Incredibly cool photos of trains

[2xChevrons]

RichB said:

That's one hell of an ugly munter of a locomotive. I don't think Mallard fans need worry

I think there's something very imposing about the sheer industrial heft of a T1 (much more attractive, I think, that the more streamlined but over-styled S1). It's like an ocean liner or a battleship on rails. There's a group in the USA new-building one with the intention of officially breaking Mallard's speed record.

There is all likelihood that the first locomotive to reach 100mph and the fastest speed ever reached by a steam locomotive both occurred in the USA. But there was no culture of setting official speed records, no hobby of rail enthusiasts with stopwatches independently timing trains and things like mileposts were not as consistently (or as accurately) sited as they were on British railways. And without a closely monitored and logged signalling system like in Britain, it's very hard to get accurate peak speed records from American train runs - their train management system was based on written orders for possessions between distantly spaced stations, so there simply isn't the second-by-second evidence (even secondhand, let alone official timekeepers and dynometer car readings as there was for the records of 'Flying Scotsman' and 'Mallard') to confirm the records. Some of the claims are patently ludicrous and defy the laws of physics (like the idea that NYC #999 did 112mph in 1893, or PRR #7002 doing 127mph in 1903) but others are much more plausible and given the size, power and space available to American trains it seems very likely that the speed record technically belongs to America - quite possibly one of the original T1s. But, of course, if it's not logged and verified, it doesn't count, and 'Mallard' provably made it to 126mph.

The Americans certainly achieved the peak of high-speed steam in the 1930s/1940s, running consistently at speeds well in excess of standard British operations and over much greater distances. 'Mallard' did her speed for a few seconds, downhill with a special train and suffered mechanical damage in the process. The 'Hiawatha' service on the Milwaukee Road regularly (and accurately) logged speeds of well over 100mph for 50, 60 or 70 miles at a time, with train weights of between 600 and 800 tons. And when they reached Seattle they'd turn around and do it again on the way back to St. Paul.

[Brother D]

I think most people assumed that steam trains just had a fire beneath the boiler like a kettle on a stove rather than the reality of them being quite complex

[Brother D]

This US Streamliner in the Chicago Museam is a favorite (along with a giant captured WW2 german submarine in the basement a few stories below ground)

[RichB]

2xChevrons said:

There is all likelihood that the first locomotive to reach 100mph and the fastest speed ever reached by a steam locomotive both occurred in the USA. <big clip> The 'Hiawatha' service on the Milwaukee Road regularly (and accurately) logged speeds of well over 100mph

The GWR's City of Truro achieved a speed of 102 mph in 1904. It was pulling a mail service running from Plymouth to Paddington. Whilst there was no official recording equipment on board the speed was calculated by timing the number of clicks made by the rail joints during 60 seconds (rails were a standard 45' in length I believe) thus you could easily calculate the precise speed over a mile. This was long before Flying Scotsman (and I assume the Hiawatha service) officially achieved 100 mph in the mid-'30s.

GWR 3440 'City of Truro' by Captain Tower, on Flickr

[2xChevrons]

RichB said:

The GWR's City of Truro achieved a speed of 102 mph in 1904. It was pulling a mail service running from Plymouth to Paddington. Whilst there was no official recording equipment on board the speed was calculated by timing the number of clicks made by the rail joints during 60 seconds (rails were a standard 45' in length I believe) thus you could easily calculate the precise speed over a mile. This was long before Flying Scotsman (and I assume the Hiawatha service) officially achieved 100 mph in the mid-'30s.

GWR 3440 'City of Truro' by Captain Tower, on Flickr

'City of Truro's' performance was undoubtedly impressive, but there was - and remains - doubt as to whether it achieved the speeds by Rous-Marten (who was the onboard timer, using a stopwatch and the quarter-mile posts), which were 102mph over a quarter of a mile and 100mph over the half-mile. The accuracy of Rous-Marten's stopwatch, human factors in stopping and starting the watch at the correct times, inaccuracies in the exact position of the quarter-mile posts all leave room for doubt. There are also questions about Rous-Marten's timing technique, and whether the times he produced were from consecutive quarter-miles or alternate ones in between note-taking. There are also estimates that while 'City of Truro' was capable of doing 100mph (or a little more), its boiler was not capable of generating enough steam to allow for the accelerations required by some of Rous-Marten's timings. There is a lot of (I think) compelling evidence that 'City of Truro' was very close to the 100mph mark, but not quite up to - let alone over - it. That's still a remarkable achievement for a four-coupled locomotive in the 1900s.

