VERY important point you missed on that front - most of the donated engines (which did happen a couple times IOTL) weren't so much for display purposes as much as for allowing the students of the University to develop skills using the engines. Like Formula SAE and other programs, the universities in question used these locomotives to teach their students. Sometimes this resulted in engines being restored to perfect working order (this is how Pere Marquette 1225 survived IOTL) but in others it means they end up as static displays or sometimes even being used up and then sold for other purposes.
Top Locomotives Never Built
- Thread starter Duke Andrew of Dank
- Start date
I didn't actually know that before.
In that case, what universities could use having such steam engines around in TTL? Would Purdue still be a good home for a Wabash 4-6-4, for example?
What universities had widely known mechanical engineering programs, particularly related to steam power, or also trained people in the trades fields (particularly welding or steamfitting)? Those would be your best bets. Purdue would be a decent spot for a 4-6-4 (their engineering programs are more known for aerospace and civil engineering as I understand it, though this could change that), but don't go too overboard. Remember steam locomotives are maintenance-intensive machines that have to be done right or REALLY BAD things can happen if you try to make them work again.
True. Even so, maybe the idea of them mostly being donated to city and town parks would be a better bet overall. After all, the railroads of TTL would be in an infinitely better position to donate a few of their more famous steamers.
For instance, a PRR M1 on display in Richmond, Indiana or a NYC Mohawk on display at Bellefontaine, Ohio?
@TheMann
I did some more reading on some known mechanical engineering schools, and I'll likely have some ideas for those schools up in a bit.
bold.org
edurank.org
www.niche.com
As for welding schools:
waterwelders.com
I did some more reading on some known mechanical engineering schools, and I'll likely have some ideas for those schools up in a bit.
Best Mechanical Engineering Schools
Bold.org has compiled a list of the Best Mechanical Engineering Schools in the US in 2023. This article contains exclusive insights and links to exclusive scholarships.
bold.org
US's 100+ best Mechanical Engineering schools [Rankings]
Below is the list of 100 best universities for Mechanical Engineering in the United States ranked based on their research performance: a graph of 693M citations received by 21.4M academic papers made by these universities was used to calculate ratings and create the top.
edurank.org
2023 Best Colleges with Mechanical Engineering Degrees
Ranking of the top colleges with mechanical engineering degrees.
www.niche.com
As for welding schools:
17 Best Welding Schools & Colleges in USA (2023) | WaterWelders
There are many different schools you could attend to learn the art of welding. Here are 17 great options for every career!
waterwelders.com
To be fair I did imagine many of them being static displays, not neccessarily being returned to operation.
Going off what I said about the whole mechanical school thing, here are some more locations I felt would be ideal for certain locomotives.
- Baltimore & Ohio Q-4 Class 2-8-2 #4475: Pennsylvania State University in State College
- Southern Railway Ts-1 Class 4-8-2 #1489: Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta [1]
[1] My idea was that this locomotive is closer in appearance to the Florida East Coast Mountains. It's also the same locomotive that joins Ps-4 #1398 and Mikado #4501 by the early 1970s.
Last edited:
@TheMann I also thought more about your ideas for PRR Duplexes, and was thinking.
Would the S1 be a good fit for the Chicago Museum of Science and Industry? After all, it did run out of Chicago during its time in operation.
Would the S1 be a good fit for the Chicago Museum of Science and Industry? After all, it did run out of Chicago during its time in operation.
Speaking of which, what did you decide to do for the PRR in the Three Amigoes TL? I know you mentioned Conrail being butterflied due to a better financial condition for the PRR. In which case I can see the PRR taking over the New Haven Railroad, plus probably the Norfolk & Western and possibly Ann Arbor railroad (though I more realistically see the state of Michigan taking over the Ann Arbor per OTL).
