With all the conversations, 'studies' and route planning for the advent in this Country for High Speed Rail. We only have one route close to actually running at a high speed ( The UP's route between Chicago and St. Louis, via Springfield,IL.
The North East Corridor might be considered as coming close in some sections, but as with the Illinois Corridor. It seems to be close but still off in the distance to be true HSR.
A question in my mind is how long is HSR going to last?
AMTRAK seems to stumble from one year to the next. its'; funding hinged on the Personalities Controlling the Washington Funding Machine. Its promise never quite realized. Just enough funding to stagger to the next Budget. "Like a Mexican Birthday Party;. "Hit the pinata hard enough, and you get money falling into your hands" Hell of a way to run anything, IMO.
In 1965/1966, a time some have described as the nadir of American Railroading. The PRR/ NYC/ NHRR were about to get meleded into a mass( sort of a Commercial Shotgun Wedding) called the PennCentral RR and everybody was sort of waiting to see what kind of monster was going to rise out of the Yard Sale that was to become the National Rail Passenger Corp.. (nee: AMTRAK); as companies dumped passenger service and their equipment as fast as they could find buyers, and/or unload it to AMTRAK.
There was probably more HSR trackage in the US than at anyother time. NYCRR had their route across NY State. It was very good running and had been West of Albany and Buffalo to Cleveland and Beyond. In July of 1893 the 4-40- #999 pulled four passenger cars to a speed of 123.5 mph between Syracuse and Batavia,NY.
Not to mention a Railroad President Alfred Perlman of the NYC who in conjunction with their Research and Studies Department had the intestional fortitude to fund the M-497 tests of High Speed Rail. They used what they had: A Budd Built RDC-3 ( called by NYC a Beeliner) got a couple of military Surplus J-47 Jet engines ( nacele and engines off of a B-36). Mounted them on their RDC's 'B' end. Built a streamlined fairing on the 'A' end;Took it out on the Railroad and with Al Perlman and Don Wetzel in the cab, they drove it to 186.7 MPH, on a bolted rail section of the Main between Toledo and Butler IN. The NYC apparently did it for something less than $40K. back then.
The PRR across Ohio West of Crestline was the domains of the S-1, and the T-i whose speeds were the tales told in Railroad Fokelore.
The Southewr Rwy carried folks from the North East to New Orleans in Comfort and Luxury, til they too got out of the passenger rail business.
The ICRR (was known then as The Mainline of Mid-America) was a double traced raceway from Chicago, South, to just North of New Orleans. Again Observations, of Passing Trains lead to tales of fast Passenger train speeds that were exceptionally fast for the times.
Down in the Mississippi Delta Towns there was the Tales of the IC's "City' and 'Panama Ltd' cruising through towns so quickly,' they would suck the trash out of the Ditches on Both Sides of the Tracks', or "...They would go through a town so fast that the hammer on the bell at the crossing would only get to half cocked as the train went through.."
Point is, they( Passenger Rail Roads) were fast, and people road in the levels of luxury they could afford. . Since AMTRAK, we seem to get nothing but excuses, from Maintenance Issues and Customer Service, to their current inabilities to offer a food service that seems to bleed profits at an indecent level.
ref: Linked @ http://ashlandsourcecenter.com/profiles/blogs/the-man-who-loved-trains-the
@ http://www.midwesthsr.org/sites/default/files/pdf/M-497.pdf
[A PDF file by Hank Morris (W/ Don Wetzel)
"Flight of the M-497"
Nice article.
My guess: Until a new technology supersedes it as "an emotional matter in an imaginative form".
The gang at the NYC's lab in Collinwood that cobbled together the M-497 were a super-talented bunch. Most of them scattered after the PC merger, but a few survived into the Conrail era. I had the pleasure of working with them occasionally - I learned a lot!
There has been nothing like them on any US RR since.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Regarding the 999, you are confusing two speed records. The 999 got to something like 102mph and was the first to get to or exceed 100mph, world-wide, while the 127mph was a Pennsy acheivement some years later. I think it was done by an E2 or E3 Atlantic.
Acela is faster than any scheduled North American passenger trains in the era you have written about. And so are a few segments of NEC Regionals and NJT NEC commuter trains. To dig up something from the past to surpass the last two, one would go back to the immediate preWWII and post WWII eras for Chicago - Milwaukee and segments of the El Cap and Super Chief.
