There are several claims to the record speed for a Steam Train; from 124 to about 130 mph.
LNER A4 Pacific "Mallard" in 1938 is generally quoted at 126mph because it had a dynomometer car in the rake to officiate, although it was on a slight decline of 1/200. The engine was just 3 month's into service and an inside main bearing was damaged in the attempt. It had to be towed back to Doncaster for repairs. The driver has remained nameless - pity the fireman !
What is the authority for the other claims?
Regards
Stewart,
I believe the driver was a Mr. J. Duddington and the fireman was Mr. T. Bray. (First names were not in use then!) . The speed record was NOT accepted by Gresley although LNER stated that it was 125mph. Westinghouse engineers on board said it was 126.
Chris
These two links should help;
http://www.wandleys.demon.co.uk/mallard.htm (http://www.wandleys.demon.co.uk/mallard.htm)
http://www.o-keating.com/hsr/mallard.htm (http://www.o-keating.com/hsr/mallard.htm)
By the way, Mallard ran light back to Donnie, she wasn't towed!
Thank you David & Chris.
The crew were nameless for a number of years, when did they come to public knowledge?
Mallard was down a 1/200 and may be qualified because of other attempts made on the level.
There are several US claims and a German claim to the record. I had hoped to hear what the consensus was among contributors to this site..
Regards
Great topic....keep it going.
There are a number of North American locos that where known to be capable of those speeds or even significantly greater speeds. But seems that in a vast country of many different independent railroads, no offical railroad racetracks for such tests, and no "record police", many people both in North America and elsewhere seem to easily dismiss any claim that an American loco went ever went faster than the Mallard.
Based on what I know about US railroad practices, I suspect that "record" was broken quite freqently on railroads like the PRR or the SP any time an Engineer with an E6 and six cars or a GS4 on the Daylight was behind schedule and wanted to make up the time. But there were not a bunch of "officals" around to note the fact, so it's just hearsay.
The engineering says that either of the two locos mentioned above, and a number of others, could have easily went that fast, at least for a short distance, given adequate track conditions.
But the railroads all had safety rules and these guys wanted to keep their jobs. So it is unlikely they would tell many people they hit 140 mph on their run today.
I know this next example is not steam, but in the 1970's, when the first Metroliners replaced standard cars pulled by GG1's on the Northeast Corridor, winter ice and snow would disable the Metroliners and replacement GG1's with six cars would beat the Metroliner schedule with no problem. New is not always better, or faster.
Sheldon
One more thought,
The Lindberg Special averaged almost 85 mph for 224 miles with two stops, dozens of juctions that would have had less than ideal track conditions for high speeds, curves, grades, etc.
No one knows, except a few people long gone now, how fast that E6 went in the straight ways, but just based on similar proportions with auto travel of road speed to average trip speed, would sugest they maintained speeds well over 110mph in open country.
And in my opinion, that ability to average 80mph over 224 miles is much more impressive than hitting 126 for a short distance anyway.
Sheldon
A record is something that is documented with accurate pass-times and or dynomometer car readings.
A locomotive engineer claiming to have hit warp speed is not a "record", neither are timings taken from train sheets or other information recorded after a train has passed as these could be "faked" by an agent who maybe didn't write them down for many minutes after the train had passed and therefore made a "best guess" at the time the train went past.
Mallard's record was 'official' because it was timed by numerous people on-board the train, something that wasn't done on any of the other American or European claims. They are just hearsay.
Somewhere I heard some engine did 140 MPH.
I'm not sure if that's true, but it's possible.
I believe that NYC 999 an american standard 4-4-0 holds the US record for speed at 112 MPH this was done I think in 1900
http://www.germansteam.co.uk/Tonup/tonup.html#18201b (http://www.germansteam.co.uk/Tonup/tonup.html#18201b) talks about 100mph+ steam locos...including a recent jaunt in Germany
Yes, Roger,
That's what I said, it is just hear say, but the science of engineering combined with my personal knowledge of the Lindberg Special's route (I have lived my whole life in central Maryland) tells me that the Lindberg Special had to have made some fantastic times in the open stretches, and it kept it up for three hours, and did not have to be towed home afterwards.
