OK, that's enough of the Santa Fe and "did they or didn't they" do 106.1 miles-per-hour. I'm going to do a little rootin' for the home team,
Did you know MY New Jersey Central was the first to break the 100 mph mark? It's true. In 1892 the brand spankin' new Baldwin Vauclain compound 4-4-0 Number 385 ran from Jersey City to Philadelphia and back in four hours and twenty five minutes. On the straightaway beyond Fanwood hill 385 ran two miles in 75 seconds, that's 105 miles an hour! There were a number of newsmen on board witnessing the run, there was no doubt about it.
Of course, the record was broken a year later by New York Central's 999, but the Jersey Central was the first to pass the "Century" mark. As Maestro Buddy Valastro, the "Cake Boss" says: "That's Jersey, Baby! We know how to get it done!"
Firelock76Did you know MY New Jersey Central was the first to break the 100 mph mark? It's true. In 1892 the brand spankin' new Baldwin Vauclain compound 4-4-0 Number 385 ran from Jersey City to Philadelphia and back in four hours and twenty five minutes. On the straightaway beyond Fanwood hill 385 ran two miles in 75 seconds, that's 105 miles an hour! There were a number of newsmen on board witnessing the run, there was no doubt about it.
On the straightaway beyond Fanwood hill 385 ran two miles in 75 seconds, that's 105 miles an hour! There were a number of newsmen on board witnessing the run, there was no doubt about it.
105 mph?
Oh come on. How could they make the steam? How could they shovel the coal that fast? Did their clocks even turn clockwise back in that antique era? I must say that the whole thing just reeks of corporate spin.
I have a friend that knows all about the laws of physics, and he says this speed record had to be a hoax.
I don't know man, I wasn't there. But Paul Carleton in "The Jersey Central Story" (D. Carlton Railbooks, copyright 1992) says it, and I believe it, and that settles it! Go "Big Little Railroad"!!!
PS: Maybe they used high-octane bituminous?
Sounds like another potential project for Mr. Hankey.
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
Yes, so much debunking to do and so little time.
Well, EVERYBODY should have a hobby, you know. Just kidding, love ya John!
The descent from Fanwood is 0.4% westward and 0.6% eastward, so nobody can disprove the 96 mph CNJ claim. Might even be true.
While it probably couldn't make steam fast enough to sustain very high speeds, that may not preclude short sprints, especially if downhill too. But how many of the newsmen were actually timing the run themselve? More than likely only one person decided out of interest to get his watch out, and everybody else just copied what he told them.
What size were the drivers on that particular class of steam locomotive?
John
Bucyrus Firelock76: Did you know MY New Jersey Central was the first to break the 100 mph mark? It's true. In 1892 the brand spankin' new Baldwin Vauclain compound 4-4-0 Number 385 ran from Jersey City to Philadelphia and back in four hours and twenty five minutes. On the straightaway beyond Fanwood hill 385 ran two miles in 75 seconds, that's 105 miles an hour! There were a number of newsmen on board witnessing the run, there was no doubt about it. 105 mph? Oh come on. How could they make the steam? How could they shovel the coal that fast? Did their clocks even turn clockwise back in that antique era? I must say that the whole thing just reeks of corporate spin. I have a friend that knows all about the laws of physics, and he says this speed record had to be a hoax.
Firelock76: Did you know MY New Jersey Central was the first to break the 100 mph mark? It's true. In 1892 the brand spankin' new Baldwin Vauclain compound 4-4-0 Number 385 ran from Jersey City to Philadelphia and back in four hours and twenty five minutes. On the straightaway beyond Fanwood hill 385 ran two miles in 75 seconds, that's 105 miles an hour! There were a number of newsmen on board witnessing the run, there was no doubt about it.
American Machinist (1892)
The Central Railroad of New Jersey has put on one of the Vauclain compound engines, and this fact gives the Plainfleld correspondent of the Times an opportunity to distinguish himself. He says: "The engine has double cylinders, and this adds greatly to its power, for the steam is made to do almost double work." We are further informed that "the New York commuters unite in declaring it to be the best engine they ever rode behind." The ordinary mechanic would have to pursue a course very different from merely riding in a car behind an engine in order to determine its relative excellence, but the New York commuters, most of whom are business men, and know little more of locomotives than locomotives know of them, can determine all about it, we suppose, by looking out of the car windows and observing the landscape as they pass along.
