Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: How fast did steam engines go?

This is topic How fast did steam engines go? in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=002985

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 02-22-2004, 03:25 PM:

Sometimes when I watch Western movies, I wonder how fast the steam trains in that era actually went. How long did it take to travel from coast to coast? Did the passengers stay on the train all the time, or would the trains stop for the night in a town?

Posted by Travis Hubrig (Member # 1745) on 02-22-2004, 03:28 PM:

Didn't you watch Back to the Future III?

Doc had that locomotive going about 85 mph on a straightaway.

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 02-22-2004, 03:52 PM:

A rule of thumb: The bigger the drivers, the faster they go.

Sunday, 3rd July 1938 went down in railway history as the day that London North Eastern Railway Gresley A4 Pacific 'Mallard' became the holder of the world speed record for steam locomotives at 126 mph (approx 202 km/h) - a record which still stands today. 'Mallard' achieved the record on the slight downward grade of Stoke Bank, south of Grantham and the highest speed wasrecorded at milepost 90¼, between the towns of Little Blytham and Essendine. The sleek streamlined shape of 'Mallard' is instantly recognisable by both the public and railway enthusiasts alike, and the engine proudly carries a plaque announcing her record-breaking achievement.

Hey Travis...what is the wheel configuration of the steam locomotive on display at the rail station in Minot?

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 02-22-2004, 03:57 PM:

Here is the link to the Mallard page. These were amazing engines to say the least. I read someplace that the Brits are working up a new Steam Engine design........

http://www.o-keating.com/hsr/mallard.htm

Mark

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 02-22-2004, 04:02 PM:

Mark, that thing must have at least 10-foot drivers....capable of going like a Bat out of Purgatory. [Big Grin]

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 02-22-2004, 04:36 PM:

... and the Mallard can now be seen on display about 10 minutes' walk from my flat, at the National Railway Museum in York. Ironically it travelled at roughly twice the speed of the clapped-out 1970s pile of poo which takes me trundling past its final resting place on my way to work...

In answer to Michael's question, by the early 20th century main-line express trains were averaging 100mph. Apart from specialist railway technologies such as tilting trains, the Japanese 'Bullet Train' and MagLev, that hasn't really changed at all in the last century.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 02-22-2004, 04:46 PM:

But my favorite still is and will always be........
http://www.steamlocomotive.com/bigboy/

Capable of pulling a 3600 ton train at 80 miles per hour [Cool]

If I had a cool million I know what I'd be doing....

Mark

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 02-22-2004, 05:18 PM:

And in the Western era? I would also be interested to know something about the travel conditions in those days like I wrote above.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 02-22-2004, 05:34 PM:

Well, It used to take two days to go over the Rollins Pass..... If you made it. There was a big Hotel up on top and you stayed there one night then decended down the other side the next day. Since I've driven that pass in my Kia and the slope upward is easy, I'd say the average speed in the ealy 1900's on that trip was a bit faster than walking going up...going down I don't know. It was replaced by the Moffatt Tunnell in the late 1920's. The tunnel is one of the longest in the U.S. at over 6 miles.

Here's whats its like up on top these days...a worthwhile trip indeed!

This stream was used to water the locomotives and is about half way up to the top.
Here is another site with more photos of Rollins Pass.

http://www.matts-place.com/trains/colorado/rollins.html

http://colorado.railfan.net/moffat/moff1.html

Mark

Posted by John Eickhof (Member # 323) on 02-22-2004, 05:35 PM:

Unfortunately for us, the steam era passed rapidly, I was always under the impression that the actual raw power of any steam engine, locomotive or fixed plant was basically unlimited?? With double and triple expansion etc. the power was unbelievable! You must consider the relatively primative condition of the tracks and roadbed in the early days, unlike todays railroads..When I was riding in the FP-45 diesel behind the SP&S locomotive a couple years ago, we travelled on the Montana Rail Link from Billings Mt, to Sandpoint, ID. Depending on the condition of the rail, we assumed 85-90 mph at times! The ride was very smooth in the diesel, but when I took a ride in the cab of the steam locomotive, it was very very rough!! The suspension on these old beasts is something to definitely improve on! And they did later on! But, the ride was probably the most fun 3 days I have ever had!! In fact, of the many times I have cab-hopped in diesels, we never reached speeds as fast and smooth as the steam locomotive does! I remember riding the cab of the UP 844 years ago, it was a little smoother, maybe because it weighs about twice as much as the SPS loco! Anyway, HI evryone! I'm still lurking around!!