It's another area where, aside from Erie Lackawanna building its "Super Railroad" route and thus becoming a major rival to the PRR and NYC (more the latter than the former) due to them fighting over more of the same markets, we never really hammered that out to the best of my recollection. I think it's safe to say that the PRR would still be a very sick railroad by the energy crisis, though the sudden rise in diesel prices and their easy access to coal would serve them well compared to the dieselized NYC and EL. I'm on the fence on them buying and merging the N&W outright for the simple reason that I don't think it would go over well for the latter.
I know you mentioned many Hudsons, Mohawks, Niagaras, and possibly smaller steamers getting a reprieve on the NYC, but I take it the EL would have almost completely diseslized by then.
Also, I had in idea for the BLW Centipedes. What if Baldwin teams up with a diesel engine builder to refine the design so that it doesn't have the flaws of OTL?
Last edited:
I think the PRR would look a lot like the SP did when it merged out of existence in the 1990's. I think it would have narrowly, narrowly avoided bankruptcy.
The big change for the Erie Lackawanna would be if Hurricane Agnes didn't hit, allowing the EL to modernize the Marion Yard, leading to major savings over the medium and long term combined with improved service. This just might be enough to make the EL a viable purchase for the Santa Fe.
Not something we honestly talked all the way through, but it's possible.
That wouldn't really help that much. Baldwin's biggest problem was that they were looking at the building of diesels like they were looking at steam engines, each one being built somewhat different. This made then more expensive to buy and much more difficult and expensive to maintain. If you can arrange it, your best bet would be for Baldwin to jump the DR and DT series (including the Centipede) as fast as possible and go straight to assembly line production of the RF-16 cab units and the AS-16/AS-416/AS-616 road switcher units and improve reliability and servicing in any way they possibly can.
A replacement for the 606/608 engines can be done later, as they were (especially in turbocharged form) sufficient to keep up with what EMD and Alco were making. They will need to make a new engine (likely a V12 and/or V16) by the late 1950s or early 1960s. You'll want to keep Westinghouse in the business too, as you don't want to be having to use a competitor's electrical equipment.
I think the opposite, especially in the world of the Three Amigos. The PRR's bread and butter was merchandise traffic and bulk goods, the former of which saw a lot lost to trucks and the latter seeing many of the bulk loads lose a lot of their demand post-war. When you combine that with the PRR's seriously-deficient management practices I think bankruptcy for them is unavoidable.
Now, in that world the interstates are all tolled to provide revenue both for their own upkeep and for other car-related infrastructure and the tolls are higher for trucks (because they are much heavier and have a much greater impact on the pavement itself) and the PRR is s beneficiary of an energy crisis in the late 1950s, which allowed them (unlike the EL and most of the NYC) to ride out a petroleum crisis by using steam power. This works to their benefit (and Amtrak comes to pass as a direct result of this, which also helps) but the management at the PRR makes terrible assumptions and as a result, while the post-crisis NYC, EL and B&O are rapidly streamlining operations, cutting out unprofitable operations and improving customer service, the PRR is continuing as they were before and it costs them dearly by the late 1960s.
Agnes still hit (though thanks to infrastructure improvements and better work by the Army Corps of Engineers) the damage is much less severe. The Energy Crisis and TTL's Project Independence (which here is a VERY big program) leads to many roads (including the EL) being electrified in many regions and improvements in diesel power and the development of gas turbine-electric power (which in the EL's case by the early 70s have all been modified to run on cellulosic ethanol for cost reasons) allows the company to quickly become a major mover of fast freight. It should also be pointed out that in this universe the Delaware and Hudson is part of EL (which gives them access to Montreal and Ottawa) as is the Detroit, Toledo and Ironton (which gives access to Detroit and Toledo) and they have tracks to Baltimore and Philadelphia and trackage rights to Boston, Providence and New Haven on the former New Haven (their freight route via Poughkeepsie and Campbell Hall, not the NEC), from Marion to Columbus on the NYC and from Buffalo to Oshawa, Ontario, on Canadian National (this is to serve the auto plants and steel mills around Hamilton and Toronto) so their markets in the Northeast and Midwest are rather better.
