The 90+ Steam Hall of Fame

Yes that is true of course and that's why the 103 mph with 35028 on 12th December 1966 at MP 38 (Fleet)was the best of my tons with steam. The load was 375 tons and the ihp worked out at 2850, one of the highest recorded with a MN. 34102 at Fleet (MP 35) was probably the second best though with a lighter load the ihp works out at 2,350. Even the very lightly loaded runs with 35003 produced 2550 ihp. At very high speeds the ihp figure is a bit misleading as the power needed to move the engine becomes disproportionate. Its also interesting that only one of my tons was down Roundwood. I suspect that this was due to line curvature and Wallers Ash tunnel making signal sighting difficult. The one with 34013 at Hurstbourne was a bit freak as that night the load was reduced to 6 coaches due to an earlier problem with the stock.

Good to have a decent debate as opposed to some of the inane stuff elsewhere on NP but where are the old timers from the LM and GN main limes?

Don

 

I seem to recall some well publicised runs by Jubilees in the Flitwick area 90+ mph seemed to be fairly regular.
Trains Illustrated I think.

On a personal hunch I feel the Jubilees would have been much better engines with properly proportioned Kylchap exhausts. The one fitted to 45684 worked well by all accounts but was ill proportioned for the loco as it threw fire if driven hard.
The effect of multiple jets on a blast pipe had been known for years as welding jimmy's onto the blast pipes of poor steaming engines was not unusual, not sure if it occurred on the big railway though.

Cheer Dave

 

Yes it was the 2051 arrival

Don

 

Jimmys were well known on the big railway. Officially forbidden but many a shed foreman and inspector would turn a blind eye.

 

Indeed not. The stroke/driving wheel diameter ratio of the MN and the A4 is practically the same. Some engineers were rather more concerned about piston speeds than others, ditto rotational speeds. Some were so confident with their motion design and balancing that a 32" stroke on 5' 10" drivers was suitable for 100mph+ running if required. In the UK piston stroke would be less, 26" on 5' 8" drivers on the LNE but 30" on the GW but the designs concerned had no 100mph commitment.

Tractive effort is only one part of the equation. The LNE C1 Atlantic produces much the same maximum power output as one of the companies' K4 moguls. The C1 can handle remarkably heavy trains, they could deputise for the Pacfics in the early days, but it lacks the tractive effort for good acceleration. The Mogul is designed for hard work at lower speeds, on heavy gradients and has no real high speed commitment and so produces maximum power at a lower speed range. The adhesion and T.E. built in to the design allow better starting and initial acceleration. For high speed work you need evaporation and a cylinder/valve design to make use of it, further you need an exhaust system fit to drive the first and offering minimum back pressure to the second. The Atlantic has the larger boiler, the K4 boiler is more than adequate for the work it was designed for

The V2 in original form could undoubtably achieve 90mph. The double Kylchap fitted members of the class were 100mph+ machines. It was and remains a true mixed traffic design, the Bulleids were not so.

 

The other point about a loco that is at least notionally expected to take freight trains is braking capacity. In the BR(S) variant of the power classification, a WC/BB was 7P5FA, the A giving a measure of braking capacity. As in "A is for Awful"...

Tom

 

Good point there concerning brakes. Strange that the Bulleids with their more complicated clasp braking system were frequently found to be so poor in this regard. Not quite so much of a problem if you can hang off a rake of coaches or fitted vehicles but on several hundred tons of unfitted mineral wagons, no thanks. I'd take 53809, far removed from Bulleid's ideas, but at least the brakes will stop a train, fitted or not.

 

Which raises the question, if "A is for awful" what is "FA" for?

Foxy

 

Much more likely I reckon. IMO a mixed traffic design isn't really intended for heavy unfitted freights - that's the job for an 8F and such - and whilst MT locos will have found themselves on such workings, I'd argue that wasn't what they were designed for.

