A Modern 100

Strictly, only Mark 1s with Commonwealth or B4 bogies have a maximum speed of 100mph - and this is the same for Mark 2s. Almost all charter train Mark 1s do have such bogies, so it is effectively the same thing. As you say, the brake type doesn't affect their authorised speed but would affect the view of temporarily raising it - after all, to be sure of the run achieving 100mph, running at slightly above that speed would be bound to be a strong possibility, even if only for short periods.

Steven

 

What about 5043. Castles were regularly worked to these sort of speeds and judging by performances to date she would have no problem topping 100.

 

This topic re-surfaces at regular intervals on Nat-Pres, so, to save a lot of repetition, ad nauseam, ad infinitum, it might be worth pointing out a few significant points:

Yes, it generally accepted that a number of existing main line-certified locomotives are perfectly capable of achieving 100mph - it is equally possible that some loco owners would wish to see their locos do the 'ton'. However, what is always conveniently forgotten is the willingness of those who have to underwrite the risk and responsibility, namely, the operator of the network, Network Rail, and the operator of the train, the TOC.

Despite the possible 'sign-off' by VABs or anyone else who might want to put their signature to such an operation, unless and until the two principal bodies both wish to add theirs, it simply won't happen (haven't we been here before?) - and that currently does not appear to be a realistic prospect.

As an aside, there is theoretically no reason why Mk1 vacuum-braked B4- or Commonwealth-bogied stock could not be used, were such a run to take place - they were of course the norm for any of the historic high-speed runs.

JS

 

Thinking about it, wouldn't Gresley's post war record have been achieved with a rkae of BR1 bogied Mark 1s? - over 10% faster than discussed in Steam Railway.

However, James is of course absolutely spot on - without Network rail and a TOC onside, it simply can't happen and why shoudl they (or for that matter the loco owner) take the extra risk, no matter how small? Remember, we are talking 1/3 faster than the present limit and forces involved etc. increase disproportionately as speed increases.

Steven

 

Of course there is an extra risk of something going wrong in a 100 mph attempt.

It's a question of how much extra.

And with no experience of fast steam running around since 1967 there are few, if any, around who can truly quantify the risk.

Which does not bode well for an attempt. Unless an enormous effort, (at very, very considerable cost), is put in by slowly building up to 100 mph running with very many runs at progressively higher speeds. No doubt including an up graded fitness to run exam each time, before and after the running.

Going back to the end of SR steam, I can think of only one major incident. Can't remember which MN, but a broken coupling rod did occur. Not derailing the loco but causing a lot of track damage. But that was at normal SR speed, i.e 85 mph or below, and must certainly have been because of low maintenance standards at the very end of steam operation. I think the initial cause was said to be sanding gear not operating on one set of driving wheels when the loco slipped.

So far as the good number of 100 mph runs in those days. There were no very high speed incidents I can recall other than a dropped fusible plug with a very young and very inexperienced loco crew. And that included a number of runs being done with 2 axle 75 mph limit parcel vans in the trains.

Certainly my 106 mph footplate run on 35003, (my full footplate log in SR 388 this month: wonderful to see the class get prominence at long last), was on a train with two such vehicles. Well there were two as we left Basingstoke. No one checked at Waterloo to see if they were still there! And again when 35003 virtually repeated the running two days later with a max of 105 mph.

What that showed, along with a number of other SR 100 mph runs and a very large number of runs with speeds in the mid to high 90s was that there were very considerable safety margins built in re the various speed limits in force at the time. As you would expect. And still with totally worn out locos running very fast, and quite often.

I doubt safety margins have been relaxed since those days.

It's a pity we never had a design speed limit stamped on a plate on each BR steam loco as in Germany. Meaning initial testing and subsequent inspection and maintenance regimes were geared up to that maximum speed. That has allowed German pacific 18 201, (with a 180 km/h, 112 mph, plate in the cab), to do some very fast running. And makes it the loco that probably holds the post war steam loco speed record. If only someone had kept records, and IF, all such very fast running had been hauling a train rather than light engine! (I don't know if it ever ran above 180 km/h with a train behind it! ). My website incudes a cab photo of the loco running with 180 km/h showing on the speedo. And I have seen lineside film of that run. Light Engine. Terrifying to see the loco rocking and rolling around!

