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!
Indeed they are. Maybe the layout could simply portray a small locomotive servicing facility, as it might be adjacent to a large station (not in the picture, so to speak)?
It's interesting to notice that the A5s had a 4-6-2 wheel arrangement, as did other large tank engines of the period (NER A6/A7), LNWR "Prince of Wales" class, LSWR H16, Caley 944 class, the lovely LBSCR "Bessborough" and "Abergavenny", and possibly others. Possibly this was done so that jigs and tooling for the equivalent 4-6-0 tender locomotives could be used, or possibly because it was felt that a front bogie gave greater stability than a pony truck. However this wheel arrangement tends to squash up the back end of the loco unless the firebox is between the two rear driving axles, which seems unlikely. Presumably the "Baltic" arrangement was used to give additional bunker space.
The 2-6-4T arrangement as pioneered by Maunsell and Fowler seems much more logical and indeed, despite the problems with the "Rivers", became the norm for large tank engines from the 1920s right through to BR days, except for 8-coupled goods locos with smaller driving wheels.
Ahem. There were no problems with the Rivers (so said Mr Maunsell) - it was the poor track...
FWIW, I think the Brighton's Pacific tanks looked even more magnificent after being modified by Maunsell to fit the loading gauge of the former SECR and LSWR.
Baltic tanks look well, apart from anything else, because of the symmetry of the design, but the Belfast & County Down Railway wasn't too happy with their coal-guzzling, weakling, Beyer, Peacock 4-6-4Ts, designed by the railway's engineer - though in all fairness, they were well-built and good-looking (like all Beyer, Peacock engines ):
The County Donegal 3-foot gauge system had some Baltics, one of which (Erne) survived until closure at the end of 1959. Sadly, it escaped preservation, and was scrapped as late as 1968.
Baffle plates were indeed fitted in the side tanks of some big locomotives, to minimise surging, though I don't think that included the Rivers, as they were rebuilt quite quickly after the Sevenoaks derailment.
Indeed they are. Maybe the layout could simply portray a small locomotive servicing facility, as it might be adjacent to a large station (not in the picture, so to speak)?
Depends on livery and geography - not totally convinced the GC really went in much for ‘small’ facilities in the A5’s main area of operations (south end of the London Extension) - models of Neasden, Woodford Halse or Annesley are not going to come small!
once you get off the GC I think options are Kings Cross, Bradford, Darlington and Hull (off the top of my head).
Reaching for Haresnape's book on Maunsell's locomotives (on the next shelf from the Bible) he notes that the leading truck of the Rivers was the Cartazzi type, which, so far as I know, would not normally be used as a leading truck because of its limited lateral control ability. He quotes SC Townroe describing the rolling action of the Rivers due to water surging on poor track, which combined with the light side control, made them good candidates for derailment when in a hurry. Since the leading truck appears to have been similar to that used on the very successful N class, much of the blame for the bad behaviour can probably be given to the water surging. (Gresley's V2s some years later had a side control problem with the leading pony truck derailing that led to a substantial redesign).
Interestingly this website - which seems to quote authoritative sources - disagrees! It says that the tender Moguls did have Carazzi trucks but that the Rivers had Bissel trucks. https://steamindex.com/locotype/maunloco.htm
Steamindex is usually good - the compiler is extremely meticulous. Haresnape is a little confusing in saying that the Rivers had both trucks: Cartazzi leading and Bissell trailing, though I'd never associated Bissell trucks with 4-wheel bogies before. I'd like to see drawings of both - I'd better do more searching.
However, checking Alan Jackson's Jackson's 'The Railway Dictionary', one finds:
Bissell Truck: A two- or four-wheel radial truck in which the pivoting point is located at some distance from from its transverse centre. Invented in US in 1857 by Levi Bissell.
I think that implies that neither end of the locomotive had very strong lateral control, so in aircraft terms, it might be susceptible to yaw instability.
>>>>>
Oh dear... I do have other things to do with my life, but if you are interested in the origins, this is a very good article by John H White, one of the best historians of things mechanical: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/25454/25454-h/25454-h.htm
And then I remembered that a little farther along the shelf I have White's 'A History of The American Locomotive - its development 1830-1880' in which it is clear that Bissell developed two distinct trucks: the familiar two-wheel pony truck (quite different from the Cartazzi), and the offset pivot four-wheel bogie often used in the UK.
I think that implies that neither end of the locomotive had very strong lateral control, so in aircraft terms, it might be susceptible to yaw instability.