What is certain is that 'Flying Scotsman' was the first locomotive to be undoubtedly recorded at 100mph, authenticated by continuous dynamometer readings before, during and after the peak speed and consecutive stopwatch readings. And the peak speed was maintained for over a third of a mile.

Personally, I always find sustained performance over long distance much more impressive than brief peak speeds reached with light trains on a downhill gradient. For instance, on the same high-speed Oceans Mail run that 'City of Truro' made her name, the train was handed over to a Dean Single 'Duke of Connaught' at Bristol, which made the second part of the run to London - a distance of 117 miles - at an average speed of over 70mph.

[RichB]

You're right, quarter mile markers not rail joints, although I have also heard of that method being used to calculate speed.

[miniman]

Brother D said:

This US Streamliner in the Chicago Museam is a favorite (along with a giant captured WW2 german submarine in the basement a few stories below ground)

And an excellent model railway!

[WelshChris]

Don't want this thread to go quiet, so here's one from Saturday morning. Jubilee "Bahamas" passing through Cwmbran en route from Bristol to Chester....

CJP_4018 by Chris Parry, on Flickr

[pingu393]

WelshChris said:

Don't want this thread to go quiet, so here's one from Saturday morning. Jubilee "Bahamas" passing through Cwmbran en route from Bristol to Chester....

CJP_4018 by Chris Parry, on Flickr

Looks fantastic, but I'm glad there are so few of them. I'm no Greta, but can you imagine what it must have been like when every train was like that.

[mcdjl]

pingu393 said:

Looks fantastic, but I'm glad there are so few of them. I'm no Greta, but can you imagine what it must have been like when every train was like that.

Just think how much cloudier and how much more rain there was back in those days.

[NDA]

WelshChris said:

Don't want this thread to go quiet, so here's one from Saturday morning. Jubilee "Bahamas" passing through Cwmbran en route from Bristol to Chester....

CJP_4018 by Chris Parry, on Flickr

Fantastic shot - my new screensaver!

[RichB]

pingu393 said:

Looks fantastic, but I'm glad there are so few of them. I'm no Greta, but can you imagine what it must have been like when every train was like that.

Yes, I'm just old enough to remember when most trains were like that. There was a huge footbridge near where I lived form which we'd watch the trains. I used to like standing in the middle of the bridge as it went under to be inside the cloud of steam! I can still remember the steamy, oily, sooty smell.
And yes, most stuff within close distance of the railways was dirty.

p.s. cracking picture that is!

[pingu393]

RichB said:

Yes, I'm just old enough to remember when most trains were like that. There was a huge footbridge near where I lived form which we'd watch the trains. I used to like standing in the middle of the bridge as it went under to be inside the cloud of steam! I can still remember the steamy, oily, sooty smell.

You mean like this...



This wasn't a planned encounter. I was on the way to the shops and I was curious why there were people on the bridge .

Edited by pingu393 on Monday 21st November 14:05

[RichB]

Yep

[NDA]

RichB said:

Yes, I'm just old enough to remember when most trains were like that. There was a huge footbridge near where I lived form which we'd watch the trains. I used to like standing in the middle of the bridge as it went under to be inside the cloud of steam! I can still remember the steamy, oily, sooty smell.
And yes, most stuff within close distance of the railways was dirty.

Very many years ago, I used to commute by train into London every day. I got to know and like (and chat to) a quite elderly chap who would go into town for Chairmanly duties about twice a week. I got talking to him and he told me about commuting, on the same line, by steam train. He was saying that the steam trains never really hit a high speed as they had to slow down and stop for the next station - so it was quite slow going. Also you never leaned out of the windows as you'd get grit in your eyes from the engine - and that was quite painful! He said the modern electric trains are amazing in comparison because of the huge torque they have - the acceleration...

He died a few years ago - a lovely old boy. I remember him fondly.

[Flying Phil]

RichB said:

pingu393 said:

Looks fantastic, but I'm glad there are so few of them. I'm no Greta, but can you imagine what it must have been like when every train was like that.

Yes, I'm just old enough to remember when most trains were like that. There was a huge footbridge near where I lived form which we'd watch the trains. I used to like standing in the middle of the bridge as it went under to be inside the cloud of steam! I can still remember the steamy, oily, sooty smell.
And yes, most stuff within close distance of the railways was dirty.

p.s. cracking picture that is!

