If you register, you can do a lot more. And become an active part of our growing community. You'll have access to hidden forums, and enjoy the ability of replying and starting conversations.

Saint Class 135 ish mph

Discussion in 'Steam Traction' started by Reading General, May 5, 2017.

  1. Spamcan81

    Spamcan81 Nat Pres stalwart

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2007
    Messages:
    35,121
    Likes Received:
    20,773
    Occupation:
    Training moles
    Location:
    The back of beyond
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    I think you're wasting your time Paul. You'd have an easier time trying to convince the Pope that God doesn't exist. :)
     
  2. 30854

    30854 Resident of Nat Pres

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2017
    Messages:
    12,172
    Likes Received:
    11,493
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Retired
    Location:
    Brighton&Hove
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    I'd better re-read the forum rules...... I missed that clause! :confused:
     
  3. Copper-capped

    Copper-capped Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2017
    Messages:
    2,563
    Likes Received:
    3,316
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Stanthorpe, QLD, Australia
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    Haha! But I don't see it as being a strictly GWR thing, (although I like the story even more because it comes from there!). I just don't get why there is a problem entertaining the notion that a company, and it could be any company as far as I'm concerned, might run high speed light engine testing in that day and age. In fact, I'd be surprised if the GWR were not alone in this.
     
    MellishR likes this.
  4. torgormaig

    torgormaig Part of the furniture Friend

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2007
    Messages:
    4,445
    Likes Received:
    6,547
    So what is "bloody fast"? In my book 70 mph with a light engine is fast (too fast?), so 80 mph would be bloody fast and anything more is downright reckless. If you are going to do a high speed run in safety you tag a train onto the loco so that you have a reasonable chance of stopping. I'm sure no one on here would suggest that Swindon engines were incapable of hauling a train at high speed.......................would they?!

    Peter James
     
    Steve likes this.
  5. Victor

    Victor Nat Pres stalwart Friend

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2006
    Messages:
    13,773
    Likes Received:
    7,941
    Occupation:
    Retired
    Location:
    DEWSBURY West Yorkshire

    :Banghead: If that thing did anywhere near 130mph................I'm the Pope. :D
     
    S.A.C. Martin and Spamcan81 like this.
  6. S.A.C. Martin

    S.A.C. Martin Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2010
    Messages:
    5,591
    Likes Received:
    9,325
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Asset Engineer (Signalling), MNLPS Treasurer
    Location:
    London
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    Okay, here's my point of view to clear up my feelings.

    1) no problem with idea that GWR sometimes took engines out "light engine" and went "fast"
    2) I express doubt with the idea that the classes concerned were physically capable of doing 130mph
    3) see above but for 120mph
    4) see above but for 110mph
    5) see above but for 100mph but with caveat that it seems a "maybe, maybe not" and no way of authenticating the speeds anyway
    6) the stories given don't use any scientific methods other than a stop watch, mile posts, and signal posts, so are open to potential exaggeration
    7) skeptical given the great amount of government scrutiny at end of 19th century in terms of railway safety (due to an inordinate amount of accidents and deaths brought about by early railways from Victorian into Edwardian era) that the GWR would do things rather more recklessly than required
    8) Locomotives of another railway have been recorded at lesser speeds requiring more power and streamlining to achieve the speeds suggested, and the scientific approach there shows it's not just about those two factors in any event

    So no, not particularly doubting runs happened with engines running light, express great doubt on speeds quoted and find the normally affable, sensible GWR fans suddenly taking on the religious zealotry worthy of a Dan Brown novel to be a bit bonkers!
     
    Spamcan81 likes this.
  7. Steve

    Steve Resident of Nat Pres Friend

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2006
    Messages:
    11,930
    Likes Received:
    10,088
    Occupation:
    Gentleman of leisure, nowadays
    Location:
    Near Leeds
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    Quite right Peter. Light engines were/are limited in speed for two good reasons; they can't stop very well and they are more likely to come off the road. I have no doubt that a Saint could achieve 120 light engine if it stayed on the road and didn't have to stop but you can argue that about quite a number of locos. I also think only a lunatic would try it, otherwise there would be plenty of evidence of such feats. I draw the line at 135, though, that's taking large reciprocating steam engines to their limit.
     