In this TL, both the NYC and EL both are gunning for a lot of the same traffic, and they do a good job at it. Both modified their infrastructures to allow stack trains in the 1970s The NYC route is longer but the grades are lower, so competition between the two is fierce. As railroading has been considered by Washington to be a "public trust" industry since the mid-19th Century there is am expectation that the companies will do a good job at this, and railroad competition in the Northeast in modern times is fierce. New York by the 1960s is served by the PRR, NYC, EL, B&O, CPR and CNR, and said "public trust" concerns mean smaller players have long since been pulled into the bigger ones with the expectation that this will improve competition - for example, the New Haven when it came apart was split between the B&O and PRR, the latter getting the main line along the shore and the former getting the freight route inland. The connecting roads in Eastern PA and southern NY became part of the B&O and EL, while the New York, Ontario and Western became part of Canadian National and the Lehigh Valley was bought by the Canadian Pacific in the 1920s. Because of tolled interstates, more expensive diesel and unionized drivers, long-distance trucking isn't as much of a competitor and many of the largest trucking companies have long since partnered with railroads to handle longer-distance movements, and the railways have long since modified their practices and equipment to suit. All railroads and many leasing companies own flatcar sets meant to trucks to drive their trailers onto the cars themselves (not needing cranes makes intermodal operations faster and easier), everyone's main lines are suitable for double-stack operations, RoadRailer operations are quite common (the USPS in particular loves them) and the whole industry has long since standardized their cargo handling equipment for the carrying of aircraft containers and pallets, a system of truck/train pallets known colloquially as "railboxes" and similar-sized "skids" and "liquiboxes". Truck trailers are all equipped with mounting points for railroad cars and the railroad cars are designed to suit this. As both Canada and Mexico require by law that double-stack cars to hold their upper containers stack trains are almost entirely designed like the Gunderson Twin-Stack system (though well cars that hold containers with interbox connectors are still seen in the United States, they cannot be used in cross-border service) and in modern times the containers can be 20, 30, 33, 40 or 53 feet in length and the cars can accommodate any of them.
Since the 1980s, railroads have been co-operating on building industrial parks around railroad spurs and encouraging shippers who ship in quantities large enough to justify complete carloads (or a bunch of them) to locate in these places using deals over building financing and freight rates. This contributed to a growth of boxcars in the same time period, while bulk loads got ever more efficient and the ability to track individual cars and shipments has allowed the railroads to get back some types of cargo once entirely lost to trucks, such as livestock and dairy products, starting in the 1990s.
I’ve gone back and forth on what would have happened to the PRR without the ill fated Penn Central merger. As my op said, narrowly avoid bankruptcy.
Would these be via acquiring the Western Maryland? At least in the case of Baltimore?
Here's an idea I had based on a YT vieo by AmtrakGuy365. His video on the PRR Q series points out that the PRR's 50mph limitations on freight limited the Q2's efficiency. As slower trains could also be handled by the J1 2-10-4s.
To that end, I had the idea of what if the PRR were to be among the first railroads to adapt intermodal trains, maybe have some fast freights, or even just embrace something similar to later Precision Schedule Railroading. I feel a setup like that could allow thw Q2's strengths could best play out.
The ALCO Garratt 4-8-2+2-8-4 Demonstrator #6864/Southern Railway Vs #2000
Built: 1922
Number Built: 1
Builder: Beyer-Peacock (design), ALCO-Schenectady (construction)
Used: 1922 - 1955
As business began to rise in World War I's aftermath, quite a few railroads in the eastern half of the United States began to suffer from a unique combination of problems. Those being a smaller loading gauge, combined with steeply graded track. Financial constraints caused by the rise of the automobile meant that many of these railroads were reluctant to spend money on infrastructure upgrades. Especially in the case of less profitable short lines or secondary lines though the mountains. However, as traffic grew in the late 1910s, a solution had to be found somehow. Enter the English locomotive firm Beyer Peacock & Company, which at the time was seeking to introduce their Garratt concept to North America through a contract with the American Locomotive Company. However, many railroads were turned off by the Garratt's tendency to have lower tractive effort as it's fuel and water was used. Nonetheless interest from both the Rio Grande and the Southern Railroad, alongside several shoreline railroads in the Appalachia, would lead to ALCO building a demonstration unit with input from Beyer Peacock. This demonstrator unit, numbered 6864 as a reference to June 8, 1864 (the birth date of Herbert W. Garratt) was unveiled in March 1922.