The Railroad and Engineering Journal (1892)
It is claimed that the best time on record was made on the evening of November 18 on the Central Railroad of New Jersey by one of the large Vauclain compound passenger engines, which were illustrated and described in the Journal for June last. On the evening in question the engine, running with a regular train, consisting of a combination car, two day coaches and a Pullman car, ran one mile, near Fanwood, N. J., in 38 seconds, and the succeeding mile in 37 seconds; or at the rate of 94.74 and 97.30 miles per hour respectively. The engine had previously made a mile in 39 seconds. At the time of the run there was a high wind.
Cassier's Magazine (1893)
[The] fastest one-mile record, according to all accounts, belongs to the Central Railroad of New Jersey. Particulars of the rather unpretentious looking engine with which this record has been gained will be of interest in this connection. The engine is of the compound type, with cylinders thirteen and twenty-two inches in diameter by twenty-four inch stroke. The drivers measure seventy-eight inches in diameter; driving wheel base, seven feet six inches; total wheel base twenty-two feet three and one half inches. The boiler is fifty-eight inches in diameter, and has 250 two-inch tubes, eleven feet ten inches long. The total weight of the engine is 123,800 pounds, of which 88,400 come on the drivers. The tender has a capacity for 3500 gallons of water. In one of the trial runs made from Philadelphia to Jersey City with the compound engine No. 385, the train hauled weighed about 140 tons. The weight of locomotive and tender together amounted to 102 tons. Philadelphia was left at 5.15 P. M., and the train ran at the rate of forty miles per hour to Wayne Junction, which was reached at 5.26. At 5.29 the train again started on the eighty-five-mile stretch to Jersey City. At Tabor Junction the train was slowed down, and near Jenkintown it was flagged. The uphill grade is there seventy-eight feet to the mile, but still five miles were covered in four minutes. On toward Langhorne, thirteen miles distant, the schedule time was fourteen minutes, one mile of the distance, however, being made in forty-four seconds. From Somerton to Parkland, five miles, was made in forty-two, forty-one, forty, forty and forty-two seconds respectively, the hourly rate of speed thus varying from eighty-six to ninety miles. The five miles were passed over in three minutes and twenty-five seconds. Langhorne was reached at 5.51, the thirteen-mile stretch having been covered in twelve minutes. The best time for one mile on this section was thirty-nine seconds. Further on the way, to Plainfield, no noteworthy speed was made, but there were, instead, several delays. From Plainfield on, however, the world's record was to be broken. Leaving Plainfield at 6.57 (three minutes late), Fanwood was passed, and beyond this point the chronograph recorded a mile in thirty-seven seconds, and another one in thirty-eight seconds, the hourly rate of speed being ninety-seven miles. Jersey City was reached two minutes ahead of time. A boiler pressure of 180 pounds was carried. The track, it should be remarked, was in favorable condition, there having been a heavy downpour of rain along the line.
Locomotives of this type are used to haul the Royal Blue Line trains part of the way between Jersey City, N. J., and Washington, D. C, a distance of 224.5 miles. This line is a through express service over the Baltimore and Ohio and Philadelphia and Reading Railroads, and the Central Railroad of New Jersey, making the distance in five hours, including the ferry New York to Jersey City.
Encyclopedia Americana (1904)
Samuel M. Vauclain, superintendent of the Baldwin Locomotive Works, designed a four-cylinder compound locomotive, in which a high-pressure and a low-pressure cylinder are placed one above the other on each side of the locomotive, both formed within a single casting, together with the steam-chest, and occupying the same place as the ordinary single-expansion cylinders. The two piston-rods connect to a common crosshead, but back of the cross-head pin there is no essential difference from the ordinary engine....
Up to 1889, when the compound system was introduced, there did not exist a demand for sustained speeds exceeding 50 miles an hour. In November 1892, one of Vauclain's compounds, No. 385, running on the Philadelphia and Reading and the Jersey Central railroads, between Philadelphia and Jersey City, with a train of four heavy cars attained a speed of 97 miles per hour by covering one mile in 37 seconds.
Arkansas Runner speed debunker: 1 mile in 37 seconds = 97.29729 mph.
http://www.arkansasrunner.com/calculators/mileperhr.htm
Yes Wanswheel, that picture you posted is the old girl herself. Only 97 miles an hour. Oh well, I'm corrected, dejected, but not disaffected. I still love the CNJ! Somebody better tell Mr. Carleton. (It ain't gonna be me!)
Next someone's going to tell me there's no Easter Bunny!
That sure is one nice looking compound American Standard 4-4-0.