  8. 30854

    30854 Resident of Nat Pres

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2017
    Messages:
    12,172
    Likes Received:
    11,493
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Retired
    Location:
    Brighton&Hove
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    I suppose anything over linespeed limits could be regarded as reckless, but pretty much all major companies engaged in speed tests (for whatever reason) at some point. Staff for such excursions would surely be hand picked and experienced. To do less would lean towards 'suicidal' rather than 'reckless'!

    Regarding S.A.Cs well reasoned post (#206), point 8 (streamlining). All responses alluding to this factor seem concerned with external streamlining (apologies if any intended otherwise). While this is obviously highly relevant, the issue of internal streamlining is as important. Tests on other designs which didn't produce such claims as for the 29s may well indicate deficiencies in the steam circuit. We can all nominate a design or two where theoretical power somehow didn't translate into anything much in reality.
     
    Last edited: May 11, 2017
    S.A.C. Martin likes this.
  9. Jamessquared

    Jamessquared Nat Pres stalwart

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2008
    Messages:
    26,105
    Likes Received:
    57,435
    Location:
    LBSC 215
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    Is there any data about for the balancing of a Saint? In other words, at what speed does the load on an individual wheel become negative and therefore lead to a tendency for the wheel to momentarily lift?

    (And, out of interest - what was the cyclic variation in load on the driving wheels of an A4 at 126mph?)

    Another consideration - from what several people have said on this thread, apparently high speed testing was a routine part of the Swindon process. Is it on record whether the civil engineer (a) knew? (inconceivable that he didn't if it were a routine process, though I can imagine a one-off exploit could perhaps be hidden) and (b) whether the civil engineer placed any limits on the activity?

    Tom
     
    MellishR and Aberdare like this.
  10. Reading General

    Reading General Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    May 18, 2011
    Messages:
    6,081
    Likes Received:
    2,217
    8 times a second I believe Tuplin said....
     
  11. Hermod

    Hermod Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2017
    Messages:
    985
    Likes Received:
    283
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Klitmoeller,Denmark
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    100 tons going down 1:300 at 100 mph is a gift of 200 horsepower.
    In the book of my prophet Cox a Hall has maximum evaporation 21690 lbs/hr and 1430 indicated horsepower.
    9F 30540 and 2070.
    The not so fast German S 2/6 went 95 mph using 2200 ihp with four cars behind and kept 130 kmh mean between Augsburg und Munchen.
    But it was not GWR of course

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bavarian_S_2/6

    An A4 need not have had any unbalance being threecylindered and MN and WC/BB had none.
     
  12. Jamessquared

    Jamessquared Nat Pres stalwart

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2008
    Messages:
    26,105
    Likes Received:
    57,435
    Location:
    LBSC 215
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    That's merely a different way of saying how fast it went; it doesn' say what the maximum and minimum loads on each wheel were over the course of a revolution, and whether they went negative at any point.

    If we take it as read that the GWR did routinely test locos this way straight out of the shops, I can't imagine why they didn't have permanently available a couple of vans or coaches available for the test. That would help steady the tender and with braking. In addition, it would mean that a few suitable tools and maybe a duty fitter could go on each run so that on the occasions when things didn't go smoothly, help and suitable tools to get back to base (or at least clear of the mainline) were available immediately, rather than at a distance.

    Tom
     
    MellishR likes this.
  13. Hermod

    Hermod Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2017
    Messages:
    985
    Likes Received:
    283
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Klitmoeller,Denmark
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer

    The GWR two cylinder details at Bridge Stress testing times can surely be found somewhere.Also my profhet Cox wrote a paper on balancing.
    There were some test on a class 5 on track and greased rails and some were filmed and showed wheel lifting.Saint balancing can not have been better and the wheel diameter influence is easy to calculate.Anybody having links?
     