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 02-22-2004, 09:13 PM:

My neighbor who is a live steamer and who used to work in a factory where they built stokers told me that steam locomotives used to regularly hit 100 MPH in his day. On occasion he's seen them do 120+.

The story was told to me that trains had to be on schedule at all costs back in those days. Although there were supposed to be speed limits on the lines a lot of engineers took them only as suggestions. If a train came in late there'd be hell to pay. Guys knew just what tricks they could use to get every last ounce of speed out of their engines and they knew just how hard they could push them before something would give.

Sorta' like Mr. Scott calling up from the engine room, "I'm givin' her all she's got, Cap'n! If I push 'er any harder she's liable to BLOW APART!" [Smile]

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 02-22-2004, 10:03 PM:

Some feel that a rough rule of thumb is that a steam locomotive's top speed in MPH corresponded to its driver diameter in inches. That falls apart, however, at both ends of the scale. A drag freight 2-8-0 with 57" drivers isn't going to go 57 MPH (maybe 45); if it got anywhere near that speed it would probably shake itself apart. On the other hand engines with 80" drivers could and did hit 100 MPH or more in normal everyday service.

When the Burlington (Chicago, Burlington & Quincy, the historical Burlington which ran Chicago to Denver and Chicago to Minneapolis/St. Paul) introduced the diesel Zephyr trains in the mid-1930's they wanted to have protection power to handle the trains when the diesel was in the shop. So they took their S-4 class Hudson-type (4-6-4) design, made a few improvements and built one with a stainless steel streamlined shroud to match the train. The engine was successful and an existing S-4 was given the same treatment. They were capable of easily exceeding 100 MPH with a heavy train. Yet they only had 78" drivers. The streamlined shrouds were later removed.

Both were given the name Aeolus ("Keeper of the Winds" -- makes sense since "Zephyr" is a wind) but were nicknamed Big Alice the Goon by crews, after a character in Popeye comics. The original Alice, #4000, still exists and is displayed in a park in LaCrosse, WI and recently received a new paint job.

Aeolus #4000 in her streamlined days

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 02-22-2004, 10:12 PM:

Here is a partial picture of the backhead in a Big Boy. I can't seem to understand how the fireman kept track of all of the valves without really screwing up.

I took this picture in Green Bay, Wisconsin.

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 02-22-2004, 10:25 PM:

That cluster of valves in the middle are for the stoker jets. The stoker (an Archemedian screw driven by a small steam engine) would dump the coal onto a plate just inside the firebox. A set of steam jets would then blast the coal to different parts of the firebox. So there was a control for each jet and a main control too. And one to control the stoker engine.

Then you've got a blower valve (steam jet that provides boiler draft when the engine is stationary), injector controls (puts water into the boiler; there's another on the engineer's side), various blow-downs (to remove sludge from the bottom of the boiler and firebox water legs), and usually atop the backhead, valves to turn on the electric dynamo (driven by a steam turbine), the air pumps (for the brakes), etc.

They add up pretty quickly. But most were not things that would be touched constantly. In some cabs some of the valves would be labeled with little metal plates. Often not. I have no doubt that sometimes a crew would board an unfamiliar engine and if they couldn't figure out what a particular valve or cock (in rail parlance) did from what it was connected to would probably take a quick look around to see if anyone was watching and give it a turn to see what it did. [Confused]

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 02-22-2004, 10:37 PM:

Probably takes a few days for the fireman to know what the heck he is doing. [Smile]

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 02-22-2004, 11:34 PM:

Where did the railroad lines you see in Western movies go? If they always tried to go as fast as possible, did many trains derail (in addition to the ones which were messed up by bandits placing a log on the rails or blowing up bridges, or maybe that is just movie legend)?.

Posted by Ron Keillor (Member # 1790) on 02-23-2004, 02:05 AM:

For films showing long-distance passenger experience (overnight trips) see for example: SOME LIKE IT HOT, TWENTIETH CENTURY, or THE PALM BEACH STORY. THE HARVEY GIRLS is interesting not so much for any rail sequences, but for the Fred Harvey restaurants that trains stopped at, reducing the weight of the train.

[ 02-23-2004, 03:07 AM: Message edited by: Ron Keillor ]

Posted by Gilbert Travin (Member # 2138) on 02-23-2004, 02:13 AM:

Hi !

