Railfan.net Home Railfan Photos ABPR Archives Staff Safari Photos Railfan Links

Railfan.net Forums Railfan.net Forums Railfan.net Forums
Welcome, Guest. Please Sign In or Register. Aug 22nd, 2017, 8:29pm
Categories •  FastIndex •  LongIndex •  Help •  Search •  Members  •  Sign In •  Register


Mallard is fastest steam loco?
   Railfan.net Web Forums
   Locomotives and Rolling Stock
   Steam Locomotives
(Moderators: Henry, CHESSIEMIKE)
   Mallard is fastest steam loco?
« Previous topic | Next topic »
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6  ReplyReply     EMail TopicEMail Topic   PrintPrint
   Author  Topic: Mallard is fastest steam loco?  (Read 3337 times)
Virginian
Railfan
Posts: 129
Re: Mallard is fastest steam loco?
 
« Reply #40 on: Dec 13th, 2006, 12:01pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

Aside from Mallard's record, all else is conjecture.  My abiding displeasure with Mallard is that she was damaged in the attempt, which to my mind should invalidate the result.  There is no who's second.  I do believe Guiness is a fair, if not impartial, arbiter.  The half a century late heralded exploits of the German 05 seem more to me like a lost footnote from "Mein Kampf".  National ego takes a hand.  All but too much detail.
Therefore we are all free to indulge in speculation that our favorite was fastest.  It is fun.  I do wonder what that German multi-V cylindered monster might have been capable of.  I know Pennsy's gear would run that fast, having seen the front engine spin fantastically.  I truly believe the N&W J was the 'best' engine, but with her 70" drivers she was never built to even impersonate a racehorse.  The Niagara had the horsepower, as did the Santa Fe 2900s, but I don't know...
I remain in the Hiawatha camp, all these years after the last of those magnificent beasts are long gone to the torch, and even their railroad is gone.  Perhaps Longfellow influenced me.  "Fleet of foot was Hiawatha..."


Logged
George_Harris
Historian
Posts: 3819
Re: Mallard is fastest steam loco?
 
« Reply #41 on: Dec 15th, 2006, 1:10am »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

I had actually not completed my thought in my second previous post:
 
So far, most recent attempts at true high speed records had more qualifiers than a dog has fleas. Straight and level with a normal train or with a minimum weight train has never been part of any of them. Even the so far as I know still current record held by the French of 515.3 km/h (=320.2 mph) was made by a modified TGV. Among the modifications were larger diameter wheels, over voltage in the catenary and higher tension in the wire, a shortened train, and probably others. The speed was real, however and none of the modifications were things that could not have become standard if need be. What was interesting about that if you see the speed profile is that they could have probably gone faster if they had not reached the point at which they had to start slowing to be back down below 300 km/h by the end of the section allowing higher speed. The train and track were both undamaged after the run, and in fact the highest speed run was made after several runs approaching that speed. Waht was apparent to the knowdgable but uninvolved onlooker was that use of ballasted track becomes unwise at very high speeds. From any perspective but straight ahead of the train, the train was all but invisible inside a cloud of dust and small rocks from the ballast.
 
Quite a few speed runs were short bursts of speed made on or at the end of fairly long straight down grade sections where gravity helped the engine along. As has already been said, since the Mallard was damaged by its high speed run, it really should not be allowed, as unless we are talking something like the original marathon run where the runner died after making his run, it is usually considered that a record maker should survive the attempt.
 
I would say that if we could do a rational computer simulation - highly subjective due to the likelihood of garbage in - garbage out considerations - we would find that the contest would be among a few of the various American contenders for the simple reason that in general American engines were built more ruggedly and with larger safety factors for all components than was and is still the norm in Europe. I would say that we have sufficient evidence that the Pennsy engine exceeded 125 mph on more than one occasion and with little more than normal servicing was able to go right out again. And, remember these speeds were made in normal service with scheduled trains. If we got it out with all maintenance completely up to date on engine and coaches and a set of good streamlined coaches, it would probably be able to leave 140 mph in the dust. Same for the big Santa Fe engines: These engines were made for sustained high speed running on engine districts that were too long to fit inside the borders of any single European country except Russia.
 