Let us hope that California HSR and FEC Orlando - Miami are successes. How is the Chi-NO Pullman service doing?
I think the actual record for the 999 was not just for trains but for ground transportation. Yes it was touted as first at 102 mph, the first to pass the century mark. PRR's 127 was later of course enroute to NY from I think D.C. But 100+ mph was common for many years on PRR, SF, NYC, UP, and other roads though not necessarily promoted...PRR's GG1's reportedly attained 125 regularly; the parallel race courses between Milwaukee and Chicago often produced 100+ running, too. Today, cost vs benefit will hold the speed down on freight along with fears of disasters promulgated by lawyers and regulators in regular operations unless specifically designed and operated as a higher speed railway, like the ACELA. (Notice I used "higher speed railway" rather than HSR.)
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.
henry6PRR's 127 was later of course enroute to NY from I think D.C.
henry6PRR's GG1's reportedly attained 125 regularly
They could nick 100 mph with a short train, but that's all folks! Remember, they couldn't hold a 3 hours Metroliner schedule with a four car train.
Getting over 100 mph is HARD WORK. I'm sure there were lots of places various trains did regularly nose up over 100 mph for a stretch or two. The ACL's goal of getting lots of 100 mph running between Richomnd and FL in order to get NY to Miami down to 24 hrs was one - but it certainly wasn't the norm most places on most road.
What is the incremental cost per mile (infrastructure and equipment) to go from a top speed of 79 mph to 110 - 125 mph? And what is the incremental cost per mile to jump the speed from 110 - 125 mph to 187 - 220 mph?
If 110 to 125 mph would meet the needs of 80 to 90 per cent of the population where train travel is potentially viable, i.e. relatively short, high density corridors, what is the commercial justification for incurring the extra expense to gain a top speed of 187 - 220 mph.
Commercial justification means that the system can recover all of its costs from the fare box. The French and Japanese claim that their original high speed lines are profitable. That's probably true if one overlooks the fact that the taxpayers absorbed the up front depreciation of the infrastructure costs before the lines were reorganized and privatized or semi-privatized.
I do not know, sam, but it takes less if the equipment is lightweight, unlike the current Acelas, which are heavier than the French base model to meet FRA crash standards, which will change with PTC, probably. 79 mph limit was FRA imposed for a variety of reasons.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
It depends on train weight, traffic mix, etc. Trying to keep 110 mph quality track on routes with lots of freight is really expensive. But, if it's all light weight passenger equipment, then its not nearly so bad. There is actually a cost/speed/traffic mix matrix for ROW maintenance costs that's been developed. I'll have to hunt it down.
Found it: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/trnews/trnews255rpo.pdf
oltmannd It depends on train weight, traffic mix, etc. Trying to keep 110 mph quality track on routes with lots of freight is really expensive. But, if it's all light weight passenger equipment, then its not nearly so bad. There is actually a cost/speed/traffic mix matrix for ROW maintenance costs that's been developed. I'll have to hunt it down. Found it: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/trnews/trnews255rpo.pdf
blue streak 1 Don:: Noticed that UP is nstalling new ties and "preminum" rail for the next segment of the CHI -- STL route. 1. What exactly is "preminum" rail ? 2. How many passes of a surfacing machine does it usually take to go to class 6? If you know up to class 9 ? 3. Is a more expensive surfacing machine required to get the track to the class 6 ? 4. More expensive machine to maintain the class 6? 5. On average how often to re surface knowing that there always be spots that need it sooner ( maybe in MGTMs ) 6.. After oniginal upgrading and required number of gross tons go over a section how is the alignment checked ? Geometry car, surfacing machine, other ? Maybe MC or some others will have a different answer ? 7. Will the replaced rail be relaid elsewhere ? If so what credit will Illinois DOT get for the rail ?.
I am out of my depth for most of these....
1. could be head hardened and/or specific alloy??
2. Not sure, but I think the current state of the art tampers that vibrate and crawl along continuously, can get you where you need to be in one pass. They are both fast and good.
6. Track Geometry Car - predominantly.
Railroads routinely take replaced main-line rail and reuse it on branch lines and in yards.
