Tornado tested at 100 mph overnight

[matt9f]

Report on Radio 4 this morning that Tornado has been tested at 100mph last night!

 

[DarloRich]

Both radio 4 and twitter are reporting that very early this morning Tornado ran an test train between Newcastle and Doncaster that, somewhere between Darlington and York was permitted to run at 100mph - apparently the first time this has been allowed since 1967.

 

[ChathillMan]

Both radio 4 and twitter are reporting that very early this morning Tornado ran an test train between Newcastle and Doncaster that, somewhere between Darlington and York was permitted to run at 100mph - apparently the first time this has been allowed since 1967.

Well, that's another way to prevent the recurring overhead problems at Retford

 

[QueensCurve]

Both radio 4 and twitter are reporting that very early this morning Tornado ran an test train between Newcastle and Doncaster that, somewhere between Darlington and York was permitted to run at 100mph - apparently the first time this has been allowed since 1967.

What sort of infrastructure access charge is made for moving a 157t high axel load machine at that speed?

 

[AM9]

What sort of infrastructure access charge is made for moving a 157t high axel load machine at that speed?

With hammer blow!

 

[DarloRich]

blind eye turned for a one off i should imagine!

( apologies - i missed the thread in the preservation section)

 

[Bromley boy]

https://youtu.be/IDlqHuEE50g

This video is around one year old and purports to show Tornado running at 100mph.

While it certainly looks like it could be 100mph, I imagine it can't be more than 75?

 

[QueensCurve]

blind eye turned for a one off i should imagine!

( apologies - i missed the thread in the preservation section)

Who would be liable for any damage caused? I seem to recall that BR limited steam to 60mph. Even the Class 86 as built (80t - 4 axels) did enormous damage at 100mph.

 

[DarloRich]

Who would be liable for any damage caused? I seem to recall that BR limited steam to 60mph. Even the Class 86 as built (80t - 4 axels) did enormous damage at 100mph.

If this is one off then NR. If it is designed to show the potential for future 100mph operations then discussions need to be held and terms agreed. (I doubt this mornings run would have been authorised if damage was a serious concern)

Anyway such a fine example of Darlo built engineering wont damage the track at all

 

[2HAP]

According to Heritage Railway magazine's facebook newsfeed, it was an authorised run as part of the certification process to allow Tornado to run at 90mph on NR metals. 101 mph was achieved.

 

[Cowley]

When Tornado was built and first tested on the mainline it was run at about ten percent over the 75mph normal running speed. I suppose this is the same situation, running at around ten percent above a 90mph upper top speed.
It must have been quite an experience for the footplate crew.
Does anyone know what the load was?

 

[70014IronDuke]

According to Heritage Railway magazine's facebook newsfeed, it was an authorised run as part of the certification process to allow Tornado to run at 90mph on NR metals. 101 mph was achieved.

I am 100% certain that whatever was attempted/achieved was fully authorised from the top at NR. The Tornado people and the NR inspectors involved are responsible entities, and would never have attempted anything above the norm without full authorisation. Any attempt otherwise would surely mean and end to running on NR tracks and, I suspect, potential criminal charges.

As for the talk of 'damage' to the track - this is just wear and tear, nothing irreparable. Heavy axle loads and hammer blow (within limits) cause extra wear and tear, that's all. A one-off run would not even be noticed.

I'm sure the Tornado people were more concerned about the locomotive performing properly than it causing significant 'damage' to the track/infrastructure - although I'm pretty sure they were confident of reaching the specified target without much fuss.

Assuming the 101 mph is correct, congratulations all round!

 

[37038]

load 8+loco I think. Good weight behind it

There's been TSRs on at Thirsk too the last few weeks so it *must* have slowed for that but still, Darlo engineering at it's finest!

 

[QueensCurve]

Anyway such a fine example of Darlo built engineering wont damage the track at all

Oh, well that's fine then.

Seriously thought the British railway seems at the moment to be embracing a return to steam. Gobackery akin to returning to blue passports, Imperial measures and £sd.

Our friends across the channel must be highly amused.

 

[70014IronDuke]

Who would be liable for any damage caused? I seem to recall that BR limited steam to 60mph. ...

