Actually not (!). The modern N&W locos were equipped with a sophisticated lubrication system which distributed oil under pressure to the various nooks and crannies in a short space of time. I'm sure too that roller bearings were used on many moving joints.
I'm guessing things may be similar across countries...
I was on a train from Sydney to Newcastle and we got an announcement that there were signal failures and the train would dramatically halt -- which it did several times. We weren't going fast but the stop was sudden. How does this work? Does a red signal send some sort of signal to the train to stop it if it goes past? Is there some mechanism on the track that halts the train?
edit: do not know if it matters but this line is electrified; our regional routes aren't
In Britain there are various systems which will automatically stop a train if the driver fails to respond to caution or stop signals; in some cases they will "trip" if a train is going too fast as a specific point, such as entry to a dead-end platform. The Great Western had a electro-mechanical system using a ramp between the tracks way back in the 20s and 30s; in the late 30s the LMS was developing a magnetic system which was developed into the standard British Railways one. More modern electronic systems are now in use, at least on main lines. Underground trains with drivers have tripcocks by the track which apply the brakes if the driver passes a red signal; some lines of course are run automatically with constant electronic input (the trains do stop suddenly if the input is lost).
I'm not sure though why your train stopped so suddenly. In normal service the automatic brake only kicks in if the driver fails to apply the brakes normally. Conversely there are procedures to deal with total signal failure, including driving at a reduced speed and stopping at each signal to ask for permission to proceed. Perhaps the driver was running at the maximum reduced speed permitted and braking late in order to minimise delay?
Thank you Baptist Trainfan. Interesting to read of the different ways.
I'm not sure why what happened did. I assumed, could be way off the mark, that the driver was given authority to proceed through the failed signals and some measure stopped us each time he passed one. Perhaps he braked late as you wrote.
As usual, looking for something quite unrelated, I came across this page on the UPRR website: https://www.up.com/about-us/history/steam/living-legend-844. I was shockedandhorrified to read that, "It is considered the world’s fastest steam locomotive" without any evidence being offered. The claim of New York Central 999 is well known, but I hadn't heard this one before.
I think that the claims of 999 are dubious, to say the least. The "official" fastest steam locomotive is the British "Mallard" which is saud to have touched 126 mph in 1938; that is within a margin of error and downhill although it definitely topped 120 mph for some distance (and then overheated). My money would be on the less glamorous German BR 05.001 which sustained 125 mph on the level at around the same time.
Certainly some of the late American steam locomotives such as the FEF, the Pennsylvania T1, the Milwaukee Road "Hiawatha" and a few others were capable of such speeds, but there seems to be no actual recorded data.
Are you suggesting that the holy and sacred Mallard may not have quite reached 126mph? If so, Is Most Abominable Outrage!
Seriously, though, there does seem to be some room for doubt as to the actual maximum speed reached, but Wikipedia suggests that it was 05.002 which achieved nearly 125mph, two years before Mallard's exploit.
Mind you, the Germans did add an extra pair of wheels at the back...
It is too easy to get sucked into these things, however... I can't find many references to NYC 999, and the Wikipedia entry seems unreliable. With a narrow firebox, slide valves and cylinders stated to be only 15 inches diameter (surely unlikely) and a tractive effort only around 12,000 lbf, it would be a slow process to reach any kind of speed and difficult to sustain it with more than a trivial load on the drawbar. On the plus side, the stretch through Batavia (still a location to enjoy fast running) is long, straight and flat, so with a light enough load, there's no doubt that fairly high speed was achievable.
(My wife did the Aldershot, ON - Yonkers, NY trip along that line again yesterday at an average speed of 38mph! Over 13 hours with unexplained delays).
[quote="Bishops Finger;c-745407"Wikipedia suggests that it was 05.002 which achieved nearly 125mph, two years before Mallard's exploit.[/quote] Fair enough, and this was sustained speed on level track.
All of which leads one to wonder, and it's too hot to do anything else today: What would these same locomotives be able to deliver if equipped with modern bearings and lubricants like 'Tornado'? I am sure that 'Tornado' has never been pushed to its limits - and is too valuable to be risked - but I am guessing that it could come very close to both the Mallard's and the 05's records.
"Tornado" has certainly run at 100 mph (and "Bittern" in preservation had reached 93 mph and possibly more), so you may be right. All have the same size driving wheels; in every case, though, one has lots of heavy chunks of metal whirling round at very high speed!
Comments
Great Winston Link photo here: https://encyclopediavirginia.org/j-o-haden-with-his-grease-gun-bluefield-lubritorium-bluefield-wv-1955
I was on a train from Sydney to Newcastle and we got an announcement that there were signal failures and the train would dramatically halt -- which it did several times. We weren't going fast but the stop was sudden. How does this work? Does a red signal send some sort of signal to the train to stop it if it goes past? Is there some mechanism on the track that halts the train?
edit: do not know if it matters but this line is electrified; our regional routes aren't
I'm not sure though why your train stopped so suddenly. In normal service the automatic brake only kicks in if the driver fails to apply the brakes normally. Conversely there are procedures to deal with total signal failure, including driving at a reduced speed and stopping at each signal to ask for permission to proceed. Perhaps the driver was running at the maximum reduced speed permitted and braking late in order to minimise delay?
I'm not sure why what happened did. I assumed, could be way off the mark, that the driver was given authority to proceed through the failed signals and some measure stopped us each time he passed one. Perhaps he braked late as you wrote.
Thank you again.
Certainly some of the late American steam locomotives such as the FEF, the Pennsylvania T1, the Milwaukee Road "Hiawatha" and a few others were capable of such speeds, but there seems to be no actual recorded data.
Seriously, though, there does seem to be some room for doubt as to the actual maximum speed reached, but Wikipedia suggests that it was 05.002 which achieved nearly 125mph, two years before Mallard's exploit.
Mind you, the Germans did add an extra pair of wheels at the back...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DRG_Class_05
Good-looking engines, but not a patch on Gresley's inspired design. The honours remain with the LNER.
(My wife did the Aldershot, ON - Yonkers, NY trip along that line again yesterday at an average speed of 38mph! Over 13 hours with unexplained delays).