Trains, not slot cars!...

[marknewton]

You're not wrong, Tom. The classic example of a fast 10-coupled loco is the British Railways class 9F 2-10-0. They were freight locos, but were used on summer holiday passenger trains on the Somerset & Dorset and elsewhere, where they regularly ran at 80mph. And that's a loco with 5' diameter drivers - 60"!

The German 2-10-0s you saw were probably BR50s or BR52s, and as you say they are also capable of a good turn of speed. They also ride very well, as they're articulated with a Krauss-Hemholtz leading truck. These engines were designed with dual service in mind. Many of these 2-10-0s came into the hands of other European railways after WW2, plus there were export versions and copies as well. I've fired one, a Polish Ty-45, out of Wolsztyn on a passenger train, and we rattled along quite happily at 90kph.

The main reason for this disparity in performance between US and European engines is simple - size and weight. The 9Fs and BR50s, though amongst the biggest engines on their respective railways, were small locos by US standards, the 9Fs weighed 139 tons for engine and tender loaded, and the German engines about the same. They also had lightweight rods and motion, and being that much more modern than the US engines you mention, had more sophisticated front-ends that promoted free steaming and running. Some of the BR 9Fs had mulitiple-orifice blastpipes and double chimneys, while many of the DR engines had Giesl ejectors.

The comparable US engines had massive running gear to withstand very high piston thrusts, and small wheels, limiting the counterbalancing that could be applied to allow higher speed running. Presumably the small wheels were to keep the wheelbase to a manageable length before the widespread use of lateral motion devices in the US. The later, magnificent ATSF 2-10-4s didn't suffer from any of these problems, you'll note!

Some other examples of fast 10-coupled locos are the Russian L class engines, Chinese QJs, and the various ex-kkStB Goldsdorf compounds that wound up in various countries post-WW1. The Bulgarians even had some 3-cylinder 4-10-0s that were fast freight engines.

All the best,

Mark.

[BRAKIE]

One more thing that is often overlooked in a speed debate.

Some engineers just didn't have the nerve to be a "fast runner" and  would run  below track speed this is why  some passenger engineers never made up lost time even tho' the railroad would look the other way---unless something went wrong of course when making up that lost time..

Another thing locomotives that was capable of high speeds was governed by the authorized track speed and in some cases speed governors.

 

Many folk has got this romantic view of a engineer with eye on the rail and throttle in hand rolling at top speed.Actually that's far from the truth..

No engineer wanted a close casket funeral in case something went wrong..

[wjstix]

Also, there were little things an experienced engineer could do in the steam age to cut time besides running fast. The "On-Time Tyner" articles in Trains 10-15 years back talked about how Tyner (an SP engineer) would come into a station quicker than some engineers, but still be able to make a smooth stop at the platform, saving a minute or two by not slowing down earlier and 'drifting' into the station. He said something like "you want to apply the brakes so the momentum kinda helps the people stand up and get out of their seats". Similarly I remember reading in the NP Hist.Soc. Mainstreeter about an NP engineer who could do things to set up his engine while waiting to leave so that it would start quicker and get up to track speed faster than usual. Just little things, but a minute saved stopping and a minute saved starting over a long run could make the difference between being on time or being late.

[el-capitan]

The bald guy (Vezinni) from the movie "The Princess Bride" reminds me of somebody on the forum, I just can't figure out who.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EkBuKQEkio