That does seem likely, and I'm sure it wasn't alone in that.
The SR Rivers, supremely elegant and handsome engines though they were, did far better as tender locomotives, and lasted until the end of steam on the Southern.
The later, and rather similar, W class locomotives, designed by Maunsell for goods work (mainly cross-London transfers), were never allowed to haul passenger trains, though they did deal with empty stock. A trial was made with one, on the Oxted line IIRC, but was ahem rather frightening, according to the inspector in charge...
The Metropolitan K class 2-6-4Ts, built using Woolwich Mogul parts, were indeed very similar to the Rivers:
It's curious that in early BR days Stanier and BR 2-6-4 tanks were successfully drafted onto the Southern in quite significant numbers to replace various assorted ex LBSCR 4-4-2 and 4-6-2 tanks that were reaching their expiry dates. The latter had survived on lines east of the main line to Brighton which had not been electrified.
It had been on the LBSCR rather than the SECR that the Rivers had come to grief.
How so? The Sevenoaks derailment took place on the former South Eastern main line...and it was that nasty event which caused the Rivers to be withdrawn.
The later 2-6-4Ts were not (IIRC) used on any express services, so didn't normally travel at high speed.
We have to remember that there was a lot of track upgrading done after the 'River' derailments and the pointed observations made by Gresley and others. Also it is tempting - and I'm as guilty as any - of judging locomotives on the basis of insufficient information. There are so many factors in play: helical vs leaf primary suspension springs; spring vs swing link bogie side control; weight distribution among the axles; changing weight distribution between full and empty tanks; symmetrical vs asymmetrical trucks on 4-6-4 and 2-6-2 locomotives, and myriad details that we'd need detailed drawings to argue over.
But it's probably safe to suggest that the Standard Class 4 and later LMS 2-6-4T locomotives were all successful thanks to the lessons taught by their troublesome predecessors.
The standard Class 4s were very handsome and useful engines. They worked local services west of Our Town (along with Maunsell Moguls) until the end of 1964, and these trains were visible from my Skool playing fields...though too far away to make note of engine numbers.
Indeed they are. Maybe the layout could simply portray a small locomotive servicing facility, as it might be adjacent to a large station (not in the picture, so to speak)?
Depends on livery and geography - not totally convinced the GC really went in much for ‘small’ facilities in the A5’s main area of operations (south end of the London Extension) - models of Neasden, Woodford Halse or Annesley are not going to come small!
Good heavens, I would never dream of any GC engine in anything but GC livery.
There are numerous photos of them in the Manchester area in GC days. Almost certainly running in as they were all allocated to Neasden.
I'm afraid I don't lie awake at night worrying about such things, which no doubt makes me a Bad Person. The object of the proposed little layout is to have fun, not to be fit for York Museum. After all, the trains will be running on 4' 1" gauge track (or thereabouts) and the couplings will be the extraordinary bent wire jobs that come with commercial models, not the proper 3-link or screw couplings I use in 7mm scale. My declining eyesight and the likely sharp curves (which I shall conceal in tunnels) make that inevitable. Pendon it will not be.
Another ordinary day on a major Amtrak route. We are advised that:
Train 63 is currently operating approx. 1 hour late due to the late release of equipment from the maintenance facility and rail congestion. For customers still waiting to board this train, departure estimates are subject to change.
Latest bulletin says it's an hour and a half late.
I was struck by how accepting everyone was, never mind the train arrived two hours late. In the UK I am sure there would have been cries of "Disgraceful!", "Off with his head!", "There must be an inquiry!" But no - they were all happy just to get home the same day, knowing that passengers must give way to freight.
That's even worse than yesterday! My wife boarded at Yonkers and left the train at Aldershot. She did overhear a conversation about political interference with Amtrak, which could mean almost anything in these troubled times.
PS to above: the announcement says that, Train 63 is currently operating approximately 2 hours and 35 minutes late due to ongoing locomotive assessments. I have no idea what that means.
PS to above: the announcement says that, Train 63 is currently operating approximately 2 hours and 35 minutes late due to ongoing locomotive assessments. I have no idea what that means.
I think it means there's a bunch of guys in greasy overalls and flatcaps stood around the engine sucking their teeth and shaking their heads with worried expressions. And one guy with a spanner tightening Something Important.