Metalurgy has improved, and you can see adds in TRAINS touting some of the rail improvements. (Also even more in Trams and Urban Transit (www.lrta.org), which deals with commuter rail and Metros as well as light rail.) Both alloys and hardening methods apply. Some railroads use the best and most expensive rail only on the outside rail of curves and where the heaviest traffic on grades is located.
(this is some time in the past where parents trusted strangers more)
A woman and her daughter are in line at the market and the daughter is getting restless. A lady ahead of them pays for her groceries and hands the child an orange.
"This nice lady has given you an orange, what do you say, dear?"
"Peel it!"
So Don, those are very interesting numbers but I am really busy right now trying to solve a different engineering problem right now. How do those numbers translate into maintenance costs per passenger mile?
OK, you are probably equally busy at work, and maybe this is something I can tackle when I "clear my desk." But coming up with some kind of curve of expense per passenger mile with train speed, even if it is only the track maintenance expense allocated to the passenger train in high-speed service might be interesting.
Is there some kind of volume or economy of scale effect? That is, if you have light traffic, you still have to do maintenance on the track because of the effects of weather, and you need a certain level of ridership to justify an HSR? Does a lightweight train help with HSR, both in a lightweight design and a low weight "per seat" achieved with higher seating density, or does the track maintenance increase rapidly once a certain speed is reached meaning speed beyond a certain point doesn't pay?
It would be interesting to see if the economics favor a lower speed than the flat-out 220 MPH that everyone assumes when doing back-of-the-envelope HSR plans.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
oltmannd It depends on train weight, traffic mix, etc. Trying to keep 110 mph quality track on routes with lots of freight is really expensive.
It depends on train weight, traffic mix, etc. Trying to keep 110 mph quality track on routes with lots of freight is really expensive.
So I think that what you are saying is that if you have a lot of freight (at much lower speeds) and some passenger (at the 110 MPH), the freight may "pound the tracks out of shape" even if they run slower, but you have to spend a lot of money putting the tracks back up to the required shape for the 110 MPH that only the passenger trains need?
Paul; i was hoping you'd say some more about the NYC jet train. Didn't your dad have some connection to that?
Personally, i think a top speed in the range of 155-175 mph is plenty fast. It seems to work ok in Germany.
schlimm Paul; i was hoping you'd say some more about the NYC jet train. Didn't your dad have some connection to that? Personally, i think a top speed in the range of 155-175 mph is plenty fast. It seems to work ok in Germany.
Never had a chance to ask him about it, but 1) that was done by the NYC rather than through the Federal "HSR" initiative to which GATX was a contractor, and 2) it predates when Dad was involved in this research.
One thing I heard about the NYC trial is that they "ground the wheels conical", meaning they took out the wheel tread taper that steers the wheels and also causes truck "hunting" (also called "nosing'). This means at lower speeds such as in a terminal area, navigating curves would engage the flanges much earlier. From what Dad said, such a wheel profile can wear into something with a hollow taper that can have very bad hunting and be dangerous at speed.
So it is not just the jet engines that make this trial not a practical form of a HSR.
schlimm Personally, i think a top speed in the range of 155-175 mph is plenty fast. It seems to work ok in Germany.
With sustained speeds of 155-175 you have a winner in HSR. If those are just 'top speeds' on short segements of track all you really end up with is a railroad freak show.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACD schlimm Personally, i think a top speed in the range of 155-175 mph is plenty fast. It seems to work ok in Germany. With sustained speeds of 155-175 you have a winner in HSR. If those are just 'top speeds' on short segements of track all you really end up with is a railroad freak show.
A couple of corrections to the description of the IC's passenger trains between Memphis and New Orleans. First, the passenger trains did not go through the Delta, but used the line that ran east of the hills that mark the eastern side of the Delta; the through freights ran (and still run) through the Delta, just as Amtrak's train now does. It was in north Mississippi that the trains ran through the towns so fast--and the engineer was unable to get a proper public crossing signal off for each crossing in the towns. Also, the line from Memphis to North Jackson was single track (why double a track that was used only by the passenger trains and the local freight?), and was double track from there into New Orleans except where it went around the west end of Lake Pontchartrain.
