Now that NS is restoring 611 to steaming condition, what would it take (hypothetically) to wrest "world's fastest steam locomotive" from Mallard? I've read about some of Porta's ideas being used on Tornado over across the pond. Any upgrades to 611 while it's being restored to improve performance? I've heard two stories about the N & W class J - one is that she'll go as fast as you dare, and the other is that valve events start getting dangerously fast because of the 70" drivers. If you had the goal of beating Mallard's 126 MPH with a North American steam locomotive, what would you use? What would you change?
This also has me wondering where it would be best to even try such a task? Where would the best track be found, for speed, safety? And?
I think if anyone were to make a speed run with a steam locomotive, I think 611 would be the locomotive to do it. Putting all current operating conditions aside, C&O 490 would also be an interesting choice. If you had to modify something for a speed run, I'd fit the tallest drivers possible (slower acceleration and lower drawbar pull, higher speed range), fit high end roller bearings with synthetic lube, and a lot of straight track. Sent from my LG-P930 using Tapatalk 2
I'm pretty sure there are plenty of long straight stretches out there (perhaps even with slight downgrades?) but track conditions and attendant speed restrictions might work against that. I'd say there might be areas of Acela rated track suitable, as I'm supposing (perhaps incorrectly) that speed limits are set for the track somewhat conservatively, much as they often are for highways.
So we would need to appropriate part of the NEC or a similar area designed to handle high speed travel. I know the Germans offered to let Tornado come over and play on their tracks without limit. Does anyone know what the steam passages are like on 611? I keep looking for a book that's ultra focused on the Class J, but I've yet to turn something up. I know there's mention of some sort of "cast iron waffle" exhaust system. Wonder if a Lempor or other Porta-influenced system would be a better option?
I've read of urban myths of UP FEF's hitting 130 mph making up lost time and I've often thought it would be easy for someone to have broken LNER's officially recorded record with Mallard which after all was set going down one of the steepest mainline grades in Britain with a light test train and the throttle flat out. One thing to consider today is that modern high speed track is not designed to take the hammer blows of steam locomotive driving wheels at high speed as it was in the past.
The Pennsy T-1s allegedly often clocked much more the 100 mph through Indiana and Ohio. T-1s were much gentler on the track due to having only two axles per cylinder. This allowed lighter side rods which reduced hammer blows. Unfortunately no T-1 exists today, even stuffed and mounted. However, the T-1 Trust has been formed to build an operational copy of #5550, as was done with the UK's A-1 Tornado.
I've heard that the T1 was a speed demon in the right hands. Not sure how much I believe that or how much is fond memory. I read the write-up on the T1 in Classic Trains and they discussed the nature of the duplex drive being designed to combat what was expected to be the unmanageable hammer blow from a conventional 4-8-4, but the article went on to state how the situation the duplex had been designed to combat never actually arose. With the Js, they were built with lightweight rodding. The J1s (war babies) lacked it, but were retrofitted after the war was over. The final batch (of which 611 is a member of) were built with it from the start. I have to think that 611 benefited from a few years of observation of the J in service. I don't think they were built "stock" in other words. Given today's metallurgy, couldn't we manufacture even higher strength, lighter weight rods for the J? Given the prevalence of computer modeling, couldn't there be a lot of improvement possible with even the J's refined design?
I'd never heard of the T-1 Trust. This is interesting. They must have acquired a complete set of drawings for use in such an endeavor?
I have heard that J's exceeded 100 mph at times. They have 70 inch drivers, which at 100 would be doing a lot more rpms than most of the late 4-8-4s which had 80 inch drivers. Santa Fe had a few Hudsons with 84 inch drivers. Back when the NY Central set a record with 999, I believe they fitted her with 86 inch drivers for the record attempt.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internally_rifled_boiler_tubes A neat twist (excuse the pun) to increase power production. Currently being looked at for watertube boilers as used in power plants, but originally designed for firetube designs.
Physically, this is a far more efficient heat transfer design and a significant advancement of boiler technology. Economically, at least initially, it is more costly to fabricate. However, over the 30-40 year life span of a boiler operating with this technology, the fuel cost savings will more than exceed the capital investment.
I've been thinking on this speed attempt idea. The thought comes to me that it would likely be opposed by both Amtrak, plus electric and diseasel manufacturers. They'd not wish to be embarrassed by a so-called "obsolete" technology! Ha ha.
It would be very interesting to see what a truly modern steam locomotive could do with the sixty plus years of technological advancement since the last steam was designed. The ACE3000 project touched on the subject back in, I think, the 1980's but lowered oil priced killed off interest in it.
If you were gunning for fastest Stephensonian locomotive, and started with a clean sheet, how would you go about it? I would think a 4-6-4 arrangement might be better, from the standpoint of lowered rotating mass. You ditch an entire pair of drivers and a good length of connecting rod. The 5AT advanced steam locomotive group have some interesting developments in steam production and application (courtesy of Chapelon, Porta, and Wardale), and their list of improvements would be interesting to incorporate. A Lempor exhaust, Kordina exhaust manifolds, GPCS firebox, high superheater temperature and high boiler pressure, roller bearing everything...
Or something like this with even fewer drivers. However, the fastest in North America was the Milwaukee Road class F7 .
I guess the danger in ideas like these is it leads to the proliferation of replicas and copies while the real thing languishes in a museum. On the other hand, the Milwaukee speedsters are all gone. Same with NYC Hudsons. For a solid business case though it would need to be more than a one trick pony. These 80" driver monsters are great for top end, but boosters seem to be mandatory to get things moving.
