has moved to limit lending to consumers and businesses by ordering big commercial banks to park a larger share of their deposits at the central bank. 



Well of course we know all this will end eventually as the dollar declines against the yuan. Prices will go up and up and eventually Accucraft prices will look like Aster's. My advice is to get what you want now before all this comes about. Soon we will be scraping just to buy food and trains will be the least of our worries.


----------



## Tim Hytrek (Jan 2, 2008)

That Q2 4-4-6-4 sure looks nice.


----------



## norman (Jan 6, 2008)

Hi Guys:

John's youtube link at 4:10 there is footage of a non steamlined example. Good looking engine. The Sharknose *streamline *version ruins the looks. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E703c-OxADI

Streamlining seems to make any engine ugly.

The Canadian Pacific 2816 , beautiful engine, classic beauty.
The Canadian Pacific Royal Hudson , UGLY, but at least the wonderful paint scheme survived.

The NYC J1e and J3 Hudson non streamlined, the classic definition of what a beautiful steam locomotive is.
The NYC Dreyfuss Hudson, UGLY. 

The people of the day were in a hurry to modernise beyond the steam technology of the day by attempting to hide the fact that the steam locomotive was powered by steam and was not yet a modern electric diesel.

Today, I view a boring modern electric diesel and then look at historic footage of non streamlined steam locomotives to admire something of interest with the beauty of mechanics in motion under "living" steam. 

Norman


----------



## norman (Jan 6, 2008)

Hi again:

One final thought. There is one exception for steamlined steam locomotives.

The Southern Pacific Daylight.

That is an extremely attractive locomotive. The only example where steamlining was done correctly. The sunset colours on the side of the loco and passenger cars is great.


And of course, Dwight's favourite!












Norman


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

The Southern Pacific Daylight. 
That is an extremely attractive locomotive. 

extremely gaudy maybe..but attractive? that's a matter of taste.. 

The only example where steamlining was done correctly. 

correctly? I never knew there was only one correct way!  
that flat nose doesnt look very streamlined to me.. 
a true bullet nose is much more "correct" than the Daylight.. 

The sunset colours on the side of the loco and passenger cars is great. 

or not..  
I always found the Daylight one of the least attractive streamlining attempts.. 
and the colors are a bit "over the top".. 
IMO its only as famous as it is because its one of the very few survivors of the streamline era.. 
which makes it much more famous today that it would be otherwise.. 
much more famous than the streaming treatment itself deserves on its own merits.. 

IMO, the Daylight cant compare with the classic NYC Hudson: 










If just one of those had survived, the Daylight would be playing 2nd fiddle today!  

Scot


----------



## Michael (Jan 6, 2008)

Hi, 
I am a Daylight fan, however, I have to admit that the NYC Dreyfuss Hudson is THE icon of American railroading of the 20th century-
as elected by the staff of TRAINS magazine in their centennial issue "100 years of railroading".
Michael


----------



## tacfoley (Jan 3, 2008)

Posted By Michael on 15 Feb 2010 01:12 AM 
Hi, 
I am a Daylight fan, however, I have to admit that the NYC Dreyfuss Hudson is THE icon of American railroading of the 20th century-
as elected by the staff of TRAINS magazine in their centennial issue "100 years of railroading".
Michael

I could never be described as being a fan of the east coast lines, but my Rivarossi H0 Dreyfuss has had pride of place in my train cabinet for many years.

tac
www.ovgrs.org


----------



## Steve S. (Jan 2, 2008)

I like Dwights too.


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

For "technically most efficient streamlining"..not necessarily "best looking"..would have to be 
the infamous "upside down bathtub" designs.. 

NYC Mercury: 

http://www.northeast.railfan.net/images/nyc4915.jpg 

The Milwaukee Road's "Hiawatha" was one of the few that made it work: 

http://www.northeast.railfan.net/images/tr_milw1.jpg 

Scot


----------



## jfrank (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By norman on 14 Feb 2010 07:15 PM 
Hi Guys:

John's youtube link at 4:10 there is footage of a non steamlined example. Good looking engine. The Sharknose *streamline *version ruins the looks. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E703c-OxADI

Streamlining seems to make any engine ugly.


Norman

Norman, the engine you refer to in the film is actually a Q2 4-4-6-4 which was the freight version. Non of them were streamlined. The T1 4-4-4-4 was the shark nosed streamlined passenger engine. Most of the film is of these.


----------



## aceinspp (Jan 2, 2008)

Least we not forget there are other roads besides the SP & NYC that had cool streamline stream locos so my choice is the Class E Pacific of the C&NW. Right on. Later RJD


----------



## Pete Thornton (Jan 2, 2008)

besides the SP & NYC that had cool streamline stream locos 

I like this one too: 


ToyTrains1 - B&O Railroad Museum Pictures[/b]
May 2002 Trip - 1st column / 3rd row[/b]
C&O Yellowbelly Hudson (4-6-4) in front yard[/b]
(Link to the page not directly to the image, SteveC)[/i]


----------



## Charles (Jan 2, 2008)

T-1 Japanese ownership website (H. HARADA all rights reserved)):
http://bigboy.sakura.ne.jp/


----------



## du-bousquetaire (Feb 14, 2011)

I think the question of wether streamlining is or is not ugly is a question of personal taste, one cannot claim to have god's law in his head. Some may hate it and others may love it. Its perfectly pointless to try to impose ones view to others about it or other issues, and most undemocratic. I personnaly prefer a T 1 esthetic to what the regreted JVR and I used to call "the flying tooth paste tube" (alias the Daylights), I may joke about it, but I wouldn't try to convince every body about it. I love the Keissel and Axel Vogt classic designs for the Pennsy my pet road, they have a husky yet refined lines of Juniata steam, however I also find the quite heroic last stand of steam on the Pennsy, when it tried to outdo the diesel with modern state of the art steam. I would even go as far to think that if the Pennsy, a heavy passenger road, hadn't gone from its huge war effort to the dramatic fall in passenger revenues, it was thanked with in the late forties and fifties, it might not have given in to the diesel so quickly, and most of the T1 problems would have found solutions. In France the SNCF ran at least 8 classes of poppet , oscilating or piston valve driven engines succesfully, many right into the late sixties ( PO, Nord and EST chapelon pacifics, and 480, 2 series of Etat Pacifics, PLM 2-10-2 (linked duplexes), 2 series of PLM 4-8-4 tanks, Nord 2-8-2 tanks). Chapelon was in contact with Lawford Fry at Juniata shops drawing ofices, as well as Muhlfeld of D & H, Emerson at St Clair, N &W R.R.,Milwaukee, and Union Pacific design teams. One can like old fashion locos and more modern designs as well. When one studies the development of the steam loco seriously, one starts to find an underlining beauty in modern steam locomotive designs.


----------



## steamtom1 (Jan 2, 2008)

Sometimes a locomotive is so ugly, it is beautiful. Case in point...


----------



## Dan Pantages (Jan 2, 2008)

Sorry Tom, it's just ugly.


----------



## deltatrains (Nov 25, 2010)

Posted By steamtom1 on 20 Nov 2011 03:15 PM 
Sometimes a locomotive is so ugly, it is beautiful. Case in point...










*Hi Tom,
*
*Is it called a "SHAYSEIL " ? *


----------

