Trains, not slot cars!...

[Master of Big Sky Blue]

I thought it would be a neat Idea if I could findt he room to build a Race Way on my layout and demonstrate the differences in scale speed. But like all those others nice to haves it often gets cut out. Besides With all my model air planes an air plane museum would get squeesed in first.

James

[alfadawg01]

I run mine basically at prototypical speeds but I like to run just the locomotives at full speed after I've serviced them to shake out the cobwebs.  

Do you have them tow a track cleaner to pick up the cobwebs?

[loathar]

You mean "coal drags" aren't supposed to be a race??

[Hoople]

I run trains at scale speeds. I do like to rev up with a passenger sometimes, or get to a nice clip. I've tried flooring it in my genesis challenger on DCC, but I stopped accellerating at 2/3 full throttle, it was going pretty fast then and I slowed it down before (I thought) it would tip over.

That engine can get going pretty fast.

 

[tomikawaTT]

Back in the day, the NYC and PRR did have informal drag races on their parallel mains eastbound from Chicago.  IIRC, the PRR K-4 could out-accelerate a NYC Hudson, but the Hudson would win out with a higher top speed.  (Yes, Matilda, a bigger firebox does make a difference!)

Of course, Art Arfons (or a ten year old on a bicycle) could whup both their butts in 1/4 mile from a standing start.

As for my layout, the JNR has a 70kph speed limit, plus permanent speed restrictions on some of its curves - and the area I model has more curves than a Hawaiian Tropic competition.  Anyone who doesn't like that is welcome to model the Shinkansen, TGV, maglev or a NHRA drag strip in their own garage.

Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - at prototype speed)

[Nagrom1]

 I know what you mean. I like to "burn out the carbon" every now and again, but, if I were to max my locos out, it would take about 10 seconds to cover the loop, so I don't do that often. It is too depressing...

[ChrisNH]

When I was a kid I always wanted the Tyco slot car track section that was also an HO railroad crossing. Then you could loop an HO train around and your slot car could try to beat the train.. what awesome racing! Probably not a good lesson in crossing grade safety. I never did get it.

 

Chris 

[Tracklayer]

When I was a kid I always wanted the Tyco slot car track section that was also an HO railroad crossing. Then you could loop an HO train around and your slot car could try to beat the train.. what awesome racing! Probably not a good lesson in crossing grade safety. I never did get it.

 

Chris 

It seems like I remember those. I also recall a car and track set where in the commercial they show cars jumping an HO train, one from each direction.

Tracklayer

[loathar]

You mean this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YngIuQoBRIs

With Dare Devil Jump! I love the fact that it has a slot car controller instead of a power pack!

[BCSJ]

When asked the #1 most frequently asked question about my trains "How fast do they go?" the correct answer is "Much faster than they should!".

All John Astin (played Gomez Addams in the TV show The Addams Family) impersonators will be asked to leave the train dungeon forthwith.

Regards,

Charlie Comstock 

[Autobus Prime]

I run mine basically at prototypical speeds but I like to run just the locomotives at full speed after I've serviced them to shake out the cobwebs.  

Do you have them tow a track cleaner to pick up the cobwebs?

a:

I do that! Not for cobwebs, but dust.   I let a Lifelike F7 run for an half-hour or so at breakneck speed, towing the cleaning car.

Another amusing game I sometimes play out of madness is to take a couple of warp-driven switchers (a Lima 0-4-0 and an old Tyco Plymouth) and then run both on the same pack at maximum speed.  The trick, since they have slightly different speeds (antimatter vs. interphase, I suppose) is to select one or the other of two different-length routes in the double-track section (half is single).  Good way to polish the track adn blow off steam.

 

[saronaterry]

When asked the #1 most frequently asked question about my trains "How fast do they go?" the correct answer is "Much faster than they should!".

All John Astin (played Gomez Addams in the TV show The Addams Family) impersonators will be asked to leave the train dungeon forthwith.

Regards,

Charlie Comstock 

I get the Gomez question all the time !! "do ya crash'm inta each other?" AAHHH no, do you drive your Big boat directly up on shore?

Terry

[jeffrey-wimberly]

One layout I built years ago had a race track on it painted gray on which scale size trucks (with trailers) were running at a scale 55 mph. This gave guests a real good comparison between the speed of the trucks and that of the trains.

[Bapou]

Hoople, you could try to set some CVs for top mid andlow speed. Your engine should start creeping at spped step 1, and have a scale max speed.

[Texas Zepher]

I've got the opposite problem my new Proto-2000 F7s for the Empire Builder aren't fast enough.  I can't get them over 69 smph.   It is sort of sad to see the Empire Builder get thrashed by the NCL going by at 105.

[Tilden]

  I run DCC and had a work associate over one night who wanted to run the trains.  It didn't take long to discover what he meant was "I want to see how fast they can go.
  MY girlfriends older boy is also a speed freak with the Thomas locos..
  Needless to say, after a couple eposides I programed all the locos to top out at scale speed.  All new diesels are set to whatever the prototype top speed is.  Mostly that's between 70 and 75 mph.
  If people want speed, I pull out a passenger train like the Zephyr, which is set to 112 smph.  (then I run a freight train and they have to slowdown til a passing siding anyway )

Tilden

[AltonFan]

I once had a guy at a train show try to sell me some Minitrix 2-10-0s (the ones with the K-4 shell on a European chassis), by telling me they were some of the fastest N scale engines he owned...

[reklein]

You can go faster with superelevation,and good trackwork.

[Paul Milenkovic]

When I invite my wife to an operating session, I sometimes have to figure out how to ask her to slow down.

[Paul Milenkovic]

At last Novermber's Milwaukee TrainFest, one group had a layout with tinplate O-gauge set up as "slotcars", and kids lined up to take their turn "drag racing" on that setup.

I think it is great that someone thought to do it because 1) it was a great draw and attention getter, 2) it allowed people to get the racing-steam engines thing out of their system so the rest of the exhibits could operate the normal way.

[dinwitty]

just model the Shinkansen...

 

if you can find an original Athearn Hustler with rubberband drive, they topped at 400smph...

 

[Medina1128]

Years ago, I remember that the Aurora slot cars had a section of track that had slot car track that crossed with a section of HO train track.

[SteamFreak]

You mean this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YngIuQoBRIs

With Dare Devil Jump! I love the fact that it has a slot car controller instead of a power pack!

No, I think they're talking about this...

HO slot car and train set all in one FUN

...which looks more like something the Smash Lab team could handle.

 

[steemtrayn]

How popular would slot cars be if THEY had to operate at scale speeds?

[Medina1128]

Yeah, what's wrong with you? Everyone knows that a bordello is a lumber store in Mexico...

[MisterBeasley]

I occasionally crank the speed up, but it's really just to check for derailment-prone spots on the track.  Of course, you need to do this with each engine and car, all the way around the main, to be thorough.  As others have said, it's a bit depressing when the train gets around the loop in a few seconds, especially when the train itself covers a quarter of the length of the loop!

I've got one of those old Athearn Hustlers.  Somewhere on the project list is to replace the belt drive with the Ernst gear set.

[ICRR1964]

I rememeber my first layout, and what happened when a freind of mine came over for play time. I had a Lima 0-4-0 tanker switcher, this thing I think could reach 200 mph scale speed. We were running trains, had to main line tracks and he wanted to race under my protest. The Lima was pulling a short coal drag of 10 cars or so, and the throttle I was operating had a small AHM 0-6-0 pulling some freight. My buddy decided to crank up the throttle on his in a starit away, but it grew wings and missed the 22'' radius curve and shot right in front of my loco and cars. Both loco's and cars went over the side and to the concrete, with chunks of plastic flying threw the air. LOL! I was mad, and he decided his mother was calling and went home!

I still everyonce in awhile get some one who thinks that fast is more fun, they never think about it when they see box cars leaning themselves hard to the point of one side of the wheels are coming off the track in curves.

[nyc4me]

remember, also, it just might be an illusion of going too slow. the more telphone poles or spaced trees and the like there are, the more it seems to be hustling right along!

[IRONHORSE77]

I don't think a Athearn Hustler would stay on the track if it was banked anything less than 90 degrees.

Chuck

 

[challenger3980]

 I know what you mean. I like to "burn out the carbon" every now and again, but, if I were to max my locos out, it would take about 10 seconds to cover the loop, so I don't do that often. It is too depressing...