Except for a division in Illinois, all of this fast running was done with ABS and with CTC around Lake Pontchartrain. However, back in those days, the 79mph speed limit was not always observed (when I rode the engine of #1 from Memphis to Batesville 49 years ago, the speedometer read 90 mph most of the way--and we made no lost time up).
Johnny
In 1964, at least on the Champaign to Kankakee stretch there was no 79 mph speed limit. The better trains used to hit 90+ and touched 100 sometimes.
Excellent point. Look at Don Steffee speed logs in Trains of the 1950-1965 era. The Mercury, steamhauled by streamlined J3a (3800 hp per Alco) hauled 12-16 light weight coaches. So traon weighed abut 850 tons (250 T Hudson and 600 T coaches, used 3800 hp, got to chcago in 4.75 hours. Today Amtrak will go same route with 2 4200 HP GE's, 4-6 light weight coaches and consider it well done if they make Chicago in 6 + hours. They also have CTC (soon to be PTC) and al;most no freight. 6 trains per day vs approx 24 trains in '38. (Don't have my employee TT's unpacked yet). Culture has so much to do it here--the tyranny of low expectations. Now go to websites of Chiltern Railways and Virgin Trains. Chiltern has splendid service. VT uses an upgraded London & Birmingham, LNWR, LMS, BR route. Look at times, average speeds, etc. Puts Amtrak to shame.
R Shannon *NYCRR*
Paul MilenkovicOne thing I heard about the NYC trial is that they "ground the wheels conical", meaning they took out the wheel tread taper that steers the wheels and also causes truck "hunting" (also called "nosing'). This means at lower speeds such as in a terminal area, navigating curves would engage the flanges much earlier. From what Dad said, such a wheel profile can wear into something with a hollow taper that can have very bad hunting and be dangerous at speed.
Since we brought this thread back up, can someone explain this to me better?
My understanding was that the tread 'taper' adjustment for very-high-speed stability was to reduce normal conicity, not enhance it. (I remember seeing a discussion of either 1:20 or 1:40 taper, with some dynamic 'location' force being desirable to preclude flange contact, but not enough to set up hunting/yaw oscillation...)
Was the thinking to grind DOWN the treads to be 'less conical'? That would jibe with what I know about the M497 project.
Yes, flat tread is an open indication for wear to produce a 'hollow tread'. Note that this at first glance might look 'self-stabilizing' (in the same sense that the Budd-Michelin tires were supposed to be 'self-guiding' as their treads deformed over the railhead under load) - but the machanics (if I recall correctly, both of two wheels on a rigid axle and of independent wheels a la Talgo) do not support stability as soon as insufficiently-damped yaw forces are introduced in this case, and you might want to provide a dynamical analysis why this is so.
Let me repeat that M497 was never intended as "HSR" -- it was a test vehicle for high-speed development 'on the cheap', and presented as such by NYC. In a very real sense it was a 'spit in the eye' to the Pennsylvania's grandiose Federally-supported high-speed MP-85 MU project that became ... at much lower actual sustainable speeds, and with so much '60s-design-complexity failure ... the Metroliners.
Very smart guys in that Collinwood team, and it is a shame that more has not been said about them.
Wizlish Paul Milenkovic One thing I heard about the NYC trial is that they "ground the wheels conical", meaning they took out the wheel tread taper that steers the wheels and also causes truck "hunting" (also called "nosing'). This means at lower speeds such as in a terminal area, navigating curves would engage the flanges much earlier. From what Dad said, such a wheel profile can wear into something with a hollow taper that can have very bad hunting and be dangerous at speed. Since we brought this thread back up, can someone explain this to me better? My understanding was that the tread 'taper' adjustment for very-high-speed stability was to reduce normal conicity, not enhance it. (I remember seeing a discussion of either 1:20 or 1:40 taper, with some dynamic 'location' force being desirable to preclude flange contact, but not enough to set up hunting/yaw oscillation...) Was the thinking to grind DOWN the treads to be 'less conical'? That would jibe with what I know about the M497 project. Yes, flat tread is an open indication for wear to produce a 'hollow tread'. Note that this at first glance might look 'self-stabilizing' (in the same sense that the Budd-Michelin tires were supposed to be 'self-guiding' as their treads deformed over the railhead under load) - but the machanics (if I recall correctly, both of two wheels on a rigid axle and of independent wheels a la Talgo) do not support stability as soon as insufficiently-damped yaw forces are introduced in this case, and you might want to provide a dynamical analysis why this is so. Let me repeat that M497 was never intended as "HSR" -- it was a test vehicle for high-speed development 'on the cheap', and presented as such by NYC. In a very real sense it was a 'spit in the eye' to the Pennsylvania's grandiose Federally-supported high-speed MP-85 MU project that became ... at much lower actual sustainable speeds, and with so much '60s-design-complexity failure ... the Metroliners. Very smart guys in that Collinwood team, and it is a shame that more has not been said about them.
