Here's the excerpt from www.mrha.com:
The company had been experimenting with high speed passenger trains for some time. One important speed test was on July 20, 1934, involving a five-car steel train with roller bearing cars. Pulling it was locomotive 6402, a four-year old engine regularly used on the Chicago-Milwaukee run. On that day, the special train left Chicago's Union Station, gathered speed, was hitting 87 miles an hour by Morton Grove, reached up to 90 and then 92 at Northbrook, then 97 and 100 mph. A little later, the train was clocked at 103 mph at Oakwood, Wis. This run established a new world's sustained speed record for passenger train travel, averaging 92.62 miles an hour for a distance of 61.4 miles between Edgebrook, Ill., and Oakwood, Wis. Average speed for the full 85.7-mile Chicago-Milwaukee trip was 76.07 mph.
The company had been experimenting with high speed passenger trains for some time. One important speed test was on July 20, 1934, involving a five-car steel train with roller bearing cars. Pulling it was locomotive 6402, a four-year old engine regularly used on the Chicago-Milwaukee run.
On that day, the special train left Chicago's Union Station, gathered speed, was hitting 87 miles an hour by Morton Grove, reached up to 90 and then 92 at Northbrook, then 97 and 100 mph. A little later, the train was clocked at 103 mph at Oakwood, Wis. This run established a new world's sustained speed record for passenger train travel, averaging 92.62 miles an hour for a distance of 61.4 miles between Edgebrook, Ill., and Oakwood, Wis. Average speed for the full 85.7-mile Chicago-Milwaukee trip was 76.07 mph.
Can you imagine standing near the tracks and watching that baby go past back then? Wow...
Dale, you were the closest before you went over- take 'er away!
Brian (IA) http://blhanel.rrpicturearchives.net.
al-in-chgo wrote:Orig from blhanel: Been doing some research, Al? Actually, Brian, I was driving myself crazy last night trying to think of the other locomotive at Promontory Point. Maybe I should have researched, but it might have looked funny to the people still competing. At any rate, I had stopped guesstimating mph's a good while back, if you look at my history. - a. smalling
Orig from blhanel: Been doing some research, Al?
Actually, Brian, I was driving myself crazy last night trying to think of the other locomotive at Promontory Point. Maybe I should have researched, but it might have looked funny to the people still competing. At any rate, I had stopped guesstimating mph's a good while back, if you look at my history. - a. smalling
I knew you had taken yourself out- I just figured you'd looked it up based on your response to Dale. Feel free to keep guessing if not! If no one comes close enough by the time I get back from church this morning, I'll post the answers then.
blhanel wrote:Since interest seems to be tailing off here,
This thread is usually quiet on weekends, I don't mind waiting. Perhaps Snaggle can come up with a question.
blhanel wrote: BTW, Chicago to Milwaukee doesn't need to go via the Mississippi...
BTW, Chicago to Milwaukee doesn't need to go via the Mississippi...
Okay, 77, 98, and the views would be much better!
blhanel wrote:Been doing some research, Al? Mark, you're now over on the first number, and everyone has been over on the second.Snag, you were under with the first obviously. BTW, Chicago to Milwaukee doesn't need to go via the Mississippi...
Been doing some research, Al? Mark, you're now over on the first number, and everyone has been over on the second.
Snag, you were under with the first obviously.
I'll guess average speed 83 mph and top speed 117. At that time the Milw Road had a speed restriction sign in advance of its grade crossing of the EJ&E at Rondout, IL that read "Reduce Speed to 90".
No. 6402 was a 4-6-4 built by Baldwin in 1930.
Mark
nanaimo73 wrote:I feel like guessing 73 mph for the average, and 101 for the peak.
You're at the fore, my ultramontane friend! This Midwesterner has gotta go to bed! - a.s.
KCSfan wrote: al-in-chgo wrote: blhanel wrote: Mike, you're under. Al, you're over on both numbers.EDIT: The account is not clear on this, but I have to believe it was a steamer. Could a steamer have made the run from Chicago to Milwaukee on one tender's worth of coal/water? I for one doubt it. Even if something like an extra-long tender were rigged, there would still be ashes and thirst to deal with. OTOH the very fastest segment -- it was my guess above that the two towns were (are?) close enough to each other not to require a coaling / watering stop in between that would dilute the average speed. Not in a special situation, anyway. But then again, I guessed too high .Milw Road steam passenger trains regularly ran the 85 miles between Chicago Union Station and Milwaukee without taking on either coal or water enroute. I am actually more familiar with operations on the Illinois Central. In the days of steam most IC passenger trains ran the 126 miles from Central Station to Champaign behind 1100 class Pacifics and 2400 class mountains without stopping for coal and/or water. Both classes of engines had relatively small 4-wheel truck tenders. Only the few trains that made numerous stops enroute took on water but seldom coal at the Gilman coaling tower some 79 miles south of Chicago. Mark
al-in-chgo wrote: blhanel wrote: Mike, you're under. Al, you're over on both numbers.EDIT: The account is not clear on this, but I have to believe it was a steamer. Could a steamer have made the run from Chicago to Milwaukee on one tender's worth of coal/water? I for one doubt it. Even if something like an extra-long tender were rigged, there would still be ashes and thirst to deal with. OTOH the very fastest segment -- it was my guess above that the two towns were (are?) close enough to each other not to require a coaling / watering stop in between that would dilute the average speed. Not in a special situation, anyway. But then again, I guessed too high .
blhanel wrote: Mike, you're under. Al, you're over on both numbers.EDIT: The account is not clear on this, but I have to believe it was a steamer. Could a steamer have made the run from Chicago to Milwaukee on one tender's worth of coal/water?
Mike, you're under. Al, you're over on both numbers.