 That is one of the nice things about being a member of a large club. The HO club that I am a member of (The Columbia Gorge Model Railroad club) has a large layout, 60x70. I went down on a Saturday and had the layout to myself. I took out one of my passenger trains and running at realistic express speeds, with no station stops, it took a full 18 minutes to cover the entire layout.

                                    Doug

[ChrisNH]

No, I think they're talking about this...

 

Thats the one!

 

Chris 

[Packer]

the kids in the neigbor hood say I run them really slow. I tell then it's about as fast as they could go. (I guesstimate 25-45 mph)

I'll drop the hammer usually to break them in.

As for slot cars, my father had a slot car track that he built on the layout. It's gone now, since the layout grew, and the slot car track got beat up.

I have considered putting a dragstrip on the layout at one point, since I have quite a few muscle cars.

[SteamFreak]

The slot cars bring back good memories. Those crossings are actually old Aurora track that used two pins and a plastic lock to hold sections together, as opposed to the AFX track they made later that had built-in plastic locks that broke easily. I had tons of the stuff, mostly from flea markets. I never had a crossing section, though.

[Autobus Prime]

I rememeber my first layout, and what happened when a freind of mine came over for play time. I had a Lima 0-4-0 tanker switcher, this thing I think could reach 200 mph scale speed.

IC:

Sounds like the same model I have.  What brings this desolating abomination into the realm of neo-dadaist art is that it emulates the oscillation of a short-wheelbase switcher at high speeds, and not only that, displays some bouncing from poor counterweighting.  Ingeeenious.  I wish I'd noticed that spur gear between the drivers before placing the bid.

I think I'm going to paint it blue and call it Thomas.

 

[dale8chevyss]

Father says the same thing.  Wants me to "highball" all the time.  I laugh it off, yet it is annoying. 

[Johnnny_reb]

I feel the need for "SPEED!"

"just how fast can they go" asked the kid.

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

[aloco]

When it comes to running freight trains the word 'fast' is not in my vocabulary.  Now if I had a model of the French TGV, that would be a different story.

[Medina1128]

You mean this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YngIuQoBRIs

With Dare Devil Jump! I love the fact that it has a slot car controller instead of a power pack!

LOL!!!! I remember that commercial. The funny thing is, that someone would actually put it on Youtube. ROFL!!

[Medina1128]

the kids in the neigbor hood say I run them really slow. I tell then it's about as fast as they could go. (I guesstimate 25-45 mph)

I'll drop the hammer usually to break them in.

As for slot cars, my father had a slot car track that he built on the layout. It's gone now, since the layout grew, and the slot car track got beat up.

I have considered putting a dragstrip on the layout at one point, since I have quite a few muscle cars.

I've seen some nostalgia front engine dragsters with trailer for sale from Walthers.

[dknelson]

I don't think a Athearn Hustler would stay on the track if it was banked anything less than 90 degrees.

Chuck

Ashamed to admit this ... but in my youth I would set up mom's laundry basket at exactly the right spot a few feet from the layout, crank up the Athearn Hustler, and send it flying into air at the end of a straightaway, and (with luck) it would make a soft landing directly into the laundry basket. 

Dave Nelson 

[wjstix]

Hi gang.

I've had more than one friend or family member over to see my layout that insisted that I was running my trains "way too slow". The fact is I run my trains at scale speed (as best I can guess) between 35 to 50 mph depending on whether it's a steam loco or diesel. Anyways, I keep having to remind these folks that these are trains not slot cars. I do admit however that once in a great while I might goose them up to a much higher speed just for fun but only let them run that way for just a few seconds.

Tracklayer  

Since our mainlines are so short compared to the real thing, a lot of people find it works well to run at less than prototype speed, to make the distances between cities etc. seem longer. In my case my passenger trains top out at around 35 scale MPH, with ore drags going as slow as 12-15 MPH.

[MisterBeasley]

Take a look at this month's Walthers flyer.  It's got pages of non-train toys.  OK, Christmas is coming up, and Walthers probably got this stuff as part of the Life-Like acquisition, but this is a flyer that is pretty much confined to us model railroad types.

I mean, what's with all the fancy tops?

[cacole]

During our HO scale club's open houses, younger boys frequently say something to the effect, "Is that the fastest the trains can go?  I wanna see a train wreck!" 

We sometimes have problems with them changing switches when we're not watching and causing head-on collisions, but because we're not running fast no serious damage has occurred yet (knock on wood).

 

[tatans]

Always at train shows the big question is "why are they going so slow??" I must admit when viewing a layout at "scale speed"  the trains are going very slow, according to scale speed this is correct in a formula point of view, now take into consideration the actual distance you are from the train and the scale factor does not apply, if you move up close to the train in scale feet you will have a completely different effect, a scale model layout is NOT real life and the distance from the layout is a very important factor, I'm sure there are other factors not being considered here also, ask an expert on optics,  you may be surprised just how close you must be to effect this factor. At any rate trains should (could) run slightly faster than "scale" and I don't mean 200 mph, this last statement will bring the ire of all "scale speed" enthusiasts to insanity. If scale speeds are reduced from actual speeds going slowly, I'm sure the formula would translate to no movement whatsoever of the locomotive or a minus number.

[WSOR 3801]

Sometimes we have problems...

Haven't figured out how to make malt spill out the top of the covered hoppers yet...

[twhite]

I have the occasional neighborhood kids that stop by if the garage is open and I'm running trains.   Because of the topography of the Yuba River Sub, I usually run as close to scale speeds (35-40smph tops) as I can. 

One of the kids asked me if I could make the trains run faster.  His older brother whacked him up-side the head and said, "You DORK!!  You see the size of those CANYONS?"  I wanted to give the older brother a Medal of some sort, LOL!

Tom

[Semper Vaporo]

Even with oily rails, my Live Steam Mikes are so sure footed that it is hard to spin the drivers when reversing direction unless I get up to "SPEED!!!" first!

[shayfan84325]

I followed John Allen's example and geared my locos for a proper scale top speed.  My shays will do a blistering 15 scale mph and rod driven locos and my Heisler are good for about 25.  With gearing this low and coreless motors, most of the shays will run at a scale .06 scale mph (2 seconds from tie to tie) - it's like watching the minute hand on a clock.  It makes for very realistic starts and stops.

Visitors usually comment that they are slow.  I point out that my layout is roughly a scale mile long, and if the train was going 60 mph (like a modern freight train) it would still take a minute to reach the other end.  I also explain that most steam trains were only capable of speeds lower than that, and that shays were slow moving heavy haulers that could only go about 15.  Some of my tunnels are long enough that they do comment that "it's been in there a while."

They also get bored and leave within a few minutes.  I'm OK with that, too.

 

[hcc25rl]

I have a shelf type urban switching layout; 10 mph is the rule. I have complicated trackwork as used to exist in the midway area of Mpls./St. Paul (MN Transfer Railway/ now MN Commercial) with 3 grade crossings and numerous industries to be serviced. I enjoy the switching "puzzles" and watching switching locos do their work!

Jimmy

[steinjr]

I have a shelf type urban switching layout; 10 mph is the rule. I have complicated trackwork as used to exist in the midway area of Mpls./St. Paul (MN Transfer Railway/ now MN Commercial) with 3 grade crossings and numerous industries to be serviced. I enjoy the switching "puzzles" and watching switching locos do their work!

Jimmy

 Hey -

 I once seriously considered modelling parts of the MTRY/Minnesota Commercial. Got any pictures (or track plans) of your layout anywhere where I can see the pictures ?

 Smile,
 Stein in Norway, also a fan of shelf switching layouts set in the Twin Cities

 

[marknewton]

Visitors usually comment that they are slow.  I point out that my layout is roughly a scale mile long, and if the train was going 60 mph (like a modern freight train) it would still take a minute to reach the other end.  I also explain that most steam trains were only capable of speeds lower than that

Really? You might want to re-think that statement! :-)

Cheers,

Mark.

[shayfan84325]

Visitors usually comment that they are slow.  I point out that my layout is roughly a scale mile long, and if the train was going 60 mph (like a modern freight train) it would still take a minute to reach the other end.  I also explain that most steam trains were only capable of speeds lower than that

Really? You might want to re-think that statement! :-)

Cheers,

Mark.

How about "most steam trains were typically operated at speeds lower than 60"?