Paul Milenkovic One thing I heard about the NYC trial is that they "ground the wheels conical", meaning they took out the wheel tread taper that steers the wheels and also causes truck "hunting" (also called "nosing'). This means at lower speeds such as in a terminal area, navigating curves would engage the flanges much earlier. From what Dad said, such a wheel profile can wear into something with a hollow taper that can have very bad hunting and be dangerous at speed.
Re-reading both posts, it becomes clear you are both saying the same thing in re the conical taper.
I imagine "ground the wheels the conical" was intended to mean "ground [flat] the wheels' conical."
For want of an apostrophe, a wheel was lost!!!
WizlishVery smart guys in that Collinwood team, and it is a shame that more has not been said about them.
Yes! I knew a few of them, one quite well. Learned a huge amount from them.
schlimm I do not know, sam, but it takes less if the equipment is lightweight, unlike the current Acelas, which are heavier than the French base model to meet FRA crash standards, which will change with PTC, probably. 79 mph limit was FRA imposed for a variety of reasons.
The "79" MPH speed limit was imposed not by the FRA but by the ICC. It was imposed following a rear end collision on the Q in Naperville in 1947 . It is in fact a matrix of speed limits vs. signal types. For the roads that did not want to slow their trains they were given to 1951 to comply. At least one road (AT&SF) an extension was granted until 1952. The ICC's sole stated reason for the order was to encourage signal improvements.
Remember a couple of years ago we were told that some revisions to the car structural requirements were forthcoming in 2015? Well it's come and gone, so sigh of any movement so I wouldn'thold my breath.
schlimm In 1964, at least on the Champaign to Kankakee stretch there was no 79 mph speed limit. The better trains used to hit 90+ and touched 100 sometimes.
The Kankakee patch was part of the Chicago District of the Illinois Division. At that time the Chicago District extended from Stunkle Rd. ( south end of the 4 track) to Champaign. Operating rules were CTC from Stunkle to Gilman, with a short section of local control at KX tower. South of Gilman ABS rules were in effect. Nowhere was there any ATS/ATC on the district so the 79MPH rule was in effect.
The North end engineers were notorious for ignoring the 79 and if they had a late running City of ** or Panama would do their best to get to Chicago close to the advertised. Rode many miles on the CofM clicking off 33 sec miles (which if my calculations are correct is 103, max gearing speed for an E?) . Something happened around 67 or 68 when that kind of running disappeared, as the Main Line of Mid America was starting to deteriorate (hurray limestone ballast).
South of Champaign on the Champaign District, trains were allowed 100 due to the ATS that was in place.
Lighter weight equipment is not the cure all that some seem to think. It was the new generation of lighter weight rolling stock that produced the Rolling Contact Fatigue problems on the UK network. Rectification of these sites put Railtrack in administration (read bankruptcy).
Perhaps good numbers relatively but I wouldn't put too much stock in the absolute values. The authors don't tell us which of the several track deterioration models they have used and if the model is statistical or deterministic. I don't think a statistical model would be appropriate for this analysis. Whitout saying too much there have been some issues surrounding model results from this organization on both sides of the pond.