Again, a much more impressive "record" in my opinion.
Sheldon
As has been mentioned, beyond 'offical records' with adequate, documented support, who can say how fast trains have traveled and what speed records exist. I certainly can't argue with the record as stated in the UK report.
The following are two 'hearsay' reports that can be only taken a 'face value' as they are unsubstantiated.
(1) I have been give a photocopy of the page of an engineer's logbook by a dear friend in his mid 80s who was a fireman on the PRR. One winter night during WWII, he was fireman on a milk run (which had passenger train clearance) either just east or just west of Altoona, Pa. The log book records that between two stations about 40 miles apart (don't have the page handy so I can't give names), the just newly 'shopped' K-4, was 'given her head' and averaged 107 mph pulling an unknown number of 50 ft' express milk reefers.
(2) My father, who worked for the ICRR for some years in the late 40s and early 50s once told me that an ICRR engineer had recounted a time when he ran an ICRR 4-8-2 pulling a bannan reefer special from New Orleans to Chicago on the very well maintained 3 or 4 track ICRR mainline (I don't know if CN/IC still has that many mainline tracks now). His 'story' to my father was that for some number of miles, they maintained a steady 110 MPH speed, based on he and the crew in the cab counting the telegraph poles and checking their watches.
Both accounts are 'hear-say', and impossible to prove. But maybe these kinds of accouts are part of the 'romance of the rails'! Frankly, anything as big as a Pennsy K-4 or an ICRR 4-8-2 moving faster than 60 mph would be an awesome sight today (maybe moving at any speed, it would be an awesome sight :-)!
lanny nicolet
I think Mallard was lucky to be new and still in a sort of "Type Trials" situation.
I think many of the US claims are possily true because the lines were known to have scheduled services at or over 100 mph.
Mallard only held the speed for a matter of seconds and was over 124mph for only 3 miles.
999's so called "record" is again an unsubstanciated "record" based on times taken from train sheets, times that could be 'faked' by the agent or operator many minutes after the train passed where he'd write in a 'best guess' estimate of the train's passing time.
Stewart,
A picture of the driver and fireman appears on this site: http://www.lner.info/locos/A/a4.shtml
A Pennsy E6 was supposed to have clocked 127 mph in 1927. However no speedo. was fitted and speed was taken from waypoints.
A Borsig DRG clocked 124.5 in Germany in 1936 but I have no details of whether this was a proper timed trial.
I have been told (by a Frenchman ;D ) that certain Chapelon (sp) locos were able to exceed 125 mph but were not fitted with speedo's so nobody ever checked !! Sounds unlikely bearing in mind the French passion for record keeping with the TGV's
Chris
OK Roger,
We get it, it does not count unless 27 bureaucrats from the home office ministry of weights and measures certified the dynamometer car 30 seconds before the record was set and 27 more certified the record as it happened.
But again, to get from Washington to New York in 3 hours, on wheels of any kind, even today, you have to be going pretty fast at least some of the time.
Sheldon
There is only ONE speed record for steam, and that's held by "Mallard". Period.
Everything else is just a p****** contest.
Is this American jealousy coming to the fore, because they don't like being beaten?
Now if you had asked which was the fastest train in service, then you'd probably win hands down.
But, as already stated - Mallard's record was an official attempt and properly audited. No-one has beaten that record under the same circumstances.
By the way the world land speed record is only over a mile and that only lasts a few seconds as well - so you going to poo-poo them as well?
And I conceded the fact that none of the US claims where official or well documented in my very first post. I just offered some other thoughts which seemed to be what Stewart was asking.
Roger on the other hand wants to rub it in everyones face, repeating the same thing over and over.
