A Modern 100

As far as I am aware the Silver Link run, (page 147 of CJ Allen's wonderful " Locomotive Practice and Performance" book), has never been disputed and has never been anywhere near equalled in the UK. It stands out as a quite wonderful peak of sustained steam locomotive fast running.

So far as SR speeds, my comment re downhill speeds on the ACE was more related to 90 mph being reached. I think 100 mph on that train was very, very rare. That ignores the stories of incredibly fast running by original MNs down though Axminster, which, due to the complete lack of any supporting detail, have now largely disappeared into the mists of time.

As I progress my 100 mph research it will be interesting to see when 100 mph was sustained for any distance. On my footplate run with 35003 we were at or over 100 mph for circa 4 miles. And we averaged 100 mph for approaching 8 miles, (would need some time to estimate the exact distance). And without checking the detail I think we were very close to that again two days later with the same loco.

Some way short of Silver Links effort. Although as I have said many times, if Fred Burridge had extended the loco at any time during that short sprint I certainly feel we could have reached three figures somewhat earlier and gone past 110 mph. That wonderful loco was clearly taking it all in her stride and never, for even a second, gave the feeling of being stressed or extended. I guess that is why Fred virtually repeated the running with her two days later. What the 2 axle 75 mph limit parcels vans on the rear of the train thought about it all has never been reported! LOL!

 

The relationship between the increased energy required to deaccelerate a vehicle against a higher initial velocity is a quadratic equation not a linear one, the increase is not proportional.

Take this basic equation:

Kinetic energy = ½ (mass) x (velocity)2

(the "2" means to the power of 2 or "Squared")

Kinetic energy is a term that describes the energy a vehicle has due to its mass and speed. Its formula is simple, yet tells a great deal. This shows that the kinetic energy of the vehicle increases as the square of the velocity. This means that if speed is doubled, the energy increases four times. Stopping distance is related to the square of velocity therefore if you increase the maximum velocity by 100% (50 to 100 mph) you need to increase the brake force by 400% to stop a train of the same mass in the same stopping distance, or in other words you need to allow four times the stopping distance if applying the same braking force.

On the GWR Cheltham Flyer services it was calculated that the signal spacings between the distant and home signals was insufficent to halt a 100mph train and so a method of double blocking had to be used.

 

See http://railways.national-preservati...18-201-at-99.7-mph-today.?p=416245#post416245 Re German 18 201's fast run today. Dave Sprackland, whom I first timed steam with in 1964 recorded a max of 99.7 mph.

Whatever the outcome of any detailed analysis that must now be taking place with detailed stopwatch times etc, it is something that needs to be borne in mind if a 100 mph steam attempt is ever permitted again in the UK. No point going through what would inevitably be a tortuous road to get agreement for 100 mph, only to fall short by a fraction.

 

Agreed. Perhaps they will get Mallard up and running and allow a 100mph run as a 'one-off' to celebrate the 100th anniversary of it breaking the record in 2038 ? I don't suppose anyone would want to break its current record, but 100mph a hundred years later has a certain ring to it. Given the will I suspect anything is possible.

 

Taking the emotion out of it... If it's capable, proven and safe at 100mph...why ban it just because it's a steam locomotive ?.... Sounds a lot like the days when preserved steam was banned under electric wires and third rail.

I suspect the real threat would be from lineside trespassers.

It's reported, in secret, that some preserved engines have exceeded the speed limit by good margin in the days before otmr, so it's known that some can, have and owners wouldn't object.

If there's a market for it, it's safe, proven and capable what grounds would network rail have to object, after all dbs have a precedent already as today demonstrated in Germany.

Is there a real fear of steam, or just a 1930's hangover of the 100mph..after all anything doing 100mph in the 1930's would somewhat scary by the standards of that day, just as riding Rocket at 30 mph was in 1829...and it isn't limited to 10mph and a flagman ahead of it today, similarly, if someone proposed a modern replica of Rocket doing 40mph would there be a major fuss?

Today 100mph is mundane, it's the fear of 350 mph by rail now which excites people...wouldn't you be scared of a tgv ride at that speed ?

 

Trouble is steam never ran regularly at 100 mph in the UK. Indeed not in Europe.

When one of my peers did look at the number of authentic 100 mph steam runs the number came out at around 70 times. From 1938 to 1967.

I will start on the detail of a full count soon. I will probably include all fully authentic runs with surving log. Plus a seconday list of "possibles".