 I suspect that the original statement is actually true, but I'm not going to take the time to add up all of the steam locomotives in history that were unable to do 60 mph and calculate the percentage of the total number of steam locomotives they represent.  I invite you to do it.

[dale8chevyss]

Yes my father is one of those- he insists that I should "highball" all the time at all costs. 

[Semper Vaporo]

Visitors usually comment that they are slow.  I point out that my layout is roughly a scale mile long, and if the train was going 60 mph (like a modern freight train) it would still take a minute to reach the other end.  I also explain that most steam trains were only capable of speeds lower than that

Really? You might want to re-think that statement! :-)

Cheers,

Mark.

How about "most steam trains were typically operated at speeds lower than 60"?

 I suspect that the original statement is actually true, but I'm not going to take the time to add up all of the steam locomotives in history that were unable to do 60 mph and calculate the percentage of the total number of steam locomotives they represent.  I invite you to do it.

 

While yer at it, you can add up the speeds of all Diseasals to get an average too.

[tgindy]

I keep having to remind these folks that these are trains not slot cars.

Remember how a Hot Wheel zooms through the loop just before it accelerates into the wall?

(...tongue in cheek...)

The "speed spectator" could sign a release whereby they will take all responsibility for "falling to the floor" motive power injury by exceeding curve prototype speed, or; you could give the observer a fishing net while they stand guard at the curves to catch the derailing engines & rolling stock before they hit the floor.

[marknewton]

How about "most steam trains were typically operated at speeds lower than 60"?

Better, but again, it still needs qualification.

 I suspect that the original statement is actually true...

And I'm reasonably certain that it isn't. But it isn't worth arguing over...

All the best,

Mark.

[el-capitan]

Trains on my railroad tend to have a maximum speed that is inversly proportional to the cost of the loco. The plastic atlas locos run around 80 while the brass imports max out at 30.

Unfortunately my wife has caught on to this formula and can tell when I have spento too much.

[aloco]

Locos with dual flywheels and powered trucks are not meant for running full throttle.  I don't even run 'em half blast.

Pancake motored locos (Botchmann, Death-Like, etc.) on the other hand, are meant for racing.  I thoroughly enjoyed cranking those pancake motored junkers full out and running them into the ground.

[Anonymous]

As a kid during my trainset days I always ran those bachmanns as fast as the throttle would let `em go. As I got older and realized just how expensive even remotely decent locos are I kinda decided pretending Jeff Gordon is driving the train is a patently bad idea.  

[Tracklayer]

This thread sure seems familiar for some reason...

Tracklayer

[wjstix]

How about "most steam trains were typically operated at speeds lower than 60"?

Better, but again, it still needs qualification.

 I suspect that the original statement is actually true...

And I'm reasonably certain that it isn't. But it isn't worth arguing over...

All the best,

Mark.

Overall, average freight speeds were probably slower in the steam age. IIRC part of the reason that the law set 100 miles of travel as equalling one day's work for a train crew was that it took a typical freight about 8 hours to go 100 miles (i.e. running about 12 MPH).

Then again, the steam powered CNW "400" between the Twin Cities and Chicago in 1938 made the run about two hours faster than Amtrak's Empire Builder does in 2008.

[SteamFreak]

Locos with dual flywheels and powered trucks are not meant for running full throttle.  I don't even run 'em half blast.

Pancake motored locos (Botchmann, Death-Like, etc.) on the other hand, are meant for racing.  I thoroughly enjoyed cranking those pancake motored junkers full out and running them into the ground.

Forget the pancakes -- have you ever seen a Tyco MU-2 truck's top end? They may have had 5 poles, but they could give a Hustler a run for it's money. Then there was the later version of the old AHM C-Liners, which were not only fast, but top-heavy. Not a good combo, but the statute of limitations has expired on whatever I may have done back then.

Model trains should run at scale speeds, more or less. Toy trains are built with toy-like gearing, and are made for excessive speed. They're different animals, but I've enjoyed both.

[BRAKIE]

Before "retiring" from commercial slot car racing my 1/24th NASCAR #00 car would turn a 2.7 seconds lap around a 110 foot tri oval..My 43 car was a tad slower-2.9..I doubt if the Hustler could match 'em down the front straight away.

That would be a interesting race.

[shayfan84325]

Before "retiring" from commercial slot car racing my 1/24th NASCAR #00 car would turn a 2.7 seconds lap around a 110 foot tri oval..My 43 car was a tad slower-2.9..I doubt if the Hustler could match 'em down the front straight away.

That would be a interesting race.

Dude!  That's 666.6 scale miles per hour!

[BRAKIE]

Before "retiring" from commercial slot car racing my 1/24th NASCAR #00 car would turn a 2.7 seconds lap around a 110 foot tri oval..My 43 car was a tad slower-2.9..I doubt if the Hustler could match 'em down the front straight away.

That would be a interesting race.

Dude!  That's 666.6 scale miles per hour!

 

Phil,I had a Indy car that would turn a 2.5 around that same track.

That's why you need good hand/eye coordination and quick reflexes if you intend to be a tough competitor instead of a also ran.

 

I suppose that's one reason I still have quick reflexes for a 60 year old.

[tatans]

Slower than 60mph???  12mph???  As a child in the 50's & 60's we used to go west of Moose Jaw and watch freights roar by at 70 to 80 mph and sometimes even faster( we had a neghbour who was a hogger) This is in the prairies, not too many turns in the track.  It seems from notes above, freights in the U.S. actually replicated "scale speed"  I'm sure if you talk to older steam engineers the speeds quoted here are actually considerably faster than said above. Consider how slow freight must have moved back then,  how did things get moved-???--nice for the vegetables from California on their 9 day trip to Boston. "Scale speed" is a factor adhered to by people who will only listen to the factors that apply to them and not all factors (optics, distance, perspective, etc etc etc)  Put your eye very close to a freight on your layout at scale speed and just see if this is the same speed as you standing 4 feet from a  real freight zooming by( not recommended)

[marknewton]

wjstix wrote:

Overall, average freight speeds were probably slower in the steam age. IIRC part of the reason that the law set 100 miles of travel as equalling one day's work for a train crew was that it took a typical freight about 8 hours to go 100 miles (i.e. running about 12 MPH).

 

True, but that's not what I was commenting on. The OP wrote;

"if the train was going 60 mph (like a modern freight train) it would still take a minute to reach the other end.  I also explain that most steam trains were only capable of speeds lower than that"

which is another thing entirely, and just plain wrong. If the OP specifically meant drag-era US freight trains, I'd agree, but his sweeping generalisation needs to be challenged.

Cheers,

Mark.

[BRAKIE]

I recall seeing PRR K4s at speed West of Columbus,Ohio and as my Grandpap would say " That man has a good  wheel"..Which means he was running  the track speed for passenger trains with ease..Needless to say the train was rollin' at a very high speed.And shortly after him came a high speed reefer train.This exciting high speed parade would last into the mid 60s.

[shayfan84325]

marknewton

wjstix wrote:

Overall, average freight speeds were probably slower in the steam age. IIRC part of the reason that the law set 100 miles of travel as equalling one day's work for a train crew was that it took a typical freight about 8 hours to go 100 miles (i.e. running about 12 MPH).

 

True, but that's not what I was commenting on. The OP wrote;

"if the train was going 60 mph (like a modern freight train) it would still take a minute to reach the other end.  I also explain that most steam trains were only capable of speeds lower than that"

which is another thing entirely, and just plain wrong. If the OP specifically meant drag-era US freight trains, I'd agree, but his sweeping generalisation needs to be challenged.

Cheers,

Mark.

I think that if you catalog every steam locomotive ever made (starting at about 1820) and find the top speed of each one, you'll find that the number of geared locos, switch engines, pre 1910 slide valve locos, and other small to mid sized locos that were really only capable of about 45 mph is significantly higher than the number that could do a mile per minute.  Consider this; there were 40 shays built for every Big Boy made.

I haven't actually counted, so I could be wrong.  I doubt that you have counted, so you could be wrong, too.

[Dallas Model Works]

And if you have a classic car, people want to look at it by touching it!

 

[tomikawaTT]

Once again we seem to have found the rock in the stream of consciousness.

Any general statement is rendered false by a single contrary example.