I think we can look at Guiness and their high speed steam engine records and just smile somewhat indulgently at the pretentions involved.
 
George


« Last Edit: Dec 30th, 2006, 9:40am by George_Harris » Logged
Virginian
Railfan
Posts: 129
Re: Mallard is fastest steam loco?
 
« Reply #42 on: Dec 30th, 2006, 8:37am »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

 Having been involved in a couple of major disputes with European equipment purchased by American companies, I can vouch for the difference in perspective.  If the Europeans say someting is rated at 100 tons per hour, that means that within a specific set of circumstances, it will produce 100 tons per hour.  If it does 85 MANY times they just figure "that's good enough", don't want to push the equipment.  If it is rated for 100, most Americans fully expect it to be good for at least 120, and 100 is the minimum acceptable under any circumstances.   Back when America actually manufactured things, that was the way they made things.  If both sides actually wanted to make 120, the Americans would buy an American unit rated around 110, and the Europeans would buy a European unit rated around 130, and they would both do 120 fine and be about the same size, and cost about the same.  The problem came when Americans started looking to buy anywhere based on ratings AND cost.  Whoa! the European 100 or 110 unit was CHEAPER  !   But then, gosh darn it it would not do 120.  Horrors.  Fortunately (unfortunately?), the Oriental manufactures were more familiar with US expectations, and they had a vastly cheaper labor pool, and so they shot our manufacturing through our profit supremely conscious hearts.
  Some of that remains.  The speed limits are 55 to 75 miles per hour, but most cars will easily top 100 and some will crack 140, but I don't know if that has anything to do with it or not considering Ferrari and Mercedes, et al.


Logged
George_Harris
Historian
Posts: 3819
Re: Mallard is fastest steam loco?
 
« Reply #43 on: Dec 30th, 2006, 9:47am »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

on Dec 30th, 2006, 8:37am, Virginian wrote:       (Click here for original message)
Having been involved in a couple of major disputes with European equipment purchased by American companies, I can vouch for the difference in perspective. If the Europeans say someting is rated at 100 tons per hour, that means that within a specific set of circumstances, it will produce 100 tons per hour. If it does 85 MANY times they just figure "that's good enough", don't want to push the equipment. If it is rated for 100, most Americans fully expect it to be good for at least 120, and 100 is the minimum acceptable under any circumstances.

Ah, some one else has had experience up close and personal with the way Europeans do things.  
 
There railroad system is like this in all aspects.  When they say a freight car is a "100 tonne car", they mean gross, but don't really get any axle load over 25 tonnes.  (Of course they do get a little out of a metric ton being 2204.6 pounds.)  When we say a car is a 100 ton car, we mean a net capacity of 200,000 pounds, and under most circumstances, you can load it to 220,000 pounds without any problems.  I could go on at length, but I think that is enough to give the idea.


Logged
ClydeDET
Historian
View Profile  

Posts: 4793
Re: Mallard is fastest steam loco?
 
« Reply #44 on: Jan 4th, 2007, 12:46pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

I'm guessing here - I'm a railfan, a former lawyer (free at last! free at last! THANK GOD, I'm FREE AT LAST!), and not an engineer. Though I had some to do with engineers and engineering during my lawyering days.
 
So - admission of guessing having been made - I suggest that if you took a Milwaukee A, applied the sort of careful counter-balancing the N&W did on the Js (remember - they made 100mph with 70" drivers without destroying either the locomotives or the track), applied roller bearings with pressure lube on EVERY axle and to the rods, put in  the sort of poppet valves the Santa Fe tried on a few engiens right at the end, plus using the best front-ends and fire-boxes to ikprove both steam distribution and steam-making (yes, I know, IF, IF, IF), I suspect you could have an engine running reliably and safely at  110-120 with 8-10 light-weight cars (we are talking about just about any of the streamliner cars vinatge 1940 on, though I'd probably have a bias toward Budd, myself)with roller-bearing, outside swing-hanger trucks in regular service. Have to ahve good, well-maintined track, of course. And have a top speed, without hurting anything or risking passengers, of c.140-150 for somewhat limited distances (say not more than 25 or 30 miles at taht speed without starting to have things suggest "You're pushing, boy").  
 
i don't think you could build a steam engine running with rod-connection and reciprocating cylinders that could, under any reasonable circumstance of engine and track, run faster than c.150 except for short bursts, and yo'd probably be looking at breaking things  when you did it.
 