For much of the first few months, the 6864 spent its time on various lines in Upstate New York and Pennsylvania. The Garratt was particularly tested heavily on the Pennsylvania Railroad's lines from Harrisburg to Erie, Buffalo, and Sodus Point on heavy coal drags. The locomotive was enough of a success that the PRR heavily considered using Altoona-built clones to supplant the I1sa Decapods on these heavy trains (an idea that was almost revised when a Canadian National V-1-a Garratt was also tested on this route later on). The Garratt was also tried on the Chesapeake & Ohio's Logan County coal trains, and on the Western Maryland Railroad. However, neither railroad found the type to be particularly advantageous over Mallets or simple articulateds. Further west, the locomotive did see some success on the Rio Grande's San Juan Division, helping trains up Cumbress Pass or on the New Mexico Division to Santa Fe, but later upgrades to the line enabled the Rio Grande to instead operate Lima-built 2-6-8-0s over Cumbres Pass. In the end, the locomotive's true calling would ultimately arrive on the Southern Railway's Rathole Division, which had been one of the original commisioners for the Garratt Demonstrator in the first place.
The 6864 was liked by crew members for being able to run in either direction without being turned around. This was particularly vital on a line like the Rathole which featured numerous tunnels that could lead to smoke being a major source of crew discomfort. Renumbered as #2000, the Southern ultimately purchased the demonstrator, and ran it along several later Garratts built first by ALCO's plant in Richmond, Virginia then later in Ohio by the Lima Locomotive Works. While #2000 was initally put to work on freights through the Rathole between Lexington, Kentucky and Oakdale, Tennessee. However, it did also occassionaly assist the Southern's various Florida-bound passenger trains like the Royal Palm from Cincinnati or the Gateway Palm from St. Louis. Even so, its power for the time was ultimately eclipsed by the Southern's later Garratt locomotives, the Vs-1 and Vs-2 classes.
Storage for the #2000 would come in June 1953, where it was placed in the roundhouse at Chattanooga, Tennessee until its eventual retirement in 1955. However, the locomotive was able to be saved by ALCO itself, which sought to develop a museum celebrating its history. The locomotive was moved by electric traction to Cincinnati, where it was then towed behind a New York Central Mohawk's freight train to Schenectady. This locomotive, would spend a few years on display at a siding near the ALCO facilities along with a few other ALCO products like NYC Hudson #5418 and Union Pacific Challenger #3967. However, ALCO's later bankrupcy then restructuring as Chrysler Rail would lead to the museum plans going belly-up and all the locomotives would be sent elsewhere for preservation.
Eventually, the Garratt Demonstrator would get its happy ending when acquired by the National Railway Museum in Green Bay, Wisconsin. Having been sent there alongside Hudson 5418, the locomotive was repainted to its former identity as ALCO #6867. Today, the locomotive is still on display at the Grand Hall in the museum.
