Steam speed records including City of Truro and Mallard

Thanks and sorry for going around in circles.

Looking at Tom Ingall's video again, it is interesting that the A1 team identified three possible locations to achieve 100mph. The first was on the downgrade from the NE region summit of the line around MP242 where they achieved 97 before the restriction for the curve at Aycliffe came into play. The second was at Croft on the downgrade from Darlington, possibly the best chance starting at 90 but ruled out on the night by being routed through the platform road at Darlington. The third was after the TSR at Thirsk and taking advantage of the down slope from Pilmoor to Raskelf. Somewhere along there, around Tollerton, they did it.

So, could I ask, given what you know about dhb numbers for different loco types and what your model says, what is Tornado's maximum on the level with some given load?And what is Mallard's? I'm beginning to think perhaps 100mph has never been achieved by steam in the UK without the bonus from gravity.

 

I think the fastest existing steam recording Darlington York ( as per the RPS archive )
was made on the 24/6/1958 on the 17.05 Newcastle KX.
Loco A4 60033
Load 7/219/235
Driver Bill Hoole
Fireman W.Pittinghill

From the Darlington start passing times ( minutes seconded were ) and mph were as follows

Thirsk. 18-30. 90/91
Sassay 21-18. 92
Pilmoor 22-30. 93
Rostolf. 24-14. 95
Alne. 25-36. 97
Benningboro. 29-12 93
York. 35-00. stop

AFAIK the highest authenticated speed ( by that I mean MPs and passing points ) noted with
Driver Hoole was a somewhat pedantic 107.5mph at Arlesey on 5/11/57 with 60003 and 309/325 tons.
A.J.Boston was on the train and an Inspector on the footplate. There was an average of 101 mph from
passing Hitchin to slowing for the Orford curves.

The late Peter Semmens quoted an 117mph but the supporting data is weak.

The A4s pre WWII were monitored via their Flamman recorders wrt a 90mph maximum but there
are logs showing 103 mph and 105 mph in the Arlesey region on either the Silver Jubilee or the
Coronation. A4s were very capable of travelling in excess of 100mph on favourable gradients
without apparently undue mechanical stress but on the.level the HP was not enough,

If Tornado managed 100/101 on the Level then taking R = 20.0 lbs/ton for the consist as per
BR derived figures and using the quadratic R = 7 + 0,05V + o.oo111 V squared for Tornado
resistance the IHP at 100 mph on the level with the 242 ton train is c. 2780.
that is 1290 for the consist and 1490 for the loco and tender i.e. 2800 IHP
The maximum for an A1 is of the order of 3300 IHP but that was measured at 70-80 mph.
In other words I am not surprised, if as I read at the time the “100 was reached on the level”,
it was somewhat of a struggle. I suspect I Bill Hoole’s 97 with the A4 was close to the realistically
achieved making allowance for the saving with the ‘Bugatti’ shape and trading this off against
the A1’s 21% larger grate area.

With 200-300 ton trains to reach ( as opposed to after a steep descent ) 100mph on the Level
was difficult.

On the Swindon PDN billiard table AFAIRemember the highest speed with ‘6 on’ recorded was
95mph. ( It takes more HP than a Castle can manage to go from 95-100 and I think a King.

Level competitions, both directions, forget 120 mph. With four coaches perhaps 110 mph
Likely competitors A4, MN, Duchess and perhaps A1.

Michael Rowe , thoughts on a fag packet.

 

When,how,where and by whom and for how long was that measured?
Boiler and blastpipe is basicly the same as V2 tested on stationary plant and road by Ell and his men.
And sustained max was 1990 IHp.
Two firemen and screened coal

 

Was that a double chimney/Kylchap V2? I ask because the Peppercorn A1 was so fitted.

 

You are rigth.
TheV2 tested in 53 was single chimney and improved imensely by mr Ell.
How much more evaporation will a double Kylchap enable?
On 9F it could be upped from 29000lbs to 31000 or not enough to retrofit the singles already delivered.
A V2 with double chimney can make maybe 2100 ihp instead of the 1990 achieved with the single version.

 

I hate to argue with a couple of Aussies on here but my understanding is that the long straight (all 297 miles of it) on the Trans may be dead straight on a horizontal plain but vertically it is far from flat. It was built to follow the lie of what is generally considered to be a vast low lying but undulating plain and as such is up and down all over the place. I suspect that you would be hard put to find a single mile in that 297 mile stretch that is dead "level". It would definately make the York to Northallerton racing stretch look as flat as a billard table in contrast.

Peter

 

It is difficult to make a single equation to calculate max sustained speed for a given train length and mass,knowing max IHP.
But we can try to calculate IHP demand at three velocities and then plot them.

Someone gifted enough who makes a programe and put it free for all to use somewhere,will be a gift to humanity.
Calculations are done in SI units.
IHP estimates are valid for constant speeds at 35,40 and 45 mps
100 mph is 44.7 mps

We need total train length in meters.
Train mass in kg
Air density(default value 1.23 kg per cubicmeter)
Gradient in meter per km.(default 0)
Wind correction ca 2meter level over rail either leading or following(default 0)

Train length for Tornado 102mph run was 190m.
Multiplied by 0.13(UK loading gauge)we get ca 24.7
A plate of 24.7 square meters moved perpendicular to movement will cause same aerodynamic loss as train at same air density.
This flat plate area times dynamic pressure is a force(N).

