Tornado Breaks the ton.

[Gary H]

The power (well, tractive effort really) available at 75 may be a different story. I know that with electric transmission the force a motor can exert tends to reduce at higher speeds, but I don't know about steam engines.

Pretty much why we use electric transmission. A traction motor can exert very high torque from a dead stop. Especially AC motors.

[Pacific231G]

I wonder if they have thought of a pantograph on the cab and a kettle element in the firebox?  

 

Stewart

The Swiss Federal Railways did that during the war when there was as acute shortage of coal imported from Germany while their own abundant supplies of hydro-electricity were fully available . They added electric heaters to two 0-6-0 tank locos  so that they could run under the wires without using any coal and also operate rather like a fireless steam loco away from the wires. For longer runs on unelectrified tracks these locos could still be fired with coal. Power was taken at 15 kV, 16.6 Hz via the panto. and used via two transformers (total 480KW) to heat resistive heating elements in the boiler- so yes it was an electric kettle.

 

 

Also in Switzerland, the Brienz-Rothorn railway uses electric pre-heaters to raise steam and maintain it overnight in the very well insulated boilers of their  SLM built steam locos. These though are plugged into a shore supply rather than using pantographs.

Edited April 16, 2017 by Pacific231G

[sir douglas]

http://douglas-self.com/MUSEUM/LOCOLOCO/swisselec/swisselc.htm

[rockershovel]

Really, if Tornado CAN'T perform at these speeds, what is the point of building it at all? It is supposed to be the modern development of a class of locomotives built for fast, heavy work, isn't it?

 

I was having a conversation of this sort with my daughter, over the weekend. We'd just seen the BoB Pacific wheezing past at 25mph with four or five carriages on the NVR, then seen the 10.25" gauge DHR loco blustering across Ferry Meadows, whistling and blowing, with four loaded carriages behind it. It was a working loco, doing what it was built to do, and somehow it seemed more "real" in some undefinable way.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

The 8P pacifics in good condition and with a crew that knew how it was done, could produce outputs in the 2,000 to 2,500 hp range in regular service. That's why a special diesel design able to produce that much at the drawbar was required to enable fast schedules previously successfully worked by steam to be maintained on Eastern Region.

 

The power production task required of the fireman was in truth always excessive on the really fast high power demand schedules. In the prewar period there were instances of the LMS and LNER pacifics burning off all their nominal nine tons of coal before the six or six and a half hour run was complete. The bursts of maximum power output required the fireman moving coal at a hundredweight a mile, and maintaining water level against the high demand from the engine: any pretence that he was also able to fully assist the driver in keeping a lookout for signals while under the cosh like that was just that, a pretence.

 

Power is force multiplied by distance travelled per unit time. For any given power output, that means high force at low speed, much smaller force at high speed. Churchward's famous target for his express loco is an expression of this, two tons drawbar force at 70mph, equivalent 836 hp. The drawbar force at speed is much smaller than the tractive effort estimate at starting, which was circa 12 tons on Churchward's Star class. (And once more, the tractive effort estimate is no power indicator, it is a starting force estimate only.)

 

Pretty much why we use electric transmission. A traction motor can exert very high torque from a dead stop. Especially AC motors.

 

Actually, one of the key features of the steam engine which made it ideal for mechanical power purposes in an unsophisticated engineering environment is that it can exert full torque at a dead stand indefinitely with no risk at all. Your electric motor in the same circumstances quickly requires a large blower or other cooling arrangements to prevent meltdown. For all its limitations, the steam engine has some characteristics that were key to getting a large scale mechanical power based civilisation properly underway.

[Pacific231G]

The 8P pacifics in good condition and with a crew that knew how it was done, could produce outputs in the 2,000 to 2,500 hp range in regular service. That's why a special diesel design able to produce that much at the drawbar was required to enable fast schedules previously successfully worked by steam to be maintained on Eastern Region.

 That rather explains why the largest European locos really did need mechanical stokers; SNCF's 241P Mountain class, their most powerful loco, had an output of 4000 hp, its smaller sister the 141P Mikado was 3300 hp.and the very numerous 141R Mikados built in N.America immediately after the war were rated at 2900 hp These three classes all had mechanical stokers but others such as the final Etat Pacifics (SNCF 231G) with an output of 2200 hp and the ex PLM Pacifics (231K) that used to haul the Golden Arrow with around 2300hp did not.