I've been enjoying the articles about Scott's train record. Can I aska related topic?How would the railroad prepare for such an event?The lore says "A few minutes before noon on Saturday the 8th of July,a man walked in ..." Scott challenged Mr Byrne to set the record andSanta Fe accepted the challenge. The train departed at 1 PM the next day. It seems to me that there must have been planning behind the scenebefore the theatrical conversation between Scott and Byrne. So I'mwondering - how much planning and communication was done by therailroad managers to be so confident of success? What operations have to happen ahead of the train's departure? What does it take to get all the men and equipment in place, crewsrested and ready?How much time does it take to get *all* those things done? I inferthat Mr Byrne was confident that it could be done. My hypothesis isthe plans had been afoot for some days before the meeting.
jpwoodruff I've been enjoying the articles about Scott's train record. Can I aska related topic?How would the railroad prepare for such an event?The lore says "A few minutes before noon on Saturday the 8th of July,a man walked in ..." Scott challenged Mr Byrne to set the record andSanta Fe accepted the challenge. The train departed at 1 PM the next day. It seems to me that there must have been planning behind the scenebefore the theatrical conversation between Scott and Byrne. So I'mwondering - how much planning and communication was done by therailroad managers to be so confident of success? What operations have to happen ahead of the train's departure? What does it take to get all the men and equipment in place, crewsrested and ready?How much time does it take to get *all* those things done? I inferthat Mr Byrne was confident that it could be done. My hypothesis isthe plans had been afoot for some days before the meeting.
Great questions and even greater observations. It is easy to say it was an age of whatever...lots of manpower, lots of time, lots of money (for some), and lots of imagination for all. So, could this have been pulled off effectively and efficiently as stated? By today's standards only the "some with money" could hold true; the manpower and imagination are probably in short supply and the red tape and rules and regulations are many. Many.
Getting the railroad ready wasn't as hard as might seem. There were plenty of people to be assigned to do all the work needed: spiking and guarding all swtiches, bridges and tunnels; preparing and spotting all locomoitves and coal and water supplies where and as needed; assembling the few cars needed for the trip; having crews ready at a whistle's notice (there was no hours of service rules, so if one were not already perched in an engine cab and his eyes were open, he was deemed ready for a new assignement). Probably getting the pre publicity out and reacted to was the hardest part as there were so many newspapers to notify individually instead of a mass email or fax campaign like is done in minutes today. Today, notifying the media would be easier but getting response would be more difficult. More difficult, too, would be getting the idea passed from brass to brass, one level at a time, then getting government rulers to sign off on the idea. The imagining would have to be excercised in figureing out why this was a good idea and how to get it through the red tape quickly. Today such preperatons would probably take months; back then, the bold decisions were made routinly and they were always looking for ways to make a splash, get attention, and prove themselves (proving what was maybe not always clear). It wouldn't be considered today. Not just because it couldn't be done today, but it would take a wild imagination with a need so dire it is incomprehensable!
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
henry6 Today such preperatons would probably take months; back then, the bold decisions were made routinly and they were always looking for ways to make a splash, get attention, and prove themselves (proving what was maybe not always clear). It wouldn't be considered today. Not just because it couldn't be done today, but it would take a wild imagination with a need so dire it is incomprehensable!
Today such preperatons would probably take months; back then, the bold decisions were made routinly and they were always looking for ways to make a splash, get attention, and prove themselves (proving what was maybe not always clear). It wouldn't be considered today. Not just because it couldn't be done today, but it would take a wild imagination with a need so dire it is incomprehensable!
Yes, I don’t think this speed run even could be done today. This was a product of a bold and wild time when adventure was king. If it were today, there would probably be a bunch of naysayers who would prove the speed could not be achieved, so there was no need to try. They would say that nobody could shovel enough coal. They would probably tell the AT&SF that the speed stunt would reek of corporate spin.
If it were a panel of 100 working on the project, two of them would trump them all: the lawyer and the insurance man.
The press and the public are also a lot more skeptical today than they were in the early 1900's, so a character like Death Valley Scotty wouldn't exist today and the whole special would be viewed as little more than a pricey publicity stunt.
It would be easier to figure out when the train left Pittsburgh, but I'd still like to think that if someone of the kind of wealth Scotty had were to walk into the office of the president of a RR, he could get it done today. The Railroads of yesterday were all about schedules, but today they are more used to moving product when it needs to be moved and I have seen them "MOVE" when the conditions warrant it. I can't help but believe they could get it done today.
Semper Vaporo
Pkgs.