"There were far more locomotives capable of a maximum speed of 45 MPH or less..."  True.  BUT, how many Shays, 4-4-0s or 1880-built Consolidations were wheeling manifest freight on Class 1 railroads in the mid-1940s?  Just about as many as there were N&W class As or Big Boys pulling logs out of remote camps in the Sierra Nevada in 1910.

So the answer is - pick a prototype and replicate its practices.  If you model the West Side, run your Shays at 10-12 MPH.  If you model the N&W, run your Js at 90, your As at 65-70 and keep the Ys down below 50 unless you want dynamic augment to destroy your track.  If you model the Sandia Base rocket sled...

Do I practice what I preach?  My Class 1 has an overall speed limit of 70 KPH (43+ MPH) and posted lower limits on some curves.  My short line has tighter curves, lower drivered locos and a maximum limit of 40 KPH (25 MPH.)  That is the speed I run at, even though most of my motive power could easily triple it.  (My truck's tires are supposedly good for 106 MPH, and I'm sure the truck itself could roll faster - but not as long as I'm speeding ticket averse!)

Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)

[BRAKIE]

Chuck,One thing most modelers overlook..Just because a J could do 90 is no sign it will run that fast..All train speed is govern by track speed based on track condition,curves,slow orders and location.Then there is the red blocks,meets,etc.

So,a train's AVERAGE speed may be no more then 28 mph once the above is taken into account..

 Of course the majority of the modelers never takes the above in consideration when talking about train speeds.

[tomikawaTT]

Larry, I agree 100%.

Many people are unaware that N&W 611 survived because she was the most recently rebuilt J.  The reason for the rebuild was a rollover derailment on a 15 MPH curve!!!

The JNR ran EMU trains that could go like the wind on straight, gently-graded track.  The same trains would trundle around the corkscrew curves on the upper end of the Ome-sen at a sedate 25KPH - and then make up time in the long, straight tunnel leading to the terminal station.

IIRC, the terminal-to-terminal schedule for the Powhatan Arrow was something like 43 MPH.

Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - at prototypical speeds)

[miniwyo]

I am not as much of a speed freak as I used to be. I tend to run things a bit faster than normal on the club layout  which has 138 feet of Trackage (12006 scale feet). My DCC tops all my locos out at 3/4 top speed so I run the throttle up all the way but have more to go if I want to reprogram it. I did that when I walked into the depot where our club layout is and one of the younger (compared to me) members had my baby, a Rivarossi 4-8-4 UP #836 running full out with the matching Two Tone Grey train of 15 cars. Just as I walked in the door the screw that holds the drive rod into the wheel came unscrewed (an issue that I was aware of and the reason it was parked) the drive rod came over and hit the screw and it slammed to a halt. The back end of the engine lifted up about 5 inches and then came back down and landed almost perfectly back on the track and the cars piled up behind it all. The kid and his friend started laughing and saying how awesome the wreck was. After suppressing my murderous urges I picked up the wreck and promptly hauled all my stuff home. 2 years later and I finally just got everything repaired. the cars had some broken pieces, but then engine had bent drive rods, cracked 3 wheels, and badly put it out of quarter. It also broke the pin off the mini connector I had in there for the tender back light.

loathar

You mean "coal drags" aren't supposed to be a race??">">

 

Pretty much. I just dont think anyone has told Union Pacific though......

 

[marknewton]

shayfan84325

I think that if you catalog every steam locomotive ever made (starting at about 1820) and find the top speed of each one, you'll find that the number of geared locos, switch engines, pre 1910 slide valve locos, and other small to mid sized locos that were really only capable of about 45 mph is significantly higher than the number that could do a mile per minute.

Pre-1910 slide valve engines can't attain 60mph? Small to mid-size locos cant attain 60mph? Bollocks. Trouble is, you have a limited knowledge and understanding of US locomotive practice, and you've mistakenly extrapolated that to apply it to all steam locos throughout the world. As I noted earlier, if you had qualified your original remark I would have agreed, but your blanket assertion that most locos can't attain 60mph is wrong. Exactly how many steam locos have you had any practical experience of?

Consider this; there were 40 shays built for every Big Boy made.

What's to consider? For every 40 shays there were hundreds of locos that were designed and built that could run at 60mph or better.

I haven't actually counted, so I could be wrong.  I doubt that you have counted, so you could be wrong, too.

I'm not, because I'm not relying on counting to support my position. I'm relying on 30-plus years of running and maintaining steam locos. Mark.

[shayfan84325]

marknewton

shayfan84325

I think that if you catalog every steam locomotive ever made (starting at about 1820) and find the top speed of each one, you'll find that the number of geared locos, switch engines, pre 1910 slide valve locos, and other small to mid sized locos that were really only capable of about 45 mph is significantly higher than the number that could do a mile per minute.

Pre-1910 slide valve engines can't attain 60mph? Small to mid-size locos cant attain 60mph? Bollocks. Trouble is, you have a limited knowledge and understanding of US locomotive practice, and you've mistakenly extrapolated that to apply it to all steam locos throughout the world. As I noted earlier, if you had qualified your original remark I would have agreed, but your blanket assertion that most locos can't attain 60mph is wrong. Exactly how many steam locos have you had any practical experience of?

Consider this; there were 40 shays built for every Big Boy made.

What's to consider? For every 40 shays there were hundreds of locos that were designed and built that could run at 60mph or better.

I haven't actually counted, so I could be wrong.  I doubt that you have counted, so you could be wrong, too.

I'm not, because I'm not relying on counting to support my position. I'm relying on 30-plus years of running and maintaining steam locos. Mark.

 

Whatever! 

There are two ways to end this pointless conversation.  One is to do all the research - it's not worth my time.  So, here's the other way to end it: 

 You win!

 I'm pretty sure you're wrong, but you win.  I concede the debate.

 

I award you the title of Self-Proclaimed Steam Train Speed Guru of the Southern Half of the World, and grant you all the associated rights and privileges.  How will you ever spend the millions of dollars that you'll get from endorsements?

 

Your crown is on the next train to Australia.  I urge you to stand by your mailbox so you can put it on as soon as it arrives.  I have no doubt that the folks on your continent will be very proud of the way you wore me down with your self-proclaimed expertise.  Without your crown, how will they differentiate you from any other guy.  So, go stand by your mailbox until it arrives, and please don't take your computer with you.

 

[marknewton]

You reckon you're in HR management - is this the way you typically react when you encounter someone who knows more than you do? Good on yer!

Mark.

(Self-Proclaimed Steam Train Speed Guru of the Southern Half of the World who is anxiously awaiting the arrival of my crown...)

[marknewton]

BRAKIE

Chuck,One thing most modelers overlook..Just because a J could do 90 is no sign it will run that fast..All train speed is govern by track speed based on track condition,curves,slow orders and location.Then there is the red blocks,meets,etc.

So,a train's AVERAGE speed may be no more then 28 mph once the above is taken into account..

 Of course the majority of the modelers never takes the above in consideration when talking about train speeds.

I'm not overlooking anything, I'm making a distinction between arbitrary speed limits, and what speed a steam loco is physically capable of attaining.

Of course, the majority of modellers know bugger all about steam engines these days, and yet they never take that into consideration when making dogmatic assertions about them.

[tomikawaTT]

marknewton

Mark.

(Self-Proclaimed Steam Train Speed Guru of the Southern Half of the World who is anxiously awaiting the arrival of my crown...)

Chuck (who's hands-on experience was with water-tube marine boilers and triple-expansion geared turbines, modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)

[twhite]

I don't know if this helps or adds fuel to the fire, but the Baldwin-built Espee AC 4-8-8-2 Cab Forwards from the AC-6 on up were built with a maximum speed specifications of 70MPH.  Now I don't know if they ever actually DID that, considering Espee's extremely varied topography, but I can remember seeing some AC's tearing up the track on the West Valley line between Marysville and Chico when I was a kid--those big hunkers were MOVIN!  And with a full load of freight.  Pretty darned impressive, as I remember. 

In fact, I wish I had enough level space on my own MR to 'let 'er rip' with my own cab forwards, LOL!

Tom

[el-capitan]

In "Back to the Future" Marty Mcfly and Doc Brown made a steam engine go 88 mph. Of coarse they used different colored wood to do this.

[BRAKIE]

Mark said:Of course, the majority of modellers know bugger all about steam engines these days, and yet they never take that into consideration when making dogmatic assertions about them.