And I guess he is offened because I am not suitibly impressed with a machine that sets a record but then breaks down and needs a tow home.
But am more impressed with machines that perform exceptionally day in and day out in regular service, even if they don't hold any records.
There is really only one way to settle this. We find a couple of billionares to build exact copies of the Mallard and an E6, lay 20 miles of straight level double track, and let the race begin. And if we make it two out of three, I know the E6 will win.
Yes Roger the Mallard holds the record, my only point was that given the opportunity, the E6 and maybe a few others would have given her a run for her money. They may or may not have beat that record. No one will ever know.
There is plenty of evidence to suguest that E6's regularly hit speeds over 110, whether or not they ever reached 126, nobody knows for sure, for all the reasons Roger has stated, over, and over, and over.
Sheldon
David,
I'm not poo-pooing anything. I am however much more impressed and much more interested in a NASCAR race than the time trials at Bonnieville, both American events so we can put to bed this jealousy idea.
The time trails are what they are, the rules are what they are, just like the Mallards record. It is what it is.
But winning the Daytona 500 is a test of endurance and performance.
Another example if I may. I have no interest in American Football, 16 regular season games is not enough to determine the best team.
But in Baseball or Hockey, where they play 150+ games a season, you need to be good consistantly, not just on a couple of afternoons, to win the title.
Much more impressive in my opinion.
Sheldon
Sheldon : I think F1 Champion Nigel Mansell demonstrated the differences in finesse winning the Indy 500 in his first outing.
This is how the lack of finesse is played here in Phoenix. Rugby, the game of gentleman, is played around Phoenix with universities also putting up several teams. The ref's often have UK experience of the game. The complaint is that teams come from their dispirate locations with agro' against the opponent, play the game, and then retire to their dispirate locations with their agro'. This is not THE GAME.
A well known local Rugby club has been banned from their base by the psudo British landlord of an English Pub per se. Who ever heard of such behaviour in the UK!
I found this,
The PRR #7002 E-3 Atlantic, with 80" drivers, reached a sustained speed of 129 MPH, while making up time with the Broadway Limited.
I know,
How can this be verified.
Stewart,
And now you know not to ask such questions. :) I agree that unless you can prove it - it is not worth a candle. However, getting into conversations about US v. UK railways is utterly pointless because the factors that built them and the way they turned out were quite diffrent.
The A4's were built for a specific job and for a very different railway with low loading guage, tight radii and multiple junctions. To compare and argue is pointless. Don't let us stoop to childish arguments and pit the English speaking peoples against each other when everybody knows that the most magnificent railway today is the French TGV. :'(
AND of course Rugby is a better game. ;)
Chris
Just to reiterate - Mallard limped back to Doncaster under her own steam.
She didn't break down - the inboard Cylinder ran hot during the record attempt.
Ran light means she went all by herself with no other stock in tow.
Chris,
I agree completely about the differences in the design and use of various railway systems. That is a point lost to many from outside the the US.
In fact, there are dramatic differences between the railroads in different parts of the US, and therefore in the locomotives they need/use. This was particularly true in the steam era as I have pointed out in a number of other threads such as those claiming the Big boy as the most powerfull loco.
As for the French TGV, I don't know much about it, but, if not for the Americans and British, it would be the German TGV.
If I want a fine piece of furniture, I call and Englishman
If I want a fine meal, I go see an Italian
If I want a fast, fancy car, I call a German
But I want my pickup truck to start and run everyday for 150,000 miles and carry 4x8 lumber with the tail gate up, so it is American, and so is the pistol in the glove box.
Yes, I am one of those brutish Americans with big gas guzzling cars and a big house full of guns. I like NASCAR, not golf, and counrty music, not opera.
I believe you are only entitled to what you earn or produce and what you can protect. I believe the great wars from the Amercian War for Independence to WWII where fought not to make all men equal, but to protect the equal right to prove I am the better man.