In France, the last steam locomotive runned on the "cote d'azur" railway up to 1970.
On the railway Paris-Lyon, the max speed was about 120-130 km/h...
Today, some train-collectors have a few steam-machines for special travels organized in week-end. We have also a few tourist-trains with metric railway and also standard (1.43 m) railway that run with steam ... An other era !!! [Big Grin]

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 02-23-2004, 04:33 AM:

in "man of the west" a train bound for ft. worth stops in the middle of nowhere (texas) and all the able-bodied men are asked to get out and load wood onto the train. robbers attack, a shootout ensues, and the train speeds off leaving gary cooper, julie london, and arthur o'connell stranded in the wilderness. sounds like fun.

carl

Posted by Hillary Charles (Member # 769) on 02-23-2004, 07:47 AM:

The most relevant information I'm aware of is that pertaining to "The Great Locomotive Chase," when Union spies stole the Confederate's Western & Atlantic Railroad engine "General" and were pursued by that train's crew and others until the spies ran out of steam and luck.

Though not taking place in the Wild West, the type of engines involved were of the American 4-4-0 variety that was prevalent in the American West (the Jupiter and 119 in the Golden Spike photo are both similar 4-4-0's).

The General's conductor, William A Fuller, noted the time they covered a part of the line which timed out to 60 miles an hour. He said that was about twice their normal speed, and considering the tracks they were using at the time on the W&A, it must have been a hellish ride.

Posted by Floyd Justin Newton (Member # 1316) on 02-23-2004, 08:59 AM:

Mark--
I've been up all night browsing ALL the sites in your last
post; drinking two pots of coffee (I'm wired!)to stay awake.
The Big Boy is my favorite, too. 4-8-8-8-4:mmmmmmmmmm [Smile]

There
is just nothing like 'em. Gotta get some sleep [sleep]

!

fjn

[ 02-23-2004, 06:24 PM: Message edited by: Floyd Justin Newton ]

Posted by Will Kutler (Member # 770) on 02-23-2004, 02:35 PM:

Remember that when it comes to "Big Boys", they were built to rapidly transport high tonnage on mostly straight track w/lots of heavy grades in the Northern US. Their actual range of operation was quite limited.

Throughout their lives, Challengers were repeatidly converted between coal and oil firing. The problem with Big Boys is that thier firebox is just too large to allow for efficient oil firing.

As for coal, many of the coaling towers have been demolished. The SP coaling tower in Tucson (one of the Tucson landmarks), was torn down soon after UP took over SP. There were a lot of protests about the destruction...including a homeless person who had made it his home! The razing of the Tucson Coaling Tower was top news around here!

Anyhow, the Big Boys were coal fired, and fueling them up would be a real pain!

Furthermore, even if a Big Boy was to be restored, the areas in which it could operate would be very limited. I am not sure if a turn-table is even around capable of turning it?

Another thing to consider is that the Big Boy (engine and tender weight) was over 1 million pounds. The sheer weight of this monster would make havoc on system rail!

It is interesting to note that when UP 3985 (Challenger) and 8444 (Northern) are in opeperation, which is generally for excursion service, if there is a gap in the excursion, UP will in fact use them for actual revenue freight. Mark I Video has released footage of the Challenger in current freight ops! One of the reasons for this is that the Challengers operate better with a load (they are less apt to slippage, and possible stalling due to slippage, with a load).

I also understand that the various Big Boys around the country (mostly in Dallas and Pamona) have been raided for parts to restore 3985.

As for the end of the steam era...this is a topic that will forever be debated.

Between WWI and WWII, EMD was a little known company that introduced diesel engines. These were unreliable clunk things that no-one took seriously. The Big Three (ALCO, BALDWIN and LIMA) of steam-building fame certainly did not. Well, EMD (which was aquired by GM) pressed ahead w/ R&D, while the Big Three paid no attention to diesel development. After EMD became part of GM, GM through all its resources behind this little outfit. Meanwhile, the BIG THREE completely continued to ignore diesel development.

During wartime, American railroads are governed by the USRA. Railroad efficiency was of prime importance during war-time. The USRA had total controll over the railroads; they approved R & D into new motive power and rolling stock, controlled who could build what, and allocated raw materials for production. (Keep in mind that prime materials were used for military weapons, so lower grade materials were allocated for domestic use, including locomotive construction). USRA was concerned with railroad efficiency, and restricted the builders to their areas of expertise. So, EMD and its parent GM were allowed to continue on with Diesel development, while the BIG THREE were restricted from doing so. By the time the GP7 was formally introduced in the early 1950's, the die was cast. EMD/GM was just to far advanced in Diesel development for the BIG THREE to catch up. Although steam is much more powerful than diesel, diesel is just so much cheaper to operate! This spelled the doom for steam. Also, by the time diesel came into its own, advanced steam technology had really reached its peak.

