John Hankey presents a convincing argument against the myth of a Santa Fe 4-4-2 achieving 106 mph during the Walter Scott run. But there is an error in his description of the modest proportions of the engine. He says it has a "modest firebox area (190 square feet)."
Well, if he really means firebox volume, it would be cubic feet, not square feet. No big deal except you rarely see fireboxes described by their volume in cubic feet. More commonly we refer to grate area in square feet. If he really meant grate area, then the number 190 is wildly inaccurate. The largest ever grate was applied to the NP Z-5 Yellowstone - 182 square feet. Typical of 4-4-2s of the day, the Pennsy E3sd sported a 55.5 square foot grate and the E6s was slightly smaller at 54.75 square feet. Grate area determines the size of the coal bed and much of the airflow to the fire, so it is critical to engine performance.
So I hope Mr. Hankey or an editor will see this post and clarify what he meant to say. This is not to question or criticize his argument. He is certainly correct.
What is the basis of Mr. Hankey's assertion that the speed claim is untrue?
As I understand it: thermodynamics; the usual rules of physics for conservation of energy; the usual rules of mechanics for power used <= and balancing the power produced for a constant speed at a certain level of train resistance; and most critically, the huge increment in power needed to suddenly accelerate that train from the lower speed in the immediately preceding mile to the 106 MPH rate in the measured mile - where did that power come from all of a sudden ? Kind of like me jogging at my usual torpid pace, then all of a sudden going at a 4-minute mile pace, then back to the slower slog. Plus, comparing this loco and run to other similar locos and runs - it doesn't 'jibe'.
Finally, my point is that if this run were credible and repeatable, everyone else would have changed the proportions of their locomotives to match ASAP so as to also reap the same benefit - imitation being flattery, and all that - but that didn't happen.
- Paul North.
Paul,
I guess I will have to read the article, and also read up on that speed run. I think Trains covered that event in some long ago back issue. But I must say that I am skeptical of Hankey’s conclusion, as I understand your explanation of it. But setting that aside, I do not understand what reason there is to doubt a speed claim of 106 mph from a 4-4-2 locomotive and train of that era. I could understand the doubt if there were some type of timekeeping or mileage error that could be shown.
But specifically relating to your explanation of Hankey’s conclusion, why would there need to be a sudden acceleration to get up to speed within a limited distance before entering the measured mile? Do we even know that that was the case? I would assume that if one were to clock a top possible speed in a measured mile, one would make sure the train was running as fast as possible before entering that measured mile.
Also, I don’t understand the conclusion that if the run were credible, everybody else would have modified their locomotives to do the same thing. Was this particular locomotive modified in some unique way to achieve this speed?
If it was specially built to set this speed record, it would not necessarily follow that the company would then run their passenger trains that fast on a routine basis; nor would it follow that other competing lines would build the same design for the purpose of running their trains that fast. Locomotive speed potential is one thing, and safe speed limits is another.
For the time being, I won’t go into my intuitive reasons for questioning the motives of this debunking.
I just received my Trains today and may not get to read it until Monday or Tuesday. However, as to other railroads as well as the Sante Fe adapting locomotives to the same: simply the engine and railroad were specially prepared to allow for the fastest passage of the train. Quality coal and water, the most skilled engineers of the divisions, spiked switches, well cleared meets and overtakes, etc., all things that are too expensive and time consuming to do under ordinary operating circumstances.
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.
Hankey was referring to the direct heating surface (firebox and later combustion chamber) of the locomotive, not the grate area. 4-4-2's of the era would have had something in the range of 190 Sf of direct heating surface. This is where most of the heat transfer takes place. The tubes and flues constitute the indirect heating surface where additional heat from combustion gasses is transferred to the water in the boiler..
Speed timings for this run would have been 'timed' by Operators reporting OS times for the train past their station. Those times are reported in Hour and Minute....NO Seconds are reported.
Can't speak to the road where the timing occurred, however, I suspect all railroads at the time had procedures in place for all 'Standard Clocks' to be synchronized on a daily basis. On my carrier this synchronization procedure was transmitted on the Dispatcher's Wire at Noon, daily. This leads to the question, were all clocks actually keeping 'the same' time. Was the operator reporting the time reporting 55-59 seconds as the actual minute or the next minute. We can time things to the nano nano second accuracy today - we could not then.