----------------------

Absolutely..Most doesn't even know a steam locomotive was in the self destruct mode every time it was operated.This is one reason why they was high maintenance locomotives..Then all that pounding cause track damage as well.

 

There was lots of locomotives capable of high speeds around 1900 and there was skilled engineers that knew how to get from point A to point B in a hurry if need be.

[R. T. POTEET]

 

marknewton

You reckon you're in HR management - is this the way you typically react when you encounter someone who knows more than you do? Good on yer!

Mark.

(Self-Proclaimed Steam Train Speed Guru of the Southern Half of the World who is anxiously awaiting the arrival of my crown...)

I quite frequently run into this reaction!

[NeO6874]

 I read somewhere (maybe on the forums here) that a steam loco's drivers made a pretty good approximation of how fast its top speed would (could?) be -- on the order of 1MPH per 1" of diameter.

 

Now, this could be completely wrong (likely, seeing as I don't remember where said info came from), but on the off chance it is right, there were a *lot* of locomotives with that could attain 60+ MPH (assuming good track quality)... Some (many?* all?*) passenger locos for example, like the PRR E6 Atlantic (as well as the K-4) had 80" drivers... or for freight locos, the M-1a Mountain had 72" drivers or the UP big boy had 69" drivers

 

*Note that I'm familiar with the PRR and the NYC more than anything else... though there's still a lot to learn for those two companies still....

[shayfan84325]

NeO6874

 I read somewhere (maybe on the forums here) that a steam loco's drivers made a pretty good approximation of how fast its top speed would (could?) be -- on the order of 1MPH per 1" of diameter.

 

Now, this could be completely wrong (likely, seeing as I don't remember where said info came from), but on the off chance it is right, there were a *lot* of locomotives with that could attain 60+ MPH (assuming good track quality)... Some (many?* all?*) passenger locos for example, like the PRR E6 Atlantic (as well as the K-4) had 80" drivers... or for freight locos, the M-1a Mountain had 72" drivers or the UP big boy had 69" drivers

It seems like I read something like that, too.  What I read also indicated that the reciprocating mass was the greatest limiting factor.  There is no doubt that many steam locomotives could go 60+, but when we consider all the narrow gauge locos, switch engines, geared locos, etc. I still think I was correct to say most couldn't go that fast.  I do think we can agree that most were not operated at 60 mph or faster.

 

Since an HO scale mile is 60.69 feet, a steam train that covers more than a foot of track in a second is probably going unrealistically fast.

 

[tomikawaTT]

shayfan84325

NeO6874

 I read somewhere (maybe on the forums here) that a steam loco's drivers made a pretty good approximation of how fast its top speed would (could?) be -- on the order of 1MPH per 1" of diameter.

It seems like I read something like that, too.  What I read also indicated that the reciprocating mass was the greatest limiting factor.  There is no doubt that many steam locomotives could go 60+, but when we consider all the narrow gauge locos, switch engines, geared locos, etc. I still think I was correct to say most couldn't go that fast.  I do think we can agree that most were not operated at 60 mph or faster.

The, "One mile per hour per inch of driver diameter," estimate of maximum speed (rod driven engines only) was never anything but a very rough first-cut approximation.  Many tall-drivered locos (and at least one class with not-so-tall drivers) could routinely exceed that non-standard.  OTOH, there were locos like the N&W Y classes which would have destroyed the track and themselves if pushed to 56-58mph!  Yes, dynamic augment was the limiting factor.

Since an HO scale mile is 60.69 feet, a steam train that covers more than a foot of track in a second is probably going unrealistically fast.

If the steamer is a N&W class J, running on track with appropriate curvature, 60mph could be considered unreasonably slow!  On one occasion, a J which had suffered a mechanical failure on the road was ferried back to Roanoke under its own power, reaching speeds up to 85mph.  It was running on one cylinder!

Most often, the real limiting factor for prototype locomotives is track curvature, and, to a lesser extent, adverse grades.  Most passenger and dual purpose locomotives bumped into a posted or timetable speed limit before ever reaching their wide-open maximum speeds.  (The same can be said for our automobiles...)

Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - at 70 scale KPH or less)

 

[twhite]

tomikawaTT

Most often, the real limiting factor for prototype locomotives is track curvature, and, to a lesser extent, adverse grades.  Most passenger and dual purpose locomotives bumped into a posted or timetable speed limit before ever reaching their wide-open maximum speeds.  (The same can be said for our automobiles...)

Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - at 70 scale KPH or less)

 

Chuck's right on with that assessment.  Here in California, which is not really a state that one might actually consider 'speed demon' territory, as opposed to some of the Eastern Seaboard states, the original SP Coast Line was designed mainly as a passenger route between San Francisco and Los Angeles, and much of the running was designed for 80mph or greater speeds, especially when SP introduced their "Daylight" streamlined trains.  Speeds of up to 90mph were not unheard of through the Salinas Valley, and speeds of 70 or more were fairly common on the southern end, that hugs the Pacific Ocean.  In fact, SP and Lima designed the GS series of 4-8-4's to routinely reach and sustain these speeds with 14-car passenger trains.  Only some of the more curving trackage between Paso Robles and Santa Marguarita in the north and the mountainous passage out of Ventura over Santa Susanna Pass into the San Fernando Valley north of LA lowered the speed, and so did the 2.2 grade over Cuesta between Santa Marguarita and San Luis Obispo.  Otherwise, those Daylights were some pretty FAST trains on that long 400 mile journey (less than 8 hours by rail, try and make that these days by auto down parallel US 101!).  And with 80" drivers, those GS series could really roll!   

Same thing on the San Joaquin Valley Line between the 300 odd miles between Oakland and Bakersfield.  Straight and level, for the most part, heavy rail (it was the major SP north-south freight line), only thing that kept trains like the Owl, West Coast and San Joaquin Daylights from lookiing like a blur were the more frequent station stops and the Tehachapi's.

Yes, when given the chance, steam engines could ROLL! 

Tom

[tatans]

Well, it seems there are a few detractors of the "go as slow as possible without reversing school" that is the MR's who have come up with the unfounded theory that macro-slow is the key to model railroading (where or when did this start?) from a few of the last posts it seems a few people have actually seen steam locomotives (not shays) travelling in and above the 60mph speed, myself included, just how did the U.S. manage to move so much "stuff " around the U.S.A. at 24 mph?? c'mon guys, they went a lot faster than that, how about those electric engines, take a look at a video of a NYC  passenger steamer picking up water from a trough, I think that's a little faster than 24mph.  Please let us know where this edict of  slowing trains originated, I repeat, this does not encourage lightning speeds of trains, but of a slightly increased movement that seems more natural.

[shayfan84325]

tatans

Please let us know where this edict of  slowing trains originated, I repeat, this does not encourage lightning speeds of trains, but of a slightly increased movement that seems more natural.

Speaking as a model railroading relic from the '60s, I think the pursuit of reliable slow speed operation started when it was so hard to get.  I also think it's really a desire to transition from zero to operating speed in a realistic manner.  In the '60s and '70s speed control and motor technology was such that many locomotives could barely run at less than 20 scale mph, and most could easily do 200 scale mph.  It seemed silly to have 3 speeds - fast, faster and stop - so we tried and tried to find an answer.

DCC, solid state throttles, better motors, flywheels, and manufacturers who have finally figured it out are making our trains operate much more realistically than 40 years ago, although many of them are capable of scale speeds much higher that their prototype's top speed.  I think the fascination with slow speed operation is sort of a tradition, and I think we're still not quite satisfied - as good as they are, our trains generally don't quite behave like they weigh thousands of tons.

I have engines that can run at 1 scale mph with great reliability, but I can only stand to do that for a few seconds - it's like watching the minute hand on a clock.  What's cool is that if I really try I can make those locos start moving as if they were pretty heavy.  I'll admit that I don't often make the effort to get such gradual starts; it does require a lot of effort (it's easy to give it too much throttle too soon and spoil the effect).

There's nothing wrong with running your trains at faster that absolutely realistic speeds - it's not my style, but it's your train.  Chances are, your visitors will find your operations more interesting than mine.  It does seem that there is value in knowing when we are making compromises from realism.