Posted by Gerard S. Cohen (Member # 994) on 02-23-2004, 03:14 PM:

How did the steam locomotives eject the ashes from their coal fireboxes? Was this done while running, and if so did it start forest fires or burn up the ties?

Posted by Floyd Justin Newton (Member # 1316) on 02-23-2004, 03:44 PM:

Gerard--

Located in railyards generally near the roundhouse was a
pit between the rails. There a stram engine could drop their
fire (including ashes and cinders) to harmlessly die out.
Then the pit would be cleaned out when it got full.

fjn

Posted by Travis Hubrig (Member # 1745) on 02-23-2004, 03:47 PM:

Paul, I'm not sure about the rail station, but I think you are talking about the locomotive at our zoo/park... there was lots of talk of restoration except for the expense of removing/covering all of the asbestos on the water tank.
This last summer there were quite a few articles in our paper about.

I have an uncle who is a railroad buff that would know much more about it.

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 02-23-2004, 04:40 PM:

According to mapquest, from New York to Los Angeles it is 2800 miles on modern roads. At a speed of 60 mph, it would take 48 hours continuous travel. Taking into account that they had to stop for refueling and breaks - did people sleep on the train or not? I am talking about the "classic Western era", 1850-90 or so - and also had to haul the trains over big mountains, is it realisitc to say it probably took about 10 days to travel across the entire country? Which at that time must still have been like the speed of lightning for people when it otherwise it took probably months to get to the promised lands by horse-drawn carriage.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 02-23-2004, 06:47 PM:

I remember reading or hearing two weeks average if you made it alive.....
You ought to come out here and I'll take you up to Rollins Pass and you can get a good idea of what it was like back then. There are MANY remnants left up there including quite a few wooden trestle bridges and wooden snow covers, and ruins. Some tracks are still there now burried in the road going up but partially exposed. This in one palce they didn't bother to rip up allthe track. Its a really neat place to explore and scenery that you've got to see to believe. Imagine a railroad over the Swiss Alps....thats what its like up there.
Of course there is always some theatre service work to do along the way......

Mark

Posted by Will Kutler (Member # 770) on 02-23-2004, 10:33 PM:

Gerard....

Forest fires were a major railroad concern. Several types of locomotives incorporated several devices to preventthis from happening, and this includes the Big Boys and Challengers.

Ash pans sere equipped with screened netting. Many short-line, narrow guage and mining roads equipped their locomotives with special smoke stacks. If you look at the inside of smokebox doors (the big hinged door on the front of the boiler/locomotive), had ridges to help tame-down cinders. Standard stacks may have also had special cinder apperatuses.

Posted by Ian Price (Member # 14) on 02-24-2004, 01:57 PM:

Michael,

When the first Transcontinental railway opened it took 2-weeks to cross the country which was significantly faster than the 4-6 months it took before. Steam engines had to stop frequently to refuel and water. Dinners were taken off the train in towns while the engine was serviced. Hotels were set up in towns to let the passengers sleep, clean themselves up (coal smoke), and dine. As efficiency improved and stops between fueling and watering were lengthened, dining cars, Pullman cars (sleeping cars) and such were added. This got the typical transcontinental journey down to a week. By the 1920s it got down to 3-days where it remains to this day.

As for your question as to where are the tracks today? They are still in the same place. Some shortcuts were taken and some tunnels drilled, but for the most part, the transcontinental roadbed remains the same bed.

Posted by Gary Crawford (Member # 2038) on 02-24-2004, 02:27 PM:

Steve Kraus has it right about driver diameter. Roughly, "cruising speed" was in MPH about the diameter of the drive wheels in inches. Other factors included cylinder bore and stroke, designed for either fast running or pulling power. Fast locomotives had smaller cylinders for the most part, speed over power.

Those old Civil War-era 4-4-0s appeared to be capable of fast running with those big drivers but tiny cylinders and low capacity boilers kept them from going too fast for very long. Also limiting their potential was the skinny firebox (and low heating surface) stuck between the frame rails inside of the wheels.

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 02-24-2004, 07:00 PM:

Travis, here is a picture of the locomotive I was talking about. I thought it was in Minot, but come to find out it is at Havre, Montana. Here is a picture I took of it.

She is a high driver engine (80-inch drivers) that weighed 420,900 lbs. Baldwin built it. One of it's sister engines, No. 2581, was scrapped on 4 February 1947 when her boiler blew up in Crary, North Dakota on 9 January 1947. This engine has 29-inch cylinders with a 29-inch stroke.