CSSHEGEWISCH The press and the public are also a lot more skeptical today than they were in the early 1900's, so a character like Death Valley Scotty wouldn't exist today and the whole special would be viewed as little more than a pricey publicity stunt.
Oh, I beg to differ with you on this point. Not only are we more gullable than ever, but we are less intellegent or knowledgable able about things around us in general and more focused on the few things that interest us most. Our entertainment and sports industries capture our attention and draw us in so that more of us vote for our American Idol than our President with more intimate and accurate knowledge of the Idol contestants than of anyone running for any elected office. We are tied to the likes of Facebook and Twitter but know litte but what is discussed there and not much of that which is there, either. Even in these threads just in the Trains Magazine section we are all so narrowily focused that some don't know modeling exists in another section and history in yet another section. How many from the General Discussion pages actually read the Amtrak, Locomotive, or Transit sections? Elsewhere in society we have so many veying for our minds and our pocketbooks so successfully that they are rich and we have turned our money and lives over to them. What we do have is a newsmedia which is nonshalant to so many things that happen daily and to history that something railroad would be considered so archaic so as not to be considered because it would not be underestood. Yet, it would be just as easy to have a Death Valley Scotty jump up and play games with us and ride across the country as we watch in amazement, Only today we would wonder why he is doing it. But he would have our atttention and our money. Worse yet, our vote. (Did I say that aloud?) No, we are very gullible today, and with the internet and hundreds of communications channels all aimed at us, we are suseptable. No matter how many channels you are able to receive you will only pay attention to an average of four in any given week and maybe no more than 10 in any month. Out of the thousands, you have been taken in by just a few and may never be part of a majority of any kind except the gullible.
ANOTHER IMPOSSIBLE SPEED RECORD:
Here is a description of a fast run on the Plant System in 1901 during a government sponsored competition between the performance of the Plant System and Seaboard Air Line railroads for the awarding of a U.S. Postal Service mail contract.
U.S Postal Service authorities confirmed that the Plant System test train reached 108 mph with the test train being pulled by locomotive #111.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=950&dat=19730305&id=2r5aAAAAIBAJ&sjid=w1cDAAAAIBAJ&pg=7218,1051223
There was more than one competing run made for this test. In the one I mentioned above, a maximum speed of 108 mph was achieved. The highest speed of all was achieved in this particular run, which used locomotive #111, and achieved 120 mph:
http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~gaware/html/great_locomotive_race_1901.html
I recall the story of this competition was covered in a magazine, which I recall as being Trains. However a search only turns up coverage of Plant System locomotive #111 with article title reference to it being a “fast stepping ten-wheeler.” This is in Trains November 1943, and that is not the article I recall seeing. I have never seen this article and don’t have that issue of the magazine. Here is the reference:
http://trc.trains.com/Train%20Magazine%20Index.aspx?articleId=64651&view=ViewIssue&issueId=5634
Locomotive #111 was renumbered to #210. I don’t find a picture of #111 or #210, but here is #110, which may be a sister to #111. If so, you can see what type of engine we are talking about for pulling a train at 120 mph:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/20/SF%26W_No._110.jpg
I would suspect that the FRA would have more to do with quashing such an effort than anyone else, however indirectly. Class 4 track is class 4 track and is limited to 80 mph for passenger.
The only way to make a "record" run is to stay at speed as much as possible.
I don't know if there are penalties for openly running faster than the class of track allows.
There were no such track classes at the time of Scotty's run, and I suspect that the train frequently ran as fast as the track would carry it safely.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
The only similarity between the railroad worlds of 1905 and 2012 is that the gauge is 4 feet 8 1/2 inches. Regulatory, statutory, promotional and business models would not be able to talk each other over the time differences.
tree68 I would suspect that the FRA would have more to do with quashing such an effort than anyone else, however indirectly. Class 4 track is class 4 track and is limited to 80 mph for passenger. The only way to make a "record" run is to stay at speed as much as possible. I don't know if there are penalties for openly running faster than the class of track allows. There were no such track classes at the time of Scotty's run, and I suspect that the train frequently ran as fast as the track would carry it safely.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACD The only similarity between the railroad worlds of 1905 and 2012 is that the gauge is 4 feet 8 1/2 inches. Regulatory, statutory, promotional and business models would not be able to talk each other over the time differences. tree68: I would suspect that the FRA would have more to do with quashing such an effort than anyone else, however indirectly. Class 4 track is class 4 track and is limited to 80 mph for passenger. The only way to make a "record" run is to stay at speed as much as possible. I don't know if there are penalties for openly running faster than the class of track allows. There were no such track classes at the time of Scotty's run, and I suspect that the train frequently ran as fast as the track would carry it safely.
tree68: I would suspect that the FRA would have more to do with quashing such an effort than anyone else, however indirectly. Class 4 track is class 4 track and is limited to 80 mph for passenger. The only way to make a "record" run is to stay at speed as much as possible. I don't know if there are penalties for openly running faster than the class of track allows. There were no such track classes at the time of Scotty's run, and I suspect that the train frequently ran as fast as the track would carry it safely.