In terms of locomotives actually in service that could run the fastest, not sure. Milwaukee's Class A Atlantics; Santa Fe 3751s and 3400 4-6-4s; Pennsy T-1s, probably; UP 800-class FEFs; would all be contenders and it would ahve made an interesting race meeting, especailly with Mallard trying to keep up...


Logged
Virginian
Railfan
Posts: 129
Re: Mallard is fastest steam loco?
 
« Reply #45 on: Jan 9th, 2007, 1:59pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

Ahem, N&W's J made 110 with a 10 car train, and worn tires.  On loan to the Pennsy, during tests.  During the same period N&W's people said they were unable to make a good locomotive out of the T-1.
I am addressing only the 125 MPH "record".  The engineer's tales say the Milwaukee F-7s were faster than the As.  Freer steamers.  The Santa Fe 2900s were likewise supposed to be the best of their locos, and certainly had the best boilers.  I have heard little about the UP 800s other than that they were excellent engines capable of "over 100".  Pennsy's T-1s theoretically could do it, NYC's Niagara's produced the hard data to say they could do it.
To go for 150, I haven't really gotten into it.  Since steam valving efficiency goes down as speed goes up, why not a jackshaft with a speed increasing geartrain to the wheels?  How about a 2 cycle V4, V6, or V8, or flat 6, or whatever, double ended crankshaft steam engine, mounted transversely in front of the boiler?  The possibilities are limitless.


Logged
George_Harris
Historian
Posts: 3819
Re: Mallard is fastest steam loco?
 
« Reply #46 on: Jan 10th, 2007, 11:02pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

Apparently a good 1940's modern steam locomotive iwith 70 inch drivers was quite capable of doing 100 mph without stress.  The NC&St.L J's were also reputed to have done that.  It has been said that on numerous occasions they ran several miles at 100 mph between Nashville to Myfreesboro TN, making  it start to stop in 30 minutes, which is 32 miles with the Nashville end having a little over a mile in junctions and station approach at 15 mph.  By the way, the official speed limit on the NC&St.L for passenger trains was 60 mph.  
 
So, if we consider this a reasonably do-able speed with a 70 inch drivered engine, then an 80 inch drivered engine could be doing 114 mph at the same speed for reciprocating and rotating parts and that an engine built like the N&W J but with 80 inch drivers could unquestionably do 125 mph.


Logged
RDG_4-8-4
Former Member
Re: Mallard is fastest steam loco?
 
« Reply #47 on: Jan 12th, 2007, 10:00am »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify   Remove

on Jan 10th, 2007, 11:02pm, George_Harris wrote:       (Click here for original message)
Apparently a good 1940's modern steam locomotive iwith 70 inch drivers was quite capable of doing 100 mph without stress. The NC&St.L J's were also reputed to have done that. It has been said that on numerous occasions they ran several miles at 100 mph between Nashville to Myfreesboro TN, making it start to stop in 30 minutes, which is 32 miles with the Nashville end having a little over a mile in junctions and station approach at 15 mph. By the way, the official speed limit on the NC&St.L for passenger trains was 60 mph.
 
So, if we consider this a reasonably do-able speed with a 70 inch drivered engine, then an 80 inch drivered engine could be doing 114 mph at the same speed for reciprocating and rotating parts and that an engine built like the N&W J but with 80 inch drivers could unquestionably do 125 mph.

