92212

Many thanks indeed for that. It was a few years earlier than I recall. A heavy train as well.

Are you able to recall the other 9F 90mph? I just can't trace it.

 

As an aside to that 90 mph with a 2-10-0 freight loco.

A year or two ago I was helping a German author I know with some info about the 9Fs. I told him that one once reached 90 mph, (possibly twice!), or 145 km/hr. I don't think he ever believed me for a second: the German 2-10-0 freight locos all being strictly limited to 50 mph! Even when hauling passenger trains as they did from time to time.

But that does pick up something that has always interested me. German steam locos always had, (and still have), their maximum permitted speed on a plate in front of the driver. In the UK in steam days no such loco limits existed to any significant extent. What governed the overall maximum speed was usually the line speed limit.

Before getting back to 9F's. I have photo I have taken on the footplate of German 18 201, which shows the maximum permitted speed of 180 km/h. 112.5 mph. And I also have a photo taken by my German author friend of the speedo reading 180 km/h in the 1990s when the loco was on test after overhaul! My best with that loco was the 5th May 2002 run when it reached 102 mph. Still the only 21st Century ton behind steam. Sad to say.

Now back to 9Fs before I get moderated for going off topic!

 

Yes, well I remember 84 on 15th Nov 1980 not long after leaving Tyseley.

The impression I have is that 92220 achieved over 90 quite a few times on the Capitals united express during it's career. And of course that was definitely after 1958.

There's quite a lot of fuss made about the small wheels, but they are not that small. Only 19% smaller than 6'2" wheels. So by that token a 9F would be doing the same revs at 60 mph as a 6'2" engine at 75. With 6'2" engines doing over 100, obviously high speeds with a 9F is not such a big deal as many people make out. Where there was a discernable problem, was with lubrication. It wasn't as good as it should have been and 9 F's were definitely heavy on cylinder and valve wear for that reason.

92220 was a target owing to the flangeless driving axle back in the '80's. In those days John Peck was based at The NRM on behalf of the friends, and being familiar with all the issues was able to successfully argue for it to continue on the main line. There isn't anyone in that position now.

The problem is not the raised check rails. It is the fact that on tight curves the flangeless wheelset does often derail. Whilst they alwayas rerail themselves, the result is often a lot of broken chairs which the Pway people don't like. Incidentally, the WD 2-10-0's had a wider flangeless wheel and did not suffer from the same problem.

 

I must dig out the old betamax vids I took on the footplate and support coach on some of those trips....

and find time to transfer to a more robust format...

Ian

 

The Saggin' Dragon is probably correct. I cannot find the minimum radius curve for a Stanier 5, but the Standard 5 was designed for a minimum radius curve of 6 chains, whereas the WD 2-10-0 was designed for a minimum radius of curve of 4.5 chains.
This was achieved with the centre driver flangeless, and those of the wheels either side having thin flanges. as mentioned above, and also wider wheel treads.
There is also written comment that Riddles designed the 2-10-0 with a frame that would flex slightly, thereby in effect creating a somewhat "articulated" locomotive.
Colonel Rogers recalls the first of the WD 2-10-0's, newly-built, was sent to St Rollox shed, which had in its layout some particularly sharp curves. A track ganger who happened to be there tried to prevent the 2-10-0 going through these sharp curves, but in fact it went through without even the usual "grind" of a 2-8-0.

Going back to the 9F's, I too thought that it was the NR standards for higher check rails on points and crossings that was the problem for the 9F.

46118

 

Most mechanical structures are designed to flex, as if they did not they would snap. Objects such as bridges, ships and aircraft wings have a threshold limit for deflection designed into them, as otherwise oscillations would make them snap.

Here's a thought, would a 9F be allowed onto the mainline, if it was rebuilt as the mikado standard that never left the drawing board (with flanges altered accodringly)?

 

If only life were as simple - or planned - as that!

45428 suffered a cracked frame, and it was decided that, as the boiler would have to be lifted to repair the crack, a 10 year overhaul would be undertaken. A mixture of the boiler probably being worse when dismantled than expected, and a change by insurance companies to continued patching of old boilers, lead to the boiler overhaul being one of the most extensive yet undertaken in preservation. It wasn't a choice between 45428 and 3672. I suspect that checking the dates will show work started on 45428 before 3672 was stopped.

The situation with 3672 was always that it was mechanically worn out; unfortunately, the length of time of storage has also increased the level of work expected to be needed to the boiler.

