PRR T1 DUPLEX SCRAPPING DATES AND PLACES

[DonPevsner]

Can anyone provide definitive information about the scrapping dates (years will do) and locations of all 52 PRR T1 Duplex steam locomotives? The only source I could find on the Net says that "all were scrapped by 1953", but I find that date rather early in view of the fact that most T1's were not even built until 1946. In contrast, all but two of the NYC Niagaras were retired and scrapped in late 1955, with one lasting as long as June, 1956 and one (S-2 poppet-valve #5500) scrapped earlier.

[jaygee]

The last TEEs were sold in Dec. 1955, IIRC. They were shipped west in early '56, but I can't tell you exactly when. This
info has appeared in the Keystone over the last nine years or so. This last bunch was a group of Baldwins in the 5540
series, and included the T1a 5547. It's utterly tragic that #5500 was not spared, as she was the Silver Bullet of the
whole TEE fleet. Too bad the TEEs were so loaded with aftermarket parts, or perhaps they might have made it to the
very end in late '57.

[DonPevsner]

I agree that the PRR's failure to save at least one T1 Duplex locomotive remains a lasting tragedy. A couple of K4s and M1s cannot compare. I regret that I was too young at the time to ever see one run at speed, or blast up the Horseshoe Curve with a passenger or mail & express train. The NYC made the same unforgiveable mistake with its own Niagaras and Hudsons.

[Allen Hazen]

So, "scrapped by 1953" is a bit of an exaggeration. But when they were sold for scrap they had been out of service for some time. Can anyone say when the T1 were last used in service?

One source ("Pennsylvania Duplexii" by Brian Reed, 1972) says "By the end of 1949, practiacally the whole fleet of duplexii was laid aside. Many T-1's were lying at Crestline from August of that year; others were ... on locals between Pittsburgh and Greensburg. The Q-2s operated longer, a number of them into 1951.... By 1951 scrapping of the production T-1 machines began.... All T-1s were gone by the end of 1953."

The natural reading of Reed's words would be that the T1 were scrapped by the end of 1953, but if Jaygee is right this is not so. Perhaps he means that all had been "whitelined," stricken from the roster and and set aside for scrapping by that time.

Alvin Stauffer, in "Pennsy Power," also recounts that T1 were used on Pittsburgh-Greensburg locals, but doesn't (I think-- I just gave a very quick glance) give actual dates.

[jaygee]

As the fan base community is slowly starting to realize, the whole PRR TEE story consists of 90% BS and maybe 10% truth.
Starting with the Fall 2001 issue, the KEYSTONE began a series of articles designed to replace all the manure with solid
fact. A lot of their sources were the people actually there, plus info from archival material and such, rather than simply
repeating every other author in the popular press. We are now on the way towards an accurate picture of what the TEE
actually was, and wasn't. As far as Mr. Reed's books on American locomotives, I've found much of the info suspect and in
some cases, such as the Duplex softcover, completely useless...except for the photographs. We tend to forget that the
PRR TEE was a product of it's times, and was subject to factors which had little to do with the technical merits of the
machines themselves. As it stands, the PRR T1 is one of the two most misunderstood, underrated, and unappreciated
American steam locomotives of the mid 20th century. The other being the B&O EM1, 2-8-8-4.

[JimBoylan]

the whole PRR TEE story

I'm not up on the shorthand. How did the Trans Europe Express get over into this topic?

[Allen Hazen]

Jaygee said:
"As far as Mr. Reed's books on American locomotives, I've found much of the info suspect and in
some cases, such as the Duplex softcover, completely useless...except for the photographs."

If I wasn't already afraid of that, i should have been: the total lack of footnotes (or other information as to sources) didn't inspire confidence. The centerspread painting is nice, though I put no faith in its accuracy as regards color...

[scottychaos]

We are now on the way towards an accurate picture of what the TEE
actually was, and wasn't.

We can start by not calling it a TEE!
you can call it a T or a T1, but it was never called a TEE.

Scot

[DonPevsner]

It would be fantastic to see a new hardcover book containing the true facts on the entire T1 story, plus a lot of color and B&W photographs.
Is anyone actually working on putting such a new book together? Sign me up for the first copy!

[jaygee]

Sorry, guys...TEE as in Tee-talk was a North Jersey railfan-ism from the Summit/New Providence Model RR Club...
which is now in Union, NJ, and continuing life as the Hudson Delaware and Ohio. This goes back to the late '60s.
"TEE" was NEVER a Pennsy-ism at any time that I'm aware of....but old habits are sometimes hard to break - like
thinking of the PRR T1 as a junk locomotive, when it was anything but!

[Allen Hazen]

I'm afraid I haven't seen any of the "new" information about the T-1. (If someone with a copy of the relevant "Keystone" issue and access to a photocopier wanted to endear themselves to me...)

But there are a couple of things that make me suspect that the folklore about the T-1's problems may have a bit of foundation:

1) One of the report conclusions that's supposed to show the T-1 wasn't so bad was that a "skilled" engineman could keep it from slipping. (Even one of the traditional, "T-1 is as slippery as an eel," sources quoted a report that the T-1 could be kept from slipping with "great skill".) This isn't really reassuring. Jet airliners didn't come into general use because Chuck Yeager could land a B-707 safely: they had to be airliners any pilot for a line-haul commercial airline could fly! In other words: does the wording of the "T-1 is o.k." conclusion maybe suggest the opposite?