That loco is due another fast run in June. I hope it goes ahead as only two of us timers were behind it when she reached 102 mph on 5th May 2002. A run initially scheduled for 160 km/h running with a German loco crew in Austria. But cold feet by Austrian Railways saw the limit reduced to 120 km/h. (75 mph). In the event the driver just ignored the reduced limit and let the loco run nice and fast. Bit of a row afterwards, (I hid away at the Wien station, (Vienna), not wanting me or my detailed notes to get involved). But in the end all was OK. Can't see that happening in the UK!

Anyway, I hope the June attempt by 18 201 is allowed to go ahead on Germany. Not that I will be there. Other commitments that day.

 

Also dont forget that when Mallard broke the record it ran a very hot bearing.

I think it would be irresponsible to attempt a fast run such as this- its hard enough to justify keeping steam on the mainline anyway and if the movement was seen to be "boy racing" (sorry for the analogy) on the busy network causing a higher risk of delays it wont do us any favours.

Bob Meanley in particular has expressed some very articulate views in the past on the stresses put on locomotives at higher speeds and also with heavy loads.

We should focus on running at sensible speeds with sensible loads and predominately on routes where there is sufficient traffic gaps so that if things do go wrong the impact on regular services is minimised.

I'd love to belucky enough to ride steam or see an engine do the ton but unfortunately the main line is not a playground.

 

As much as we would like to see 100 MPH running with steam one last time, this countries risk adverse public bodies would never allow it , or so many restrictions would be put on it that it could never be profitable for an owner and toc to put on any faster than 75MPH runs if any were so inclined
its a pity, i know, i for one would love to see and hear any bulleid pass fleet doing the ton and leave a modern emu in its wake

 

Post war modifications to the middle big ends on the Gresley Pacifics would probably rule out any problems on that front. As for "boy racing," nobody seems to mind preserved Deltics flying around at 100mph these days.

 

When I win that £107 Mill tomorrow I'll underwrite it haha

 

Ummm, a 100 mph from a Castle was very unusual. From what I've heard and read most GW drivers considered Castles cruised happily at about 90 mph but pushing them to 100 mph was very difficult. Only achieved on very few occasions. Even with very special preparation on 9th May 1964 100 mph wasn't achieved, although maybe 7029 could have done it down Whiteball.

 

No more unusual than an A4 or Duchess in the 1950's..........
Castle's were regulary clocked in the very high 90's on the bristolian and had to average these sorts of speeds in order to run to time for longer distances than any other train on BR in the 50's... Theres a log of 5043 on the bristolian averaging 93mph for 41 miles!
Having spoken with the guy who actually fired 7029 on the 64 run, it appears that they were unaware that the civil engineer had given them clearence to run up to the ton down whiteball... And he felt 7029 would have easily done it!

 

Seem to recall an A4 might have done the ton down Whiteball [or 'frightened' it!] more recently than that.

 

One thing that seems to be overlooked in all this talk of a 21st Century Ton is the fact that even if Network Rail, the Loco owner and the TOC could come to some sort of an agreement, the relevant insurance company would have several litters of kittens trying to underwrite such an attempt. And there lies the problem. In these risk adverse times no insurance company is going to underwrite such an attempt.

 

When I get time I am going to research and list all UK steam authenticated 100 mph runs. By authentic I mean where a proper timing log exists. Sadly that will mean some real 100's will not make the list, but on the plus side a lot of "we did 110 mph that day" etc stories will not either.

That was attempted by one of my timing peers a few years ago but never completed. At the time the view was the number was around 70, (ish), if I remember correctly. It has always been a very unusual event in the UK. Shedules never demanded anything like 100 mph running.

The top two classes for reaching the ton are likely to be A4 followed by Merchant Navy, the latter having the enormous benefit of an amazing swan song of two years or more that just didn't happen elsewhere.

