Alternative High Speed Steam?

Silver Link and Coronation both seem to have set their records with service trains (Albeit specially run ones) so no dynamometer cars, although the LNER one slightly ruins the carefully streamlined train on Mallard's run.

With regards to singles, were they especially free running or was it that the lack of adhesion meant they were at the head of short trains? The increase in speeds often lead to increases in train weights.

Rolling resistance tends to not especially increase with speed (with regards to cars at least).

It definitely seems that train length has a significant effect on aerodynamic drag (there was a figure showing a 47 and a few mk1s was better aerodynamically than an 8 car HST). The older locomotives with inside cylinders look more aerodynamically clean than later locomotives with outside cylinders and valve gear (Is there a figure for the increase in drag when the valances were removed from the A4s?). Maybe even a futher reduction if the complete train is not completely filling the loading gauge, when viewed head on.

 

Ahrons made some comments about loco speeds in the late 19th Century ("British Steam Rly Loco 1825-1925" p.312):

"In 1884 Rous-Marten recorded a long series of timings on British railways ... In this he stated that the ordinary limit of attainable velocity was somewhere about 75 mph. It was not commonly attained and seldom exceeded, but rates of 70 to 73 mph downhill were reached by many trains. He registered 76 mph with a GWR 8ft broad-gauge single, a GNR 8ft Strirling single and a MR 7ft coupled engine."

Ahrons goes on to state that he himself also registered speeds of 75-76 mph in the mid 1880s, plus an exceptional 81 mph in 1887 by a broad gauge 8ft single down Wellington bank. Maximum speeds increased towards the end of the century - he quotes 90 mph but doesn't say which loco types were involved, referring instead to articles in "The Engineer" by Rous-Marten. Ahrons own timings appear to have been slightly slower.... "The writer repeatedly noted that engines which in 1886-88 never exceeded 73 mph were in 1898-1900 attaining maxima of 80-82 mph in ordinary service."

Ahrons attributed the speed increases to the combined effects of harder tires, harder rails and the reduced rolling resistance of bogie carriages.

Obviously, with timings dependent upon stop-watch readings between mileposts or other landmarks, there was a large margin for error and individual timings need to be regarded with caution. But I think there is enough evidence that express engines were certainly approaching if not reaching 90 mph by 1900. Singles, with lower internal friction than coupled engines, were likely to have been the fastest.

The one timing that stands apart from the general pattern is actually City of Truro's 102 mph. That was certainly much faster than the speeds around 90 mph being claimed for other express engines of the period, and would not be exceeded in Britain for another 30 years.

 

Where is this hard evidence then? I have read a number of secondary accounts and lots of claims but evidence is really lacking.

We need primary evidence to prove it. Until that appears, I am not convinced.

But if we follow the logic you've just given me, the singles were more likely to be doing 90mph, but weren't. So how could Truro?

I think I prefer the authenticated/unauthenticated line of thinking tbh. There's many unauthenticated claims of high speeds, but few authenticated ones.

 

I think @bluetrain is broadly agreeing with you. A loco doing 102mph in 1902 is very much an outlier relative to all other loco performances of the time. Whereas I'd suggest one doing 90mph isn't.

While I take your point about wanting a level of verification, 90mph in 1902 doesn't particularly strain credibility given the known performance characteristics of contemporary locos. 100mph does, even down a fearsome gradient.

Tom

 

I understand Rous Marten had also recorded speeds of 95.7 and 97.8 with the GWR large wheel inside cylinder 4-4-0s, so it wasn't that much of an outlier. The thing is that while its possible to analyse Rous Marten's numbers and find it possible, if unlikely, that the actual maximum was fractionally under 100mph, if one is to deny the train getting anywhere near that speed then its necessary to believe that both Rous-Marten and the postal worker on the train who also recorded a speed in the 99-100 region fabricated their data, presumably independently. And if Rous Marten was fabricating the data as some kind of hoax or fraud then he was playing a remarkably long game. Also if the data was fabricated why on earth didn't he fabricate one extra reading which would have made a speed in excess of 100mph certain?

 

Tom has put things more clearly than I did!

If Ahrons and Rous-Marten can state, based on a range of timings, that locos in Britain were achieving around 75mph in the mid-1880s and around 90mph by the turn of the century, then I am content to accept that as fact. Whereas COT's 102mph appears a one-off for the period, which to my mind leaves a higher degree of uncertainty.

@Jimc has referred to further high-speed timings of GWR 4-4-0s in the mid-90s mph. Does anyone know of any other British engine types in the pre-1914 period that were recorded in the 90-100 mph range? I believe that GNR Atlantics were recorded above 90 mph, but I think that was in the LNER era.

 

Didn't an LYR Atlantic supposedly get to around the 95-100 mph range sometime in the early 1900s?

 

Reportedly on the Liverpool - Southport line, not one where such a high speed was likely.

 

Well, there's the notorious Lady of Lyons anecdote of course. Whilst not timed in any meaningful way, unless you choose to disbelieve the people involved completely there can be little doubt they thrashed the locomotive up to at least that sort of region. But that was without any kind of train, so hardly counts.