[Alantrains]

I have an old rubber band drive HO Gauge Husler (4 wheel industrial diesel). On our old club layout that we took to shows, we had a 30 foot straight with 2' radius curves at each end.  For a bit of fun we'd run the husler flat out down the straights and see it we could tip it onto 2 wheels around the corner. We couldn't do it with any of the geared locos because when they tipped and lost power they'd fall off because the wheels stalled , but the rubberband drive didn't have this problem it would fly around the bend too. It usually resulted in someone asking if we could run the 30 car freight train at the same speed. We would point out that the husler was doing over 300MPH and freighters seldom went over 60.  Besides we didn't want to have to re-rail a 30 car freight train. The husler had a very low centre of gravity and was almost like a slot car the way it cornered, we did have scenery on the outside of the curves so that when it did derail it didn't hit the floor.

cheers

Alan J in sunny Queensland Oz 

[marknewton]

NeO6874

 I read somewhere (maybe on the forums here) that a steam loco's drivers made a pretty good approximation of how fast its top speed would (could?) be -- on the order of 1MPH per 1" of diameter.

It's a rough ratio that was revised upwards over the years as locomotive design and materials technology improved. In the last quarter of 19th century, US practice was to allow .75 x driving/coupled wheel diameter. By 1900 it was 1 x driving wheel diameter, by WWI it was 1.25 x driving wheel diameter, by the end of the steam era in the US it was 1.6 x driving wheel diameter.

Now, this could be completely wrong

No, it's not.

but on the off chance it is right, there were a *lot* of locomotives with that could attain 60+ MPH...

Yes, there were, regardless of what the OP claims.

Cheers,

Mark.

[marknewton]

shayfan84325

There is no doubt that many steam locomotives could go 60+, but when we consider all the narrow gauge locos, switch engines, geared locos, etc. I still think I was correct to say most couldn't go that fast...

No, you're not. Narrow gauge and geared locos were a drop in the bucket compared to overall domestic US loco production. Big railroads like the NYC had more fast passenger and dual-service locos than the entire roster of US narrow gauge and geared locos. Once again, you don't know enough about the subject to speak authoritatively.

Mark.

[shayfan84325]

marknewton

shayfan84325

There is no doubt that many steam locomotives could go 60+, but when we consider all the narrow gauge locos, switch engines, geared locos, etc. I still think I was correct to say most couldn't go that fast...

No, you're not. Narrow gauge and geared locos were a drop in the bucket compared to overall domestic US loco production. Big railroads like the NYC had more fast passenger and dual-service locos than the entire roster of US narrow gauge and geared locos. Once again, you don't know enough about the subject to speak authoritatively.

Mark.

Given that you are such an authority, it should be simple to provide actual numbers and sources to support your position.  If you don't come up with the numbers, I'll have to assume that you are simply blowing smoke.

[chatanuga]

I think running trains like slot cars is probably one of my biggest pet peeves when it comes to the hobby.  I hate going to a train show and seeing a beautiful layout set up with beautiful models on it all running at the speed of sound.

Granted, when I was a kid and all of my stuff was Tyco, I did run things a bit too fast.  Since moving from toy trains to model, I prefer to run things at more realistic speeds.

My younger brother, on the other hand, likes to speed things up.  Even on my current layout when he and my parents are visiting, he'll sometimes sneak his hands over to the power packs when I have the momentum turned on and crank things up.

Kevin

[BRAKIE]

tatans

Well, it seems there are a few detractors of the "go as slow as possible without reversing school" that is the MR's who have come up with the unfounded theory that macro-slow is the key to model railroading (where or when did this start?) from a few of the last posts it seems a few people have actually seen steam locomotives (not shays) travelling in and above the 60mph speed, myself included, just how did the U.S. manage to move so much "stuff " around the U.S.A. at 24 mph?? c'mon guys, they went a lot faster than that, how about those electric engines, take a look at a video of a NYC  passenger steamer picking up water from a trough, I think that's a little faster than 24mph.  Please let us know where this edict of  slowing trains originated, I repeat, this does not encourage lightning speeds of trains, but of a slightly increased movement that seems more natural.

 

Let the railroads speak for their selves.

http://www.railroadpm.org/Performance%20Reports/NS.aspx

 Railroads never did move freight in a time efficient manner.

Passenger trains was faster then freight.

Both the PRR's  Pennsylvania Special (renamed the Broadway Limited in 1912) and NYC's 20th Century had 20-hour schedules between New York and Chicago in 1902.So the speed was there for the Flagship trains.

 

 

[NeO6874]

 Chuck/Mark,

 

Thanks for the clarification(s) on that rough estimate I had referenced.  I didn't realize how far off said estimate could have gotten as technologies had improved...

 

As for running my trains, I like running them *close* to the correct sMPH, though since I don't have any scenery or anything, I tend to run things a little fast (yay for an oval of track).   on that note, I need to build a real layout....

 

 

[easyaces]

I have a couple of old Tyco locos that just scream when you up the juice to them. I couple on a few of the old cars (Tyco) and let my 4 yr old grandson have a ball running them. He usually squeals with delight at good derailments, or if he manages to zoom one right off the track at top end!!!

[marknewton]

shayfan84325

Given that you are such an authority, it should be simple to provide actual numbers and sources to support your position.  If you don't come up with the numbers, I'll have to assume that you are simply blowing smoke.

Unfortunately for you, I am an authority on steam. I have the succesful restorations, operations and publications to show for it. (Search this forum for my posts on steam, FWIW.)

As such I usually avoid "blowing smoke" - my firing technique is way better than that. And to be frank, any assumption on your part, even about the veracity of my statements, is nothing more than that. You've repeatedly shown that you don't know enough to make an informed comment, let alone acknowledge someone else's superior knowledge and experience.

Your debating technique is pretty poor, too. When challenged about posting this nonsense before, you resorted to the most childish personal attack I've seen in this forum for a long time. And there's your sheer effrontery in demanding sources and numbers from me, when you've made no attempt to back up your own position. Where's YOUR evidence, numbers or sources that support YOUR silly claims? What experience do you have of running or maintaining steam locos? So far the only source you've cited is John Allen! LOL!

But that's okay, even though you're a dilettante, and certainly not someone whose knowledge of steam loco design and practice I take seriously, I'll do a bit of research, find the numbers that confirm my position, and shoot you down in flames when I have time and inclination to do so.

Until then, all the best,

Mark.

[HHPATH56]

  I have combined a rather lengthy slot car road with my HO layout, and revamped it so that cars an trucks can go in opposite directions (at scale highway speed)  The dogbone "slot-car road" connects two towns that are 15 ft. apart. My question is, "Where can one purchase "old version" HO scale trucks and cars? I would like to add to my ancient fleet of cars and trucks.    Bob Hahn

[Midnight Railroader]

marknewton

shayfan84325

Given that you are such an authority, it should be simple to provide actual numbers and sources to support your position.  If you don't come up with the numbers, I'll have to assume that you are simply blowing smoke.

Unfortunately for you, I am an authority on steam. I have the succesful restorations, operations and publications to show for it. (Search this forum for my posts on steam, FWIW.)

As such I usually avoid "blowing smoke" - my firing technique is way better than that. And to be frank, any assumption on your part, even about the veracity of my statements, is nothing more than that. You've repeatedly shown that you don't know enough to make an informed comment, let alone acknowledge someone else's superior knowledge and experience.

Your debating technique is pretty poor, too. When challenged about posting this nonsense before, you resorted to the most childish personal attack I've seen in this forum for a long time. And there's your sheer effrontery in demanding sources and numbers from me, when you've made no attempt to back up your own position. Where's YOUR evidence, numbers or sources that support YOUR silly claims? What experience do you have of running or maintaining steam locos? So far the only source you've cited is John Allen! LOL!

But that's okay, even though you're a dilettante, and certainly not someone whose knowledge of steam loco design and practice I take seriously, I'll do a bit of research, find the numbers that confirm my position, and shoot you down in flames when I have time and inclination to do so.

Until then, all the best,

Mark.

 

Mark, have you ever admitted you were wrong about anything?

(I know you haven't done so on this board--I was just wondering whether your superior attitude carried over into real life.)

[shayfan84325]

marknewton

Unfortunately for you, I am an authority on steam. I have the successful restorations, operations and publications to show for it. (Search this forum for my posts on steam, FWIW.)

You've mentioned your expertise before.  Does anyone besides you recognize your authority?  I've restored a Volkswagen, operated a Volkswagen, and published articles on the processes involved.  That makes me an authority on one Volkswagen, not an authority on all of them.  You have yet to say anything except your own self-proclamation that indicates that you are any more credible than me when it comes to being an authority on all steam locomotives.

