Pennsy T1 Build

[mmagliaro]

He will return to us. It is the will of the Keystone.

Congratulations!  I laughed harder at this than at any other post I've seen on Railwire since I joined.   

[Lemosteam]

Are you planning on using the old Bachmann drive or the newer one.  I was thinking the old drive would be easier to modify, but the axle gear issue killed the thought.

Edit: Fixed quote. --DKS

Frank these are the newer chassis that I will be using.  Lucked out and got two of them plus a heavy moountain for $80. Chop Chop!

[VonRyan]

Cody,
I'm not sure why you have such an aversion for the motor housed in the tender.  There are 2 very different types of this kind of drive.
(snipped)

My only aversion is to the true version of tender-drives because of the fact that the drivers as just being pushed along, and are not the force for moving the train.
I can understand (and appreciate) the drive-shaft method to allow for larger and/or more reliable motors, and while still keeping the drivers doing the work, rather than just being pushed along.

@Cody, I'm putting my smart a$$ hat on here, witch is tender drive.
this:

or this:


I'd be willing to bet you can't tell.

I never said I could tell by looking at it. (though the second image does look as though there is a driveshaft between the engine and tender, though I have not heard of the method being used by the continental euro manufactures)
I did note that I would derive such info from advertisements (or announcements) and/or by looking under the "hood" which would imply a physical inspection of the engine, or by looking at photographs/documents on the break-down of the engine.



-Cody F.

[nstars]

For anybody interested just some information about how we repowered our original T1 (see photo below).



This is the original NJ custom brass T1 as produced in the 80s or 90s. This loco had 2 motors in the loco which did provide for the nice in and out of sync going of the drivers. However, these two motors were really fighting each other and performance was mediocre to put it mildly. PS as you can see the casting of Jason looks very similar to this version of the T1  .

In the current situation, the loco has no power at all and is used only for power pickup. The whole drive mechanism is in the tender. Of the 8 axles only two are powered! The front truck is very difficult to power due to the coal bunker. So this was not done. The other wheels are used for power pickup. Below you can see the underside of the drive as it is at the moment.



Performance is absolutely flawless. Despite the fact it's only powered by 2 axles. it can pull a 20 car passenger train upgrade on a 2 percent grade without any slipping. Drivers go in and out of sync without the previous problems. Please remeber our E6 atlantic with also only 2 axles in the tender powered. It can pull a 120 car hopper train up on a grade. The advantage of such a drive is also the fact it's really simple with minimal friction and it's therefore also very silent. I would say it's ideal for the installation of sound. We may put sound in the loco. The loco won't be powered but in that case the sound will come from the loco and not the tender.

Another advantage of this system is minimal wires between the loco and tender, which also improves performance and tracking. Especially with the large overhang of a T1 the ability of loco and tender to move independent of each other is absolutely necessary. We have seen many cases where tracking and performance was reduced due to 6-7 wires between loco and tender.

From the picture you can also see, that both truck do swivel. This is necessary for normal curves on the layout. It will go through a 15"radius curve. To make this possible it's necessary to have very thin castings of the sideframes of the trucks. I still remember the reaction of some people to the castings of the queen mary trucks from N Scale Kits being too shallow, but for a T1 it's mandatory. And don't forget, you won't notice it on the track.

Marc

[nstars]

PS I forgot to mention, but Jason's T1 will get a similar drive.

Marc

[chicken45]

For anybody interested just some information about how we repowered our original T1 (see photo below).



This is the original NJ custom brass T1 as produced in the 80s or 90s. This loco had 2 motors in the loco which did provide for the nice in and out of sync going of the drivers. However, these two motors were really fighting each other and performance was mediocre to put it mildly. PS as you can see the casting of Jason looks very similar to this version of the T1  .

I wouldn't be an  or an SPF if I didn't note that the one on your photos is an "as delivered" T1. Slightly different front end and keystone placement. Now I have to ask, was there officially a T1a?

[towl1996]

PS I forgot to mention, but Jason's T1 will get a similar drive.

Marc

Will this drive be available to the masses for purchase?

[superturbine]

Thanks Marc,
Of course the casting will not have the coal bunker problem, so it may be possible to power both trucks?


Every one stood in wonder and asked " What the hell is a Pennsy T1 doing in Cheyenne Yard?"
First "Rolling" test, a lot more work to go but.... the free rolling mech is successful!
The two engine have been attached and weighted.


Jason Smith
Tomball Locomotive Works

[nstars]

I wouldn't be an  or an SPF if I didn't note that the one on your photos is an "as delivered" T1. Slightly different front end and keystone placement. Now I have to ask, was there officially a T1a?

You're absolutely correct, it's indeed a little bit different. More than enough reason to build another one ourselves.

Marc

[nstars]

Will this drive be available to the masses for purchase?

Maybe. It's certainly something which is in our mind, but first a prototype will be made just to see what's possible.

Marc

[CodyO]

If that gets produced for the masses Ill take 4
I love T1s
And Jason get work so far loving it

[superturbine]

Modified the pilot truck with the truck castings.  The wheel spacing on the GS4 is near perfect.


Jason Smith
Tomball Locomotive Works

[RWCJr]

Great progress at breakneck speed, Jason. Looking good. Question for Pennsy folks from a "Santa Fe all the Way" type guy:
Noticed the lack of an eccentric crank and rod, and was wondering how steam cylinder valve timing was done.
Robert

[Hornwrecker]

Noticed the lack of an eccentric crank and rod, and was wondering how steam cylinder valve timing was done.
Robert

The T1 used poppet valves, which worked off passages in the main cylinder to use the pressure differential on the different sides of it to actuate the poppet valve.  It's a very old method, like James Watt old, way to do it.  Very simple, mechanically, but it gets rather squirrely the faster it moves.

[peteski]

My only aversion is to the true version of tender-drives because of the fact that the drivers as just being pushed along, and are not the force for moving the train.
I can understand (and appreciate) the drive-shaft method to allow for larger and/or more reliable motors, and while still keeping the drivers doing the work, rather than just being pushed along.

-Cody F.

I still don't understand the aversion.

In a conventionally-powered model (engine in the loco) the tender is a dead-weight which needs to be pulled by the locomotive.  In a tender-driven model the dead-weight just happens to be in front of the powered unit.  Why does the location of the dead-weight matter to you?  Tender-drive locomotives usually have several traction tires on their wheels and they can often out-pull a similar model which has a powered locomotive.

There are many examples of N scale models where the the powered unit is not heading the train.  Not even considering the modern Kato push-pull commuter trains, most (if not all) high speed Japanese Shinkansen train models (even including the Accela) have power units in the middle of the consist. So in either direction, half of the train is being pushed by the power unit.


Jason, you are making some great progress!