 

There was also the unsubstantiated claim of over 100mph from the USA at that time by the New York Central 4-4-0 number 999

 

There was the run of the down Pullman Limited from Victoria to Brighton on 26th July 1903, where B4 no.70 Holyrood attained 90 at Horley, without the aid of any significant gradient.
There's also this less well- known occasion:
"Queen Victoria died on 22nd January 1901. On Friday 1st February, her coffin was taken on board the Royal Yacht, Victoria and Albert for the passage across the Solent to the Royal Clarence Yard, Gosport. On the day of her funeral, Saturday 2nd February, Victoria station, was closed to the public and ordinary traffic between 9 a.m. and 11 p.m. in preparation for receiving the royal train, the advertisement and placards were removed and parts of the station structure cleaned up. The journey was to begin on the L.S.W.R. with the train being attached to a Brighton locomotive at Fareham.
Operating difficulties caused the carriages of King Edward’s L.B.S.C.R. train to be reversed into the platform and, according to the prepared seating plan; the coaches were the wrong way around. This was much to the annoyance of the royal and distinguished mourners, including the Kaiser
There was a delay on changing the engines at Fareham with Brighton ‘B4 class 4-4-0 No. 54 Empress’, coming on to the train. The pilot engine, also a ‘B4, No. 53 Sidar’, was sent off in advance. By the time the funeral train was ready a further two minutes had been lost
On the footplate of the train engine were L.B.S.C.R. Locomotive Superintendent, R.J. Billinton, with his Outdoor Locomotive Superintendent, J. Richardson, Driver Walter Cooper and Fireman F.W. Way. Richardson told Driver Cooper that for heaven’s sake he was to make up some time at all cost as the new King would be livid if kept waiting at Victoria
The old Queen had always insisted that no train in which she travelled should ever exceed 40 m.p.h. Driver Cooper did as instructed and the Queen’s remains found themselves travelling at 80 m.p.h. on the flat between Havant and Ford. To Victoria, a top speed of 92 m.p.h. was then reached down Holmwood bank. With such speeds, quite unbecoming for the ultimate Victorian funeral, the train reached Victoria station two minutes early."...

 

This thing? This is being claimed reached 92mph?

How did they measure 92mph? Where is the log? Where is the evidence we can examine and analyse?

Yes, unsubstantiated.

Why does it need to be fabrication? It can be as simple as not particularly accurate readings on what was perhaps a faster than usual train? Where are their logs? Can we analyse them further?

 

More interestingly what if there hadn't been a TSR at Grantham on that fateful day & Mallard hit the bottom of Stoke Bank at whatever the normal limit through Grantham was?

 

This thing? This is being claimed reached 92mph?

How did they measure 92mph? Where is the log? Where is the evidence we can examine and analyse?[/QUOTE]
Where indeed? A lot can happen over 122 years.
Just because, at least as far as we know, there is no log, doesn't mean to say that one never existed, however rudimentary. It was an extremely high profile occasion with doubtless more than a few anxious company officials aboard, including Messrs Billinton and Richardson on the footplate. We can safely presume that stopwatches/ mileposts would have been the means of timing, a dynamometer car not only being unavailable, but probably a little superfluous for a Monarch's final journey

 

I feel like we need some consistency in approach for these speed records, because frankly I think some of these claimed speeds are starting to get more than a bit dubious for the classes involved, IMO.

 

Duddington the driver was prepared on Mallard's run to reach 130 miles per hour - oral information volunteered by his grandson. Wether that would have been achieved without the TSR must be unknowable.

I'm much indebted for the graph showing the speed through Grantham - I had no idea it was under 30 mph - the unforeseen and unexpected permanent way slack ought to have queered any hope of a speed record. However, from the best analysis I know of City of Truro's run it seems clear that Rous Martin's published log was amended so as not to show how permanent speed restrictions were exceeded - eg actually 60 mph rather than 30 mph through Exeter Station - with obvious consequences for the times either side. We do have the dynometer trace from Mallards run, which is an exceptional survival. If the equivilant from the Flamande speed recorder on the locomotive or any record of what it showed exist, they were sealed to check on the driver and only opened on shed, that would be a more reliable record than the dynometer record which if the press was going to be involved apears to have been open to "interpretation" or just pushing the pen over on the paper. (With the French overall statutory speed limit of 75mph,though the Flamande would show speeds above 90 mph it must have become questionable how exactly accurate they were at say 115 mph.)

 

I feel any claims about speeds achieved need to include what was being pulled, simply giving weights isn't enough. total length is especially important.

 

If I was considering a locomotive purely for maximum speed, without considering any other operational disadvantages, I think I would go for a turbine drive.

 

i don't agree with that argument at all.

records of any kind , be it mechanical or human endeavour are unlikely events . otherwise they would be relatively commonplace and we wouldn't argue about them .
for instance , it was very unlikely that Roger Bannister could achieve a 4 min. mile , and without the assistance of Chris Brasher he would not have done it ... but he did . such is the nature of records . circumstances can sometimes conspire , or be influenced to produce an unlikely event .

does anyone know the velocity and direction of the wind when CoT made her dash down Wellington? .a brisk Westerly would have been worth quite a few horses to a 4-4-0 running at it's limit . enough to make a nonsense of theoretical power output, a gust could be enough to explain her brief acceleration which has been attributed to a short 1/4 mile post.

when talking about performance at the limit of what is possible little things do make a difference.

 

Whilst I agree with Simon that some records are not really justified by the available evidence, I also think that some exceptional performances have been achieved. But what has limited these performances?
Would a higher boiler pressure, improved steam circuit and favourable downhill track, wind assisted with suitable lightweight, streamlined stock enable a "Single" to crack 100mph or faster? We will never know but it is a fascinating "what if"!