From this it does seem that the LMS and LNER Pacifics were approaching the limit of what a single human fireman could be expected to deliver on long non stop runs. I believe that the Princess Coronation delivered 3300HP continously on one of its tests but needed two firemen working flat out to achieve that. It does seem that the maximum continuous horsepower of a steam loco is a far more variable feast than that of a diesel or electric loco or even than larger steam plants such as those in ships and power stations..

.  

The power production task required of the fireman was in truth always excessive on the really fast high power demand schedules. In the prewar period there were instances of the LMS and LNER pacifics burning off all their nominal nine tons of coal before the six or six and a half hour run was complete

.The bursts of maximum power output required the fireman moving coal at a hundredweight a mile, and maintaining water level against the high demand from the engine: any pretence that he was also able to fully assist the driver in keeping a lookout for signals while under the cosh like that was just that, a pretence.

Did they simply run out of coal or were the tenders overfilled?

I always wondered about the reality of the second man look out but presumably the places where it mattered most were less likely to be those where maximum power output was required- maybe! .

Actually, one of the key features of the steam engine which made it ideal for mechanical power purposes in an unsophisticated engineering environment is that it can exert full torque at a dead stand indefinitely with no risk at all. Your electric motor in the same circumstances quickly requires a large blower or other cooling arrangements to prevent meltdown. For all its limitations, the steam engine has some characteristics that were key to getting a large scale mechanical power based civilisation properly underway.

Like those incredible steam engines used in plate mills that reversed immense amounts of power almost immediately to shuttle heavy steel plates back and forth between the rollers. The limitation for a steam loco exerting full torque would be adhesion. As teenage enthusiasts we used to love watching Bulleid Pacifics attempting to pull heavy passenger trains out of Oxford Station in the last years of steam without slipping. Needless to say the far superior Castles never seemed to slip (but given our strongly pro GWR prejudice, we probably didn't admit it when they did) . 

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

...I believe that the Princess Coronation delivered 3300HP continously on one of its tests but needed two firemen working flat out to achieve that. It does seem that the maximum continuous horsepower of a steam loco is a far more variable feast than that of a diesel or electric loco or even than larger steam plants such as those in ships and power stations...

 Just considering the steam loco boiler, not least of the attributes of a well designed multitube, exhaust blast draughted, boiler is the ability to work with reasonable efficiency over the likely range of power output demanded: when placed in the hands of a crew who knew what to do. What's rarely mentioned in the peak output trial of the Princess Coronation is that when those two firemen put the coal on at the rate to produce 3,300 drawbar horsepower, the boiler was well outside the efficient operating range, coal consumption was about 60% higher per dbhphr. Useful 'stretch capability to have for a short period in normal operation if the fireman was strong enough! (The all time achievement is credited to a French chaffeur who in the trialling of a Chapelon design managed a firing rate of 180 lbs a minute for 20 minutes.)

...Did they simply run out of coal or were the tenders overfilled?... 

 On the East Coast operation the A4s on the 400 mile runs were typically well overfilled, a 2' peak above the bunker top, generally reckoned to be worth somewhere between 11 and 12 tons of coal in total on the tender. In the winter with the demand for train heat, headwinds etc. there was an incident where an A4 had to come off at Htichin (roughly 30 miles short) as the bunker was empty. I believe the LMS managed a PC out of coal by Nuneaton, not sure if it was going North or South ;-). (For comparison the really fast operations on the other side of the Atlantic. The F7 'Hiawatha' on its 400 mile 6 hour schedule route had a 27 ton bunker - which was refilled half way along -  and the Niagaras on the 1,000 mile 16 hour water level route had a 46 ton bunker, and were also refilled half way along! The train weights were much greater than in the UK, heavy cars and many more of them. Good footage to see what this looked lke on Youtube, search on 'NYC water level'.)

