Trains, not slot cars!...

[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

[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.

[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..

[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.

[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..."

[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]

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.

[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..

[wjstix]

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

[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.

[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.

[el-capitan]

Mark, you might be correct.

[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.

[marknewton]

Precisely my point, Crandell. ;-)

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]

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.

[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.

[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.

 

[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.

[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)

[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.

[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.

[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.

 

[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.)

[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

[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.

[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!!!

[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....

 

 

[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.