Guys, remember money talks and if someone wants to do something badly enough and spreads the green in the right directions with the right concocted message, who knows what will happen.
Longitudinal dynamics of an early 20th century train: formulae applicable only on a straight track run:
Davis formulae/ E. Schmidt (for cars and steam locomotive, machine friction included)
CR=1.3xCW+29xNCA+0.030xCWxS+0.00034x120xNCxS2
LR=1.3x(TW+LW)+29xNLA+(0.045xTW+0.030xLW)xS+(0.00050x86+0.0024x120)xS2+20xWD
Gradient Resistance
GR=20xGx(CW+TW+LW)
Inertial Resistance (rotacional inertia included)
IR=[91.1x(CW+TW+LW)+36.4xNSA+182xNDA]xA =ICxA
Locomotive Tractive Force for a given cylinder HP
(Machine friction is considered in locomotive resistance)
TF=375xIHP/S
Newton’s Second Law and train acceleration capacity
Making TR=CR+LR, then TF=TR+GR+IR and finally
A=(TF-TR-GR)/IC
Notation used
CR=Cars Resistance to motion (uniform speed and level tangent track) [lbf]
LR=Locomotive (and tender) Resistance to motion (uniform speed and level tangent track) [lbf]
TR=Train Resistance to motion (total resistance, since LR already includes machine friction)
CW=Cars Weight [tons] (=short tons)
NCA= Number of Car Axels
NLA= Number of Locomotive (and tender) Axels
NSA= Number of Supporting Axels (cars, tender and locomotive)
NDA= Number of Driving Axels
NC=Number of Cars
LW=Locomotive Weight [tons]
TW=Tender Weight [tons]
WD=Weight on Drivers [tons]
G=Gradient in % (+ upgrade; - downgrade)
IR=Inertial Resistance (axles rotational resistance included)
IC=Inertial Constant (IC=IR/A) [dimensional constant: lbf per mph/sec acceleration]
TF=Tractive Force (based on MEP: Mean Effective Pressure)
IHP=Indicated Horsepower (or cylinder HP) [hp]
S=Speed [mph]
A=Acceleration [mph/sec]
Data known:
CW=170 tons; NCA=16; NC=3;
LW=97 tons; TW=72 tons (assumed near Galesburg); WD=51 tons; NLA=9;
NSA=23; NDA=2;
IHP=1500 hp
This estimate, acceptable for speeds above 70 mph, is based on the thermodynamic performance displayed by AT&SF Vauclain compound Atlantic No. 535, tested at St. Louis Exhibition Test Plant in 1904 (the MAX HP registered during those tests was 1703 IHP, on Oct. 22, 1904, 1622 IHP having been maintained for 2 hours at maximum boiler output in a 113 miles run). The 1500 IHP value is thought to be conservative, but this assumption is not discussed here (thermodynamically too complex to do so here).
With the known data, the described formulae can be simplified for the Scott Special in the form:
TR = 2186 + 11.25xS + 0.4534xS2 [lbf]
GR = 6780xG [lbf]
IR = 32084xA [lbf]
TF=562500/S [lbf]
And the acceleration capacity would be:
A = [562500/S - (6780xG + 2186 + 11.25xS + 0.4534xS2)]/32084 [mph/s]
Considering the wind speed, WS, if aligned with the train (WS>0 => favorable wind), one has:
TR = 2186 + 11.25xS + 0.4534x(S-WS)|S-WS| [lbf] =>
A = [562500/S - (6780xG + 2186 + 11.25xS + 0.4534x(S-WS)|S-WS|)]/32084 [mph/s]
Note that the expression {(S-WS)|S-WS|} is equal to the square of the air-to-train relative velocity (or proportional to the drag force); the use of the absolute value |S-WS| is needed only for train speeds inferior to wind speed, since the drag force direction will change in this case.