Indeed even 90 mph running was not that regular. There's an interesting log in CJ Allen's book that shows a Paddington to Swindon start to stop in 60 mins and 1 second. Way under the very fast schedule of the Cheltenham Flyer.

Maximum speed? 86½ mph.

Indicating that the Cheltenham Flyer schedule of 65 minutes, (up direction), could have been kept with max speed below 80 mph. And the up direction had the easier gradient profile. If one dares use the word "gradient" with that wonderfully engineered railway.

The above indicates to me that UK steam 100mph running is/was far from mundane.

 

Which suggests a max speed of 100mph shouldnt be too much of an issue.
If the locomotive can achieve, but not maintain this speed, then why should this be an issue.
The reality is steam would climb above the 75mph limit (which was 60mph in the 1980s), to something more realistic (mid-80's).

The important aspect is the raising of the overall average speed .. which combined with waterstops today is around 30mph, 40mph between waterstops.

Dont forget that 100mph is not sustainable anyway... back in the 1960's there were water troughs to keep momentum... anything more than 15-20 mins of 90-100mph speeds would see you breaking for the next waterstop...though the average speed may start climbing to 60mph between water stops... and pathing problems around that local EMU service behind you start to go away.

 

Just so as not to get inaccurate numbers floating around. The 70 (ish) authentic 100s in the UK was something I was told third handish in a conversation a good few years ago. I've never attempted to follow it up, so I don't know if it was authentic tons, or authentics plus claims not authenticated but under investigation. Or something along those lines.

I'm in touch at present with someone who has more information on this and the number of authentic UK steam tons could be a fair bit less than that. Maybe 40 could be nearer the mark.

Watch this space. I'll get going with the detail before too long.

PS. Whatever the number, would be nice to add one from the 21st Century! LOL!

 

Even in the early days of main line running , engines exceeding the 60mph limit were well known, so there is no real issue with raising the upper limit to 90mph, but in practice, unless you have a water carrier very few locos will be able to make use of higher speed limits as you are limited by the need for water stops

i should imagine that stock can run at those speeds when deisel or electric hauled so its hardly going to impact on extra work for the owners of the railtour stock so , as long as the engine is suitable , and can be coupled up to one of the water carriers , ie an A4 , A3 , or A1, could use Bitterns water carrier , and maybe the one at tysley could be made available then, would it be possible to run trials with cellected engines, to see how viable and cost effective it would be to path some runs at 90mph

 

So let's assume for a moment that 100mph gets permission. Since we're all fairly clear it can be practicable.

The TOC's would probably like the fact that steam would cause fewer pathing problems as it would better match the service trains for speed.

The punters and promoters would like it because speed is generally sexy, and more speed is more sexy. We're already well into the framework where timers and enthusiasts talk up a fast run as a good run.

Assume for the moment, too, that the rate of 'on the road' failure doesn't increase.

We'd still end up with the problem that elderly locomotives - many already taking a regular thrashing with 12 or 13 on - get a harder working, with higher temperature fluctuation stresses. And this would inevitably become the norm, because it wouldn't be so easy to sell out a 70mph run when the ton was available elsewhere.

Which leaves the 'new builds'. And Tornado's boiler problems are well-documented already. It's arguable that more sustained very fast running could serve to iron out some of the extreme temperature fluctuations inherent in the current fast/slow/stop in a loop/ fast again working. But it'd be a brave operator/ owner who'd risk being the first to try it.

 

So where would a good location be for this ?
Departing London Victoria and going like a bat out of hell from Clapham is a nonstarter, pathing issues today mean most go via Barnes, even with higher speed, unless it had the fastline, it'd end up trundling behind a local service due to slow acceleration (Unless a diesel was permitted to give traction acceleration) this is probably true for most of London's terminals.

Routes with big hills wont lend themselves to it (well maybe in 1 direction).. so thats most of Scotland, and WCML north of Lancaster out, S&C is 75mph isnt it ?
WCML seems quite a busy place generally..

so would this be the ECML north of Peterborough and GWML after Reading perhaps ? any other suggestions ?

 

Great Eastern Main Line?