One thing I may also try and research, although I could never get a substantiable number. Is how many days it took normal running from the 4 A class Atlantics and 6 F7 Hudsons on the Milwaukee Road, (mainly Hiawatha services), to reach the number of lifetime UK steam 100s. It's possible that could have been done in just one week of normal running! Oh for a time machine.

Back to high speed UK steam. Another probably unsubstantiable number is which class reached 90 mph more than any other. At least one of my timing peers has suggested the Merchant Navy Class. Partly because of their swan song years. And also because of the Atlantic Coast Express. Not a schedule that needed 90 mph running, (like so many, but not all UK steam running, the schedule could be kept with no more than 80 mph), but because it made easier engine operation to run fast down the hills West of Salisbury to make the hill climbing less of a task for loco or fireman. I may have a go at assembling all recorded steam 90 mphs as part of my 100 mph work. But that will some task to attempt!

And as for which European Class of steam loco was recorded more than any at 100 mph. Some here know that. But it does come as a real surprise if you don't know!

 

Not too sure about the insurance angle. Apart from the odd warm bearing and occasional lack of deceleration space, has there been any disasterous consequences following 100mph running in the past? I suspect not. No history there, no previous claims, over, 30, 40, 50 or more years. The A4s have crossed the line many, many times and their designer believed they were capable of achieving 130+. Additionally, in spite of their age, the locomotives are in as good a condition now as they have ever been and further, having the advantage of receiving NDT, are possibly better.

The major objections would come from elsewhere.

 

I recently got a book on the BR standards down at the MHR and was reading again the other day about the 90mph + runs with some of the 9f's on the ECML and Western ML to Wales. Those wheels and rods must have been hypnotic going round at that speed! It didn't go on for long though. Once "head office" heard about these runs the crews were told not to take the 9f's up to those speeds again.

 

Is there really any point of pushing locos that are preserved to their absolute limits?

Im sure many locos could do the ton but at what cost?

Stan

 

A few points concerning margins. Almost all UK 100 mph runs have been achieved in a short bursts, as Bryn says on the Southern it was running fast down hill with a peak over 100 mph then speed tailing away as the train hit adverse gradients. The LMS 114 mph was in the same category etc. The only sustained 100 mph running by steam in this country was on 27th September 1935 when 2509 SilverLink was continuously over 100 mph for 25 miles, with two separate peaks of 112 mph. Both recorded by C.J. Allen and never, to my knowledge, disputed. Consider the condition of the track in 1935 compared to today! Also the run was done with prototype coaching stock which then needed adjustment to make it comfortable for high speed running. Also this was before A4’s were fitted with double Kylchap exhausts. 2509 then worked the new Silver Jubilee express every day for two weeks. In my book this performance was perhaps even more impressive that that of 4468 three years later. Signalling and safety systems were all inferior to those we have today so I think we can say that this shows A4’s had / have considerable safety margin for 100 mph running.

That said, for all the reasons listed by Mr Suttleworth I can not see it ever happening.

 

Somehow I think people are using double standards here.

On one hand saying going at higher speeds causes extra wear and tear.

On the other hand black 5's for example are asked to perform with 12 and even 13 coach trains.

Which causes the most potential wear?

As to high speeds in the preservation era,

Already been done, almost 90 with 6024 at Port Talbot, 60009 already mentioned I believe a ton would have been done but someone of prominence on the footplate almost fouled his trousers so the brakes were applied, many believe 46229 did the ton descending from Shap to Carlisle.

I personally experienced a very fine run with 46229 from Sheffield to Marylebone where some sustained very high speed running was done and a train that was very late due to silly off train niggles was only 15 late into Marylebone.

Before the younger guys start with you shouldn't............... this was in BR days when if a train was late you tried to make it up if you could.

How many on here remember the plods up to Church Stretton losing time hand over fist and then arriving at Hereford right time.

I'm not advocating anything here that decision is up to the parties concerned.

I think Tyseley have it right though, I was on the Red Rose and that was a very fine lively tour fast running and smart hill climbing.

Why do they put the Hall on the front? to slow it down, just kidding Bob.


Cheers Dave