Imaginary Locomotives

[Gibbo675]

2 minutes ago, RLBH said:

Bearing speed is also an issue in principle, but in practice the driving wheels don't see the highest bearing speed so won't normally be a limitation.

 

There are of course a whole host of boiler and steam circuit issues. But if you hook a locomotive up to a rolling road with an effectively unlimited steam supply, eventually the piston speed will become a limit.

 

I've got a very rough classification scheme for locomotives based on the ratio of driving wheel diameter to piston stroke, which is proportional to piston speed. It's a bit crude, but actually works quite well – there are clear ranges for express passenger and heavy freight locomotives, with a fairly fuzzy region in the middle for express freight and mixed traffic stuff. 

Hi There,

 

The rule of thumb is 1 mph per inch of driving wheel diameter as an all day cruising speed with an addition of 25-30% depending upon diameter stroke ratio as a maximum speed.

 

Gibbo.

[Niels]

A gentleman named Romsey has some memories of Urie S15 practical speed:

Romsey S15 Limit

[Northmoor]

3 hours ago, Gibbo675 said:

Hi David,

 

Late running before the days of data recorders !

 

Fast running is not quite what it was since data recorders, 104 mph 46229 and 34067, 86 mph 76079, at the time all but 34067 were 60 mph locomotives at that time.

 

Originally 60mph was the maximum for all steam locomotives, speeds were upped for locomotives that had wheels over 72" if they were specifically balanced for fast running. In the case of 45407 it was balanced for goods working and remained at 60mph even after the fitting of AWS and later TPWS along with air brake equipment for the train.

 

Gibbo.

Mmmm, fisherman's tales?  Either your calculations were iffy Gibbo or someone else's were.  It's interesting that I have never read of any of these quoted high speed runs before, so presumably they all took place with empty stock, after dark and with no other witnesses (or indeed journey logs).  If any steam loco had exceeded 75mph, let alone 100mph, during the era of the 60mph limit for steam, either the crews would have been banned from driving on the national network or steam operation would have ceased altogether.  

This sounds a bit like the person who claimed to have done 60mph on an Austerity tank on the Watercress Line.

[Gibbo675]

2 hours ago, Northmoor said:

Mmmm, fisherman's tales?  Either your calculations were iffy Gibbo or someone else's were.  It's interesting that I have never read of any of these quoted high speed runs before, so presumably they all took place with empty stock, after dark and with no other witnesses (or indeed journey logs).  If any steam loco had exceeded 75mph, let alone 100mph, during the era of the 60mph limit for steam, either the crews would have been banned from driving on the national network or steam operation would have ceased altogether.  

This sounds a bit like the person who claimed to have done 60mph on an Austerity tank on the Watercress Line.

You know best

[PenrithBeacon]

15 hours ago, Gibbo675 said:

Hi David,

 

Late running before the days of data recorders !

 

Fast running is not quite what it was since data recorders, 104 mph 46229 and 34067, 86 mph 76079, at the time all but 34067 were 60 mph locomotives at that time.

 

15 hours ago, Gibbo675 said:

...

Sorry, don't believe it! If this were true then the mags would have splashed it at the time as it would be totally impossible to keep such a thing secret.

Cheers

[The Johnster]

2904 Lady of Lyon is alleged to have achieved 135mph between Hullavington and Little Somerford in 1906, based on the passing times at the signal boxes.  The background to this is that it was practice in those days for newly built locos from Swindon to be given a running in/snagging trip over the Badminton cut-off, turned on the triangle at Stoke Gifford, and if no problems had arisen on the down leg, given a fast run back to Swindon prior to handing over to Traffic.  
 

Interest was taken in these runs and apparently somebody opened a book on one being able to run at over 100mph.  Loco crews and signalmen were in on the game, and some senior drawing office staff were on the footplate, including Collett and Stanier.  The adventure nearly ended in disaster as it proved impossible to stop the loco at Wootton Bassett home, which was on to protect an up Bristol line train.  Luckily control was regained shortly afterwards. 
 

It was not an incident that reflected well on anyone involved and could have been catastrophic.  The speed attained is moot, but was clearly very fast and certainly over 100mph.  It could not be claimed as a record because that requires verified timing from calibrated instruments, and the evidence is from passing times at signalboxes.  As a result the incident was somewhat hushed up. 