 

Yes Al you don't realise it but the section down Roundwood at least as far as Winchester Junction has quite a lot of curves. Its obvious from the footplate but not from the train, except Micheldever which is nowadays as 100 mph feels too fast there . The other thing that worried drivers using full regulator and 20%+ cut off was Wallers Ash tunnel and the risk of blow backs as I know from experience one night going at 95 mph (see later post).

Don

 

As I recall the designation "Mixed Traffic" was used at the time of construction to enable locomotive construction to get round WWII locomotive building restrictions whereby "Mixed Traffic" locomotives were favoured over other types ? In post WWII service I believe that one of the major traffics was perishable foodstuffs from Southampton Docks and the "mixed traffic" BB/WCs found plenty of work on these. In fairness Bulleid had also expected the locos to work ALL services on branch lines in Devon and Cornwall as they would be the "standard" locomotive whereby the high cost of branch line working would be covered by the savings from standardisation and the lower costs of main line running - hence their designation as "mixed traffic"

 

Similarly, they weren't intended for top flight express passenger duties either, although Black Fives - and V2s - found themselves there on a regular basis.

The mixed traffic / heavy freight combo was most common around the Ayreshire coalfields, where the trains were invariably hauled by Horwich Crabs. They seemed to have been popular enough with the crews on these duties, though.

 

The wartime MT ruse was to enable the MNs to be built. The WC/BB classes didn't enter production until after the war.

 

And now for 1966:

14.01.1966-34026-95 at Winchester Jct on 1730 down from footplate. Dave Parsons
(410 tons full regulator and 22 % cut off using 200 lbs of steam. From pws at Steventon))
16.02.1966-34008-91- at Winchester Jct-2235 down Gordon Porter
18.02.1966-34037-90-at Winchester Jct on 2235 down from footplate. Gordon Porter
(375 tons full regulator 35% cut off. Just 160 lbs of steam. Blow back in WA tunnel-slipped at 88 mph-from pws at Steventon)
19.02.1966-34101-90 at Winchfield up Mails Gordon Porter
04.03.1966-34047-93 at Shawford on 0830 down Gordon Hooper
08.03.1966-34057-90 at Winchester Jct on 1730 down Gordon Porter
01.04.1966-34021-97 at Winchester Jct on 1730 down Les Cummings.
(with 410 tons from pws at Waltham full reg and 22% cut off 195 lbs of steam)
09.05.1966-34006-95 at MP 35(Fleet) on the 1926 Basingstoke up from footplate. Dave Parsons
(255 tons full reg and about 20% cut off with 190 lbs of steam)
16.06.1966-34009-93 at Fleet (MP 35) and 91 at Brookwood. Les Cummings. Sub 20 Bas-Wok
05.09.1966-34026-93 at Brookwood on 1932 Basingstoke up. Dente
14.09.1966-34057-90 at Fleet on 1504 Basingstoke up. Dave Parsond
21.09.1966-34013-90 at Pirbright Jct and 90 at Hersham (very rare) on 1932 Basingstoke up. Payne
11.11.1066-34013 (again) -90 at Hersham on 0711 Woking up. Les Cummings
14.11.1966-35007-93 at Winchfield (MP38), 90 at Sturt Lane and 94 at Pirbright Jct on the 1914 Soton up Gordon Porter
16.11.1966. 35007-98 at Winchfield (MP 38) and 90 at Pirbright on 1914 Soton. Gordon Porter
12.12. 1966-35028-103 at Winchfield (MP 38) and 94 at Hersham on 1914 up. Gordon Porter. Soton-Waterloo net 70 mins.
29.12.1966-34057-93 at Winchfield Stn on 1932 Basingstoke up. Jim Evans (19/14 Bas-Woking)

Notice the pattern with certain engines.

Next time the last year 1967.

Hope you are keeping up Al

Don

 

I remember one or two very fast runs on the SR mainline hauled by Standard 5s. I haven't any details as dear mother disposed of my notebooks. Does anyone have any information about their performances?