 
The Reading T-1's (70" drivers) used to do 90 MPH on the New York Line with the overnight B&O Fast Mail.  The last 10 in particular had roller bearings on ALL axles, while the 20 others did not have them on the drivers.  A conductor I used to know (RIP) who worked the extra board at that time told me that.


Logged
ClydeDET
Historian
View Profile  

Posts: 4793
Re: Mallard is fastest steam loco?
 
« Reply #48 on: Jan 12th, 2007, 6:07pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

Couple of points - one is roller bearings (which I think are GOOD things, do NOT take this as any sort of shot at roller bearings as widely applied as possible) are not required for high speed. Tehy are required, as a practical matter, for sustained high speed and reduced maintenance costs.
 
Another is that the T-1 operating tests on the C&O (wasn't aware the N&W tested them) do NOT sustain a claim the T-1 couldn't be made into a good engine - though they establish beyond peradventure that the engines were over-loaded on a couple of the stretches, and that if they'd had boosters, the problems wouldn't have occurred.
 
I have limited confidence in the desireablility of boosters in service, but no question about their ability to help get a heavy train started without slipping drivers, and helping slug up a stiff grade. Must have been some reason the Frisco put them on at least some of the 4500s (another engine that could have run a LOT faster than the timetable authorized)...


Logged
Virginian
Railfan
Posts: 129
Re: Mallard is fastest steam loco?
 
« Reply #49 on: Jan 15th, 2007, 8:51am »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

Weren't C&O's T-1 tests on their own T-1s as opposed to Pennsy's?  Pennsy owned some N&W stock, and that explained their engine swap, but I was unaware C&O tested anything Pennsy.  C&O and N&W were not the friendliest of competitors.  C&O's T-1 was an outstanding freight locomotive as far as I am aware.

Logged
52_2006

Posts: 68
Re: Mallard is fastest steam loco?
 
« Reply #50 on: Jan 15th, 2007, 3:05pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

on Dec 13th, 2006, 12:01pm, Virginian wrote:       (Click here for original message)
Aside from Mallard's record, all else is conjecture.  My abiding displeasure with Mallard is that she was damaged in the attempt, which to my mind should invalidate the result.  There is no who's second.  I do believe Guiness is a fair, if not impartial, arbiter.  The half a century late heralded exploits of the German 05 seem more to me like a lost footnote from "Mein Kampf".  National ego takes a hand.  All but too much detail.
Therefore we are all free to indulge in speculation that our favorite was fastest.  It is fun.  I do wonder what that German multi-V cylindered monster might have been capable of.  I know Pennsy's gear would run that fast, having seen the front engine spin fantastically.  I truly believe the N&W J was the 'best' engine, but with her 70" drivers she was never built to even impersonate a racehorse.  The Niagara had the horsepower, as did the Santa Fe 2900s, but I don't know...
I remain in the Hiawatha camp, all these years after the last of those magnificent beasts are long gone to the torch, and even their railroad is gone.  Perhaps Longfellow influenced me.  "Fleet of foot was Hiawatha..."

 
"Mein Kampf"? There were some more intelligent opinions in this thread, specially for me. Sad to see that there are peoples which have no other image about that than this, which did not learned from history. I can't be proud of that what happened 60 years ago, but it is as far as 60 years away, not my thing. Your opinion would imply that the guy who did the website I linked in the first article in this thread would support the Germans because they are Germans? Look the website again, that is an Englishman, I don't think that he has to do somethin with German nationalsozialism or German proudness. He should be proud of the Mallard, but he isn't because he saw some facts which say something different, and he looked also beside the borders, found american exemplares of locomotives which potentially could be as powerfull as Mallard and 05. I expected more of this aspect instead of some stupid arguments about nationalism . This guy is an Englishman who compared the facts between the two locomotives and their runs, and he found a conclusiuon which does not agree with Guiness book of records. Look again this website and find your own opinion beside any points of views with nationality touch. This is a railway forum.


Logged

kondensierte Gre,

Stefan

http://www.kondenslok.de

52_2006

Posts: 68
Re: Mallard is fastest steam loco?
 