60 mph? This may have been true for specials run after 1968 - but prior to that there was no such limit. Even the very last regular steam-hauled train hit 68 mph between Preston and Liverpool, IIRC.

AIR, even in the early 1960s on the WR there was no general upper limit! It was up to the driver, except for PSRs and TSRs. The majority of steam locos didn't even have a speedomter until quite late on. I think the SR had an upper limit of 85 mph, but I'm not sure when that came into force. As diesel and electric traction was introduced, someone realised they needed a general upper limit. and, of course, both diesel and electric had their design limits indicated on the speedometer - at least in the classes I was ever on.

 

[AM9]

... Gobackery akin to returning to blue passports, Imperial measures and £sd.

Our friends across the channel must be highly amused.

Plenty in the UK are also resigned to such tokenism.

 

[QueensCurve]

60 mph? This may have been true for specials run after 1968 - but prior to that there was no such limit. Even the very last regular steam-hauled train hit 68 mph between Preston and Liverpool, IIRC.

AIR, even in the early 1960s on the WR there was no general upper limit! It was up to the driver, except for PSRs and TSRs. The majority of steam locos didn't even have a speedomter until quite late on. I think the SR had an upper limit of 85 mph, but I'm not sure when that came into force. As diesel and electric traction was introduced, someone realised they needed a general upper limit. and, of course, both diesel and electric had their design limits indicated on the speedometer - at least in the classes I was ever on.

Even more kudos to the drivers who drove trains with no speedometer and no lineside speed limit boards - having to know all the limits and turnouts and judge compliance.

Indeed the trains went round like thieves in the night with scarcely a light to help the driver or help anyone else for that matter.

 

[70014IronDuke]

load 8+loco I think. Good weight behind it
...

So, assuming that included quite a few Commonwealth bogies on the stock, around 275-280 ton trailing load. Easy-peasy for an LNER pacific in fine fettle on level track.

 

[DarloRich]

When Tornado was built and first tested on the mainline it was run at about ten percent over the 75mph normal running speed. I suppose this is the same situation, running at around ten percent above a 90mph upper top speed.
It must have been quite an experience for the footplate crew.
Does anyone know what the load was?

10(?) MKii and a 67

 

[70014IronDuke]

Even more kudos to the drivers who drove trains with no speedometer and no lineside speed limit boards - having to know all the limits and turnouts and judge compliance.

Indeed the trains went round like thieves in the night with scarcely a light to help the driver or help anyone else for that matter.

Yes, I think in many ways, driving steam (both expresses and unfitted goods) probably took more of a skill-set than it does today - certainly a different skill-set. But there was far, far more leeway for footplate crews.

In general, high-speed running ie above 90 mph for steam, was not the norm. If you look at most logs of steam-hauled trains, there is typically little time spent above even 80 mph, except at known spots, such as Andover on the LSWR, Essendine down Stoke bank and the long decline between MP 34 and Bedford on the down, plus Sharnbrook on the up, on the Midland.

There were a handful of regular exceptions, such as The Bristolian, which demanded speeds of 80-85 mph for most of its route to keep time, but otherwise schedules had to be constructed according to average conditions - locos, crew and fuel. This meant that any crew that might have wanted to push their speeds ended up ahead of schedule and facing signal checks, or waiting time at stations. The only time high speeds were normally attained - of 95 mph plus - was when late running came into play, and crews were keen to make up time - it helped if it was their last duty, and a 'home run' as it were. (I think this is still true, to an extent, today.)

There were other odd exceptions associated with 'last flings' from enthusiastic crews before diesel or electric traction took over: these included a Royal Scot on a Sunday working near Ampthill Tunnel (100 mph achieved according to the loco speedo, I guess this was in 1960) and, most famously, a spate of 100 mph+ runs with Bulleid pacifics in the early summer of 1967.

 

[alexl92]

Out of interest, does anyone know if 4464 Bittern had to do a 100mph test run before the 90mph runs a couple of years ago? Presumably not if this is being reported as th first such run since 1967.

 

[AM9]

Yes, I think in many ways, driving steam (both expresses and unfitted goods) probably took more of a skill-set than it does today - certainly a different skill-set. But there was far, far more leeway for footplate crews.