While a WD may have been allowed around tighter curves than a Black Five, that doesn't mean the wear on an WD would be less on the same sharp curve than it would be on a Black Five. Remember the WDs were not built to last - they were meant to be "disposalable" for the war effort (although North British probably had other ideas!). The 9Fs are much more refined, yet still, from comments above, needing further refinement!

 

The run with 92184 is well-known. I have not found any other recorded runs of 90 with a 9F. They are certainly none detailed in the RCTS or Atkins books on the class. This does not mean to say it didn't happen but I would have expected any such runs to have received some mention in the RCTS book, at least. It was perhaps unfortunate that Gerald Fiennes was on the 1.10 Edinburgh-Kings Cross on that 16th August 1958 and took up the question of 9F's running at that speed with the powers that be, resulting in a nominal 60 mph limit on the Eastern Region.

 

Are you sure? Most Stanier classes, pacifics included, had TWO minimum radii of curve quoted: 6 chains (or 4 1/2 chains dead slow). This was certainly the case for the Stanier Crabs, which had a longer coupled wheelbase, and I suspect also for the ten-coupled designs.

 

I remember reading a book some years ago about 9Fs running a high speeds. It was quoted in the book that when a 9f is running above 80mph the pistons and valve gears are moving faster than Mallards pistons and valve gears were when Mallard broke the world steam record. Is this correct?

 

It's unusual for me to take issue with you, Impala, but I'm going to at least comment on the above. A 9F's coupled wheels at 90 are doing 8.4 rev/sec. The only accepted instance of a British loco's wheels revolving at a higher rotation is that of Mallard, which at 126 mph was doing 8.82 rev/sec. A Merchant at 105 mph is doing 7.95 rev/sec and for a 6'-2" wheel to equal 8.4 rev/sec, it would be doing 111 mph. People may claim that these speeds have been achieved in the last days of Southen steam but, to my knowledge they don't appear in the record books.
Apart from the very real problems with piston and valve ring wear, I believe that the main worry was that the out of balance forces at 90 mph were sufficient to momentarily lift the 9F's driving wheels off the rails at this speed, leading to great concern as to the possibility of a derailment under the wrong circumstances.

 

It's fairly simple arithmatic. The nominal driving wheel dia of an A4 is 80 inches, and a 9F is 60 inches. so the 9F has wheels that are 75% of the diameter of the A4. Which means in turn that the same revs are reached at 75% of the speed. So the revs of a 9F's wheels travelling at 94.5 are the same as Mallard at 126. In the case of the pistons, the stroke of a 9F is slightly longer at 28 inches as opposed to 26. So the equivelant average piston speed of Mallard is reached at just under 88 mph.

So the answer to your question is, no it's not correct.

 

The highest properly recorded speed behind a Merchant Navy was 106 mph. Last couple of weeks of steam, 35003 and the late Fred Burridge. For reasons I have explained before I was the lucky so and so on the footplate for that run. Very smooth indeed, until we went onto the new concrete sleepers at Fleet. Fred never used full regulator. 35003 was knackered as well. A dreadful big end knock, but steamed superbly. He did 105 mph the following day with 35003. I was not on the footplate that night. I think there was a fight for others to get on it!. On both days he averaged 100 mph over 7 miles. On a very light load, but only on gently falling/level grades between Basingstoke and Woking, after starting from Basingstoke on the last up Weymouth, (22.56 into Waterloo).

What he could have got downhill with full throttle I don't know.But the relatively small driving wheels must surely have limited the maximum to the 112 - 115 range. Those, incidentally, are the speeds reported for Merchant Navys, (original condition), down through Axminster in the late 1950s. No supporting evidence ever surfaced.

But one of the fireman on those runs in the 1950s, Gordon Hooper, (when he was a fireman at Exmouth Junction), set up a run with inspector Brian Smith when he was a driver based at Nine Elms. On 15th May 1965 with rebuilt 35005 to prove a point. 105 mph approaching Winchester Junction.

The log is now on a web page I set up to commemorate the event.

http://www.germansteam.info/2008/2008-8/2008-8.html

WARNING. There is photo of me on that web page. Along with Gordon Hooper who is still in good health.