This engine class had a tractive effort of 58,310 lbs and operated with a 225 psi head pressure.

Will, there was an old steamer (a 2-8-0) that ran in Eastern Washington until it was repossessed by the owner.

It was old No. 51, which now resides somewhere in California. Anyway, she was coal fired, and authorities told the leasees that if they want to run that thing, they would have to convert to oil. The fire departments were getting irritated by chasing that thing down and putting out right-of-way fires.

Posted by Pete Wolla (Member # 1581) on 02-24-2004, 08:26 PM:

Not the wild wild west but here in ND towns were laid out 7 to 10 miles apart. that was a days trip in a wagon . many pararie fires were started by the steam trains . in the old days nothing to stop them but a river or rain the fires that is. fires were started by cinders from the stack and hot bearings in the wheels The trains stopped in every town. so it was a slow trip accross the state. the rail road hauled cream in cream cans to larger towns with creamerys. if there were no passingers to pick up in a town the mail sack was hung on a pole by the tracks and hooked by someone on the train. . incoming mail sack was thrown in to the parking lot at the depot From what i 've seen in family history the cars they rode in just had seats no sleepers. if they brought a car with livestock one person could ride with them to care for the livestock. when they got to the homestead area that car was rented put on a siding and lived in til a house or shack was built Some just lived in a tent near the tracks

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 02-24-2004, 09:18 PM:

Pete, that sounds like the wild and wooley west. [Smile]

[ 02-25-2004, 11:37 AM: Message edited by: Paul G. Thompson ]

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 02-25-2004, 06:24 PM:

Steve Kraus said:

quote:
That cluster of valves in the middle are for the stoker jets. The stoker (an Archemedian screw driven by a small steam engine) would dump the coal onto a plate just inside the firebox... Then you've got a blower valve (steam jet that provides boiler draft when the engine is stationary), injector controls (puts water into the boiler; there's another on the engineer's side), various blow-downs

Steve, you never cease to amaze me. I am impressed!

Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 02-25-2004, 06:34 PM:

According to a good friend who is an avid rail historian, the trains of the old west, the locamotives with the tall inverted cone smokestacks, cruised at about 35 or so mph. and top safe speed would have been 45-50,IF somebody could fire it adequately.

Posted by Pete Wolla (Member # 1581) on 02-25-2004, 06:59 PM:

That was 1902-03 in 02 two brothers and a cousin rode bike from benson county minn to here along the railroad right of way then put up 40 tons of hay while they were here. then rode back the families came out the next spring by train.

Posted by Travis Hubrig (Member # 1745) on 02-25-2004, 08:58 PM:

Pete,

A few months ago, I read a very interesting book about Erik Ramstad and the Empire Builder... I wish I knew the name of it.
It really gives a better idea of what happened to the prarie when the railroad came through. Many interesting pictures. I actually live about .75 mile away from Erik Ramstad's home in Minot. I believe it is still a private residence, but lots of history to it.

Paul, I will try to post a picture of the locomotive that I'm talking about. Not quite as large as the picture you posted. I don't know maybe 2-4-2???? The Minot Railroad Mueseum has many old pictures, I just don't think they have the manpower to archive and post on the internet. I will also try to post a picture of the 2/5 model train they run in the park. Great fun in the summer for the kids. I don't know if it ran this last summer as many of the members of the Mueseum/Society are too old to work on the track and locomotive. Last year they advertised for volunteer work to help get the track in shape to run the train again... not sure how that worked out. There are many retired railroaders here with the know-how, but just can't do that type of work.
There are also a couple of old passenger cars parked in the prarie just west of Berthold, right off of Highway 2. Just the wooden frames left on them now, but maybe I will get a picture next time I go that way.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 02-25-2004, 09:15 PM:

Paul - is that engine in your picture a Northern type? (4-8-4) That, and the Hudson are my two favorite looking steamers.

The Northern Pacific, now BNSF, railroad runs right through our town here (the tracks are about 300 feet from the theatre's front doors) so there are lots of rail-nuts around here, and lots of good pictures of the steam era in the museum.

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 02-25-2004, 09:25 PM:

Mike, that is a Northern Engine built my Baldwin Locomotive Works.

Posted by David Favel (Member # 1125) on 02-26-2004, 02:44 AM:

The 'K'88 “Washington” lives about a mile away.

http://www.plainsrailway.co.nz/attractions.aspx