One minute (plus or minus) on a OS reporting can have a big difference on the calculated speeds between two points.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Here is a link to the story of the Scott Special:
http://cprr.org/Museum/Scott_Special_1905.html
Quoted from the link:
“From the little hamlet of Cameron to the still smaller one of Surrey is 2.8 miles. “She” made in one minute and thirty-five seconds at a rate of 106 miles an hour.”
From that description, they must have had the ability to count seconds.
I did the math and it comes out to 106.105 miles per hour.
I am very anxious to read Mr. Hankey’s article, but I will have to wait until the magazine hits the news stand, and that won’t be for another month. But as I gather from what has been said here, Mr. Hankey has refuted the claim of 106 mph based on some type of scientific calculation that supposedly proves the speed was not possible.
So, what is the maximum speed that Mr. Hankey’s calculations prove was possible with that train?
The previous record was 102 mph on the PRR about ten years earlier. It seems to me that if 102 mph was clocked for that record, 106 mph would not be far fetched.
Remember, scientific calculations prove that a bumblebee cannot fly.
Does it really, really matter whether Death Valley Scotty's train hit 106mph or not? I can think of a lot more important things to lose sleep over.
Firelock76 Does it really, really matter whether Death Valley Scotty's train hit 106mph or not? I can think of a lot more important things to lose sleep over.
It must have mattered enough to write and publish an article claiming to have proved that the record was a lie.
Somebody's nit really needed picking. Must have been one of the Witt brothers!
Again I've not red this article yet...but from past articles and understandings everybody was holding stop watches: trainmen, trainmasters, superindentants, on lookers, gawkers, operators, agents, the bulls, and, if he weren't otherwise occupied by companions and consumptions, Scotty himself. And I bet the PR people took the best times off each watch at each inch! That's what Scotty was paying for and that's what the public gobbled up.
Science "proves" bumblebees can't fly is of course an urban myth. But then criticising science is quite popular at the moment...
Bucyrus Firelock76: Does it really, really matter whether Death Valley Scotty's train hit 106mph or not? I can think of a lot more important things to lose sleep over. It must have mattered enough to write and publish an article claiming to have proved that the record was a lie.
Firelock76: Does it really, really matter whether Death Valley Scotty's train hit 106mph or not? I can think of a lot more important things to lose sleep over.
I've got a lot of respect for John Hankey, he's gone places and done things I would have loved to do and done them well. That being said, maybe he just had to write an article about SOMETHING and debunking Death Valley Scotty's run was as good a subject as any. Or maybe he just felt like stirring up some "stuff", if you know what I mean. Love ya John, keep up the good work!
BucyrusI do not understand what reason there is to doubt a speed claim of 106 mph from a 4-4-2 locomotive and train of that era. I could understand the doubt if there were some type of timekeeping or mileage error that could be shown.
timz In a letter in Rwy Age for 25 April 1936, M. D. Franey said an LS&MS 4-6-2 had run the 7.53 miles from Amherst to Vermilion OH in three minutes. No one can show a timekeeping error, and probably no one can show a mileage error. So, no reason to doubt it?
In a letter in Rwy Age for 25 April 1936, M. D. Franey said an LS&MS 4-6-2 had run the 7.53 miles from Amherst to Vermilion OH in three minutes. No one can show a timekeeping error, and probably no one can show a mileage error. So, no reason to doubt it?
7.53 miles in 3 minutes would be only 156 mph. Who would question that? (to be read with sarcasm)
Feltonhill, thanks for the input. I hadn't thought of direct heating surface. It makes sense.
Tim
CricketerScience "proves" bumblebees can't fly is of course an urban myth. But then criticising science is quite popular at the moment...
That may be, but it is a readily understandable way to make my point that actual physical results can be calculated mathematically, only to turn out differently than predicted because the calculation was in error, or more commonly, did not take into account the full range of variables that applied.
But, as I said before, if Mr. Hankey calculated that 106.1 mph was not possible, he surely must have found what speed was possible in that same calculation. And I cannot believe that he would not state that for the record in the Trains article. However, until I see the article, I can only assume he does state the maximum possible speed in the article.
