Too bad the T's didn't come earlier. They were truly a finicky hot rod of a locomotive. The T-2, had there been one, would have addressed the most egregious problems, such as maintenance access to the cam boxes on the rear engine. There's been an interesting discussion in both the PRR and N&W historical society about both these engines recently. The N&W J was tested on the PRR, which I think is pretty well known, and the T-1 was also tested on the N&W (as well as the C&O), which I didn't know. In both cases a very good conventional locomotive (the J) was better than (on the N&W's track) or equal to a "first generation" unconventional locomotive (on the PRR). That said, the J was not suitable for day in day out use on the Fort Wayne division of the PRR, even though it easily made track speed (and accelerated faster) with 15-16 cars. PRR memos around the test were concerned about excessive piston speed (2561 ft/min vs the T's 1821 ft/min @ 100mph). While the J was reported to have exceeded 100mph many times (max recorded during the test was 111mph) and was able to average 94mph over 45 miles in one case(!), it also had one failure - a partial valve seize attributed to "poor lubrication, but no doubt excessive speeds contributed". In short, it was close to max capacity with these trains at these speeds. The T, though much more finicky to handle (tough to fire, tough to keep pressure), could MOVE and had more in reserve at very high speeds (90+). If that locomotive concept had had a chance to be developed to the bullet proof level that N&W engines in general were, it would have been considered a resounding success. Too bad. Fascinating articles.