« Reply #51 on: Jan 15th, 2007, 3:18pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

on Dec 30th, 2006, 9:47am, George_Harris wrote:       (Click here for original message)

Ah, some one else has had experience up close and personal with the way Europeans do things.  
 
There railroad system is like this in all aspects.  When they say a freight car is a "100 tonne car", they mean gross, but don't really get any axle load over 25 tonnes.  (Of course they do get a little out of a metric ton being 2204.6 pounds.)  When we say a car is a 100 ton car, we mean a net capacity of 200,000 pounds, and under most circumstances, you can load it to 220,000 pounds without any problems.  I could go on at length, but I think that is enough to give the idea.

 
We call that a safety reserve. We design for 120, but we specify for 100 in the datasheets to secure that no one will load 130 tons, because that woulc crack down the thing. 110 still would be ok and that is already 10% overspec, but there is still a 10% reserve left. That is the secret of quality. This thing will last for centuries.
 
That is how 05 passed the run of 200 km/h without damage. See again the protocols of her run, they reached 200, the engine still was accelerating, but they closed the valve gear. That means, 05 even could have done a bit more, but it reached 200, the target was reached, one was happy.


« Last Edit: Jan 15th, 2007, 3:27pm by 52_2006 » Logged

kondensierte Gre,

Stefan

http://www.kondenslok.de

George_Harris
Historian
Posts: 3819
Re: Mallard is fastest steam loco?
 
« Reply #52 on: Jan 15th, 2007, 11:44pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

on Jan 15th, 2007, 3:18pm, 52_2006 wrote:       (Click here for original message)
. . .  05 passed the run of 200 km/h without damage. See again the protocols of her run, they reached 200, the engine still was accelerating, but they closed the valve gear. That means, 05 even could have done a bit more, but it reached 200, the target was reached, one was happy.

The reason this thread exists is because so far as I know, that is one thing that was never done in the US by any railroad:   Set up a verifiable test and get out there and run a steam engine to a high target speed.  Therefor all we are left with is speculation.  In general American engines were built above all for durability.  There were several that were built for high speed and long runs, but even these were never taken out for a high speed test drive, at least not officially.  Most of the really high speed runs never made any record books for the simple reason that they involved rule violatations in the process of operating scheduled trains when they occured.  Generally these were passed off on a "no harm no foul" basis by front line and sometimes higher management, but none the less, detailed record keeping of a speed run that involved exceedance of the nominal track speed limit by 50% or more was considered inadvisable by all involved.  A lot of these known 100 mph plus speed occured on railroad lines with maximum passenger train speed limits of 80 mph or less, in the case of NC&St.L, for example, even as low as 60 mph.  Even the Pennsylvania's electrified line between New York and Washington carried a maximum speed of 80 mph.  Only CMSt.P&P, AT&SF, and ICRR had sections of track that permitted 100 mph according to the timetable.  (Can anybody expand on that list, maybe ACL?)
 
We sometimes get the feeling that these carefully orchestrated speed runs involved a national need to "prove something" we simply did not see the need to do in the US.  Also, with all railroad companies being private enterprises, the emphasis was not on beating what was going on in some other country, but coming out ahead in the local competition.  The high speed race between Chicago and Minneapolis had nothing to do with beating something that happened in Europe or even Canada, but in who was coming out ahead in the three way race between CB&Q, C&NW, and CMStP&P.
 
I still feel that there are several American engines, such as the big ATSF and Milwuaukee engines, SP's daylights, and possibly even the 70 inch drivered N&W, NC&St.L, and SLSF 4-8-4's, could have left the Mallard and the 05 both in the dust on a level playing field.   (Thanks Clyde for reminding me about the Frisco 4500's.  Some beautiful engines I never saw that spent their lives on a rather curvey and hilly railroad that gave them no place to really stretch their legs.)
 
