Tornado tested at 100 mph overnight

[70014IronDuke]

Given the successful Tornado run it will be interesting to see what the P2 is capable of doing given how powerful the design is. 110 mph?

The P2 will have 6'-2" driving wheel diameter, as opposed to the 6'-8" of the A1, with essentially the same boiler, AIUI.

It's possible the P2 will have greater heating surface (I'm not sure), so yes, it could be more powerful, if the fireman can keep up with demand, but essentially the P2 is meant for heavy, or heavier, loads over routes with steep gradients, eg like Waverley - Aberdeen.

So even if the P2 does have more power in practice (and that is not a certainty) it will be at a lower speed than the A1. In other words, the A1 would be more suitable (at least in theory) for higher speed running - even if the P2 technically has more grunt at lower speeds.

My gut feeling is the A1 could reach 110 mph and a bit more and be ok, but I don't think the team would want to see it taken higher than 110 mpyh (I bet they'd love to have a go at 110 mph though )

 

[70014IronDuke]

In seriousness, I realise that fast running 90 - 100 mph would only be used occasionally as has been mentioned here, but would any other main line steam locos also be able / capable of this very fast running as and when required? I am thinking in Particular of Union of South Africa, Bittern, Sir Nigel, Flying Scotsman, Clan Line, Tangmere, The Duchess, Lizze, King Edward 1? any others?

All of those locomotives, if properly maintained and if the components have been manufactured to proper spec, could do 100 mph if needed under reasonable conditions (obviously not with 15 coaches up Shap ), although I'm not sure I remember seeing any Kings recorded at 100 mph - now having said that, i expect Taunton to come along with at least one example before too long (Castles, which had bigger driving wheels, were used for the higher speed stuff on the GWR, Kings were used more for heavy loads on the Birmingham and Plymouth routes).

 

[SpacePhoenix]

If anyone wants to know what happens when the wheels go round too fast, look up the pics of Blue Peter after its 'accident' a few years ago.

edit 1994 - Durham

Only found a picture that shows a buckled rod that looks like it must be part of the valve gear by the piston. Been trying a few different search strings but no luck finding a photo showing the overall damage

 

[Flying Phil]

I believe it was recorded that a 9F ran at 90mph - and they only have 5 foot dia wheels...
so the P2 should be good for 100 mph? The A1 would be less stressed at that speed of course.

 

[Merthyr Imp]

I'm not sure I remember seeing any Kings recorded at 100 mph -

I believe the fastest authenticated speed for a King is 108.5mph.

 

[hexagon789]

I doubt a P2 could reach even 100 mph let alone 110. The original P2 Class were recorded at a maximum of only 75 mph. On runs on the Edinburgh-Dundee-Aberdeen route for which they were designed the fastset service they worked was 'The Aberdonian' timed non-stop Waverley to Dundee at 44.25 mph on a 320 ton load, this schedule was maintained on one run by 2004 Mons Meg with peak speeds of just over 60 mlh, and the loco was able to maintain 55 mph upna 1 in 100 graduent. On one run a maximum of 68 mph, with a load of 360 tons, was reached down a 1 in 100 gradient. On a King's Cross to Grantham and return tesr run test run no. 2001 Cock O' The North hauled 29 boogie coaches, a combined weight of 649 tons, at an average of 50 mph with a maximum of 70 recorded. The loco was noted asproducing over 2,000 dbhp at 60 mph.

So I while I agree a P2 has a lot of grunt, I don't think that they are particularly capable of fastrrunning.

 

[theageofthetra]

Regarding the issue of hammerblow- I would assume a two cylinder loco would produce more than a three or four, with a turbine , geared or Sentinal/Leader type producing very little?- over to the experts.

 

[alexl92]

Only found a picture that shows a buckled rod that looks like it must be part of the valve gear by the piston. Been trying a few different search strings but no luck finding a photo showing the overall damage

Are there actually any photos of the loco post-Durham? I've never seen one but am intrigued to.

 

[Cowley]

Are there actually any photos of the loco post-Durham? I've never seen one but am intrigued to.

I can't seem to find anything Alex. I spent quite a long time the other night looking for stuff on it and all I could find was the footage on YouTube from 1994 of the event and just one photo showing a couple of bits of bent motion but nothing of the wrecked motion still on the loco.
They estimated that the wheels span at an equivalent speed of 140mph as it thrashed itself to pieces. The driver suffered a broken finger/broken arms depending on which reports you read when the reversing lever whipped round and caught him.
I remember at the time that it caused a big shake up in the way steam crews were trained.
Blue Peter suffered many thousands of pounds worth of damage.

 

[MarkyT]

Regarding the issue of hammerblow- I would assume a two cylinder loco would produce more than a three or four, with a turbine , geared or Sentinal/Leader type producing very little?- over to the experts.