Built: 1922
Number Built: 1
Builder: Beyer-Peacock (design), ALCO-Schenectady (construction)
Used: 1922 - 1955
As business began to rise in World War I's aftermath, quite a few railroads in the eastern half of the United States began to suffer from a unique combination of problems. Those being a smaller loading gauge, combined with steeply graded track. Financial constraints caused by the rise of the automobile meant that many of these railroads were reluctant to spend money on infrastructure upgrades. Especially in the case of less profitable short lines or secondary lines though the mountains. However, as traffic grew in the late 1910s, a solution had to be found somehow. Enter the English locomotive firm Beyer Peacock & Company, which at the time was seeking to introduce their Garratt concept to North America through a contract with the American Locomotive Company. However, many railroads were turned off by the Garratt's tendency to have lower tractive effort as it's fuel and water was used. Nonetheless interest from both the Rio Grande and the Southern Railroad, alongside several shoreline railroads in the Appalachia, would lead to ALCO building a demonstration unit with input from Beyer Peacock. This demonstrator unit, numbered 6864 as a reference to June 8, 1864 (the birth date of Herbert W. Garratt) was unveiled in March 1922.
For much of the first few months, the 6864 spent its time on various lines in Upstate New York and Pennsylvania. The Garratt was particularly tested heavily on the Pennsylvania Railroad's lines from Harrisburg to Erie, Buffalo, and Sodus Point on heavy coal drags. The locomotive was enough of a success that the PRR heavily considered using Altoona-built clones to supplant the I1sa Decapods on these heavy trains (an idea that was almost revised when a Canadian National V-1-a Garratt was also tested on this route later on). The Garratt was also tried on the Chesapeake & Ohio's Logan County coal trains, and on the Western Maryland Railroad. However, neither railroad found the type to be particularly advantageous over Mallets or simple articulateds. Further west, the locomotive did see some success on the Rio Grande's San Juan Division, helping trains up Cumbress Pass or on the New Mexico Division to Santa Fe, but later upgrades to the line enabled the Rio Grande to instead operate Lima-built 2-6-8-0s over Cumbres Pass. In the end, the locomotive's true calling would ultimately arrive on the Southern Railway's Rathole Division, which had been one of the original commisioners for the Garratt Demonstrator in the first place.
The 6864 was liked by crew members for being able to run in either direction without being turned around. This was particularly vital on a line like the Rathole which featured numerous tunnels that could lead to smoke being a major source of crew discomfort. Renumbered as #2000, the Southern ultimately purchased the demonstrator, and ran it along several later Garratts built first by ALCO's plant in Richmond, Virginia then later in Ohio by the Lima Locomotive Works. While #2000 was initally put to work on freights through the Rathole between Lexington, Kentucky and Oakdale, Tennessee. However, it did also occassionaly assist the Southern's various Florida-bound passenger trains like the Royal Palm from Cincinnati or the Gateway Palm from St. Louis. Even so, its power for the time was ultimately eclipsed by the Southern's later Garratt locomotives, the Vs-1 and Vs-2 classes.
Storage for the #2000 would come in June 1953, where it was placed in the roundhouse at Chattanooga, Tennessee until its eventual retirement in 1955. However, the locomotive was able to be saved by ALCO itself, which sought to develop a museum celebrating its history. The locomotive was moved by electric traction to Cincinnati, where it was then towed behind a New York Central Mohawk's freight train to Schenectady. This locomotive, would spend a few years on display at a siding near the ALCO facilities along with a few other ALCO products like NYC Hudson #5418 and Union Pacific Challenger #3967. However, ALCO's later bankrupcy then restructuring as Chrysler Rail would lead to the museum plans going belly-up and all the locomotives would be sent elsewhere for preservation.
Eventually, the Garratt Demonstrator would get its happy ending when acquired by the National Railway Museum in Green Bay, Wisconsin. Having been sent there alongside Hudson 5418, the locomotive was repainted to its former identity as ALCO #6867. Today, the locomotive is still on display at the Grand Hall in the museum.
Here's an idea: The N&W basically buys the PRR but then uses the PRR name because of stronger brand recognition. Similar to the circumstances under which the MoPac took over the UP in OTL.