Saying the SP daylights:  During the American Freedom Train operation, this engine was supposed have run off several miles on the Southern main out of Alexandria Virginia at a clocked by mileposts 93 mph, but since this line no longer had the ATS in place and this being in the days of more strict regulation it was not widely published as it was a Federal violation to exceed 79.9 mph.
 
George


Logged
ClydeDET
Historian
View Profile  

Posts: 4793
Re: Mallard is fastest steam loco?
 
« Reply #53 on: Jan 16th, 2007, 12:15pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

Someone put out the test results of a C&O test of a Pennsy (Actually, I think TWO PEnnsy) T-1 4-4-4-4 types, done c. 1946 or '47. Decision was that the locomotives weren't well suited (or any better suited, perhaps, than the C&O locomotives then assigned to the route) to the service they tested in. C&O Historical Quarterly, I think it was, published the report a few years ago.
 
GEorge, Dallas Age of Steam Museum at Fair Park (and I sure wish they could get some additional space and maybe some sort of shop space - turntable and roundhouse would REALLY be nice) has a Frisco 4500 (4501, i think) on display. It looks sort of weathered from many years outside, but it was just out of complete over-haul at Springfield and donated from "Stored serviceable" status. Booster-equipped (I'm ashamed, can't recall if it has the boodster on the trailing truck or on the lead tender truck - I think maybe on the Tender), and a big, powerful locomotive. Sure would be nioce to get it returned to running status and operated, but I don't see it ahppen.
 
Thinking of Age of Steam, Dallas nearly wound up losing the 4-8-8-4 to a movie plan that failed - but nearly went far enough to get the engine moved to a shop and restoration to service started - problem was, if that had happened after the financing failed instead of before - well, I doubt they'd have been able to put it back together and retiurned it to dispaly....


Logged
Redwards
Chaser
Posts: 53
Re: Mallard is fastest steam loco?
 
« Reply #54 on: Jan 16th, 2007, 4:55pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

Quote:
Someone put out the test results of a C&O test of a Pennsy (Actually, I think TWO PEnnsy) T-1 4-4-4-4 types, done c. 1946 or '47. Decision was that the locomotives weren't well suited (or any better suited, perhaps, than the C&O locomotives then assigned to the route) to the service they tested in. C&O Historical Quarterly, I think it was, published the report a few years ago.

 
The article is online if anybody is interested:
 
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3943/is_200505/ai_n13642634
 
--Reed


Logged
CHESSIEMIKE
Moderator
Historian
View Profile  

Posts: 4302
Re: Mallard is fastest steam loco?
 
« Reply #55 on: Jan 17th, 2007, 7:01am »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

on Jan 16th, 2007, 12:15pm, ClydeDET wrote:       (Click here for original message)
George, Dallas Age of Steam Museum at Fair Park (and I sure wish they could get some additional space and maybe some sort of shop space - turntable and roundhouse would REALLY be nice) has a Frisco 4500 (4501, i think) on display. It looks sort of weathered from many years outside, but it was just out of complete over-haul at Springfield and donated from "Stored serviceable" status. Booster-equipped (I'm ashamed, can't recall if it has the boodster on the trailing truck or on the lead tender truck - I think maybe on the Tender), and a big, powerful locomotive. Sure would be nioce to get it returned to running status and operated, but I don't see it ahppen.
 
Thinking of Age of Steam, Dallas nearly wound up losing the 4-8-8-4 to a movie plan that failed - but nearly went far enough to get the engine moved to a shop and restoration to service started - problem was, if that had happened after the financing failed instead of before - well, I doubt they'd have been able to put it back together and retiurned it to dispaly....
It is #4501 in Dallas, here is a link:
http://www.steamlocomotive.info/vlocomotive.cfm?Display=1160
 
They did move the 4-8-8-4, but only in place at the museum.
CHESSIEMIKE


Logged


Remember that a lone amateur built the Ark. A large group of professionals built the Titanic.
ClydeDET
Historian
View Profile  

Posts: 4793
Re: Mallard is fastest steam loco?
 