I have read that 3 or 4 cylinder engines can be designed to produce very minimal hammerblow as long as all cylinders drive a common axle, the arrangement favoured by Gresley of course. With the post war A1 however, Peppercorn followed the new Thompson orthodoxy of a divided drive arrangement like the 4 cylinder locos of the GWR and LMS, with the middle cylinder set further forward to drive the leading driving axle and the outer cylinders connected to the usual second, thereby avoiding the steeply inclined middle cylinder neccessary with common drive on the second axle for piston and connecting rods to clear the leading axle. I suspect a 3 cylinder engine overall, even with divided drive, is still better with respect to hammerblow and other unwanted forces and oscillations than equivalent power delivered by two larger outside cylinders alone.

 

[Spartacus]

I believe it was recorded that a 9F ran at 90mph - and they only have 5 foot dia wheels...
so the P2 should be good for 100 mph? The A1 would be less stressed at that speed of course.

The driving wheel diameter wouldn't be a particular issue for a P2, there are occasions of V2s being recorded travelling at 100 mph, and they've also got 6ft 2in drivers, but it's far from the only thing to consider. They didn't really have much chance to strut their stuff at high speeds during their short life but I do reckon one could be coaxed up to the ton, given the right combination of valve gear, cut off design, blastpipe etc. I think in service they were only ever timed in the mid 80s, though given the work they undertook, and the time some spend out of service, that's not surprising.

 

[70014IronDuke]

... I suspect a 3 cylinder engine overall, even with divided drive, is still better with respect to hammerblow and other unwanted forces and oscillations than equivalent power delivered by two larger outside cylinders alone.

that would make sense. I'm not quite sure what causes the hammer blow, but for any given power requirement, the mass of both the oscillating (pistons etc) and eccentric parts would be less per axle for a 3-cylinder loco than a 2-cylinder job - hence less hammer blow per rotation I'd have thought.

 

[70014IronDuke]

The driving wheel diameter wouldn't be a particular issue for a P2, there are occasions of V2s being recorded travelling at 100 mph,

Are there? Interesting. I'd not seen any runs of V2s at 100 mph, but I can believe it's perfectly possible. Bulleid pacifics had 6'-2" drivers, and they could certainly hit 100 mph when required.

I expect the original (and the new) P2s could reach 100 mph, but that was not their role - I was just pointing out to the OP of this sub-thread that just because the P2 may be able to produce more power than the A1, it does not make it more suitable for (by steam standards) 'ultra' high-speed running, which i shall define here as 110 mph and above.

I forget the exact numbers, but I believe the A1's theoretical maximum power output is at something like 57 mph, while that or Blue Peter - with 6'-2" drivers and the same boiler - is something like 50 mph.

 

[markindurham]

Are there actually any photos of the loco post-Durham? I've never seen one but am intrigued to.

There's a few in a book titled "Durham's Railways", by, iirc, Charlie Emmett, and I have seen some in other publications. One piece of damage that was quite remarkable was that one of the driving wheels actually slipped on its axle. (The forces involved in doing that were immense).

The thing is, it happened before t'Interweb really got going, hence the dearth of on line images.

I'm sure that Steam Railway had a big piece about it, including photographs, shortly after the accident.

 

[E&W Lucas]

Would going above 100mph (for any steam loco) raise the risk of con rods breaking exponentially for each 1mph above 100mph?

No, but it would exponentially increase the chances of armchair train "expert" types having an accident in their Y fronts, as they waffle on about it!

Blue Peter - it went hydraulic during the slip- - water in the cylinders. That's what did the damage.

Skimming through the above, no one has picked up on the equally significant purpose of this test. It's no surprise that an enhanced A1 can run at 90, and touch 100. More important, was if the brake force available would be adequate for modern day requirements. (NB Tornado has a different brake configuration to the original locos).

 

[zn1]

90mph+10%=100mph, im sure tornados modern braking system can more than cope with 90+running...good on her..glad her test was successful...

 

[AndrewE]

90mph+10%=100mph, im sure tornados modern braking system can more than cope with 90+running...good on her..glad her test was successful...

Doesn't 90 plus 10% = 99? And I think the whole train's braking system is what matters (unless you mean all these TPWS thingies)

 

[AndrewE]

Only found a picture that shows a buckled rod that looks like it must be part of the valve gear by the piston. Been trying a few different search strings but no luck finding a photo showing the overall damage

here it is (sort of):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjsNbzg1UaI

 

[Merthyr Imp]

The original P2 Class were recorded at a maximum of only 75 mph.

A couple of references from the book 'The London & North Eastern Railway' by Cecil J. Allen:

'...the performances of the P2 2-8-2s had shown that eight-coupled wheels of no more than 6 ft. 2in. diameter were no hindrance to the attainment on occasion of speeds as high as 80 mph.'