 

I mention it because it has a bearing on the ‘modern’ speed claims for steam locos.  I have no doubt that the locos mentioned are capable of these speeds, and remember that in many cases a traction inspector would have been on the footplate, and must of necessity been party to what is  shameful flouting of the established speed limits and, IMHO, highly unprofessional and arguably dangerous behaviour.  If the claims are correct, that is; one hopes they are not.  Speed limits are not imposed by killjoys or to prove the superiority of modern traction as some folks seem to think.  Modern per. way is set up differently to steam age, and is more susceptible to hammer blow damage, at the same time changing the ride characteristics of the locos; ignoring speed limits is irresponsible and potentially dangerous.  
 

Do you want to ride in a train driven by an irresponsible person?
 

 

Edited March 16, 2020 by The Johnster

[Traintresta]

18 hours ago, RLBH said:

Bearing speed is also an issue in principle, but in practice the driving wheels don't see the highest bearing speed so won't normally be a limitation.

 

There are of course a whole host of boiler and steam circuit issues. But if you hook a locomotive up to a rolling road with an effectively unlimited steam supply, eventually the piston speed will become a limit.

 

I've got a very rough classification scheme for locomotives based on the ratio of driving wheel diameter to piston stroke, which is proportional to piston speed. It's a bit crude, but actually works quite well – there are clear ranges for express passenger and heavy freight locomotives, with a fairly fuzzy region in the middle for express freight and mixed traffic stuff. 

Is this where rotary valve gear benefits?

[RLBH]

8 minutes ago, Traintresta said:

Is this where rotary valve gear benefits?

Not terribly au fait with valve gear, but I would imagine that reducing reciprocating movement would be beneficial in terms of reducing wear and thereby keeping consistent valve events.

 

I have a notion, though, that the main point was rotary valve gear allowing for more finely controlled valve events. I'm sure someone more knowledgable will correct me!

[Corbs]

On 15/03/2020 at 17:44, Gibbo675 said:

Hi David,

 

Late running before the days of data recorders !

 

Fast running is not quite what it was since data recorders, 104 mph 46229 and 34067, 86 mph 76079, at the time all but 34067 were 60 mph locomotives at that time.

 

Originally 60mph was the maximum for all steam locomotives, speeds were upped for locomotives that had wheels over 72" if they were specifically balanced for fast running. In the case of 45407 it was balanced for goods working and remained at 60mph even after the fitting of AWS and later TPWS along with air brake equipment for the train.

 

Gibbo.

 

I've heard those reported elsewhere (which is why I was careful to word the blurb on the 100mph Tornado podcast episode) as well as a couple of others (after one of which I believe the driver was sacked).

 

What were the balanced 8Fs capable of?

[Gibbo675]

11 hours ago, PenrithBeacon said:

 

Sorry, don't believe it! If this were true then the mags would have splashed it at the time as it would be totally impossible to keep such a thing secret.

Cheers

 

3 minutes ago, Corbs said:

 

I've heard those reported elsewhere (which is why I was careful to word the blurb on the 100mph Tornado podcast episode) as well as a couple of others (after one of which I believe the driver was sacked).

 

What were the balanced 8Fs capable of?

Hi Chaps,

 

High speed running, ie over the locomotives speed limit was fairly rare and only done when there was serious late running, shortage of refuge loops and a need to get out of the way of other trains that were faster service trains.

 

The above mentioned 104mph by 46229 was the on return run from Carlisle to Crewe on the 3rd of October 1996 and was the first occasion a Stanier pacific had traversed the route over Shap since the 1960's.

 

On that return trip there was a lot of late running traffic that our train was caught up in that had to be cleared. Upon restarting after being looped at Lancaster the train stalled on Ripley Bank after getting into a slip on a flange lubricator which was compounded by the fact that it was a cold damp evening and the sanding gear of the locomotive was not working as it ought to have done (typical NRM locomotive of that time! ). The track had to be hand sanded as we could not have set back for another run and the inspector didn't want to have to cause further delays by sending for an assisting locomotive. The train was restarted while four of us were still in the cess, the traction inspector shouted to us to climb the tender steps as it was safer than attempting to climb into the support coach of the now moving train, this resulted with eight of us on the footplate. The elevation of the curve and ballast shoulder didn't help getting onto the moving locomotive either !