 

...The limitation for a steam loco exerting full torque would be adhesion. As teenage enthusiasts we used to love watching Bulleid Pacifics attempting to pull heavy passenger trains out of Oxford Station in the last years of steam without slipping. Needless to say the far superior Castles never seemed to slip (but given our strongly pro GWR prejudice, we probably didn't admit it when they did) . 

 Alternative explanation: the adhesion is sufficient, until it isn't. The little 4-6-0 didn't have sufficient force available to reach the adhesion limit, while all pacifics always very definitely do.

[jjb1970]

Given that in any combustion process the correct fuel feed and combustion control is essential to efficiency and performance, manual stoking has a lot of short comings and introduces a lot of variables.

[The Stationmaster]

Given that in any combustion process the correct fuel feed and combustion control is essential to efficiency and performance, manual stoking has a lot of short comings and introduces a lot of variables.

 

The problem all over with the Stephensonian steam engine - limited efficiency overall plus a huge range of variables ranging from the men operating it, to the standard of maintenance (assuming design was correct), to the quality and consistency of the fuel and standard of lubrication.  Mechanical stoking of course introduces another one as it is really only compatible with continuous high output and even then can be wasteful of fuel in even the best of designs, such as the Niagras, where cinder cutting of tubes created a constant maintenance task with some coal passed through virtually unburnt.  In the British operational situation, even on day's railway, mechanical stoking would add nothing except where short bursts of power were need and bigger numbers on the coal bill were acceptable.

[Gary H]

 That rather explains why the largest European locos really did need mechanical stokers; SNCF's 241P Mountain class, their most powerful loco, had an output of 4000 hp, its smaller sister the 141P Mikado was 3300 hp.and the very numerous 141R Mikados built in N.America immediately after the war were rated at 2900 hp These three classes all had mechanical stokers but others such as the final Etat Pacifics (SNCF 231G) with an output of 2200 hp and the ex PLM Pacifics (231K) that used to haul the Golden Arrow with around 2300hp did not.

From this it does seem that the LMS and LNER Pacifics were approaching the limit of what a single human fireman could be expected to deliver on long non stop runs. I believe that the Princess Coronation delivered 3300HP continously on one of its tests but needed two firemen working flat out to achieve that. It does seem that the maximum continuous horsepower of a steam loco is a far more variable feast than that of a diesel or electric loco or even than larger steam plants such as those in ships and power stations..

.  

Did they simply run out of coal or were the tenders overfilled?

I always wondered about the reality of the second man look out but presumably the places where it mattered most were less likely to be those where maximum power output was required- maybe! .

Like those incredible steam engines used in plate mills that reversed immense amounts of power almost immediately to shuttle heavy steel plates back and forth between the rollers. The limitation for a steam loco exerting full torque would be adhesion. As teenage enthusiasts we used to love watching Bulleid Pacifics attempting to pull heavy passenger trains out of Oxford Station in the last years of steam without slipping. Needless to say the far superior Castles never seemed to slip (but given our strongly pro GWR prejudice, we probably didn't admit it when they did) . 

The Pennsy Q2 was abit of a beast , nearly 8000 horsepower ,mechanical stoker obviously at about 12 tons of coal per hour!   http://i.imgur.com/QPxk7xI.jpg

The Q2 had more power than a 14XX Bigboy.

Edited April 18, 2017 by Gary H

[tractionman]

Apologies if this has already been posted here, but in case not folks might be interested to see BBC iplayer has a documentary about the 100mph Tornado run, but it's only available to view for a short while longer.

 

The film was made for BBC TV in the north and not nationally broadcast.

 

Cheers,

 

Keith

[andyram]

Apologies if this has already been posted here, but in case not folks might be interested to see BBC iplayer has a documentary about the 100mph Tornado run, but it's only available to view for a short while longer.

The film was made for BBC TV in the north and not nationally broadcast.

Cheers,

Keith

Any chance of a link?

[tractionman]

Any chance of a link?

Hi Andy,

 

Here's the link

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b08rb16k/tornado-the-100mph-steam-engine

 

Just watched it, amazing footage on the footplate and lineside at that speed.

 

What heroes enginemen were in years past doing that for a living and in routine service.