In general, high-speed running ie above 90 mph for steam, was not the norm. If you look at most logs of steam-hauled trains, there is typically little time spent above even 80 mph, except at known spots, such as Andover on the LSWR, Essendine down Stoke bank and the long decline between MP 34 and Bedford on the down, plus Sharnbrook on the up, on the Midland.

There were a handful of regular exceptions, such as The Bristolian, which demanded speeds of 80-85 mph for most of its route to keep time, but otherwise schedules had to be constructed according to average conditions - locos, crew and fuel. This meant that any crew that might have wanted to push their speeds ended up ahead of schedule and facing signal checks, or waiting time at stations. The only time high speeds were normally attained - of 95 mph plus - was when late running came into play, and crews were keen to make up time - it helped if it was their last duty, and a 'home run' as it were. (I think this is still true, to an extent, today.)

There were other odd exceptions associated with 'last flings' from enthusiastic crews before diesel or electric traction took over: these included a Royal Scot on a Sunday working near Ampthill Tunnel (100 mph achieved according to the loco speedo, I guess this was in 1960) and, most famously, a spate of 100 mph+ runs with Bulleid pacifics in the early summer of 1967.

There were some reports about in the late '50s/early '60s when Britannias went through Diss in the nineties. With 9 or 10 coach mixed bags of gresley bogies and MkIs with BR1s, the load certainly wouldn't have unduly taxed the then pretty new standards over fairly level routes.

 

[CarltonA]

a spate of 100 mph+ runs with Bulleid pacifics in the early summer of 1967.

35003 Royal Mail was said to have achieved 105.88mph between Winchfield and Fleet on the 26th of June 1967. It was only hauling three coaches and two parcels vans however, a load of about 18o tons.

 

[CosherB]

10(?) MKii and a 67

I was hoping someone would quote stock that is rated for 100mph running!

 

[ac6000cw]

Who would be liable for any damage caused? I seem to recall that BR limited steam to 60mph. Even the Class 86 as built (80t - 4 axels) did enormous damage at 100mph.

According to Wikipedia, driving axle load for Tornado is about 22.5 tonnes - about the same as a 67 or 68 - and the driving wheels are much larger diameter, so occasional high speed trips on a high-spec mainline shouldn't be a problem. Yes there is 'hammer blow' in addition, but I suspect modern, heavier, track structures can cope with that better than the bullhead rail on wooden sleepers track that the A1s were originally designed for.

The class 86 problem was due to the high unsprung mass created by the (cheaper to build) large axle-hung traction motors they had. Earlier and later AC-electric loco designs used flexible drives between motor and axle to avoid that problem.

 

[Goldie]

A bit of digging on Youtube, and here she is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbbIhZAkpiU

 

[46223]

60 mph? This may have been true for specials run after 1968 - but prior to that there was no such limit. Even the very last regular steam-hauled train hit 68 mph between Preston and Liverpool, IIRC.

I was on that and the top speed was somewhere in the mid 80's.

 

[Deepgreen]

So, assuming that included quite a few Commonwealth bogies on the stock, around 275-280 ton trailing load. Easy-peasy for an LNER pacific in fine fettle on level track.

If the load was 8 coaches (say 30 tons each) and a loco, then the load was more like 320+ tons - still not heavy but substantial. Roughly equivalent to 11 coaches.

 

[theageofthetra]

A bit of digging on Youtube, and here she is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbbIhZAkpiU

Is that the MK3 rake that Tornado will run with once it gets its 90mph cert?- are they looking at powering the aircon with an external generator van (as was common in Ireland) or use the back up diesel?

 

[CosherB]

Is that the MK3 rake that Tornado will run with once it gets its 90mph cert?- are they looking at powering the aircon with an external generator van (as was common in Ireland) or use the back up diesel?

No - it looks like a rag bag of Virgin, Anglia and 'blue & grey' Mk2 coffins courtesy of Riviera (plus two 'blood and custard' Mk1 support coaches and a DBC 67 in EWS colours).

IIRC the Mk3s for Tornado will be sourced from GA, so will be a while yet.