Some of us are working hard to get Gordon, his fireman for his 15th May 1965 run, Dave "dropgrate" Wilson, ( a steam gricer in Scotland these days), BRian Smith, and the three out of four surviving timers, (myself, brother Don and Terry - the spoon - Jackson), all together for a photo at this years Nine Elms reunion at the Bluebell railway in August.

Back to 9Fs. I just do not believe there were regular 90s with them. It seems there is just one properly timed instance. Plus the one that I am sure I have seen recorded somewhere else.

 

LMS2968: Yes indeed, Cox quotes (for the Standard 5) "Minimum guage curve without guage widening 6 chains, 4.5 chains dead slow". The drawing for the BR Standard 9F quotes exactly the same numbers. I dont have the comparative figures for the WD 2-10-0 because I took the details from a different source, where the narrative simply said "... to enable it to run through a 4.5 chain curve..."

I think I recall some years ago reading that the 2-10-0 on the NYMR ( Dame Vera?) needed much work doing on the frames at overhaul, ie loose this and that. Maybe Riddles did design in "flexibility" however you care to so define, but equally this was a cheap and chearful Wartime quickie job, and he didn't expect them to have a particularly long life? They were for service abroad on poor and lightly laid track.Wide firebox for poor foreign fuel, etc.

Sorry, I've lost track of exactly what we were trying to prove now!

Regards

46118

 

Didn't 35005 have the best recorded run kentyeti?

 

I don't think 111 mph was achieved in the last years of southern steam, but 106 certainly was. I have heard credible stories about higher speeds being achieved before the 60's, but as you say they weren't recorded in a formal way. My feeling is that trying to differentiate between what are relatively small percentage differences in speeds is a little futile. There isn't a barrier that suddenly appears at a certain speed that makes an increase in speed impossible.

The subject of out of balance forces in wheelsets is quite different though, and you're quite correct to raise it. The 9F's actually had quite an unusual balancing arrangement, which may mean that the hammer blow of a particular wheelset could become excessive. What you're referring to is a situation where the hammer blow matches or exceeds the axle weight. I don't know the figures for 9F's are, but I would guess that it would occur above 90 mph. In any case the main concern is damage to the track rather than a derailment. If the hammer blow reaches the point where it does exceed the axle weight, then the wheels are not going to immediately begin leaping up in the air. This is because the springs for that axle will resist and increase the load if there is any movement. The deflection of driving wheel springs is of the order of tons per inch.

 

I agree that there is no barrier to a maximum rotational speed. It is like a world speed record, its the fastest till someone (something in this case) beats it. However, only the Americans have claimed a greater rotational speed for a steam loco than that achieved by Mallard, none of which are authenticated. You have to believe that the Pennsy T1 4-4-4-4 did 139 mph or a UP 4-8-4 did 130 mph or a N & W 4-8-4 did 110 mph with 5'-8½" wheels to get above the 8.82 of Mallard. AFAIK Mallard and 92184 are the only authenticated cases in the world of a loco exceeding 8 rev/sec and these records are likely to stand forever, now. That's some achievement for a little ol' freight loco!

 

35005 got the fastest ever start to stop run that night, Waterloo to Basingstoke, even with the tsr at Wimbledon. Drivers Saunders and Gordon Porter on the 17.30 ex Waterloo tried so hard to beat it but couldn't! I remember one Friday night when Saunders was going to have a go at that record, that he went up to the very young driver of the 17.23 FO train who had 8 cars and a standard five and told him in no uncertain terms to get out of his way. Probably the best ever standard class five run, but we still got checked by it! And someone on the 08.30 ex Waterloo, (I think it was the late Rubens Hendicott), passed Basingstoke in less than Gordon Hooper's stop time.

But Fred Burridge got and retains the highest speed with a MN that night in June 1967. 106 mph. I shall never, ever forget the fireman coming across the cab and taking a long hard stare at the speedo as it was well past the 100 mph mark. I am just so grateful that those in control of footplate rides, (Les Kent), decided that Monday night that the junior timer in our group of circa 20, one Bryan Benn, could go on the footplate from Basingstoke as Fred Burridge, "has never been timed at over the line limit of 85 mph! so Bryan can go up from Basingstoke". Can I describe to you the look on Les's face as he rushed up to the loco cab at Woking as I was climbing down and said, "you did 106 Fred"? No I can't! Wonderful days. So very sad that Fred, (and Gordon Porter), died quite young.

Back to 9Fs. Please check your old magazines for that second 90 mph run that I am sure happened! And was the 84 mph run ever published?