Ton up Tornado

If my memory serves me right I think I have seen a log of this recently showing 95 mph. It was either Mike Hedderly's column in SR or it was in RM.

It could have been 98 of course as with a stop watch and mileposts it needs consistent readings, speed and gradients to be sure. That's why I am certain about the 100 mph with 34102 as it was on nearly level track at Fleet as it is supported by a number of readings leading up to the 9.0 secs for the fastest quarter plus the MP to MP averages. Similar to the 95 or 98 with No 9 was the run down Roundwood on 4th July 1967 with 34001. I 'only' got 9.2 secs (98) but speed was rising so fast that it could have been 100 max as claimed by some. GPS would have settled it.

 

Must have been a single orifice with a wide chimney, probably dimensioned according to the Nordman formulae.
Orifice probably larger than the Ell formula would indicate, because Ell throws 3 cylinder exhaust areas into the same
data pool for regression.
Kind regards
Jos

 

Doesn't the combination of speed and water consumption give Tornado a USP though? Mr Bunker talked about London to York in 4 hours. I think you can only do that if you stop once for water probably at Grantham. Could any of the others achieve that?

Taking a look at RTT on a Saturday, the combination of 90 max and one water stop makes a big difference. For example something like KX 0720, Stevenage 0750, Grantham 0900/0940 Doncaster 1025 York via Church Fenton 1115 does not seem beyond the bounds of possibility.

 

I agree about spot speeds and I ignore GPS readings which aren't consistent. However as you know. I think 0.5 mph speeds are perfectly OK and they also were in the days of stop watch timing. If the stop watch says 10.8 seconds then that is 83.33 mph which working to the nearest half mph is nearer to 83,5 than 83, so I use 83,5. 10.0 secs is actually 90.09 mph so that is 90.0 mph. The same thing applied to rogue readings and MPs of course, MP 41 on the SW main line bein one example I can think of.

 

My point being that on the present busy railway acceleration is more important than in the thirtees, so backpressure counts.
kind regards
Jos

 

That's one for a HUGE pinch of salt. Absolutely no idea why people make these things up. Not even Bill Hoole claimed to have done that speed in his biography.

 

Presumably acceleration is also important if you are not intending to exceed 75mph.

 

SR claimed the article was prompted by a discussion between former drivers at the 6 x A4 gathering at the NRM.

 

Don't BR Speedos only go a little past 100 mph ? so how could they tell.... ?

 

join a vintage car club and listen to the bullshite talked....130 mph is just the same.

 

I don't see why not. The 4 hours to York was done with 75mph paths with the charter on the main more running at 75mph. Whats happened is that with extra trains running, the charter moves more onto the slow, to let other trains pass on the fast line, thus taking longer and might need an extra water stop en route, because of the increase in journey time. Other trains have done the London - York in 4 hours. 60007 and 60009 have done it. Think the Duchess has too.

Theres other ways to get trains to speed up.. one would be like Vintage Trains have done which is take more water in the form of the water carrier. Thus you keep going at sustained 75mph and can go for longer, rather than having to stop and water. The other way as some have said is the acceleration issue, meaning trains might run with smaller formations, but then your into the price/demand issue and will people pay if the price goes up because there are less seats.

Like I said its all really interesting and the repercussions of all this will take ages to fathom and sort out.

 

And it's just been announced it's visiting the ELR next year.

I'm curious as to when we find out more about the new support coach, train and mainline-connected base. The 90mph was the first part of A1SLT's big announcement last year, so hopefully the rest will follow soon.

 

East Lancs Railway just announced a 5 day visit for Tornado at Easter 2018 - presumably not at 100 mph.

 

In RAF terms such talk is called "shooting a line" and I sense a lot of that must have been going on there, especially to an audience eager to lap up such tales.

 

As it happened those of us working on the loco today did consider this very topic - for all of a couple of minutes. The unanimous consensus among us was "no thanks". That is not to say that others with more say in the society will not have a different view but overhauling a loco like an A4 is a big enough task as it is without complicating matters further. 75mph is fast enough for me.

Peter James (expressing a personal view only)

 

There seems to be a lot of pressure to get more locos to pass for 90mph running but as you alluded the only ones to make the decision are those who do the grafting or put up the money

 

Wasn't there plans to take 71000 to Poland a few years back for a high speed run? Also IIRC 35028 had the fixed high intensity headlamps fitted for future 90mph running (as per Wayne's post earlier). On that basis if I were a betting man (which I am not!) I would predict those two locos maybe likely candidates, especially given their association with DB. Let us not also discount Bittern given its exploits 2 years ago.

There is no doubt that aside from the enormous and spectacular event that the A1 steam trust have achieved , they have set a precedent and shown that once again the supposedly impossible is actually possible. The only question now is which other locomotive groups want to follow the path that has been mapped out.

 

Mainline registered Deltics are cleared for 100MPH still, I did it twice behind Alycidon last year.

 

Right, the next question has to be...

How many horses would Tornado need under the bonnet to exceed 126mph

 

It's already got plenty with modern free running stock down Stoke Bank but it won't happen.