Sheldon
Thank you all.
I raised the issue because it is always a good line for discussion.
I think we have all learnt a lot from one another.
Don't mess with Shelton when he's on the road!
Sheldon
I respect Stewarts wishes to close this thread but this is too much fun and anyway this thread is about speed! ! The French speed record for the TGV stands at 320 mph (that is NOT kph). I don't believe the German comes close - top speed of ICE is 145mph? Please correct me :-\ Oh yes and I do know that TGV runs on special track etc etc....
Chris
Chris,
I can't and won't try to correct you, I know nothing about the TGV, nor do I really care to know. How old are you, my reference to the Germans was that there would not be a France today without the Americans and Brits in WWII.
No offense to those from other countries, but my interest in railroading is in my country and my culture. And even that is too much to learn or know all about.
Sheldon Stroh
Chris,
One more note so a whole other group can feel snubed, if it happened after about 1955 in the railroad business, I am not really interested in modeling it. And I stopped keeping up with new stuff in the prototype about 1975. Again, there is only so much time and so much to know, you have to choose what you want to be versed in.
Sheldon
BTW, I have to agree with Sheldon on interests. Pre 1957. C&O. Milwaukee Road. Katy, IC, Frisco (because they went through or close to Ft. Sill, OK or Alexandria, LA.) NYC and BAHH PRR for my father.
Other than that - uh. With the exception of the Hogwarts Express, which has excursion trackage rights on the VT&P Blue Ridge Sub.
Gene
Gene,
Thanks for the comment about the "Hogwarts Express" having trackage rights on your RR. That makes me feel much better about using my Spec gas elec. doodlebug painted for the "Fort Dodge, Des Moines & Southern RR" (fallen flag) which never had any passenger other than electric trolley cars, with trackage rights on the 'Strawberry Creek Division' of the ICRR!
You can see that during the late 40s and early 50s the FDDM&S 'doodlebug' was well patronized!
(http://img87.imageshack.us/img87/2605/fddsgaseleckr7.jpg)
Ah! The fun of RR'ing at 1/87 scale :-)
lanny nicolet
Actually, I have heard that the fastest steam locomotive ever would be the first of Pennsy's experimental steam locomotives, the S1 6-4-4-6. It ran regularly between 100-120MPH. However, one record in the early 1940s indicated that it ran at a speed of 153MPH around Ft. Wayne.
6-4-4-6
The Pennsylvania Railroad's lone S1 was the only 6-4-4-6 ever constructed.A 6-4-4-6 steam locomotive, in the Whyte notation for describing locomotive wheel arrangements, is one with six leading wheels in a leading truck, two sets of four driving wheels, and six trailing wheels in a trailing truck.
The equivalent UIC classification is 3'BB3'.
The largest rigid frame passenger locomotive ever built, only one locomotive was produced to this arrangement, the Pennsylvania Railroad's sole class S1 of 1939. It was a duplex locomotive and is often referred to as the Pennsylvania Type. This experimental locomotive was exhibited at the 1939 New York World's Fair, and was afterward placed in limited service between Chicago, Illinois and Crestline, Ohio. The locomotive was too large to work elsewhere in the system. Pennsylvania Railroad executives hoped that the locomotive could haul 1,000 tons at 100 miles per hour, but this goal was not reached. It was capable of very high speeds however, although no documentary evidence has so far surfaced to add credence to stories of record-breaking performance.
Oh and it suffered severely from wheel slippage.
Quote from: David(UK) on February 22, 2007, 05:07:56 PM
6-4-4-6
Oh and it suffered severely from wheel slippage.
David;
Weren't all the duplexes slippery, and did this fact contribute alot to their early retirement?
I'm not really familiar with the several classes of duplexes, but I must say that the Q's were very impressive looking!
Yes,
Duplexes generally suffer from too much torque, not enough traction, some more than others, but this was a common problem with all of them.