Once Ripley bank was topped the driver under the instruction of the traction inspector who had been told by control to get a move on, "used the power of the locomotive to make up lost time", which is precisely what he did.

 

If in reading the below accounts of the bad old days of twenty four years ago you note that the locomotive was priming on the north bound run, I would suggest that it might have something to do with the locomotive being driven in full gear at 51 mph. We had a different driver on the way south, both are now deceased so can't loose their pensions.

 

http://steamsounds.org.uk/disco/pdf/steamsounds_riding_46229.pdf

 

As for balanced 8F's, 48151 was credited with 76 mph sometime around 1991. It didn't do it any good at all resulting in damaged piston rod glands, the total collapse of a driving spring and the loss of a drive rod to the axle box lubricator.

 

The one thing I would say is that twenty four and more years ago mobile phones were pretty rare and GPS even more so, train recorders would generally keep their timings to themselfs and should they submit their timings to a magazine it is quite obvious that the editors were not daft enough to publish such claims.

 

As for other stuff that I know for a fact has happened there is the loss of 60800 cab doors that fell off on the Settle Carlisle line or I could quite easily submit the engineering report that I wrote about the condition of Britannia after its rest run on 09/11/2010. Various in the know types that edited magazines knew exactly what had gone on and for some reason "failed to publish" any details about the bent piston rod, the newly fitted yet strangely out of date TPWS kit and all the "unimportant" bits that fell the locomotive of between Crewe and Carnforth for similar reasons.

 

Gibbo.

[PenrithBeacon]

1 hour ago, Corbs said:

 

...

What were the balanced 8Fs capable of?

They were intended for 50mph max

Edited March 16, 2020 by PenrithBeacon

[Gibbo675]

2 minutes ago, PenrithBeacon said:

They were intended for 50mph max

Hi David,

 

There is somewhat of a difference between intended and abused !!!

 

Gibbo.

[Mike 84C]

Fired quite a few  balanced and unbalanced 8f's  in my youth. Either could be quite a violent ride  but deffo would not want to go much faster than 50mph but often did!  But I do remember "starred " 8's being sent on the York Bournemouth from Banbury when the equelly decrepit Black 5 failed at the last minute.  Usually with injector problems. 

[Niels]

38 minutes ago, Mike 84C said:

Fired quite a few  balanced and unbalanced 8f's  in my youth.

What was the difference and are there somewhere something to read?

[Northmoor]

20 hours ago, Gibbo675 said:

 

The above mentioned 104mph by 46229 was the on return run from Carlisle to Crewe on the 3rd of October 1996 and was the first occasion a Stanier pacific had traversed the route over Shap since the 1960's.

 

On that return trip there was a lot of late running traffic that our train was caught up in that had to be cleared. Upon restarting after being looped at Lancaster the train stalled on Ripley Bank after getting into a slip on a flange lubricator which was compounded by the fact that it was a cold damp evening and the sanding gear of the locomotive was not working as it ought to have done (typical NRM locomotive of that time! ). The track had to be hand sanded as we could not have set back for another run and the inspector didn't want to have to cause further delays by sending for an assisting locomotive. The train was restarted while four of us were still in the cess, the traction inspector shouted to us to climb the tender steps as it was safer than attempting to climb into the support coach of the now moving train, this resulted with eight of us on the footplate. The elevation of the curve and ballast shoulder didn't help getting onto the moving locomotive either !

Once Ripley bank was topped the driver under the instruction of the traction inspector who had been told by control to get a move on, "used the power of the locomotive to make up lost time", which is precisely what he did.

 

 

Thanks for the clarification and my apologies for being cynical.

 

Still sounds pretty b****y irresponsible to me though, as for climbing over the tender once the loco was moving, under 25kV wires......... 

[Gibbo675]

4 minutes ago, Northmoor said:

 

Thanks for the clarification and my apologies for being cynical.

 

Still sounds pretty b****y irresponsible to me though, as for climbing over the tender once the loco was moving, under 25kV wires......... 

Hi Northmoor,

 

It would seem you have misunderstood somewhat !