Dynamic pressure is 0.5 *(density of air(kg per m**3))*(speed of train(mps) in air**2)

This force multiplied by speed relative to ground(mps) is the nessecary indicated air resistance power(W)

 

V2
Boiler pressure. 220 psi
Heating area 2431 sq.ft
Superheater 680 sq. ft
Grate 41.25 sq.ft
Cylinders 3 off 18.5” x 26”

A1
Boilerpressure 250psi
Heating area 2461 sq.ft
Superheater 897.7 sq.ft
Grate area 50 sq.ft
Cylinders 3 off 19 x 26 “”

There is higher saturation temp for the A1, a higher degree of superheat, a larger grate,
larger cylinders and a double chimney

2009: during this year there were some all out ‘attacks’ on the climb to Stoke Summit
( to my generation the controls were advanced to positions I would designate “cruelty
to engines “)

loco 60163 Tornado
23/3/2009 510 ton train 71 mph at summit EDHP in the range 2050-2150
10/5/2009 505 tons 71 mph at Stoke EDHP 2120 - 2220.

These equivalent drawbar horse power figures were derived from a careful
evaluation of MP readings from MPs 92 to 100. They were presented at a
RPS meeting in York. At that time I was still uncertain re the quadratic equation
previously derived by others by ‘graph fitting’ but I now have less concern.

These runs were made within the permitted max cut off allowed at speed i.e. 45 %.

On 20/9/2009 the late Mike Nottley rode on the footplate. Permission had been
given to increase beyond 45%.
Load 495 tons
Controls were RFO and 45% from Essendine BP 235 psi
50% from MP 98
and 53% at MP 99 , BP 230 psi.
This hammering produced an acceleration. EDHP 2350- 2450.

At 70 mph using the quadratic gives 710 HP for Tornado.( 166.1 tons ).
I.e the three occasions suggest IHPs in the range.
2760- 2860 IHP
2830- 2930 IHP
3060-3160. IHP
The latter figure close to the maximum, BP had dropped from 235 to 230.
With 245 in the boiler 3300.

This is not the only example I believe of 60163 worked ‘flat out’ but one
I followed closely.

Michael Rowe

ps I do not have the V2 test figures to hand but my memory says RFO and 35%;
I don’t think Messrs Ell and Cook would have entertained RFO 53% and 70mph

 

Was EDHP estimated by a LNER fan or was there a calibrated dynamometer between tender and train?
Calculating sustained IHP from calculated EDHP becomes a matter of faith fast.
The drop in boiler pressure per mile is interesting considering the Mallard124.5 and Tornado102 runs.
The V2 test can be linked via letter 361 in this thread
The number of revs and cut off You mention ( 70mph and 53% ) Tornado needed to evaporated double what a V2 did flat out 1953.
If true no wonder there were boiler maintenance problems.
On the other hand Tornado steam was not delivered through conjugation.
Tornado has steel firebox with welded in tubes and that was one of the reasons Chapelon locomotives were so powerfull.

The method of estimating EDPH from visual sigthings of mileposts ,adding an estimate of locomotive air-resistance-power and then getting 3300 IHP is debatable.
At least it is different from mine at continious 2200-2300 IHP.
I really do not care for Tornados max continious IHP,but have used my IHP (V2,Tornado)-assumptions to tune and polish my fablous simple model for Mallards final 124.5 mph speed before break/brake-down.
It will be neccesary to know how much steam came from instant coal burning and from mortgaging boiler and how fast this happens.

If we asume that mr Couriers 2017 analysis curve is valid we can maybe distingquish how much power went to keep speed and how much to acceleration at each quartermile post
Division of power between steady state and acceleration must be wastly different between MP100 to 97 and from MP95 to 92.5.
And between 91.5 and 90.
The power for acceleration can be calculated easily with high credibility from train mass and speed.
Gift from gravity as well
The power for maintaining instant status can be estimated with my model and sum shall not behave silly.
Is reliable information on boiler pressure and cut off during Mallards last miles freely available to mere mortals?

 

Rather than manufacturing data ( your three points ) why not plot existing data eg ex Rugby records within the
NRM, Swindon, BTC Bulletins, 1948 Exchanges etc. It is from this data that various individuals have created
graphical data and from this by ‘curve fitting’ deduced quadratic equations. These equations when checked back
against a set of data ( whether derived on a Test plant or on the road ) correlate well.

The data ( i.e. logs ) I used from 2009 had the benefit of not only Mile Post times but the use of GPS. A
technology that might have avoided years of postulation/bickering as to what speed Mallard actually reached.