Now for something completely different:
The Pennsylvania Railroad U1 "Panhandle" Class 2-8-4
Built: 1936
Number Built: 80
Builder: Lima, Juniata (rebuilds)
Used: 1937 - 1963
During the 1930s, the Pennsylvania Railroad was one of many networks in America that sought to improve their locomotive fleet by replacing their smaller locomotives with larger ones. For the most part, the PRR initially experimented heavily with Duplex Drive locomotives proposed by Baldwin. These include the lone S1 6-4-4-6 "Pennsylvania" type and the 25-strong T1 4-4-4-4 "Keystones" to replace the K4 Pacifics on long-distance passenger services. As well as the one-off Q1 4-6-4-4 for mixed traffic, and finally the Q2 4-4-6-4 for the growing intermodal train services. However, these locomotives proved fairly expensive even at their best, which led to the PRR looking for more conventional locomotives to meet further traffic needs, particularly in terms of a freight locomotive that had plenty of pull at speed, but also was more efficient at slower speeds than the Q2. This became particularly important even in spite of electrification, especially as another war in Europe became inevitable.
Thanks to a desire to cut down on the cost of building a new locomotive from scratch, PRR officials looked north to those colleagues who had joined Sir Henry Thornton on the Canadian National. In particular, the PRR took inspiration from the CN's U-3 Class 4-8-4s, which were replicated by the PRR as their R2 class of Northerns, and used as mixed-traffic engines. However, the CN's project of rebuilding N-4 Consolidations into N-6 "Transcona" 2-8-4s had the Pennsy inspired to pull out the numerous L1 Mikados that had been in storage during the past few years. Lima was contacted, and a deal was reached to rebuild L1 #1478 at their plant in Ohio.
The 1478 would emerge several months later a rather different looking engine. The Mikado had become a larger, prouder Berkshire equipped with many of the PRR's design principles that were introduced in 1919 with the M1 Mountain and the 1920 redesign of the K4 Pacifics. Among these refinements were Boxpok driving wheels, roller bearings, mechanical stokers, and six-axle tenders. Instead of 62'' drivers, the 1478 now sported ones that lay at 69'' with her original frame rebuilt and welded to accomodate for the new wheel size. A four-wheel trailing truck based on that of the Q2 had replaced her original trailing truck, and supported a larger Belpaire Firebox. Testing on fast freight between Lima and Canton, Ohio proved to be a success, and another 29 L1s were shunted into the PRR's own Juniata Shops at Altoona, Pennsylvania for similar treatment. Their original boilers were kept by the PRR however, and kept to be used as spares for either the unrebuilt L1s or rebuilt to serve as spares for any K4s that needed one.
Officialy christiened the Panhandle type, the U1s proved themselves to be excellent performers, if fairly average by Superpower standards. Most of these locomotives spent their new lives on heavy mixed and unit freights on their namesake Panhandle line. Running from Pittsburgh to Columbus, then running to either Chicago via Logansport, Indiana or St. Louis via Indianapolis and Effingham, Illinois. American entry into the Second World War would lead to another 50 L1s getting the Panhandle treatment, and being assigned to fast freights on the lines from Chicago to either Cincinnati or Louisville. Some locomotives even saw service on a few of the passenger trains that the PRR ran over their lines.
Why were only 95 of these engines built? The answer, simply put, was the onset of World War II, which forced the PRR to look for a locomotive that was much heavier than the U1 for use on the military and even heavier freight trains. They tested the Chesapeake & Ohio T-1 2-10-4, and chose to clone it with a Belpaire firebox, Boxpok drivers, and Walscherts valve gear to create the J1 class. The "War Babies" filled the heavy freight niche better than the U1s, which were pushed off of many heavier services like coal drags from the N&W as a result. However, all continued in service until 1963, outliving the Q2s by a year, and being succeeded by the J1 in retirement only four years later. Today, one of the rebuilt U1s, #1489, resides at the RR Museum of Pennsylvania alongside L1 Mikado #520 to give visitors and idea of how much was changed to the L1s that were rebuilt.