The word, debunk is a strong, utterly confident word. It does not mean that you merely question or take issue with something. It means a crushing and humiliating refutation of someone’s claim beyond all shadow of a doubt. Debunk would be a fitting characterization if, for instance, you proved that the entire Walter Scott speed run was made up fiction and never happened.
On the contrary, publishing a claim to have debunked a century-old speed record by splitting hairs on the basis of some math calculation seems almost like a bigger publicity stunt than Scott’s speed run.
So, again I ask those who have read the article, what was the maximum speed possible according to Mr. Hankey’s calculations? Anybody??
tpatrick timz: In a letter in Rwy Age for 25 April 1936, M. D. Franey said an LS&MS 4-6-2 had run the 7.53 miles from Amherst to Vermilion OH in three minutes. No one can show a timekeeping error, and probably no one can show a mileage error. So, no reason to doubt it? 7.53 miles in 3 minutes would be only 156 mph. Who would question that? (to be read with sarcasm) Tim
timz: In a letter in Rwy Age for 25 April 1936, M. D. Franey said an LS&MS 4-6-2 had run the 7.53 miles from Amherst to Vermilion OH in three minutes. No one can show a timekeeping error, and probably no one can show a mileage error. So, no reason to doubt it?
Not meaning to debunk your math, but, with all due respect, I have a sneaking suspicion that your calculation is off by 5.4 mph. Perhaps Mr. Hankey made a similar error.
By the way, which locomotive are we talking about for the claim of 106.1 mph?
I've just reread Mr Hankey's sidebar. He doubts both the accuracy ofthe timing and also the ability of the locomotive. No one knows who did the time measurement (1m 35s over 2.8 mi), butperhaps someone among the party used his own watch? If the time were1m 40sec instead of 5 seconds shorter, the speed would have been 100.8mph - still plenty fast, it seems to me.For the part of his claim based on the locomotive, the author invokeda conversation with Mr. Bill Withuhn, who studied speed claims forsteam locomotives from 1893 and 1905.Hankey writes "In his (BW's) opinion, neither locomotive - andcertainly not Santa Fe No. 510 - could have generated the boileroutput or cylinder horsepower needed to accelerate their trains past80 or 90 mph under ideal conditions. Furthermore it is hard toimagine that a fireman could shovel enough coal ..." "The boilercouldn't have made steam quickly enough,..."
Bucyrus, you are right. That's what I get for not using a calculator. Thanks for the correction.
The locomotive in question is ATSF 4-4-2 no. 510, a Baldwin saturated, balanced compound built in 1904.
It would seem to me that the capabilities of the locomotive would be more in question than the timekeeping. I do believe most railroaders had company watches (or they were at least checked by the company) that would have been capable of measuring time down to the second, as Hankey notes.
Using the published mileposts for the two stations vs two actual consecutive mileposts actually increases the precision of the measurement. We have no reason to believe the railroad fudged the locations of their stations. Mileposts are known to vary, but unless a railroad is trying to up their mileage for some reason, there's no reason to assume that they're all short.
I find his hysterical "That's impossible!" tone almost as incredible as the speed claim. Maybe even moreso.
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...
jpwoodruff,
Thanks for that information. I have not seen the article yet, so I can only go by what I am told about it.
Regarding your details about the article:
Well sure, if the time were measured wrong, the speed would be wrong. But just the possibility of error or fraud is not at all evidence that it actually happened. Railroaders knew their stuff back in those days when it came to timekeeping and fast running.
Just the fact that this event was staged by a railroad company ought to lend substantial credibility to the speed claims. They published a clear and comprehensive record of this run in a timetable format with station points, mileage, and times, along with calculations of maximum speeds reached in many specific locations. This speed clocking hardly seems like a mere amateur production by spectators here and there who happened to have watches.
Interestingly, the ATSF did not permit their enginemen to simply run the fastest speed possible on this run. They told them they could exceed the limit, but only within a safe margin, depending on conditions and location.
I have to wonder what the technical foundation is for an opinion that the #510 could not have accelerated its train past 80-90 mph. Are you saying that it is only one man’s opinion? Does Mr. Hankey not provide a formal engineering analysis and calculation showing the weight of the train, horsepower, condition of the track, wind direction, air temperature, quality of coal, pounds of coal per minute burned, track grades and curves, etc.?