Interesting. Maybe they should describe themselves as the oldest surviving railway in the world - the Cockenzie line in Scotland was opened in 1722 (it featured in the 1745 Battle of Prestonpans), and I expect there were even earlier examples of waggonways, both in the UK an in Europe.
Sadly, the Tanfield website says that they can't run trains on Sunday 24th, owing to low volunteer availability...
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).
I have now decided to build a very small 00 layout. Back to the future.
The 2-6-4T arrangement as pioneered by Maunsell and Fowler seems much more logical and indeed, despite the problems with the "Rivers", became the norm for large tank engines from the 1920s right through to BR days, except for 8-coupled goods locos with smaller driving wheels.
FWIW, I think the Brighton's Pacific tanks looked even more magnificent after being modified by Maunsell to fit the loading gauge of the former SECR and LSWR.
Baltic tanks look well, apart from anything else, because of the symmetry of the design, but the Belfast & County Down Railway wasn't too happy with their coal-guzzling, weakling, Beyer, Peacock 4-6-4Ts, designed by the railway's engineer - though in all fairness, they were well-built and good-looking (like all Beyer, Peacock engines
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BCDR_4-6-4T
The County Donegal 3-foot gauge system had some Baltics, one of which (Erne) survived until closure at the end of 1959. Sadly, it escaped preservation, and was scrapped as late as 1968.
Like some other tank locos, they also suffered from water surging in the side tanks, although I'm sure that could have been quite easily cured.
Depends on livery and geography - not totally convinced the GC really went in much for ‘small’ facilities in the A5’s main area of operations (south end of the London Extension) - models of Neasden, Woodford Halse or Annesley are not going to come small!
once you get off the GC I think options are Kings Cross, Bradford, Darlington and Hull (off the top of my head).
However, checking Alan Jackson's Jackson's 'The Railway Dictionary', one finds:
Bissell Truck: A two- or four-wheel radial truck in which the pivoting point is located at some distance from from its transverse centre. Invented in US in 1857 by Levi Bissell.
I think that implies that neither end of the locomotive had very strong lateral control, so in aircraft terms, it might be susceptible to yaw instability.
>>>>>
Oh dear... I do have other things to do with my life, but if you are interested in the origins, this is a very good article by John H White, one of the best historians of things mechanical: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/25454/25454-h/25454-h.htm
And then I remembered that a little farther along the shelf I have White's 'A History of The American Locomotive - its development 1830-1880' in which it is clear that Bissell developed two distinct trucks: the familiar two-wheel pony truck (quite different from the Cartazzi), and the offset pivot four-wheel bogie often used in the UK.
The later, and rather similar, W class locomotives, designed by Maunsell for goods work (mainly cross-London transfers), were never allowed to haul passenger trains, though they did deal with empty stock. A trial was made with one, on the Oxted line IIRC, but was ahem rather frightening, according to the inspector in charge...
The Metropolitan K class 2-6-4Ts, built using Woolwich Mogul parts, were indeed very similar to the Rivers:
https://www.lner.info/locos/L/l2.php
It had been on the LBSCR rather than the SECR that the Rivers had come to grief.
The later 2-6-4Ts were not (IIRC) used on any express services, so didn't normally travel at high speed.
But it's probably safe to suggest that the Standard Class 4 and later LMS 2-6-4T locomotives were all successful thanks to the lessons taught by their troublesome predecessors.
Good heavens, I would never dream of any GC engine in anything but GC livery.
There are numerous photos of them in the Manchester area in GC days. Almost certainly running in as they were all allocated to Neasden.
I'm afraid I don't lie awake at night worrying about such things, which no doubt makes me a Bad Person. The object of the proposed little layout is to have fun, not to be fit for York Museum. After all, the trains will be running on 4' 1" gauge track (or thereabouts) and the couplings will be the extraordinary bent wire jobs that come with commercial models, not the proper 3-link or screw couplings I use in 7mm scale. My declining eyesight and the likely sharp curves (which I shall conceal in tunnels) make that inevitable. Pendon it will not be.
Train 63 is currently operating approx. 1 hour late due to the late release of equipment from the maintenance facility and rail congestion. For customers still waiting to board this train, departure estimates are subject to change.
Latest bulletin says it's an hour and a half late.
I think it means there's a bunch of guys in greasy overalls and flatcaps stood around the engine sucking their teeth and shaking their heads with worried expressions. And one guy with a spanner tightening Something Important.
Sadly, the Tanfield website says that they can't run trains on Sunday 24th, owing to low volunteer availability...