  14. Jimc

    Jimc Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Messages:
    4,052
    Likes Received:
    4,665
    Occupation:
    Once computers, now part time writer I suppose.
    Location:
    SE England
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    But we're not. Indeed I'm not sure any of the GW fans have made any serious claims at all as to how fast the loco might or might not have been going.

    1) The only people constantly repeating 130 or 135 mph are the antis. Its interesting, because a common propaganda trick is to constantly claim that your opposition is saying something they're not. Maybe its because we're in a general election campaign and the press is full of nothing else - politicians (of both sides) making up stories about what they claim the opposition is saying.

    2) Claims about not running light engine are at this stage in the thread comically ridiculous. Its too well documented. Runs into 3 figures were very likely exceptional, but clearly not that exceptional since we seem to have reports from just about every senior GW figure who went into print. But then how many people in this thread would privately admit they have exceeded 100mph on the road once in their lives, even if common sense has meant they'll never do it again?

    3) Braking. An ex WR signalman has described the practice of ensuring the line was clear for n sections ahead. A precaution so gob smackingly obvious that I have not the slightest doubt every line did it. Do you honestly think that when Mallard did its high speed run they didn't ensure the line was clear well ahead? But I don't recall seeing it mentioned in any of the popular features on the run.

    3) Light engine is going to be the lowest drag configuration. As soon as you tow a carriage drag goes up.

    4) How fast was the Saint going? Well if Collett wasn't prepared to say then I'd be a damn fool to guess.

    As for how it all started. I don't doubt that a journo asked Robinson if he'd ever gone as fast as 100mph, or how fast he's gone or something, and he said, well actually I've driven at 120. Well you would, wouldn't you... As the Railway Magazine quote says this grew, probably just like this thread. Collett was formally asked, and he gave the measured response that it seems a substantial percentage of the critics haven't read. As a GWR fan the only claim I'm making is that I think the story panned out much as Collett said, without all the lace and frills that Tuplin added, and with exactly the same caveats that Collett included.
     
    MellishR, 35B, Aberdare and 2 others like this.
  15. Hermod

    Hermod Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2017
    Messages:
    985
    Likes Received:
    283
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Klitmoeller,Denmark
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    The funny thing is why GWR went fourcylindered when Saints were the obvious fast and best solution?
    I have been under a Castle or King in Swindon and it looks ridiculous.
     
  16. Lplus

    Lplus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2011
    Messages:
    1,919
    Likes Received:
    991
    Location:
    Waiting it out.
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    First post;
    Serious claims? maybe, maybe not. If not why even bother to imply such high speeds, it just looks like trolling for arguments.
     
    S.A.C. Martin likes this.
  17. Copper-capped

    Copper-capped Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2017
    Messages:
    2,563
    Likes Received:
    3,316
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Stanthorpe, QLD, Australia
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    Good post. I like how you have articulated your concerns rather than put on your bash a GWR fan hat like some:)

    I agree with points 1,2,3 and stop somewhere between 4 and 5. I think a saint could do 100+ and a king certainly a bit more. Although with bigger driving wheels and no load maybe a lesser powered saint could out do a King?? Pure speculation that means very little by the way! (No zealotry intended;)).

    Your point 6 could very well relate to point 7 - let's say there was a great amount of govt scrutiny, the last thing a railway company would want is to have what could considered to an outside observer as reckless speed trials. So, the only time keeping would have been some very unofficial footplate timekeeping - as Collett freely admitted when pressed on the Saint incident. The footplate timings would really have been only for evaluation purposes to do with whatever they were testing for - i.e, " we were doing roughly such and such a speed and the locomotive was behaving in this way or the bearing was this temperature, etc, etc. So if you don't want govt interference but you feel you need to push the limits then don't advertise the fact and for heaven sake don't write anything official down. And certainly don't take a dyno car along for the ride!

    Point 8. If you,ve got another engine performance example from another company that you think has some bearing on the matter then post it up!