 

marknewton

You've repeatedly shown that you don't know enough to make an informed comment, let alone acknowledge someone else's superior knowledge and experience.

Show me something besides your self-proclamation and I'll acknowledge it.  By the way, you've made misstatements yourself - on at least one occasion you've indicated that you know more than me; you did not qualify your assertion as being limited to knowledge of steam locomotives.  I'd be interested to see how you quantify that.  How can you possibly know the quantity of knowledge that I possess?  How would you measure it?  What is the unit of measure of knowledge?  Hello dilettante!

 

Perhaps I made a misstatement about the speed capabilities of 50+% of the total number of steam locomotives produced - that is yet to be determined.  Your little venture into quantifying knowledge is evidence that you, are prone to speak authoritatively about something where your own knowledge might be generously described as limited.  If you prove that I overstepped when I ventured into discussing steam locomotive speed capabilities we can form a brotherhood of dilettantes, with you and me as charter members.

 

 

marknewton

Where's YOUR evidence, numbers or sources that support YOUR silly claims? What experience do you have of running or maintaining steam locos?

I made an assertion; similar to a hypothesis, an assertion is accepted as true until it is disproved.  So far, you are the only one to even suggest that the assertion is false.  You have yet to provide objective evidence to show that there have been over 75,000 steam locomotives that could perform at speeds greater than 60 miles per hour.  I'll admit that I don't know the total number of steam locomotives ever made, but I do know that ALCO and Baldwin are credited with producing about 75,000, each.  My opinion is that 75,000 is a reasonable/conservative number to represent 50%. 

 

marknewton

...even though you're a dilettante, and certainly not someone whose knowledge of steam loco design and practice I take seriously, I'll do a bit of research, find the numbers that confirm my position, and shoot you down in flames when I have time and inclination to do so.

 

Frankly, I don't care one way or another whether you do your research and determine which of us is correct.  It's really a trivial point:  We are discussing the performance capabilities of machines that are largely obsolete; I don't see that it matters.  I think we both have more important things to do - that's the reason I'm not doing the research myself.  I'd much prefer working on the model structure I'm building than read about steam locomotives - I'm much more a modeler than a railroader. 

 

If you want to "shoot me down if flames", give it your best shot.  I don't have any weapons that could hit you from where I sit, and I'm pretty sure that you don't have any that could hit me either.  Such weapons do exist; I used to teach folks how to build them.  They are out of my price range and I assume they are not in your inventory for the same reason.

 

*******************************************************

 

This whole debate has been an unfortunate deviation from the original topic which had to do with visitors commenting that our trains don't move fast enough, and how we respond to such comments.  You took issue with the response that I give such visitors.  In the future I'll tell them that most steam trains were not operated at speeds as high as 60 mph.  If that causes you to cringe, that's your choice.  It's an assertion that is yet to be disproved. 

There, I'm done.  Let’s get back to the original topic.

 

[Greg H.]

Medina1128

Yeah, what's wrong with you? Everyone knows that a bordello is a lumber store in Mexico... " src="http://cs.trains.com/trccs/emoticons/icon_smile_big.gif">

...... with alot of 2x4 studs of course.

[el-capitan]

shayfan84325

Given that you are such an authority, it should be simple to provide actual numbers and sources to support your position.  If you don't come up with the numbers, I'll have to assume that you are simply blowing smoke.

shayfan,

At first I thought there was no way a majority of the steam in the US couldn't do 60 mph. But after thinking about it you are probably correct. The most common steam loco in US history was the 4-4-0 American. Those didn't do 60 mph in normal operation. So while I would say that most locos in 1930 could run at 60 plus, if you look at the entire US history of steam locos you are probably correct.

Just my completely uneducated observation, I really don't want to get caught up in a debate.

[tomikawaTT]

el-capitan

Shayfan,

At first I thought there was no way a majority of the steam in the US couldn't do 60 mph. But after thinking about it you are probably correct. The most common steam loco in US history was the 4-4-0 American. Those didn't do 60 mph in normal operation. So while I would say that most locos in 1930 could run at 60 plus, if you look at the entire US history of steam locos you are probably correct.

Just my completely uneducated observation, I really don't want to get caught up in a debate.

No, some 4-4-0s did considerably more than 60mph in normal operation.  That 1MPH per inch driver diameter was a recognition of the ability of the American standard to roll at speed on comparatively rough track.  There were a LOT of 4-4-0s built with drivers larger than 60" diameter.

When given smoother track - well, NYC #999 rolled her original 86" drivers to a speed well in excess of 100mph.  (112mph claimed, but it was hand-timed between mileposts.)  Now, on exhibit at the Chicago Museum of Science and Industry, she stands on 68" drivers - rebuilt for reasonable power on locals, rather than sheer speed with two wooden cars behind.  Given NYC schedules and track quality, I'd wager that she frequently exceeded 60mph when making up time.

Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - a place where NOTHING exceeded 60mph)

[wjstix]

One issue that doesn't get mentioned when discussing model RR speeds...well unless I mentioned it in an earlier post...relates to model railroad curves. Keep in mind that the sharpest curve you'll find on a prototype mainline is the equivalent in HO of about a 33" radius curve - and real trains would be limited to 20 MPH on such a curve!! So even if our model trains are going 60 MPH on the straight away, just like the real ones, they could never go that fast thru the curves of a model railroad - even one with broad or super-broad (36"+R) curves. Seems to me it makes more sense to slow everything down a little to allow for something more like a realistic speed thru the curves.

Besides running a little slower makes the layout seem larger.

[el-capitan]

Stix,

 I agree but you also need to have easements. My minimum mainline radius is 72" in Oscale, which equates to 40" in HO. Even with a wide radius the trains look unatural entering and exiting curves without easements.

 

[tatans]

Again we see speeds posted for actual steam engines roaring down the tracks at the incredible speeds of  14 to 24 mph,  Going around a curve at 20mph???? imagine slowing down from 24 mph to 20mph, my goodness, the excitment,  C'mon guys, living on the prairies we cruised around in 40's and 50's cars and often tried to keep up with them on straight roads, in Many cases we were left behind, 70-80mph was not uncommon. where are all the ex steam engineers to exclaim the speed of steam. Model railroading speeds I question are macro-slow speeds as opposed to slightly higher speeds, NOT slot car speeds.

[marknewton]

Midnight Railroader

Mark, have you ever admitted you were wrong about anything?

Often, Scott, often. But in this case, I'm not. I wonder, why do you reckon a bloke with 33 years as a boilermaker, boiler inspector and steam loco engineman is wrong, and a human resources manager is right?

(I know you haven't done so on this board--I was just wondering whether your superior attitude carried over into real life.)

If by "superior attitude" you mean I know when I'm right, and I'm not afraid to say so, yes. It's a character trait that's well regarded where I come from. I keep forgetting how many Americans think maintaining a civil discourse is more important than actually getting to the facts. Mark.

[selector]

Fellas, the Pennsy alone had over 400 Pacific 4-6-2 engines with 80" drivers.  These were meant for speed and passenger service.  Prior to them came the Atlantic 4-4-2's also with high-stepping drivers.  Much earlier, the American 4-4-0 had, like its successor in the early 1880's, the 4-6-0 Ten Wheeler, the capacity to pull several loaded passenger cars up to between 80 and 100 mph.  The later models of the 4-4-0 produced 550 hp at track speed, so they could pull themselves, a tender, and three cars at well over 60 mph on level track.  We shouldn't forget the 2-8-2 Mikado engines that probably outnumbered any other two models combined in terms of their shear numbers.  They were on line just after the turn of the century, and were considered fast freight haulers if need be.  Fast freight at the time included meat and silk.  Those two train loads, in order, were accorded priority status on the mains, even over the most prestigious passenger trains.  They were both perishable and in high demand...so they had to travel fast.

-Crandell

[marknewton]

Precisely my point, Crandell. ;-)

Mark.

[marknewton]

el-capitan

At first I thought there was no way a majority of the steam in the US couldn't do 60 mph. But after thinking about it you are probably correct. The most common steam loco in US history was the 4-4-0 American. Those didn't do 60 mph in normal operation.

Really? Why not? According to who?