There is a horse power calculator ( EDHP for steam/ loco hauled) on the Railway Performance Society
website which over more than a decade has been found to work well. railperf.org.uk

I still prefer to work ‘long hand ‘ from work done against gravity, work done overcoming resistance,
loss/gain of kinetic energy etc,, for prime mover ( eg loco ) and consist. This way I think ( I may be
kidding myself ) I might pick out erroneous data.

I regret to say IMHO I think you are in danger of ending up a blind alley.

Michael Rowe

 

My main interest in Tornado was to using IHP values from the 102 mph run to to tune,test and prove my easy train IHP estimator.
Data is not good enough for deciding if it was a steady state , say 2200IHP affair, or a violent rape of boiler heat content ,yielding some more.


If only dyno crew had logged steam consumption using the pressure drop through the two blast nozzles.
05002 did for its single nozzle.
Mr Ell used same method post WW2 .

Estimator will instead be tested against values from the last few miles of the 124.5mph Mallard run.
IHP cannot have exceed the V2 test plan value of 1990IHP.

The acceleration demand for IHP can be calculated from mass of train and speed and they do not depend on my assumptions.Neither do gift from gravity

The resistance IHP from my numerical model plus IHP from accelerations etc shall not exceed 1990 IHP anywhere between MP 95.5 and 90
.

 

It would take a brave (and/or foolish) person to claim that a PRR T1 (or the prototype S1) could not exceed the 125/6 mph attained by Mallard. No, there are no authenticated records of either doing so but two engineers from the Franklin Railway Supply Company independently offered the following story, without prompting, to the late Bill Withuhn, author, qualified steam driver and a Curator of Transport at the Smithsonian.

The T1s were troubled by fracturing poppet valves which occurred regardless of the material used in their manufacture. Fracture could have been caused by over-speeding since the T1s were very prone to slipping. The valve breakages seemed to occur randomly, but they were concentrated on the high speed line from Crestline to Fort Worth where the authorised maximum speed was 100 mph. Julius Kirchhof, chief engineer at Franklin, decided to send a “spy” – a Franklin staffer to ride trains anonymously for a month on the Fort Wayne Division and to clock their actual speeds.

By telephone and letter reports, the staffer verified the not-infrequent slipping at speed, as well as numerous milepost timings of 100 mph and above. Some of his reports seemed unbelievable, including some instances of speeds up to 140 mph. When the staffer returned to Baltimore, he met with the group involved and presented his findings. He gave his log and watch to Kirchhof for verification. Once or twice per week in the recorded month, when a train was ten cars or less in length and running behind schedule, the engineer had made up time by exceeding 125 mph. Twice that month, with short trains of six or seven cars, speed had reached 135 to 142 mph, as clocked over several miles. Careful inspection of logged entries and watch, as well as the consistency of successive time intervals between mileposts on all the timed runs, attested to the veracity of the log.

The T1s had a power output of 6,500 ihp and because of their poppet valves, they did not suffer from the same fall-off in power that afflicted piston valve locomotives with increasing speed. The prototype S1, on the other hand, had piston valves and therefore did not suffer from breaking poppet valves. The S1 had a power output of 7,200 ihp (13% more powerful than a Big Boy with a boiler almost as large) and was designed to run at 100 mph with 1,200 ton trains. On a test run, it reached 100.97 mph with a train of 1,350 tons.

From Wikipedia: “An article "Riding the Gargantua of the Rails"[22] in the Dec 1941 Popular Mechanics Magazine cites a speed recorded by assistant road foreman Charlie Wappes of the Fort Wayne Division during the S1's test runs at 133.4 miles per hour (214.7 km/h) with 12 heavyweight passenger cars in its back. There are other stories of the S1 reaching or exceeding 140 miles per hour (230 km/h). In the German trade press and literature from 1945, there was a report of a record run of the S1, citing railroad officials of Interstate Commerce Commission that a speed of 141.2 miles per hour (227.2 km/h) was reached when the engine was trying to make up time for a delayed westbound train, the Trail Blazer

Its high-speed capability was such that many have claimed that the S1 exceeded on multiple occasions the 126 mph (203 km/h) record steam locomotive speed set in 1938 by the British LNER locomotive 4468 Mallard. The engine was claimed to have exceeded 152 mph (245 km/h) on the Fort Wayne-Chicago run, as it was reported that the PRR received a fine for the feat. “



PRR S1 at the New York World's Fair in 1939

 

That's also true of many other locos including some in the UK as well as other countries. The point is if any of them did (including the ones in your anecdotes), it doesn't seem to have been documented or scrutinised in any meaningful way.

 

Claimed is not the same as authenticated and the plural of anecdote is not data.

 

True, but equally there is no proof that S1s did not exceed 130 mph. All concerned would probably have been happy not to confirm that the speed limit for the line had been exceeded by a large margin.

 

That's also true of every steam locomotive ever built No point mentioning it.

 

It is worth mentioning when there is some evidence that high speeds were achieved, as with the S1s.

 

Was that run with 60140 a Bill Hoole classic?

 

https://www.a1steam.com/Portals/0/TCC 69 _WEB.pdf

Dick Turner---see above pp20/21 by Phil Champion.