« Reply #56 on: Jan 17th, 2007, 10:56am »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

Suppose you know that the piston and valve rods on the 4-8-8-4 were cut, which makes rebuild even more difficult than would be the case with most display engines. Possible, but harder and more expensive.
 
BAck to fastest - got to looking at teh big Santa Fe engines, and conclude that the way to go, if you REALLY want a big, fast locomotive, would be to take one of the Santa Fe Northerns, probably a 3776-class and go all roller-bearing (including crank-pins like unto 3784 and 3785), 310 psi like the 5001 and 5011 class 2-10-4s, lightweight rods (omnce again like 3784, and 3785 as delivered), and add Franlkin Rotary cam poppet valves as tried in the 1948 rebuild and improvement of 3752, plus put in the best front end and fire-box you can find. Add careful counter-balancing as used on the N&W Js, and with those 80" wheels, you ought to have a real runner - almost certainly capable of 120 mph in regualr service given good track.
 
And - do the same thing to the 3460-class Hudsons, with their 84" drivers, and watch the trains roll accross KAnsas...


Logged
feltonhill
Chaser
View Profile  

Posts: 76
Re: Mallard is fastest steam loco?
 
« Reply #57 on: Jan 17th, 2007, 2:21pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

Several of the 2900's incorporated the recommended improvements and  developed slightly higher DB pull and DBHP than the 3776 class,4,590 vs. 4,550 IIRC. (See Lloyd Stagner's article in Feb 1987 Trains and S. Kip Farrington's book, Santa Fe's Big 3).

Logged
ClydeDET
Historian
View Profile  

Posts: 4793
Re: Mallard is fastest steam loco?
 
« Reply #58 on: Jan 17th, 2007, 3:36pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

Fully improved 2900s SHOULD have developed greater drawbar pull (and TE) tahn 3776s - after all they weighed around 510,000 pounds instead of just short of 495,000. An extra 15,000 pounds, much of it on the drivers, will help, all other thigs being essentially equal.
 
In service, the 2900s had an advantage (other than weight) over the 3765s and 3776s since they had carbon steel boilers instead of the lighter and stronger - but apparently more apt to develop cracks - nickel-steel used in the earlier classes.  It is noted in IRON HORSES OF THE SANTA FE TRAIL that a number of the 3765s and 3776s had to have their nickel-steel boiles replaced.
 
Wonder what would have happened if Chico had followed through on the proposal to re-boiler five of the 3751s with the ALCO boilers off the Ys, esepcailly if teh selected locos had also gotten lightweight rods, roller bearings and Franklin rotary cam poppet valves...


Logged
Virginian
Railfan
Posts: 129
Re: Mallard is fastest steam loco?
 
« Reply #59 on: Jan 17th, 2007, 9:20pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

I read the article on the C&O's testing of the T-1s.  Thanks a bunch for posting that.  In tone it seems to put forth some rather broad pallatives for every thing C&O found lacking.  It was not slippery, but Penny's guidelines for operation recommended reduced throttle settings at all lower speeds.  (What the heck !?)  It addresses that the max. recorded drawbar horsepower was not what it should have been, and makes a great deal of mileage out of C&O not correcting any numbers for acceleration, but then rather lightly glosses over the fact that when corrections are applied the HP went down, not up.  Interestingly I read an N&W paper some time ago that went on about how correcting for acceleration wasn't a big deal, because F=MA, and A (acceleration) was so small in most of these cases that even if the Mass was big the resultt wasn't such a big deal.  But, N&W did usually correct for acceleration.
The fact that C&O did test the T-1s was very interesting and fascinating.  I would wager many in C&O knew they didn't want Pennsy T-1s before one ever turned a wheel in those tests.  It was unusual, and it was NOT a C&O design.
Also, the article reinforces my opinion that the C&Os last group of 4-8-4s were some of the finest engines ever built, and they got very little well deserved good press.  It is speculation rather than data, but I never saw ANY steam locos in excursion service accelerate like the N&W J and C&O 614 when they threw the coal to them.


Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6  ReplyReply     EMail TopicEMail Topic   PrintPrint

« Previous topic | Next topic »