So this whole supposed debunking rests only on the possibility that a clocking error might have occurred, and it might have resulted in 100 mph being misreported as 106 mph; and one person has an opinion that the locomotive was not capable of exceeding 90 mph?
This supposed debunking sounds like it is coming from people who believe railroading was anachronism incapable of heroic feats until the pinnacle of the super power era. It sounds to me like a collection of little doubts all strung together to reach for a preconceived conclusion.
Finally got the opportunity to read the article - My observation, Mr. Hankey wanted to do everything possible to shoot down the 'aura' that has been created by this run over the past 100 years. I am not saying that Mr. Hankey was lying about anything he stated, however, the manner in which things were stated were couched to provide the worst possible picture of Death Valley Scotty and anything he touched.
With regard to the locomotive in question not being capable - one point made in his piece was that "the fireman" would not be able to keep up with the demands for steam.
It was also pointed out that the locomotive wasn't really capable of generating that much steam.
The accounts of the trip indicate that there were other railroad officials in the cab. It's not beyond possibility that the locomotive entered the ersatz "speed trap" with a roaring fire in the firebox, a boiler topped off with water, the pops lifting, and several people with scoops in hand, ready to feed the fire. These folks lived steam and would have understood how to do it.
It clearly would have taken a concerted effort by all involved to pull it off, and there were dangerous implications if something went wrong, but it's still possible they accomplished the feat. I'd opine that by the time they got to the end of their brief effort that the fire was less than optimum and steam pressure was down. The 106 MPH may not have sustainable for any significant distance, but it was likely possible for the short distance (2.8 miles) they claimed they achieved it.
And, oh, by the way, the entire time elapsed at 106 MPH would have been all of 95 seconds...
A stupid question, but, did not the operators along the railroad record the time the train paased on a train sheet? Isn't it a crime to falsify that?
George
Even with a watch with a sweep second hand or a stopwatch, a lot of potential errors can creep into the timing. Since a stopwatch of that period was started and stopped by hand, a timing can be started or stopped at the wrong place and even a one second error will cause a variance of about 3 MPH in that speed range and the variances get larger as the speed claims get higher. Any claimed timings made by hand must be taken with a grain of salt.
CSSHEGEWISCHEven with a watch with a sweep second hand or a stopwatch, a lot of potential errors can creep into the timing.
Yes, it is quite possible that the speed may have been significantly higher than 106 mph. My guess is that they got up to 110 mph. A lot of times those old watches ran too slow.
BaltACD Finally got the opportunity to read the article - My observation, Mr. Hankey wanted to do everything possible to shoot down the 'aura' that has been created by this run over the past 100 years. I am not saying that Mr. Hankey was lying about anything he stated, however, the manner in which things were stated were couched to provide the worst possible picture of Death Valley Scotty and anything he touched.
Death Valley Scotty was maybe as colorful and entertaining as any character associated with (the latter days of) the Old West.
His personal monument at Death Valley National Park, that castle, is a wonder to see.
But his reputation as self-promoting phony is also well-earned. If he told the complete truth about anything, THAT was news.
tree68 With regard to the locomotive in question not being capable - one point made in his piece was that "the fireman" would not be able to keep up with the demands for steam. It was also pointed out that the locomotive wasn't really capable of generating that much steam. The accounts of the trip indicate that there were other railroad officials in the cab. It's not beyond possibility that the locomotive entered the ersatz "speed trap" with a roaring fire in the firebox, a boiler topped off with water, the pops lifting, and several people with scoops in hand, ready to feed the fire. These folks lived steam and would have understood how to do it. It clearly would have taken a concerted effort by all involved to pull it off, and there were dangerous implications if something went wrong, but it's still possible they accomplished the feat. I'd opine that by the time they got to the end of their brief effort that the fire was less than optimum and steam pressure was down. The 106 MPH may not have sustainable for any significant distance, but it was likely possible for the short distance (2.8 miles) they claimed they achieved it. And, oh, by the way, the entire time elapsed at 106 MPH would have been all of 95 seconds...
Johnny
As a 'debunking' article, I found it very ironic that it was placed in the magazine just prior to the one about the three railroaders that went down with the Titanic - the single event that took the bloom off the rose of that ages perception of mechanical infallibility.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.