Sheldon
The C&O Historical Society magazine had an article about the PRR 4-4-4-4s the C&O evaluated. One of them apparently stalled after a station stop in Waynesboro, Virginia. The station caught my eye as I used it a few times going on and coming from leave from school when I went to military school there.
According to the article the wheel slippage was really something of an urban legend. Yes it happened, but was it the locomotive at fault, or were there other factors involved?
Gene
Gene,
The only problem may have been lots of power and no good way to apply it slowly when starting. The stories I have heard from my PRR friends is that once a select group of engineers got the hang of it, they where not that bad. But compared to conventional locos they where hard to start with a heavy load. Maybe no more so than a Heavy Pacific with 16 heavyweights, but hard to start none the less.
This inablity to start easily with a heavy train negated some of the power advantages of the design, and diesels don't have this problem at all. So as a late steam design that was to have shown steam equal to diesel, it was a failure.
Sheldon
Sheldon,
I agree they were failures, and the necessity to relearn how to start a heavy train was one of the problems. What I'm saying is that all things else being equal, they did not have the slippage problems in the design as much as railroad rumor might have it -- according to one article in the COHS on one 4-4-4-4.
Gene
I will agree with that, in fact I think I have read that same article.
Like a lot of the late advances in steam, it was just too little, too late.
Sheldon
Let's face it, the thing that cost the steam locomotive its job was the people cost. Let's start with the idea that a fireman was now unnecessary. I know that didn't work, and I think four eyes are better than two, but railroads did think of that immediately. Diesels back then allowed lashups, but each helper needed a crew. This might not be necessary now, but it was in 1945. Then there were all the specialized maintenance guys and the necessary inspections. Steam was more powerful, more dependable, in many places cheaper to run, but people costs was the silver bullet.
Gene
Gene,
Don't get me wrong, I love steam. and I will agree that it had a lot to with the people costs.
But, Diesels, even in 1945 or certainly by 1950, had shown a number of operational advantages.
Some of them are:
Better starting tractive effort for any given horsepower.
Less lost of traction in vertical and horizontal curves and over poor track. Less dynamic stress on trackage.
Multiple unit consists, yes as helpers each added set needed a crew, but the railroads quickly learned the advantage of the building block concept and realized that, to use one example, GP7's could just be added until the required HP was reached, in identical performing 1500 HP units, this train might need three, the next train 5, with just one crew. That means a collection of identical locos could be purchased and maintained rather than having different sized locos for different sized trains.
The better performance of diesels on grades meant helpers where less of an issue for many roads with mild grades and the HP assigned to many trains could be reduced compared to steam.
Maintenance, this is where the people savings really came in. Diesels don't last as long as steam locos, except maybe for the truck castings and the engine blocks, but, during their usefull life, they require much less maintenance. When they do wear out, manufacturers like EMD saw the advantage of using traded in salvaged standard parts to build new upgraded models. The railroads had done this themselves for years with steam, but EMD raised this to an artform that the railroads own shops could not compete with.
Diesels can easily go distances between refueling and light maintenance that steam just began to approach in its most refined forms on roads like the N&W.
Diesels require much simpler infrastructure for refueling on small braches and remote lines.
Gene, again, I love steam too, but the fact remains that even in their most basic form like the ALCO RS2, EMD F3 or GP7, the diesel/electric has a number of operational advantages that made it the winner, and may have actually saved the railroads from total elimination.
Maybe if dual service, super power locos had come on the scene a littler sooner and represented a larger percentage of the nationwide fleet, they might have lasted longer. But by that time, the low purchase price of diesels and the age of most of the steam fleet also made conversion the best economic choice for an industry lossing ground to trucks and planes.