Regards,

Dan

 

Perhaps its the load that is the question. I have been interested to note that the recent much vaunted run of DB 02.0201 running at near 100 mph consisted of 3 coaches + 1 electric loco with raised pantograph ( for ETS ? ) whilst the recent exploits of the Tyseley Castles have been with loads of 9 coaches only. Whilst it is fair to say that the 8P locomotives could well handle 13 coaches at 100 mph the aftermath of Mallard's exploits raises the question of "at what cost ?"; the balanced example of Tyseley with its reduced load and more reliable locomotive stud does suggest that their experience is one to study before promulgating even a one-off "ton up".
We know that 100 mph was done in the past and that engines were often flogged to achieve it but let's acknowledge the cost in terms of wear and tear and accept that the cost in today's volunteer-led environment makes even a one-off too costly a venture to undertake. I would rather continue to see a locomotive at work well within its limits rather than suffer extremely costly damage in a vain attempt to satisfy those who have little appreciation of the true costs involved - and even less willingness to contribute to any consequent damage that did occur.

 

We are talking about 100 here and not 126 so mention of Mallard's hot bearing is pointless. 60007's 112 was trouble free as were most not, if not all of the post war 100s. As for flogging the locos, look at 2509's 1935 run, the A4 was cruising at the ton for miles on end and without any ill effects.

 

To help not have to work the loco too hard, a heavy train 100 mph will need a descent of somewhere like Stoke Bank or Roundwood bank on the Southern. Although a Bulleid Light pacific did reach 92 mph on near level track after Fleet with 12 cars starting from Basingstoke on 29th June 1967. From memory I do not recall any excessive noise from the loco.

And my two footplate experiences of fast runs on the Basingstoke-Woking section show the capability of a MN or WC/BB.

The easy way 35003 reached 106 mph, albeit with a lightweight train, but no steep bank to descend. Never used full throttle and once on the move cut off was 20% or a litle more. Run virtually repeated two days later with an 105 mph max.

Perhaps more telling was the run with 34101 on ten cars on 19th February 1966. Loco would not steam at all well and there was a lot of pressure lost between the boiler and the cylinders, (as shown by the steam chest psi). So to reach 90 mph just after Winchfield with ten on, with cut off at 25 % and with boiler pressure reducing steadily from below full pressure at the Basingstoke start to 140 psi at the maximum speed showed a loco with enormous capability in reserve if it had had the boiler washout etc it was very much in need of. Actual steam chest pressure at 90 mph was just 105 psi falling to 100 psi. Indicating the final acceleration to 90 was done on 25% cut off and the equiv of around half throttle or even slightly less if the loco had been in top condition.

So over working a loco should not be an issue for a 100 mph attempt in the right location. It's other factors like all the reciprocating parts and loco crew experience etc that come into play.

And much as I would like to see 35028 as the loco, (reached 103/104 mph on near level around Fleet track on an up fast Southampoton - Waterloo train in 1966), I suspect the new built Tornado will be the choice on a descent of Stoke Bank. Even if it has to be at 04.00 in the morning in June to get a clear road long enough to be sure.

But we are on Nat Pres, so we are all speculating! And about something I doubt will ever happen.

Leaving German 18 201 and her 102 mph run on 5th May 2002 as the only undisbuted and without any shadow of doubt steam loco 100 mph in the 21st Century..............

(That last comment must surely get hackles up enough for some to put some umphh into a UK 100 mph attempt! LOl!)

 

Not quite irrelevant as the operating environment is different.

Even as late as 1959 drivers like Bill Hoole ( on 60007) had the experience to listen to their locomotive and understand what each noise signifies and - more importantly - whether the loco could tolerate further strain from higher speed but knowing that there was depot staff, locomotive depots and workshops facilities where any "damage" could quickly be made good and the loco returned to traffic.

It is my considered opinion that the expertise of today's drivers, the availability and cost of spares and the reliance on part time volunteers rather than availability of skilled full time staff makes the potential ton-up express a dream that will always remain that. This is not to denigrate those involved in main line running but simply to acknowledge that the skills of steam locomanship are being lost through natural causes quicker than the younger replacements can garner the skills that the daily involvement of their predecessors imbued in them.

I would further venture that the lack of experience is compounded by crews whose steam experience may be once per week on a specific main line duty compared to those whose daily experience ran through the range from shunting turns through freight workings to passenger turns where a vast range of experiences helped tune the ear to the language of a steam locomotive. I would not argue that modern day steam crews do not hear the language but question simply how much of it they understand - and can respond to.

 

Good post Fred.

Although a lot of the SR high speed steam runs were with younger drivers, they were still working quite long days on the footplate. And for six days a week. Virtually all on Bulleid pacifics. Knowledge and experience built up quite quickly in those circumstances.