 

All the best,

 

Keith

Edited June 11, 2017 by tractionman

[Clearwater]

For those who've not seen it, it's a good programme. My son, 5, currently insists on watching it frequently. This morning he earnestly informed me "daddy, they needed to build a new A1 as it was the missing link in the family tree" - virtually a direct quote from the programme....

[andyram]

Just watched the programme. Thanks for telling us about it. It was a fantastic piece of television.

[Pacific231G]

Quite by chance I was looking through the September 1959 MRN for something else when I happened upon a piece by J.N.Maskelyne, by then the magazine's consulting editor,  describing a 100MPH+  run on a special train from Kings Cross to Doncaster for the Stephenson Locomotive Society's Golden Jubilee tour of Doncaster works on May 23rd 1959.

 

The train was 8 coaches long and carrying 345 members. The locomotive was A4 Pacific Sir Nigel Grelsey (60007) driven by Bill Hoole.

 

According to Maskelyne the train reached exactly 100MPH "for some distance" north of Hitchin with an average speed of 98.3 MPH over a three mile stretch.

On the return run the last five miles of the descent from Stoke Summit to Tallington were covered at an average speed of 108.8MPH with a maximum of between 110-112 MPH. 

 

I'm assuming that these timings were based on stop watches and quarter mile posts but were clearly recorded by a number of people who took such timings seriously and, even if the maximum speed was a bit high, it was clearly well beyond 100MPH .

 

I hadn't known that such high speeds were ever attained by steam locomotives during BR days and my own first 100 MPH run was behind a Deltic on the ECML (during a school railway society trip to Darlington) in the mid 1960s when I was told that this was faster than BR steam locos ever ran in service.

 

I assume he'd never flown because Maskelyne said that this was the first time he had ever travelled at well over 100MPH  "....and behind a steam loco too!" so it clearly wasn't common but does anyone know how often steam locos exceeded the ton under BR ?

 

I got to see the Tornado programme a few days ago some weeks after it was broadcast nationally (on BBC4 ?) and it was excellent. Well pitched without a lot of hype but seemed to really capture the quiet excitement of those involved.

Edited August 26, 2017 by Pacific231G

[Bon Accord]

Quite by chance I was looking through the September 1959 MRN for something else when I happened upon a piece by J.N.Maskelyne, by then the magazine's consulting editor,  describing a 100MPH+  run on a special train from Kings Cross to Doncaster for the Stephenson Locomotive Society's Golden Jubilee tour of Doncaster works on May 23rd 1959.

 

The train was 8 coaches long and carrying 345 members. The locomotive was A4 Pacific Sir Nigel Grelsey (60007) driven by Bill Hoole.

 

According to Maskelyne the train reached exactly 100MPH "for some distance" north of Hitchin with an average speed of 98.3 MPH over a three mile stretch.

On the return run the last five miles of the descent from Stoke Summit to Tallington were covered at an average speed of 108.8MPH with a maximum of between 110-112 MPH. 

 

I'm assuming that these timings were based on stop watches and quarter mile posts but were clearly recorded by a number of people who took such timings seriously and, even if the maximum speed was a bit high, it was clearly well beyond 100MPH .

 

I hadn't known that such high speeds were ever attained by steam locomotives during BR days and my own first 100 MPH run was behind a Deltic on the ECML (during a school railway society trip to Darlington) in the mid 1960s when I was told that this was faster than BR steam locos ever ran in service.

 

I assume he'd never flown because Maskelyne said that this was the first time he had ever travelled at well over 100MPH  "....and behind a steam loco too!" so it clearly wasn't common but does anyone know how often steam locos exceeded the ton under BR ?

 

I got to see the Tornado programme a few days ago some weeks after it was broadcast nationally (on BBC4 ?) and it was excellent. Well pitched without a lot of hype but seemed to really capture the quiet excitement of those involved.

 

The plaques on the sides of the boiler casing of number 7 commemorate that very run.

100mph journeys behind steam in regular service were very rare because there'd either be no need for it or it would be difficult/impossible to achieve either practically or without a degree of risk. Saying that, certain individuals were known as "heavy hitters" (often to the disgust of their firemen) and Stoke Bank always was something of a racing stretch with the right gradient profile and the right locos (class 8 LNER pacifics etc). Bill Hoole is a case in point.