Top Gear and The power of Clarkson

For those not thinking Boiler water is a trivial thing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_boiler_explosions

I do suspect a level of dramatic license here for the BBC, the fear factor makes better viewing.

Although the water looked low, it was not bottomed out, the loco was losing speed and the crew were building up the fire.. maybe it was Clarkson that was out of puff and let the fire go down ! - we don't know where the train actually was or the circumstances truly maybe a video later will reveal a bit more.

Was this Tornado's longest run to date ?

A week later at the NYMR though the fusible plug was replaced ? (i'm not suggesting a link here).

 

Yes that was the reason why the 1948 built A1s could not run with corridor tenders. Possibly conversion wouldn't have been a huge job but you still couldn't have used A1s on the non-stops. As explained in my earlier post, the A1s had a larger firegrate than the A4s and a corridor tender could not have carried enough coal to keep an A1 going for 6 1/2 hours on a London-Edinburgh non stop run. In any case, why bother converting the tenders? The A4s were doing all that the non-stop schedule required.

 

Firemen in steam days must have been fit fellas, just one of them to do all the shovelling day after day, not 2 or three of them as last nights film showed.

 

In the same programme, one M Schumaker revealed as "the Stig"....or was he? Too tall I thought.

Anyway, back on-topic, I see the majority think the renaming of our favourites as "trains" is ok.

Remember that when you step in an criticise some hapless poster in the future.... :-k

Anyone notice by the way that whilst the motor-cycle run was filmed on the A1 largely in rain, there were shots of the car, supposedly taken the same day, in much better weather, and no rain?

Overall though, excellent programme!

Regards

46118

 

Just reverting back to the need for a coal stop en-route, Clarkson said that the "train" needed 33 lbs of coal per mile. That times 400 is just under 6 tons for the actual run, plus an amount used after initial coaling for raising steam, light engine/stock movement to Kings Cross, and an allowance at the other end until further supplies available. Wikipedia says the tender coal capacity is 7.5 tons.

As others have said the A4's on the non-stop runs would be coaled to max capacity at 34A, with just a light engine drop down to KX, and presumably on arrival at Edinburgh, straight on-shed.

What chance I wonder of "Bittern" with two tenders (as we hear is going to happen) non-stop?

46118

 

Yes, the A1's had a larger firegrate, but - according to P.N. Townend (34A Shedmaster) mile for mile, the A1's were more ecomonical on coal than an A4 or A3.

In his book 'Top Shed' he states that the A1's were incredibly free steaming and you could take "extrordinary liberties with them." He cites allowing the steam pressure to drop to 150 on the approach to Peterborough (for the long 20mph through the station in those days). When the driver opened up again and firing re-commenced, the pressure would be up to 240 by Werrington!

The 8 wheeled corridor tender had a capacity for 9 tons of coal, but Kings Cross regularly managed to cram in around 11 tons for engines working 'The Elizabethan!'

 

The other thing to consider is route knowledge through experience. In the old days the driver and fireman would have done the run many times with a specific type of loco and would have known exactly how little coal was just enough for certain sections and so probably would have used less of it on a run such as this. Same goes for water.

 

Exactly! The whole feature was drama and was never a real race. The train ran consistently according to its scheduled path although once or twice gaining a few minutes. We knew on the day that Hammond's Vincent had broken down quite early in the journey. The reason given during the programme that sediment from the petrol tank due to running the fuel level low had affected the carburation is very plausible. I don't remember it raining until the beginning of May in SE England so I think the motorcycle filming in the rain must have been at least a week later. As for the incidents on the footplate, they all look contrived to me and I don't think there is much point in analysing them except as drama. I am less convinced by the argument that calling Tornado a train is acceptable as the programme is made for a mass audience. If language is misused, confusion and misunderstandings become more likely. (This can be seen in many Nat. Pres. threads!). Clarkson makes no secret of his ignorance of automobile engineering; he was unlikely to know much about steam locomotives. Perhaps he knows more now. The main positive outcome of the programme must be that the general public will be more interested in the romantic and nostalgic pastime that we enjoy and therefore contribute some cash and perhaps be encouraged to participate. As for the discussion about coal and water capacity and the merits of A1s compared to A4s, very interesting but irrelevant to the programme; for the mainline railway it is now 2009 not 1949.

Cheers
Alan

 

Calling her a train a couple of times really isnt worth moaning about in the grand scheme of things.With regards to the actual shooting of the piece, TG have made quite clear in the past that races are carried out genuinely, but they usually do extra filming afterwards to get all the shots required.

Chris

 

Depends where to, Kings Cross - Edinburgh is outside the range of even two tenders, something like Newcastle would prob be the limit ?, 4472 in 68 still had the use of two sets of troughs.

 

, 4472 in 68 still had the use of two sets of troughs.


Suspect a few more than just two sets of troughs, I saw her at Scrooby and Danby Wiske troughs in August 69 and there would have been troughs between Newcastle and Edinburgh and also south of Peterborough.

 

Not forgetting that Deltics (Class 55) and EE Type 4's (Class 40) had water scoops to replenish their tanks for the steam heating boiler, so the troughs outlived ECML steam by a few years.

 

Well Tornado being Top Gear must of done somthing right as I was talking to a college friend today and for ages I have been trying to convince him that trains are 'cool' but always said they werent and then today he said that he never knew steam trains were so cool!! and when a steam loco comes to Norwich again he wants to go and see it with me! \/ =D>

 

It's easy to forget that a whole generation has grown up without steam and, perhaps more relevant, a fair percentage have never travelled on a train at all.

 

I thought it was a brilliant start to the series, and all the better for including the 'train' in a good light in a car show.

 

It's known as 'artistic licence' in the film trade.

Excellent footage from the helicopter though,but like many other things in 'Top Gear' things come to an abrupt end,thus to fit into the timing.
In sure all your other comments are also true,shovelling,breakdowns,rain,etc.

Like all journalism,everything is based on fact,except you add a lot of colour to build up the suspense.Alfred Hichcock was the master...mostly done in the editing.This episode of 'Top Gear' was a classic case.

 

With so much going on in all three angles, they must have been spoiled for choice in the post-production phase. It was very well put together - good piece of television all round !

 

We may be corrected on that by "Andover" when he reads that one Ralph! David, (Andover), was on the train and the loco crew said Clarkson shifted a great deal of coal during the trip! If I read Dave's e mail correctly a few minutes ago.