Examples:
1) Scott Special acceleration on level track, G=0, at the speeds:
S1=70 mph => A1=0.0885 mph/s
S2=80 mph => A2=0.0325 mph/s
S3=86.2 mph => A3=0 mph/s => balance speed on level track in the absence of wind
Noting that the mean longitudinal acceleration is defined as: A=DV/Dt, then:
Dt1->2=DV1->2/A12,
A12 is the mean acceleration in the time interval Dt1->2=t2-t1, for the velocity variation of DV1->2=V2-V1. Assuming A12 = (A1 + A2)/2 as a representative value then,
Dt1->2 = 2xDV1->2/(A1 + A2) = 2x(80 mph - 70 mph)/(0.0885 mph/s + 0.0325 mph/s) = 165 s
Dt2->3 = 2xDV2->3/(A2 + A3) = 2x(86.2 mph - 80 mph)/(0.0325 mph/s + 0) = 382 s
So the total time scale to approach balance speed is 547 sec, or 9 minutes approximately. Yet the actual time need to reach a given speed would have required integration: analytical (somewhat complex); or numerical, similar as done above but using smaller speed intervals.
Dt = ò 1/A(V) dV
2) Scott Special acceleration on a downgrade of 0.2%, G=-0.2, with the help of a tail wind of 20 mph, at the speeds:
S1=70 mph => A1=0.1647 mph/s
S2=80 mph => A2=0.1144 mph/s => Dt1->2=72 s => t2=72 s
S3=90 mph => A3=0.0681 mph/s => Dt2->3=110 s => t3=182 s
S4=100 mph => A4=0.0239 mph/s => Dt3->4=217 s => t3=399 s (plausible)
S5=105.5 mph => A5=0 mph/s => Dt4->5=460 s => t3=859 s (not plausible)
So with a 20 mph tail wind, blowing from West to East (not uncommon in the Illinois State in July), and running on a slight downgrade of 0.2%, the Scott Special could have reached the ‘century mark’ in 6 min 40 sec and in less than 10 miles [sum of the average speed (in mph) x respective time interval (in hours)], for an initial train velocity of 70 mph (cruising speed).
Yet a speed of 106 mph is not plausible, for the conditions assumed, due to the extension of the run needed to overcome train inertia. Also the water level in the boiler would be dangerously low, since at this speed the steam flow rate would surpass the maximum sustained capacity of the boiler (of 34,100 lb/h revealed at the St. Louis Test Plant in 1904).
Likewise, the maximum plausible speeds on a level tangent track, considering only the wind influence, would oscillate between 77 and 96 mph, for winds ranging from 20 mph against train to a 20 mph tail wind, the latter being more probable studying the wind charts of the Illinois State in July.
Yet a train resistance formula is not a physical law in the strict sense, but simply an empirical correlation affected by high uncertainty levels. For instance, the standard deviation of the measured machine friction for the 4 compound Atlantics tested at St. Louis test Plant was on average >40% of the mean machine friction, or 8 lbf per ton on drivers. So considering this value as a measure of the random uncertainty associated with locomotive resistance, for a 20 mph tail wind one could have as equally probable maximum train speeds of 93.1 and 98.5 mph on level track. Actually if one had performed a thorough uncertainty analysis of the entire calculus procedure presented above (one that would have demanded a lot of educated guess work), one would end up with a 95% confidence interval for maximum train speeds, in favorable atmospheric conditions, surely wider than 90 to 105 mph! This might come as shock to someone not familiar with physics and experimental work, but this is how things really are: the engineering art is not an exact science such as Mathematics! Only a very trusting person can think otherwise.
So in this case we can invoke the physics to make a probabilistic statement, but never to make a dogmatic affirmation such as “a 100 mph run would violate the laws of physics”. With all due respect to those who believe in such approach, it’s simply nonsense. That run was not a controlled test run, and as such it was not properly documented. In probabilistic terms that claim of high speed is exaggerated, undoubtedly, but speeds close to 100 mph are plausible even on level track, but only in favorable circumstances. But not even the actual gradient profile (detailed to the mile) is known, and there are sources that state that between Shopton and Chillicothe the track had an undulating character with a maximum gradient of 0.6%! [www.catskillarchive.com/rrextra/BLATSF] With such data (or in its absence) it is utterly impossible to use any serious scientific approach, and that’s final!