4-4-0s were popular all over the world as express passenger power, not just in the US. All those 60 and 70mph express passenger trains that ran in the UK and Europe before 1900, they were more often than not hauled by saturated, slide-valve 4-4-0s - the same ones your mate the HR manager reckons couldn't even reach 60mph. A quick look at any working timetable or general appendix of the period will show what the running times, and therefore maximum speeds were.

In 1988 I ran a 4-4-0 built in 1879 from Sydney to Melbourne and back again for the Australian Bicentennial. The loco was fitted with an accurately calibrated Hasler speed recorder. There were numerous stretches in Victoria where we attained and maintained speeds of 110-115 kph for a considerable distance - just like the loco was designed and built to do.

Just my completely uneducated observation, I really don't want to get caught up in a debate.

You said it. Completely uneducated, and wrong, too.

Mark.

[el-capitan]

Mark, you might be correct.

[Midnight Railroader]

marknewton

Midnight Railroader

Mark, have you ever admitted you were wrong about anything?

Often, Scott, often. But in this case, I'm not. I wonder, why do you reckon a bloke with 33 years as a boilermaker, boiler inspector and steam loco engineman is wrong, and a human resources manager is right?

(I know you haven't done so on this board--I was just wondering whether your superior attitude carried over into real life.)

If by "superior attitude" you mean I know when I'm right, and I'm not afraid to say so, yes. It's a character trait that's well regarded where I come from. I keep forgetting how many Americans think maintaining a civil discourse is more important than actually getting to the facts. Mark.

Yes. We call it "being polite." I wasn't aware that basic civility was of so little value in your country.

It is possible to make a point without being rude or condescending.

[BRAKIE]

selector

Fellas, the Pennsy alone had over 400 Pacific 4-6-2 engines with 80" drivers.  These were meant for speed and passenger service.  Prior to them came the Atlantic 4-4-2's also with high-stepping drivers.  Much earlier, the American 4-4-0 had, like its successor in the early 1880's, the 4-6-0 Ten Wheeler, the capacity to pull several loaded passenger cars up to between 80 and 100 mph.  The later models of the 4-4-0 produced 550 hp at track speed, so they could pull themselves, a tender, and three cars at well over 60 mph on level track.  We shouldn't forget the 2-8-2 Mikado engines that probably outnumbered any other two models combined in terms of their shear numbers.  They were on line just after the turn of the century, and were considered fast freight haulers if need be.  Fast freight at the time included meat and silk.  Those two train loads, in order, were accorded priority status on the mains, even over the most prestigious passenger trains.  They were both perishable and in high demand...so they had to travel fast.

-Crandell

Let's not forget PRR's T1s that was well known for high speed running between Crestline and Chicago.Then you had the NKP Berks that was well known for fast speeds.

Of course one John Luther Jones is well known for his high speed running prior to his famous wreck at Vaughan Mississippi.

[wjstix]

Although "Casey's" normal assigned engine was a 2-8-0, not the 4-6-0 he died in.

[BRAKIE]

Actually Casey had to leave his beloved 638 when he transferred from Jackson,Tennessee to Memphis Tennessee when he entered passenger train service and was assigned 384..

[marknewton]

Midnight Railroader

Yes. We call it "being polite." I wasn't aware that basic civility was of so little value in your country.

Being polite is valued here, but the faux civility you seem to be advocating isn't. Consistency is also well regarded here, too. I'd take you more seriously if you were equally concerned by the lack of civility displayed by the OP.

It is possible to make a point without being rude or condescending.

Yes, it is, but how much of that alleged condescension is attributable to this exchange being conducted by text, as opposed to speaking to one another in person? Come to that, how much of it simply comes down to our cultural differences? We've had visiting Americans at work who were quite shocked by the conversations they've witnessed, until they realised that's just the way Australians speak to one another, with no malice intended.


The point I think you miss is that the OP has been speaking from a position of very limited knowledge and understanding of the topic, and I quite reasonably object to someone who presumes to "teach me to suck eggs" as it were, about something I've spent my entire career involved with. As I've noted on numerous occaisions, these forums are supposed to be about the dissemination of accurate information. If someone posts information that is blatantly wrong, it should be corrected, preferably by those who are genuinely knowledgable. If by doing that you regard me as rude or condescending, there's not much I can do about that, other than to suggest that you don't read my posts.

All the best,

Mark.

[twhite]

Mark--

Just wondering, so I thought I'd ask you.  I understand that some Eastern European countries, particularly East Germany, during the steam era had some ten-coupled locomotives capable of much higher speeds that we in America seem to think a 2-10-0 or 2-10-2 would be capable of without the dynamic augnment of the drivers tearing up the track. 

I know I've seen films of rather large East German (before the reunification) 2-10-0's running at what we in the US would consider passenger speeds, and running very smoothly with what looks to be hardly any pounding on the tracks.  

I know here in America, the 2-10-0, 2-10-2 locomotives were intended as 'drag freight' locomotives, even though here on the West Coast, both Espee and Santa Fe used them as medium speed heavy freight haulers, well exceeding the usual 30mph max.  Seems to me that ten-coupled locos were capable of a lot more speed than we Americans think. 

Do you agree?  Just curious. 

Tom  

 

[marknewton]

shayfan84325

You've mentioned your expertise before. Does anyone besides you recognize your authority?

Yes, the railway that has employed me to operate and maintain steam locos for the last 33 years, the statutory body that licenses me as a boiler inspector, and the various steam operators and private owners that have I contracted or consulted for, for starters. Then there's the professional and heritage bodies I've delivered papers or talks to, and the authors who've sought my input for articles and books, for others. But geez, what would they know?

Have a look at this thread:

http://cs.trains.com/trccs/forums/t/139301.aspx?PageIndex=1

You reckon Crandell would address the question specifically to me if he thought I didn't know what I was talking about? You reckon I could answer the question in such detail if I wasn't very knowledgable?

I've restored a Volkswagen, operated a Volkswagen, and published articles on the processes involved. That makes me an authority on one Volkswagen, not an authority on all of them.

That's vaguely interesting, but irrelevant. Over the years I've been responsible for running, maintaining and/or restoring about 30 locos, from a range of British, American, European and Australian builders, from 2'gauge 0-4-0s up to standard gauge 4-8-4+4-8-4s, and everything in between. I've run steam locos across the Australian continent twice, and that included a lengthy stint on a very famous British engine that was visiting here. I've run others in New Zealand, the UK, Europe, Japan and the Americas. I've had more hours on the footplate than you've had hot dinners. That, I think, makes me an authority, if nothing else.

If you had a similar amount of experience with VWs, I'd readily acknowledge you as an authority. But again, I notice you still avoid answering my original question, which was how much actual experience you've had with any form of steam engine or loco? None, by the sounds of it. Just a solitary VW, which is not in the same league at all.

By the way, you've made misstatements yourself - on at least one occasion you've indicated that you know more than me; you did not qualify your assertion as being limited to knowledge of steam locomotives. I'd be interested to see how you quantify that. How can you possibly know the quantity of knowledge that I possess? How would you measure it? What is the unit of measure of knowledge?

Good one - when you can't argue facts, argue semantics. Always popular with someone on shaky ground. The entire debate has been about steam locos,nothing else. I don't know what else you know about any other subject, and couldn't give a toss, either. You can choose to be tricky with words, but it doesn't support your argument any better than the ad-hominem attacks you also seem to favour.

Perhaps I made a misstatement about the speed capabilities of 50+% of the total number of steam locomotives produced - that is yet to be determined.

A "misstatement"? Now there's a classic weasel word - you're wrong, plain and simple. And you've had ample opportunity to demonstrate your steam loco knowledge by explaining why you reckon that most locos weren't capabable of attaining 60mph, but nothing's been forthcoming. I wonder why?

I made an assertion; similar to a hypothesis, an assertion is accepted as true until it is disproved. So far, you are the only one to even suggest that the assertion is false.

Really? I could have sworn there were other posts that questioned your claim, and gave specific examples too... Oh, well, never let the facts get in the way of a good story, eh? Trouble is, your "hypothesis" was disproved way back in the 1880s - obviously no-one told you.

This whole debate has been an unfortunate deviation from the original topic which had to do with visitors commenting that our trains don't move fast enough, and how we respond to such comments. You took issue with the response that I give such visitors.

You're being tricky with words again - I took issue with your unequivocal statement that "the train was going 60 mph...I also explain that most steam trains were only capable of speeds lower than that..."

[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