Yes it was dirty near the railway - but it was also pretty dirty everywhere in any town as most houses were heated by coal fires. I can just recall the coalman calling and carrying sacks of coal to the back of my parent's house where the coal bunker was. We also bought a house in 1980 which had a small coal store next to the "outside" toilet. My son bought a flat in Bermondsey in 2005 which still had remnants of coal in a store under the stairs!

[RichB]

NDA said:

<clip> Also you never leaned out of the windows as you'd get grit in your eyes from the engine - and that was quite painful! ...

Nah, we'd always go on holiday to somewhere on the south coast which involved a short run up to Clapham Junction in an electric suburban unit and then an exciting journey down to Weymouth, Bournemouth or Hayling Island behind a West Country/Battle of Britain or Merchant Navy. After we'd eaten our sandwiches my brother and I would usually spent most of the journey hanging out the window. The most painful bit was Mum vigorously wiping the smuts off our face with a wetted handkerchief, that she'd spat on, just before we arrived. Presumably to avoid the embarrassment of signing in at the hotel or whatever with two kids with soot and oil on their faces!

Edited by RichB on Tuesday 22 November 09:20

[Yertis]

Flying Phil said:

Yes it was dirty near the railway - but it was also pretty dirty everywhere in any town as most houses were heated by coal fires. I can just recall the coalman calling and carrying sacks of coal to the back of my parent's house where the coal bunker was. We also bought a house in 1980 which had a small coal store next to the "outside" toilet. My son bought a flat in Bermondsey in 2005 which still had remnants of coal in a store under the stairs!

One of my jobs as a little boy was to break up the giant lumps of coal in our coal bunker, using a lump hammer (which I still have fifty years later). Which reminds me I need to order some coal...

Electric trains are boring and diesel trains are boring [and dirty. My first trip to London, aged 2 and heading in the opposite direction to Rich was steam-hauled apparently. It must have been in the last few months of steam operation and I have no recollection of it all.

[P5BNij]

Yertis said:

Flying Phil said:

Yes it was dirty near the railway - but it was also pretty dirty everywhere in any town as most houses were heated by coal fires. I can just recall the coalman calling and carrying sacks of coal to the back of my parent's house where the coal bunker was. We also bought a house in 1980 which had a small coal store next to the "outside" toilet. My son bought a flat in Bermondsey in 2005 which still had remnants of coal in a store under the stairs!

One of my jobs as a little boy was to break up the giant lumps of coal in our coal bunker, using a lump hammer (which I still have fifty years later). Which reminds me I need to order some coal...

Electric trains are boring and diesel trains are boring [and dirty. My first trip to London, aged 2 and heading in the opposite direction to Rich was steam-hauled apparently. It must have been in the last few months of steam operation and I have no recollection of it all.

The romance of steam was and still is wonderful, but there are plenty who would disagree with your last paragraph! The variety of diesel and electric traction was staggering in BR days, I know that they all replaced beloved steam locos but some of the new designs were quite handsome and often very well built. The twenty two production Deltics and the seventy four Westerns being the cream of the crop, although I have to admit a huge bias with the Westerns as I chased them around the WR as a nipper, had numerous cab rides on them and later on I worked with the old hand drivers at Old Oak Common who worked on them day in, day out.

The GW Castle class were beautiful locos, but so were the Westerns in their own way - the designers Sir Misha Black and John Beresford Evans won industrial design awards for their work on them...

[Yertis]

P5BNij said:

The romance of steam was and still is wonderful, but there are plenty who would disagree with your last paragraph! The variety of diesel and electric traction was staggering in BR days, I know that they all replaced beloved steam locos but some of the new designs were quite handsome and often very well built. The twenty two production Deltics and the seventy four Westerns being the cream of the crop, although I have to admit a huge bias with the Westerns as I chased them around the WR as a nipper, had numerous cab rides on them and later on I worked with the old hand drivers at Old Oak Common who worked on them day in, day out.

The GW Castle class were beautiful locos, but so were the Westerns in their own way - the designers Sir Misha Black and John Beresford Evans won industrial design awards for their work on them...

I appreciate diesels have their fans, I've no wish to offend

I'm lucky enough to have seen both a King and Western flat out (well, at ca. 75 MPH :halo on the Bristol-Plymouth route and as a spectacle the Western is very much an also-ran. A King at speed is a wonderful spectacle, amazing sound.