This is a case of trust: or we trust the source or we don’t, so this is also a question of respect. As such, I would have preferred to classify that a 106 mph speed simply as improbable (but not impossible) and would avoid statements such as ‘the cars would jump of the track’ or the that ‘the times were taken with 24 sec error for a 95 sec interval’ (why not round to the minute, and the speed could have been worthy of an TGV test run?), because in doing so I would be treating the entire railroad community of those days as inept people ignorant of the seventeen/eighteen century Newtonian’s Laws. In fact any rational argumentation is useless with those who believe that it would not demand to know such laws (and many others) to build a machine capable of making 1700 IHP or a boiler capable of almost 12 MW of useful thermal power, using such a crude fuel as coal burned in a 50 sq.ft grate.
Not even the great French Locomotive Engineer, Andre Chapelon, dared to discredit the 127 mph run claimed by the PRR on June 12, 1905, with the Pennsylvania Special, and in such bold terms as to invoke the laws of physic; although a man of science, and speaking precisely of high speed runs with steam locomotives, he nonetheless restrained is remarks simply by saying that such a performance would have demanded very favorable circumstances not known. He was only the man that had re-build several early 20th century steam locomotives to the point of making a 3 cylinder compound 4-8-4 capable of 5500 IHP (metric hp) with a 21 ton axle load limit (metric tons), actually measured during controlled road tests. How could he do it if A. C. Kalmbach, the founder and editor of TRAINS magazine, accepted this high speed claim as an authenticated one?
Who am I?
I’m a Professor in a European’s Polytechnic Institute: I teach Applied Thermodynamics, Heat Transfer and Applied Mechanics.
Why do I bother?
Because I think we must respect past achievements and those involve, unless ample evidence is presented to us suggesting the contrary. And in this case a more cautious approach should have been used by TRAINS while speaking of such an undocumented subject (at least not a single quantified fact was presented). Also we should avoid deterministic statements like “the violation of the laws of physics”, because such an exaggerated argumentation (in this case) can be wrongly interpreted and extended to the finest accomplishments of an entire era. And that would be quite unfair to the memory of those that have worked to the finest standards of the day with the tools at their disposal (condescending judgments are nothing more than a display of our one ignorance...).
Obviously I am a rail fan since long and a descendent of railway men.
To anyone interested, I can specify the documental sources supporting the statements made and the formulae and the data used here.
Thank you very much for your amazingly deep and thoughtful analysis. I cannot begin to verify or question your calculations, but the outcome certainly fits my expectation, even if it does not quite confirm the claimed speed of the record. I certainly agree with your criticism of the assertions in the article that the speed record would have defied the laws of physics.
My opinion is that the railfan steam interest is almost exclusively focused on the latest and greatest steam locomotive achievements of the super power era, and therefore they feel that any claims of record greatness have to belong to that modern era. So they readily accept speed claims from the super power era and need to debunk claims from circa 1900. That is exactly the way Hanke’s debunking comes off to me. It is a bias against antiquity, and it often assumes that people from 100 years ago were not as smart or talented as they are today.
Doesn't the Bumble Bee break the laws of physics every time it takes flight?
BaltACD Doesn't the Bumble Bee break the laws of physics every time it takes flight?
That was true at one time, but that is only because the "Laws of physics' were actualy "aerodynamic THEORY" and the theory was WRONG.
Same is true for the military plane known as the Flying Boxcar... it also failed the then known aerodynamic theory (Inever understood how it got designed and built if it failed to meet the presently known theory), until the theory was corrected. (Prior to that, it was said that the only reason it got airborne is because the crew spent the whole time praying that it would.)
There are actually very few "LAWS" in physics... most are actually generally accepted theories that seem to hold true most of the time...
At one time the earth was considered the center of the universe and mankind was able to utilize that "LAW" to advantage... but when that law was "repealed" because of more knowledge by those bold enough to challenge the law, even greater advances in the utilization of the way things "really are' were made.
Same is true for the flow of electricity... when it was theorized to be a flow of some substance it was decided that it was a flow from a place with an excess of it, to a place with a relative scarcity of it. One end of the source was labeled with a "+: symbol and the other with a "-" symbol, to represent the abundance and scarcity, respectively. Lots of useful things were created while that "LAW" was in force (the light bulb being one of them). Then it was discovered that it is the "flow" was of electrons and that the real flow was the other way and so they must be negatively charged. The "LAW" was changed and with the additional knowledge even more useful items have been invented.
It will be interesting to see what other "LAWS" are, in the future, found to be in error and what the outcome will be when the new "LAW" is enacted..
So what are you saying about the laws of physics relative to the 106 mph speed claim? Did you read the post made today above mine? That is today's news.
