This thread sure seems familiar for some reason...
Tracklayer
marknewton wrote: shayfan84325 wrote: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.
shayfan84325 wrote:How about "most steam trains were typically operated at speeds lower than 60"?
I suspect that the original statement is actually true...
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.
aloco wrote: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.
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.
Nelson
Ex-Southern 385 Being Hoisted
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.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
BRAKIE wrote: 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.
Phil, I'm not a rocket scientist; they are my students.
shayfan84325 wrote: BRAKIE wrote: 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.
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)
wjstix wrote:
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 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.
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.
And if you have a classic car, people want to look at it by touching it!
Craig
DMW
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)
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.
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)
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.
loatharYou mean "coal drags" aren't supposed to be a race??">">
Pretty much. I just dont think anyone has told Union Pacific though......
RJ
"Something hidden, Go and find it. Go and look behind the ranges, Something lost behind the ranges. Lost and waiting for you. Go." The Explorers - Rudyard Kipling
http://sweetwater-photography.com/
shayfan84325I 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.
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.
marknewtonshayfan84325 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 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.
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.
Whatever!
You win!
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!
(Self-Proclaimed Steam Train Speed Guru of the Southern Half of the World who is anxiously awaiting the arrival of my crown...)
BRAKIEChuck,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.
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.
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)
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
Tom View my layout photos! http://s299.photobucket.com/albums/mm310/TWhite-014/Rio%20Grande%20Yuba%20River%20Sub One can NEVER have too many Articulateds!
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.
Check out the Deming Sub by clicking on the pics:
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.
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!
From the far, far reaches of the wild, wild west I am: rtpoteet
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....
-Dan
Builder of Bowser steam! Railimages Site
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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!
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.
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.
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.