2) One of the recommendations for preventing slips at speed seems to have been to operate the locomotive at a longer cut-off. (Sorry, can't source that off-hand: something I've read in the past few days trying to find out what I can.) Now, my impression is that other steam locomotives were best operated at short cut-off when at speed, and that shorter cut-offs made for better fuel economy. So: was the T-1 subject to slippage problems that couold only be mastered by operating in what otherwise would have seemed like an inefficient manner?

I'm not trying to be ornery here, but I'd welcome comments. (Heated discussion is a good thing, as long as there is more light than heat!)

[jaygee]

This info IS handled in the Keystones, regarding proper T1 operation. I would appear that most of the problem lay with
engineers on the extra board, and those who knew nothing but K4s operating traits. The older gents, who had cut their
teeth on the roads E class atlantics knew all about handling potentially slippery locos. There is absolutely no question
that running a T1 was a completely different type of experience than that of the big Pacifics that preceded them, with
the possible exception of the K5. There also appears to be a bit more negativity from the Lines East crews than with the
Lines West operators. The combination of grades, frequently 1% or more, plus gobs of inclement weather, may have
put an extra bit of strain on the locomotives and their crews. PRR locomotive maintenance at this time was also a real
problem, no matter what type of motive power you were running. When the T1 showed up for the test on the N&W in
1948, the sanders weren't even correctly aimed at the wheels! Neither they or C&O reported excessive slippage with
the engines tested. Anyway, I also hope that someday a really complete Book of T1 fact will see the light; there has been
a ton of good solid info uncovered in recent times, and I suspect that there's even more to be had. Even with the info
available today, such a book would turn the railfan community on it's ear, for sure! I'll even go a step further, and say
that next to the J1 2-10-4, the T1 was, in it's final form, Pennsy's best!

[Allen Hazen]

Jaygee--
Thanks!
The "Keystone" articles sound fascinating: I hope I see them some day.
The bit about the relevance of different experiences in enginemen is intriguing. (The airlines probably put a LOT more time and systematic effort into re-qualifying their pilots when they get a new model of airliner than the Pennsylvania Railroad, right after WW II, even considered putting into preparing enginemen to run the T-1! I mean, how many hours of simulator time did a PRR engineer get before being sent out to run a T-1 the first time? (Grin!))
My sense from all I've read -- admittedly, all stuff in the ant-T1 "tradition"-- is that maintenance issues were just as important, if not more so, as operating problems in motivating the early retirement of the Duplexes, and your anecdote about the misdirected sanders on the T-1 that went to the N&W is telling: if the roundhouse staff can't correct something obvious and visible like a bent sander pipe, what's the likelihood that they will master the fine points of the T-1's poppet-valve gear?
--
Hmm. The "wheelslip control" on the Q2 -- the system that actuated butterfly valves in the steam pipes when a slip was detected -- had electrical components, didn't it? Admittedly, there were a lot of Navy veterans around in the late 1940s who had had electrical training courtesy of BuPers, but how many PRR roundhouses had the staff to handle this?

[jaygee]

One of the biggest strikes against the T1, if not THE biggest, had absolutely nothing to do with the locomotives at all. That was marketing! In the late
forties, PRR was in direct competition for passengers, in a time when the passenger market was on shaky ground . NYCS made plans in the early '40s
to reequip at least a portion of their passenger fleet with new Diesel power. There were real cost advantages, as well as marketing advantages to the
general public....who had little use for the "smoky, old steamers". Both the Penn and the Central were being driven to an extent here by the B&O; not a
huge competitor, but real none the less. B&O had moving towards 100% Diesel power for passenger service as fast as the funds could be allocated; their
freight efforts were not far behind. The EMD/B&O match was made in heaven, and Beeano was only too quick to tell everyone about it, back in the day.
Enter Martin Clement. Pennsy had major passenger power problems that needed fixed right now! WW2 was not helping matters either. After the initial
shakedown and partial de-bugging of the two T1 prototypes, orders were put together for the fleet of fifty, to be built ASAP when the more exotic
materials became available. As the details of Central's plan to go Diesel with a major portion of the Great Steel Fleet surfaced, Clement felt that he had
to respond. It was too late to cancel the T1 order, as the frames were already cast, although this was not viewed as a major problem as they would be
needed to replace double headed Pacifics in the post war "passenger boom". Clement re-activated the old PRR EMD E6 order, and made plans to get
some additional Diesels on the property as fast as possible. Can't let the Central get ANY advantage over the Penn; after all they already had enough to
begin with. The production T1s thusly came on line in a time when they were already second string and the modifications needed to rework the stream-
lining and sort out the poppet valve access, and material issues only made matters worse on the bottom line. Had the Ts been designed at the start
without all the exotic aftermarket hot rod parts, it's quite likely they'd have made it to the very end of Pennsy steam....but they would not have been
T1s!

[DonPevsner]

I have read that the War Production Board not only approved but strongly encouraged the PRR to build its production order of 50 T1's, and the NYC to build its production order of 27 Niagaras, in 1944. REASON: The War Department was expecting to have to move millions of troops back from Europe to the New York area, and transport them across the country from there to the West Coast, where they would have embarked by ship for a massive invasion of Japan in 1945. No one knew about the atomic bomb in 1944, and its technology wasn't actually confirmed to work until the "Trinity"-site test on July 16, 1945, in the New Mexico desert. Had the atomic bomb ended the war in Japan a year earlier, these two gorgeous locomotives would most probably never have been built.