Also, re the V2s: '...one was timed, indeed, to attain 93 mph'.

 

[TBirdFrank]

45318 - 3rd August 1968 21.25 Preston to Liverpool Exchange - 83mph max.

Hot box - so loco was discarded for scrap

 

[Merthyr Imp]

Also in that Cecil J. Allen book, he gives details of a run when an A1 reached 100.5 mph.

 

[cambsy]

Steam hitting high speeds in modern times is not just confined to Bittern's 90 mph runs, and now Tornadoes 100 mph run, before radar checks, speed measuring equipment etc, steam engines achieved close to 100 mph on rail tours, there was even a goal to hit 100 mph, Ive had runs of 86mph between Swindon and Reading behind Duchess of Hamilton, and the famous run with Duchess of Hamilton hitting 96 mph between Penrith and Carlisle, and 90 mph for few miles down Shap, and hit 85mph between water stop at Broughton just outside Preston and Lancaster, we had about 570 tonnes on, no AWS etc, the driver in the dead 47 behind Duchess was quite startled to see 95 mph on speedo, we did passing Lancaster to Carlisle in about 66-67 mins if memory correct, An A4 did 95 down Wellington bank, over 85 mph on LSW line with Bullied Pacifics and few other attempts, of course un official unlike this run, in more recent times did a brief 82mph near Lockerbie few years ago behind a Duchess.

 

[edwin_m]

Doesn't 90 plus 10% = 99? And I think the whole train's braking system is what matters (unless you mean all these TPWS thingies)

If the locomotive isn't contributing enough to the braking then the whole train could be underbraked. There is also a possibility that the brakes could overheat or some other problem arise when braking from a higher speed than previously. Hence the need to test the brakes at 10% overspeed.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Doesn't 90 plus 10% = 99?

It does, but can anyone name a single PR / marketing department which, in the circumstances, would not have got the extra 1mph pre-authorised? It's just too good an opportunity to pass up.

 

[edwin_m]

I'm sure the wording in the test plan would have been something like:

"The objective is to test at 10% overspeed or 99mph. However, in the light of difficulty in achieving an exact speed and possible inaccuracies in speed measurement the test will aim to run at an indicated speed of 101mph. "

 

[E&W Lucas]

90mph+10%=100mph, im sure tornados modern braking system can more than cope with 90+running...good on her..glad her test was successful...

I think the OP's understanding of locomotive braking systems is on a part with his exhibited competence in maths and punctuation. Cast iron brake blocks applied to the tyre by compressed air, was state of the art in the C19th!!

The modern railway is not the place to be pushing the boundaries of performance with obsolete equipment. You have to consider the safety of everyone else. Yes, the brake force supplied by the train is crucial, so let's see monocoque, disk braked coaches in use for anything above 75. Still no wheelslide prevention, and obsolete brakes on the loco, so I remain cautious about a wider use of this loco at higher speeds, however much I applaud the achievement on this occasion.

 

[markindurham]

I think the OP's understanding of locomotive braking systems is on a part with his exhibited competence in maths and punctuation. Cast iron brake blocks applied to the tyre by compressed air, was state of the art in the C19th!!

The modern railway is not the place to be pushing the boundaries of performance with obsolete equipment. You have to consider the safety of everyone else. Yes, the brake force supplied by the train is crucial, so let's see monocoque, disk braked coaches in use for anything above 75. Still no wheelslide prevention, and obsolete brakes on the loco, so I remain cautious about a wider use of this loco at higher speeds, however much I applaud the achievement on this occasion.

Hence the full brake application at Thirsk from a very high speed during the tests - all part of the planned testing required by the VAB/NR

 

[edwin_m]

The modern railway is not the place to be pushing the boundaries of performance with obsolete equipment. You have to consider the safety of everyone else. Yes, the brake force supplied by the train is crucial, so let's see monocoque, disk braked coaches in use for anything above 75. Still no wheelslide prevention, and obsolete brakes on the loco, so I remain cautious about a wider use of this loco at higher speeds, however much I applaud the achievement on this occasion.

The Mk2s apparently used on the test are of monocoque construction and I believe Tornado will in future often be hauling a rake of Mk3s which also have disc brakes and WSP. Either of the above can stop within the standards for braking distances even when hauled by something as heavy and badly-braked as a class 40.

 

[Deepgreen]

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?

Two 442s in push/pull mode?

 

[70014IronDuke]

45318 - 3rd August 1968 21.25 Preston to Liverpool Exchange - 83mph max.

Hot box - so loco was discarded for scrap

I don't care if you claim Cecil J Allen and Rouse timed this holding hands and with atomic clock stopwatches - there is no way 45318 reached 80 mph that night in my book.

Hot box? I hadn't heard about that, but the loco made it back to Lostock Hall ok immediately after the run.