Empire State Express, 1905 - YouTube
S-Bahn How do we know for sure that these trains did a 100 moh on a regular basis in 1911??
How do we know for sure that these trains did a 100 moh on a regular basis in 1911??
By accepting that the claim is 100% credible.
To get close to that, for me, would mean a whole lot of documentation by persons I accepted as being honest and intelligent. Graphs, recordings, and numbers can help a lot.
As a later example, I will mention that I traveled on the RF&P at 112MPH. My documentation is that I repeatedly timed the mile markers using my watch. That's all I've got. Nothing in writing. No other witnesses.
How credible is that?
Ed
Does it really matter?
Personally I really enjoyed that old film! I wonder what it would look like with some digital restoration?
S-BahnHow do we know for sure that these trains did a 100 moh on a regular basis in 1911??
Check your 1905 Speed Recorder and Radar timing.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Re: Speed - I think this appeared in Trains or Classic Trains - Steam engineer taking over a northbound NYC train - probably at Harmon. Reportedly his orders read "Do not arrive in Albany before...."
Things were a little looser back in the day.
On the track pans - a little digging on the 'Net revealed that they were usually in the area of a quarter mile long. I would imagine that would involve a fair amount of levelling, as being perfectly level would be necessary.
I've read before that the splash was a real problem, resulting in covering the adjacent ballast with tiles or other paving materials so as not to wash out the ballast.
And the troughs themselves were often (maybe always) metal. My first thought would have been that they would be poured concrete.
The logistics involved in keeping them working year round were pretty intense.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
At that time there was a hard limit on scooping speed - ISTR 40mph but it could have been slower. If there is no artifact in the frames or advance in the film, you can see the train slow down as the scoop goes in the water.
Metal pans were easy to fabricate and repair, and it was relatively easy to inspect and renew trackwork. A cast concrete pan would be subject to damage including cracking or spalling, would be difficult to level, and would probably be more expensive to form (and require the forms to stay in place until the concrete had cured, with that track out of service for scooping).
I don't know offhand of any railroad that used reinforced concrete for the actual pans.
OvermodI don't know offhand of any railroad that used reinforced concrete for the actual pans.
Nor do I. Just never really thought about it.
I will venture that more than one time, the scoop was lowered too early or raised too late - with the resutlting damage to the equipment and the track pans.
BaltACD I will venture that more than one time, the scoop was lowered too early or raised too late - with the resutlting damage to the equipment and the track pans.
From what I've read, you're absolutely correct. One resource also mentioned "exploding tenders" when they ran too fast in the early days of track pans. Revised venting fixed that.
Having track pans available apparently was the reason why some NYC loco tenders had a huge coal capacity but comparatively small water capacity. Imagine if having a way to pick up coal on the fly had come to be...
There are many stories about damage to the scoops or pans when forgetful or overzealous employees 'were holding it wrong'. Supposedly there was a ramp at the ends of the pan that would lift a wayward or forgotten scoop safely over the rim, but I suspect in practice it would just bang anyway. ISTR reading that the wayside markers for when to drop and stow the scoop were very conservatively placed.
At least some roads had conventions for doubleheaded consists (the lead locomotive would scoop first, then lift so the trailing engine could get its share).
Ed should be able to supply the arrangement for 'breaking' the momentum of the scooped water and venting of the entrained and enclosed air on the PT tenders.
Having the ability to scoop a meaningful mass of water at normal track speed was an important factor in the NYC C1a tender arrangement. That tender required 64t capacity for the 'required' range, and even with a good water-bottom frame water is surprisingly heavy in a cistern.
I don't think the NYC mainline coaling facility (at Wayport, I think) was designed explicitly for high-speed coaling - you stopped and then proceeded slowly as in coal-gon loading. When I was in my mid-teens I read something about Milwaukee Road having 'coal shoots' for high-speed refueling of F7 Hudsons -- which I interpreted as slides with high capacity that 'shot' the coal at an angle to minimize trituration with the engine moving forward to spread the pattern, or the chutes moving as they loaded. It did not occur to me until long afterward that perhaps the author and his proofreaders might not have spelled things too well...