Bucyrus So what are you saying about the laws of physics relative to the 106 mph speed claim? Did you read the post made today above mine? That is today's news.
I was responding specifically to Balt's question about the bumblebee. But I can extrapolate some question of the aforementioned mathmatical proofs.
I do not question the authority of the author (H2fex9x2) if I assume his claim of his occupation and I do not, at present, question such. As such, I do not question his formulae or the mathematical calculations, nor his conclusions based on the formulae and calculations.
But I would question if his value for Horsepower is the same as the 1903 value. Horsepower has been re-defined at least once since then... and to begin with the fellow that invented the term fudged his calculations so that his machinery appeared to be higher powered than they really were... i.e.: a real (average?) horse can achieve more than one horsepower (on average). If the horsepower of 1903 is not the same as the 2012 horsepower then the calculations may need a correction factor (which may very well make the numbers worse for the purpose the claimed speed record!).
In addition, I ask whose "Mile" was used for the measurement of the speed? I.e.: how long is a mile? Silly question! It is 5280 feet! Okay, how long is a foot? Silly question, it is 12 inches. Okay, how long was the 1904 (or possibly earlier, like when the track was built) inch? Hmmm... today an inch is EXACTLY 2.54 centimeters... and a centimeter is one 100th of a meter and a meter a certain fraction of the distance between the earth's equator and the northpole.... which was not actually measured, but was calculated based on a few miles of hand measurement using a chain... oh wait, that was not good enough so the French manufactured a length of a platinum-irridium bar that they keep in a specially controlled environment. Well no, today it is a fixed number of cycles of a certain wavelength of a particular color of light.
But at one time, prior to all the redefining of the meter, the inch was NOT exactly 2.54 cm! It was DECREED to be such by a scientific body to be, so that conversion from one measurement method to the other was made easier. But for that decree to be true, either the Meter or the inch had to change from what it was. I don't remember what the error was, but I am fairly certain it was the inch that had to adjust.
I bet there are a dozen little "errors" like this that affect the final numbers of the calculations. Who did the measureing of the boiler horsepower in 1903? What instrumentation was used? How accurate was that instrumentation? What would the equivalent measurements be using today instrumentation and how accurate would it be? And I wonder which method of measuring a mile was used when laying out the track mile markers.
It has been my experience that errors like this do not tend to cancel each other out, they tend to compound like my credit card bill!
I trust the clam of the speed record as much as I trust the calculations done here in the previous post. I respect both the people that made the claim and I respect the calculations as showing that it was not likely to have been true using today's more exacting standards. Maybe they had a 30 MPH tailwind, maybe the cars weighed a bit less, maybe the coal was a better grade, maybe the wheels on the engine were a slightly larger or smaller diameter (fresh tires?, worn tires?), maybe the grade was steeper (how often is the grade measured along the track?), maybe the axles had a slightly better grease on the journals, maybe... maybe there were "very favorable circumstances not known".
Best post you ever made Henry. The sad , sad, shame is it is so true.
"Oh, I beg to differ with you on this point. Not only are we more gullable than ever, but we are less intellegent or knowledgable able about things around us in general and more focused on the few things that interest us most. Our entertainment and sports industries capture our attention and draw us in so that more of us vote for our American Idol than our President with more intimate and accurate knowledge of the Idol contestants than of anyone running for any elected office. We are tied to the likes of Facebook and Twitter but know litte but what is discussed there and not much of that which is there, either. Even in these threads just in the Trains Magazine section we are all so narrowily focused that some don't know modeling exists in another section and history in yet another section. How many from the General Discussion pages actually read the Amtrak, Locomotive, or Transit sections? Elsewhere in society we have so many veying for our minds and our pocketbooks so successfully that they are rich and we have turned our money and lives over to them. What we do have is a newsmedia which is nonshalant to so many things that happen daily and to history that something railroad would be considered so archaic so as not to be considered because it would not be underestood. Yet, it would be just as easy to have a Death Valley Scotty jump up and play games with us and ride across the country as we watch in amazement, Only today we would wonder why he is doing it. But he would have our atttention and our money. Worse yet, our vote. (Did I say that aloud?) No, we are very gullible today, and with the internet and hundreds of communications channels all aimed at us, we are suseptable. No matter how many channels you are able to receive you will only pay attention to an average of four in any given week and maybe no more than 10 in any month. Out of the thousands, you have been taken in by just a few and may never be part of a majority of any kind except the gullible."
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.