schlimm Wizlish Paul Milenkovic One thing I heard about the NYC trial is that they "ground the wheels conical", meaning they took out the wheel tread taper that steers the wheels and also causes truck "hunting" (also called "nosing'). This means at lower speeds such as in a terminal area, navigating curves would engage the flanges much earlier. From what Dad said, such a wheel profile can wear into something with a hollow taper that can have very bad hunting and be dangerous at speed. Since we brought this thread back up, can someone explain this to me better? My understanding was that the tread 'taper' adjustment for very-high-speed stability was to reduce normal conicity, not enhance it. (I remember seeing a discussion of either 1:20 or 1:40 taper, with some dynamic 'location' force being desirable to preclude flange contact, but not enough to set up hunting/yaw oscillation...) Was the thinking to grind DOWN the treads to be 'less conical'? That would jibe with what I know about the M497 project. Yes, flat tread is an open indication for wear to produce a 'hollow tread'. Note that this at first glance might look 'self-stabilizing' (in the same sense that the Budd-Michelin tires were supposed to be 'self-guiding' as their treads deformed over the railhead under load) - but the machanics (if I recall correctly, both of two wheels on a rigid axle and of independent wheels a la Talgo) do not support stability as soon as insufficiently-damped yaw forces are introduced in this case, and you might want to provide a dynamical analysis why this is so. Let me repeat that M497 was never intended as "HSR" -- it was a test vehicle for high-speed development 'on the cheap', and presented as such by NYC. In a very real sense it was a 'spit in the eye' to the Pennsylvania's grandiose Federally-supported high-speed MP-85 MU project that became ... at much lower actual sustainable speeds, and with so much '60s-design-complexity failure ... the Metroliners. Very smart guys in that Collinwood team, and it is a shame that more has not been said about them. Re-reading both posts, it becomes clear you are both saying the same thing in re the conical taper. I imagine "ground the wheels the conical" was intended to mean "ground [flat] the wheels' conical." For want of an apostrophe, a wheel was lost!!!
Yes for high speed service you would like minimal or no conicity on your wheel sets. I'm not sure what is used on the Acela or other high speed trains but I would guess its cylindrica. One example comes to mind. After opening the Skokie Valley Route (lots of tangent running few curves) the NS sought a more stable profile. They adopted a cylinderical profmile. Given the shared resources between the NS and the L CRT adopted the profile as well. Actually it makes a lot of sense as the L had relatively long stretches of tangent and most of the curves were too sharp for the wheel set taper do do any good. AFAIK that wheel profile is still being used by the CTA.
Yes hollow worn wheels are a bad thing both from a steering point of view and a contact stress issue. Interestingly the steered Schfeller bogie used in South Africa keeps the wheel set so well centered that hollow wear becomes an issue, possibly to the point that it offsets flange wear savings.
Buslist schlimm I do not know, sam, but it takes less if the equipment is lightweight, unlike the current Acelas, which are heavier than the French base model to meet FRA crash standards, which will change with PTC, probably. 79 mph limit was FRA imposed for a variety of reasons. The "79" MPH speed limit was imposed not by the FRA but by the ICC. It was imposed following a rear end collision on the Q in Naperville in 1947 . It is in fact a matrix of speed limits vs. signal types. For the roads that did not want to slow their trains they were given to 1951 to comply. At least one road (AT&SF) an extension was granted until 1952. The ICC's sole stated reason for the order was to encourage signal improvements. Remember a couple of years ago we were told that some revisions to the car structural requirements were forthcoming in 2015? Well it's come and gone, so sigh of any movement so I wouldn'thold my breath.
As to the IC, I understand that the only ATS in Illinois was in southern Illinois--with its winding track which mitigated against fast operation. Back about 1964, I was going up to Jackson, Mississippi, on #4 (2 E's, RPO, baggage car, and 3 coaches), and I timed at least one mile above Crystal Springs in 33 seconds. In 1965, I rode the engine of #1 from Memphis to Grenada--and the speedometer stayed at 90 most of the way. I was confident that the engineer knew what he was doing. As has been noted, back then there was generally little enforcement, by management, of the ICC speed limits. Also, in 1974, as I was riding the Floridian from Chicago to Fort Lauderdale, I woke in the night as we were running towards Waycross (dark territory); I, of course, had no way of timing our travel, but it seemed to me that we were running faster than 59 mph in an effort to make time up.
And, in the last two years or so, I had posted an account of an N&W J that was run from Bristol to Roanoke in the fifties with at least the main rod on the left taken off (the valve gear on that side had disintegrated on a trip to Bristol, and the engine had to go to the shops in Roanoke for refitting)--and the engineer got the speed up to 80 or 90 mph for a short distance some time after meeting #45--which was estimated to be running at 75 as it passed the cripple. Another poster could not believe that no one was disciplined for such disregard of the speed limit (60 mph maximum for most of the way).
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.