The Pennsylvania Railroad U1 "Panhandle" Class 2-8-4
Built: 1936
Number Built: 80
Builder: Lima, Juniata (rebuilds)
Used: 1937 - 1963
During the 1930s, the Pennsylvania Railroad was one of many networks in America that sought to improve their locomotive fleet by replacing their smaller locomotives with larger ones. For the most part, the PRR initially experimented heavily with Duplex Drive locomotives proposed by Baldwin. These include the lone S1 6-4-4-6 "Pennsylvania" type and the 25-strong T1 4-4-4-4 "Keystones" to replace the K4 Pacifics on long-distance passenger services. As well as the one-off Q1 4-6-4-4 for mixed traffic, and finally the Q2 4-4-6-4 for the growing intermodal train services. However, these locomotives proved fairly expensive even at their best, which led to the PRR looking for more conventional locomotives to meet further traffic needs, particularly in terms of a freight locomotive that had plenty of pull at speed, but also was more efficient at slower speeds than the Q2. This became particularly important even in spite of electrification, especially as another war in Europe became inevitable.
Thanks to a desire to cut down on the cost of building a new locomotive from scratch, PRR officials looked north to those colleagues who had joined Sir Henry Thornton on the Canadian National. In particular, the PRR took inspiration from the CN's U-3 Class 4-8-4s, which were replicated by the PRR as their R2 class of Northerns, and used as mixed-traffic engines. However, the CN's project of rebuilding N-4 Consolidations into N-6 "Transcona" 2-8-4s had the Pennsy inspired to pull out the numerous L1 Mikados that had been in storage during the past few years. Lima was contacted, and a deal was reached to rebuild L1 #1478 at their plant in Ohio.
The 1478 would emerge several months later a rather different looking engine. The Mikado had become a larger, prouder Berkshire equipped with many of the PRR's design principles that were introduced in 1919 with the M1 Mountain and the 1920 redesign of the K4 Pacifics. Among these refinements were Boxpok driving wheels, roller bearings, mechanical stokers, and six-axle tenders. Instead of 62'' drivers, the 1478 now sported ones that lay at 69'' with her original frame rebuilt and welded to accomodate for the new wheel size. A four-wheel trailing truck based on that of the Q2 had replaced her original trailing truck, and supported a larger Belpaire Firebox. Testing on fast freight between Lima and Canton, Ohio proved to be a success, and another 29 L1s were shunted into the PRR's own Juniata Shops at Altoona, Pennsylvania for similar treatment. Their original boilers were kept by the PRR however, and kept to be used as spares for either the unrebuilt L1s or rebuilt to serve as spares for any K4s that needed one.
Officialy christiened the Panhandle type, the U1s proved themselves to be excellent performers, if fairly average by Superpower standards. Most of these locomotives spent their new lives on heavy mixed and unit freights on their namesake Panhandle line. Running from Pittsburgh to Columbus, then running to either Chicago via Logansport, Indiana or St. Louis via Indianapolis and Effingham, Illinois. American entry into the Second World War would lead to another 50 L1s getting the Panhandle treatment, and being assigned to fast freights on the lines from Chicago to either Cincinnati or Louisville. Some locomotives even saw service on a few of the passenger trains that the PRR ran over their lines.
Why were only 95 of these engines built? The answer, simply put, was the onset of World War II, which forced the PRR to look for a locomotive that was much heavier than the U1 for use on the military and even heavier freight trains. They tested the Chesapeake & Ohio T-1 2-10-4, and chose to clone it with a Belpaire firebox, Boxpok drivers, and Walscherts valve gear to create the J1 class. The "War Babies" filled the heavy freight niche better than the U1s, which were pushed off of many heavier services like coal drags from the N&W as a result. However, all continued in service until 1963, outliving the Q2s by a year, and being succeeded by the J1 in retirement only four years later. Today, one of the rebuilt U1s, #1489, resides at the RR Museum of Pennsylvania alongside L1 Mikado #520 to give visitors and idea of how much was changed to the L1s that were rebuilt.