    On a side note, not particularly relating to any post in particular. I don't think safety concerns for employees were a huge concern for railway companies in the early years of the last century. Railway companies at that time, perhaps lesser so in big four days when there was less route competion were all about bringing in the money by putting bums on seats. How do you do that? Well you go faster than the other guy, get there on time more often than the other guy, and basically try to provide a better service than your competitor. Health and safety were a long way down the list compared with bringing in the money. Railways were inherently dangerous places to work - I have a book that says that in swindon carriage works there was a section that made artificial limbs for Great Western employees. The railway magazine of the time boasted over 4000 artificial limbs had been produced since 1878. That to me suggests a culture of "cure" being more important than "prevention"!

    Those were very different times. I'm not versed in workers rights in Britain Over 100 years ago but I dare say the company wasn't under too much pressure about worker safety. Finding someone to volunteer to sit on the front of a king or light up the track in a light engine saint may not have raised too many eyebrows "in house". Life was not so precious back then as it is now. (Remember WW1? "Run at those machine guns boys. Damn, bring up the next line...Run at those machine guns boys...").

    Shining the light of modern railway practices and modern health and safety on these stories and sure, no brainer, "don't be stupid, they would never have attempted that." However, try clicking your headspace 100 years back when the push for greater and greater steam performance far outstripped safety concerns then the ludicrous may start to seem plausible.

    The safety considerations the railway companies were concerned with was for paying passengers. The last thing you want is a reputation for passenger accidents and unreliability...so...you test, test, test! If you want fast passenger services then you test fast! If they thought there was merit in light engine testing then that is what they would have done. After all, I suggest it would have been highly unlikely the govt was going to scrutinise a light engine coming out of the works - especially if there was no official record of what the company was doing with it on the run.
     
    Last edited: May 11, 2017
    Shed9C, MellishR, 35B and 3 others like this.
  18. Reading General

    Reading General Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    May 18, 2011
    Messages:
    6,081
    Likes Received:
    2,217
    Trolling? I was just re-telling the story as it was told.
     
    Jimc, Copper-capped and Martin Perry like this.
  19. S.A.C. Martin

    S.A.C. Martin Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2010
    Messages:
    5,591
    Likes Received:
    9,325
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Asset Engineer (Signalling), MNLPS Treasurer
    Location:
    London
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    Jim, that's patently not the case. Just read this thread. The evidence exists.

    Uh huh.

    Bit below the belt Jim if I may say so. That's certainly not been my intention - I've addressed directly the points aimed at me.

    No one is doubting locomotives run light engine. That is not in dispute. That has never been in dispute, so far as I am concerned.

    What is in dispute is the interpretation of a set of events for which there are two eyewitness accounts, recounted 20 years later, with no data, no original recordings, just a repeat of some timings made which put forward that a locomotive ran 100mph+ in 1906 and potentially up to 130mph.

    Mallard had a full train behind it, including vehicles being used specifically for the oft-forgot other aim of that day - braking tests. There's a very clear difference between an all wheel braked train with a steam locomotive going for a speed record and a light engine travelling at speed. I would wager the braking distances between the two would make interesting comparisons. But they are not the same.

    An absolutely fair point.

    No one can say other than "fast" unless you are prepared to take as canon the timings given.

    And that's my issue with the whole thing. Not that this is being sold as it definitely happened, but that a few people have commented to the effect that if Collett said it, it must be true, applies. Which (as I pointed out earlier in the thread) rather begs the question if we should take everything at face value that people say.

    I have used a lot of direct quotes from Thompson in that particular thread and I am sure I would be called out for their accuracy and plausibility if I came up with anything the like Collett has been quoted as saying.

    To be frank the account doesn't come across as reasonable to me, more a flight of fancy that ignores some fundamental basic questions of engineering and railway practice that remain big hypotheticals. It went quicker than it normally did in service and that's pretty much all one can say. No records, no absolutes, just a story about a light engine run where the engine was allowed to run very fast. And that's how it should be remembered.
     
  20. Jimc

    Jimc Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Messages:
    4,052
    Likes Received:
    4,665
    Occupation:
    Once computers, now part time writer I suppose.
    Location:
    SE England
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    And isn't that almost exactly the meaning of what Collett said?
     
    MellishR likes this.

Share This Page