But to the issue of people costs. Unions served an important function at one point in our history, but by the time diesels where replacing steam and new equipment like radios and automatic signals where comming in to use, it was clear all these people would not be needed. yet the unions used their power to strangle an already weakened industry. That combined with outdated government regulation put the railroads through 30 years of hard transitional times. Without the cost savings of diesels, those hard times might have resulted in more than just the mega mergers, it might have resulted in virtualy no railroads.
The government finaly got out of the way and the unions faded in power. Now those remaining in the rail business are doing OK.
Sheldon
Firstly, I wish to thank all those who have contributed. This topic has certainly generated a lot of interest and fun.
I think the Big Boy at 109mph with 212 hoppers left Earth last year, and is driving that "sling-shot" currently returning from Mars, and on its way to a comet off Saturn!
I will organize(US spelling!) another topic soon.
Regards
Quote from: SteamGene on February 24, 2007, 08:34:01 AM
According to the article the wheel slippage was really something of an urban legend. Yes it happened, but was it the locomotive at fault, or were there other factors involved?
Gene
It's no urban legend. I've got two DVDs of action out of St Louis Union Station in the 1940s and 1950s, and there are several shots of the T-1s. ALL of them slipped all the way in and out of camera! Apparently it was just the rear set of drivers that slipped.
Although I'm not much of a fan of the road, I do have to note that no one's mentioned the Milwaukee Road in this steam speed queen contest. Their 4-4-4s ran Chicago to the Twin Cities on a 90 MPH schedule, and their 4-6-4s ran Chicago to Milwaukee in an hour flat. "Unconfirmed" speeds of 125 MPH were a daily occurance for well over a decade.....
The Milwaukee Road Class As were 4-4-2 Atlantics. Yes, they were fast. They were also enormous Atlantics.
Gene
Hi All,
I just came accross some info on a test with a NYC HUDSON, which was statically steamed to 165 mph. This was the fastest steaming rate ever achieved. But it does not count as the loco was not going anywhere at the time.
There was a point made as to why steam declined, in the US anyway, due to the cost of staff to run them. In the UK, steam was hastened on its way by the sad fact, B.R. could not get anyone to do the dirty work associated with steam. Driving & firing is one thing, but the daily, dirty, maintenance was another.
o in 1892 a little 4-2-0 called the pioneer went 115. after that day in was nicknamed the sprinter
uhhhhhhhh
For Mark D:
A mainly women crew of cleaners in WW1.
(http://i144.photobucket.com/albums/r188/seasaltchap/WomenCleaners.jpg)
© Colin G Maggs, 1986
I bumped this to the top for the benifit of those discussing the steam record in the "steam name" thread.
Instead of repeating myself there, interested parties can just read this discourse from six months ago.
Sheldon
Just to throw fuel onto the fire here is a quote from a thread on another site, I cannot verify its accuracy-
''The 126 mph figure corresponds to a blip on the speed graph, with physically impossible accelerations. It must have been due to a jolt, or,
according to British railfans who unearthed a second speedgraph copy without the bump, later doctoring.
Indeed the railway engineers themselves (including designer Sir Nigel Gresley) certified 125 mph (201.2 km/h) as the true top speed achieved - but that is within the margin of error with the other two contenders below.
The Mallard achieved the record downhill, and
with modifications unfit for more than a single run - indeed the Mallard broke down at the end of the record run with a hot axle.''
There is another issue here- is it a world record or a world fastest time. As I understand it you cannot have a world record in the Athletics Marathon because of the huge variation in conditions- just a world fastest time. By contrast the world land speed record is measured using a set of pre-determined criteria to try to achieve some level of uniformity.
What is undoubted is that Mallard is [almost] universally quoted as having achieved the fastest speed by a steam locomotive. There is little doubt that other locomotives had the ''potential'' to go faster, and may have done so without any recording equipement on board.
The other two contenders referred to in the thread were-
Deutsche Reichsbahn's [class] 05 [no.] 002
Milwaukee's "Hiawathas".
Here is the website-
http://www.eurotrib.com/story/2005/10/10/4437/7476