Might that be an Id Class 4-4-2?
I know it says 1905-here is one from 1906.
https://www.railarchive.net/nyccollection/nyc823_bvg.htm
7j43k As a later example, I will mention that I traveled on the RF&P at 112MPH. My documentation is that I repeatedly timed the mile markers using my watch. That's all I've got. Nothing in writing. No other witnesses. How credible is that? Ed
Your methodology also has an effect on accuracy. Manual timing by stopwatch depends the timer starting and stopping the watch at the exact moment the milepost is passed, a difficult standard to attain by such a method. I would accept your timings as a reasonable approximation of the actual speed.
I believe that the timing of "Mallard" at 126 MPH was achieved through use of a dynamometer car.
7j43kAs a later example, I will mention that I traveled on the RF&P at 112MPH. My documentation is that I repeatedly timed the mile markers using my watch. That's all I've got. Nothing in writing. No other witnesses. How credible is that?
Probably pretty credible, even if it's off just a little.
Since the old RF&P was the main artery between Richmond and Washington back in the old days traffic on it had to move, so it wouldn't surprise me that an engineer on the RF&P would have been given clearance to run as fast as traffic conditions permitted.
Most ETT's include a conversion chart to calculate speed by seconds between mileposts.
Considering that most crew members will be using an analog watch, not even a stopwatch, said calculation merely provides some assurance that the speedometer is reasonably accurate.
This does explain "measured mile" markers (or comments in the ETT) as sometimes the mile markers are not exactly a mile apart, for a variety of reasons.
Short of setting up timing traps or otherwise calibrating a locomotive speedometer, that's all you've got. Of course, there's GPS, which is usually fairly accurate. One railroad actually used GPS as their speedometer (shortline - one locomotive). That's how I learned that my truck speedometer reads about 2 MPH high at highway speeds. Handy cushion...
Supposedly one could also estimate speed using the lineside poles.
Given the apparently consistent results 7j43k got from his timing, I'd say his number was fairly accurate.
tree68 This does explain "measured mile" markers (or comments in the ETT) as sometimes the mile markers are not exactly a mile apart, for a variety of reasons.
I've seen notations in Union Pacific ETT's that certain mileposts are less than a mile apart, sometimes by a substantial amount. I would assume that this is probably due to rebuilding and relocation of the line in question.
As a kid I got a cab ride on B&O Train No. 9 the Washington-Chicago Express between Garrett, IN and Chicago. Train was scheduled out of Garrett about one hour before the arrival of the Westbound Capitol Limited. This day, as we were starting to pull from Garrett the headlight of the Capitol could be seen coming in behind our train. Engineer 'widened out' the throttle to the 8th notch as quickly as possible and left it there - standing behind the Engineer I saw 117 MPH being registered on the Barco Speed Recorder several times between Garrett and Pine Jct. Our train passed Pine Jct. 3 minutes ahead of time.
In the past, I have used a stop watch to time my speeds between Interstate milepost markers. You can easily find markers that are not a mile from each other.
With Garmin GPS units, I found that my Durango was about 2 MPH slow vs. the GPS. The Ram is dead on vs. the GPS.
tree68tree68 wrote the following post yesterday: Overmod I don't know offhand of any railroad that used reinforced concrete for the actual pans. Nor do I. Just never really thought about it. Add Quote to you
BEAUSABREThey had concrete everything else
Lackawanna didn't have track pans, even on the sections west/north of Scranton where they might have been used. The point has been made that their Hudsons, the most logical power to have had tender scoops, were not given them even though they were built 'side by side' with NYC J3as equipped with tender scoops.
Richard Carpenter's atlas of railroad track plans in 1946 has a section for 'railroads with track pans'. DL&W is not among them. I find it doubtful that any were installed between 1946 and the effective end of Lackawanna high-speed steam in the early 1950s; in any case, the Lackawanna's flirtation with 'concrete everything' (in part driven by the expansion of the cement industry in the Lehigh Valley) was largely over by the end of WWII as prices for cement for other uses began to increase.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.