EDIT: The account is not clear on this, but I have to believe it was a steamer. Could a steamer have made the run from Chicago to Milwaukee on one tender's worth of coal/water?
I for one doubt it. Even if something like an extra-long tender were rigged, there would still be ashes and thirst to deal with.
OTOH the very fastest segment -- it was my guess above that the two towns were (are?) close enough to each other not to require a coaling / watering stop in between that would dilute the average speed. Not in a special situation, anyway. But then again, I guessed too high .
Milw Road steam passenger trains regularly ran the 85 miles between Chicago Union Station and Milwaukee without taking on either coal or water enroute. I am actually more familiar with operations on the Illinois Central. In the days of steam most IC passenger trains ran the 126 miles from Central Station to Champaign behind 1100 class Pacifics and 2400 class mountains without stopping for coal and/or water. Both classes of engines had relatively small 4-wheel truck tenders. Only the few trains that made numerous stops enroute took on water but seldom coal at the Gilman coaling tower some 79 miles south of Chicago.
Nothing beats real knowledge! I was probably freighting in (sorry) some assumptions about mid- to- late 19th Century railroading, the era of "jerkwater towns" and "tank towns" that were specifically created by the RR co's to have a place to provide water for the locos. This seems to have been the case most of the time for most of the western lines once they hit dry country. I retain some memory of the original such towns being spaced about 35 - 40 miles apart; but then again, what little I've read probably took place much closer to the era of Jupiters than to the Pacifics, Berkshires and Challengers of mature 20th-Century railroading. Thanks, Mark.
72.4 average and 98.5 sustained. That's my guess. I'm not sure, but you said the "article" claimed it was a 4 year old in 34'. Don't think MILWK had any passenger diesel in 1930. It was most likely a 4-4-2, IIRC, that MILWK used on the Hiawatha's. I would assume, purely assume, that Portage and someplace near Redwing would be fuel/water stops. Or one big gulp (insert 7/11 joke here) in the LaCrosse/Winona area?
Good night, good mornin', whatever time it is.
Hmmm...
I'm off to bed anyway, why don't we let it go until the morning, if no one else jumps in, I'll suspend that rule.
Are we still playing by Al's rules and I'm out?
Eventually, Al and I will meet in the middle.
Alex, I'll take average speed for 79.7 MPH and a burst of 118.5
rrnut282 wrote:Without the mileage to work out coal/water and station stops and the distance between them, it's down to another WAG: 69.8 MPH overall with a sustained burst of 91.1
You're still under, Mike, in both cases!
blhanel wrote: OK-On July 20, 1934, the Milwaukee Road did a special test passenger run, involving a five-car steel train with roller bearing cars. Pulling it was locomotive 6402, a four-year old engine regularly used on the Chicago-Milwaukee run.Within a tenth of a mile without going over, what was the average speed attained by that passenger train between Chicago and Milwaukee?Extra credit- this run also established a new world's sustained speed record (at the time) for passenger train travel over a segment of the line from Edgebrook, IL to Oakwood, WI. What was that speed?
OK-
On July 20, 1934, the Milwaukee Road did a special test passenger run, involving a five-car steel train with roller bearing cars. Pulling it was locomotive 6402, a four-year old engine regularly used on the Chicago-Milwaukee run.
Within a tenth of a mile without going over, what was the average speed attained by that passenger train between Chicago and Milwaukee?
Extra credit- this run also established a new world's sustained speed record (at the time) for passenger train travel over a segment of the line from Edgebrook, IL to Oakwood, WI. What was that speed?
Brian, I have absolutely no idea, but just to narrow my thinking somewhat, however wrongly, I'll hypothesize that the five cars were prototypes of, or (after taking away a coach or two) the actual original consist of the trainset that became part of the historic Pioneer Zephyr run of Chicago to Denver, which IIRC had diesel-electric head-end power. Was the "steel train" mention an allusion to Budd-type corrugated streamlining of the type that the CB&Q would go on to adopt and then later make its hallmark as "the" look for classy varnish?
Sounds like the loco was a steamer, or else that dry run might have become part of the statistics along with the Pioneer Zephyr's 1934 Chi - Den run I mentioned above. I know that event also took place in 1934 but whether or not it happened before or after the Chi - Milw run at hand I don't know. It would make more sense to me if the Denver run took place between July 21, 1934 and December 31, 1934, but it's not material to the questions you posed.
For no particular reason, I'll guess 86.3 mph as the average speed Chicago - Milwaukee.
But if the engine were indeed steam, that gets a bit problematic. Steam held the speed lead over diesel - electric for decades after the 1930s and the beginning of the dieselization movement, IIRC. Though there's no justification in my logic (mostly because I don't have enuf facts to use logic!), I'll just guess that the speed-record-setting passenger run from Edgewood IL to Oakbrook WI averaged, ummm, 124.2 mph. That stretch seems to be the most rural in my meager recollection and if the stats had been kept on the basis of depart Edgewood to arrive Oakbrook, then any necessary coaling stop at either end would not have figured into the run times.
Well, it's a start. No way am I going to win this, but I'm happy the occasion arose to be the first guesser/poster. - al smalling
blhanel wrote:If rrnut doesn't have one, I've got an interesting question related to the previous one that will have members shaking their heads when they hear the answer...
I'm shaking my head and I haven't heard the answer yet.
Carl
Railroader Emeritus (practiced railroading for 46 years--and in 2010 I finally got it right!)
CAACSCOCOM--I don't want to behave improperly, so I just won't behave at all. (SM)
Well, I suppose I could relax that a bit- OK, within one MPH. It's funny, though, the account I got this from has it recorded down to the hundredths!
Either way, Murph, you're over...
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.