 

We climbed aboard the tender steps up to the cab of the locomotive while the train was in motion as it was deemed safer than climbing the steps of the support coach. There being much less chance of falling under the train as the tender steps and hand rails are set lower than those of the Mk1 brake coach. Once on the cab of the locomotive we remained there until Preston, this resulted in eight of us on the footplate, quite cosy really !

 

Gibbo.

[Northmoor]

4 minutes ago, Gibbo675 said:

Hi Northmoor,

 

It would seem you have misunderstood somewhat !

 

We climbed aboard the tender steps up to the cab of the locomotive while the train was in motion as it was deemed safer than climbing the steps of the support coach. There being much less chance of falling under the train as the tender steps and hand rails are set lower than those of the Mk1 brake coach. Once on the cab of the locomotive we remained there until Preston, this resulted in eight of us on the footplate, quite cosy really !

 

Gibbo.

Aha!  yes, I read that as the closest steps to the (moving) coach, so at the tail end.  Do that and you'd likely be sending messages from beyond the grave.  I agree that even a cab as big as a Duchess would get cosy with eight, but at least you could all share the firing. 

 

My father always recalls a similar story from Eric Treacy when he hitched a cab ride on a 9F-hauled fitted freight on the S&C.  There was already a traction inspector on board, they were going to try to match the Thames-Clyde timing to Ais Gill. The Bishop was asked to take the regulator and the other three worked in pairs on the shovel; they were only a minute off the express time.

[Gibbo675]

15 minutes ago, Northmoor said:

Aha!  yes, I read that as the closest steps to the (moving) coach, so at the tail end.  Do that and you'd likely be sending messages from beyond the grave.  I agree that even a cab as big as a Duchess would get cosy with eight, but at least you could all share the firing. 

 

My father always recalls a similar story from Eric Treacy when he hitched a cab ride on a 9F-hauled fitted freight on the S&C.  There was already a traction inspector on board, they were going to try to match the Thames-Clyde timing to Ais Gill. The Bishop was asked to take the regulator and the other three worked in pairs on the shovel; they were only a minute off the express time.

The tender of 46229 as with all of the streamlined tenders didn't have steps at the rear but instead a ladder that reached below the buffer beam between the buffer and the shackle.

[AlfaZagato]

These all sound like wild rides.

 

My only times on footplates were stepping up to the Frisco Decapod, squeezing my 6'3" frame into the cab of Silver Pilot, both at IRM, and an Erie shovel at a threshing bee.

 

On imaginary notes, could the GWR made use of a Mikado tank, maybe on quarryman work out of the Welsh valleys?

[rodent279]

Slightly o/t, were there any LMS corridor tenders?

[Gibbo675]

7 minutes ago, rodent279 said:

Slightly o/t, were there any LMS corridor tenders?

Hi Rodent,

 

There was one that was used during Locomotive testing, see link below.

 

http://www.traintesting.com/MTU.htm

 

Gibbo.

[The Johnster]

1 hour ago, AlfaZagato said:

These all sound like wild rides.

 

My only times on footplates were stepping up to the Frisco Decapod, squeezing my 6'3" frame into the cab of Silver Pilot, both at IRM, and an Erie shovel at a threshing bee.

 

On imaginary notes, could the GWR made use of a Mikado tank, maybe on quarryman work out of the Welsh valleys?

I refer you to the GWR 72xx, common in South Wales though admittedly less so on Valley work, which was more the preserve of their 42xx and 5202 consolidation tank predecessors. 

[AlfaZagato]

I forgot about the 72xx.   Oops. 

[rodent279]

2 hours ago, Gibbo675 said:

Hi Rodent,

 

There was one that was used during Locomotive testing, see link below.

 

http://www.traintesting.com/MTU.htm

 

Gibbo.

Thanks. I had in my head that some were built for the Coronation Scot, but then I remembered that I'd seen somewhere that the non-stop runs stopped briefly outside Carlisle for a crew change. Wasn't sure which was correct!

[The Johnster]

1 hour ago, rodent279 said:

Thanks. I had in my head that some were built for the Coronation Scot, but then I remembered that I'd seen somewhere that the non-stop runs stopped briefly outside Carlisle for a crew change. Wasn't sure which was correct!

The crew change took place on the running lines adjacent to Upperby Shed for the non-stop services, and was still the practice at least until the late 60s.