Top Gear

[Deltic18]

Well that was fun and how many people have their DVD players still going? Some very good shots and a lot of laughs. It was great to see my old depot being used to coal and water Tornado. A quick look onto the BBC i-player will be next on the agenda.
However, if it had been 1949, the train would have won hands down but as it's a car programme, I suppose that would not have been possible for Tornado to win. I wonder how long it actually took The Hamster to get to Aud Reekie in the end?
Keith

[60041]

[quote=" I wonder how long it actually took The Hamster to get to Aud Reekie in the end?
Keith[/quote]
The run took place on the Saturday, and Hammond was still on the road with the camera car following on Sunday, they were spotted about 10 miles south of Alnwick by my wife. The repairs to the bike obviously took longer than the programme suggested. I did not envy him, the weather was foul and 400 miles on an old bike takes some doing.
Did anyone notice that the shots of the car and the train were all in reasonably good weather, and those of the bike were all in the rain.

[Ultimo Tiger]

I was under the assumption from what I read in the latest WHSmiths exclusive "Tornado" magazine and the front cover of Steam Heritage that Tornado had actually won.

Oh well, it was a great show either way. Still, if it wasn't for the rail speed limits......MWAHAHHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!

[hq1hitchin]

It was entertaining viewing but I suppose it was inevitable that a car would win the race. In 1949, the Great North Road was hardly a speedway when it came to going through the many towns on the way to Scotland. Anyone else remember the slow progress through the likes of Stamford, Newark etc before they had by-passes? On the railway, things wouldn't have been a lot quicker, presumably, with the p.way still in a worn out state.
On another note, didn't Clarkson get incredibly filthy looking? It was almost as if he'd been powdering his face with coal dust....

[stembok]

Some very nice shots of 'Tornado' , particularly north of Berwick. Clarkson's "firing technique" stance ,balance etc seemed 'interesting', ie haphazard, to say the least. There semed to be very little coal being flicked into the all important back corners of that firebox and sometimes only a miniscule amount on the shovel. Wonder how much coal he personally did actually move! Still good fun, good to watch and not to be taken too seriously.

[SuperA410000]

Tornado would have won hands down that's for sure if it was 1949 as the water troughs would have been in, no stopping for water, and has already been mentioned the A1 was a much different road from what it is today.

[Ferrybridge Flyer]

However much coal Clarkson put in,i couldn't help thinking "you jammy git-wish that was me!"

[Flying Scotsman]

"Tornado would have won hands down that's for sure if it was 1949 as the water troughs would have been in, no stopping for water, and has already been mentioned the A1 was a much different road from what it is today."

I totally agree Stembok, although they say it set sixty years ago they are abiding by conditions of 2009.

Athough I also feel Clarkson was not suited to the harsh realities of keeping a giant like Tornado fed; he spent a large amount of the time complaining about shoveling coal. Personally I think James May would have been suitable, asI think he would have been better able to feed the bolier. Although that's not to say I think Jeremy wasn't, he put all his effort in to keeping the engine going.

Finally, I'd just like to say I would have done almost anything to be up firing Tornado along the East Coast Mainline; a dream come true.

[Flamingo]

A puzzler. Perhaps someone can explain. During the broadcast, while he was on the footplate of 60163 Jeremy Clarkson quoted the engine's coal consumption as '33 lbs/mile'. I don't think that was a figure he made up because when JC repeated it someone else in the cab also gave that figure.

To me that seems far too low a figure for an A1 with a 50 sq.foot firegrate hauling 12 coaches along the ECML at up to 75 mph. I suspect that Tornado's true coal consumption on a duty of that kind would be around half as much again.

Some facts or observations which may be relevant:
1. An A4 has a smaller firegrate than an A1 , 41.25 sq.ft. as compared to 50.
2. A4s worling the Capitals Limited/Elizabethan non-stops in the 1950s often left shed with more coal in their tenders than the rated 9 tons. This is confirmed by photographic evidence of engines leaving Top Shed or Haymarket to start their duties.
3. If crews felt the need for that kind of 'topping up, it seems reasonable to conclude that they were not confident of completing the journey on 9 tons under all circumstances. Indeed I seem to recall reading that on one occasion the up non-stop had to call at Hitchin to take a pilot on to KX, because the A4's coal supply had run out. ( A good job it didn't happen on the northbound run: there wasn't anywhere convenient like Hitchin to get help from).
4. That may have been an exceptional occurrence but it would imply a coal consumption of around 65 lbs/mile. Even if the full 393 miles were run without incident and there was say half a ton left in the tender at the end of the journey, a figure of between 55 and 60 lbs/mile is implied depending on how big the topping up amount was at the start of the run.
5. The coal in Tornado's tender was probably of lesser quality than that supplied for the non-stops in the brave days of old. There certainly seemed plenty of dust flying about in the cab during JC's TV broadcast.

So I am sceptical of the coal consumption figure that was quoted - and repeated. Is it possible that what they meant was 33 kg/mile not lbs/mile, i.e. more like 70 lbs/mile?

Maybe one of our number with footplate experience, or someone from the A1 Trust, can clarify the situation.

[berwickspotter]

[quote=" I wonder how long it actually took The Hamster to get to Aud Reekie in the end?
Keith

The run took place on the Saturday, and Hammond was still on the road with the camera car following on Sunday, they were spotted about 10 miles south of Alnwick by my wife. The repairs to the bike obviously took longer than the programme suggested. I did not envy him, the weather was foul and 400 miles on an old bike takes some doing.
Did anyone notice that the shots of the car and the train were all in reasonably good weather, and those of the bike were all in the rain.[/quote]

That was the first thing i noticed was the rain but when i was watching tornado go passed
spittal railway crossing i was in a t-shirt because it was a brilliant day

[stembok]

Like 'Flamingo' I thought that 33lbs per mile coal consumption. given by Jeremy Clarkson was on the low side. Perhaps 40- 50 lbs per mile might be a more accurate figure, based upon everyday Pacific running on the ECML. In BR days the coal was often piled high onto tenders in a way that would not be possible nowadays, partly in order to ease the fireman's burdens and an A4 on 'The Elizabethan ' might have 10-11 tons, on the tender instead of the nominal 9 tons capacity. Also coal capacity in 'Tornado's' tender was sacrificed to give extra water capacity and her tender's coal capacity is given as 7.5 tons.
There were occasions pre-war when the 'Coronation' stopped for assistance at Hitchin due to shortage of coal, in the early days of the service, usually in bad or windy weather, meaning a higher consumption. The A4s had streamlined fairings on the tender and with these care was needed to pack coal into the corners of the coal space under the fairing. Later these fairings were removed which solved the problem. Peter Townend the former Shedmaster at King's Cross once stated that an A4 arriving at King's Cross on 'The Elizabethan' would normally have enough coal left for approximately another 100 miles of running.
I am not so sure about the quality of coal in 'days of old' .King's Cross supplied the non-stop with specially selected coal and the engine was coaled in the station loco depot, but Haymarket was less selective and the engine went under the hopper of the coaling plant on arrival. Scottish coal could be rather soft, small and dusty, though often of high calorific value. The coal on Tornado on the 'Top Gear' run did seem - and I stress the word seem- to be of a reasonable size and quality.

[Bryan]

With regard to the consumption figures.
Would there be any additional consumption for higher speed working in the 1940s 50s rather than the 75 mph limit imposed on this run? Rather like watching the fuel gauge go down quicker the more you press the gas pedal.

[stembok]

In the 1940s and early 1950s maximum speeds were often quite low due to wartime arrears of maintenance and the schedules did not demand more, so that often -there were exceptions- it might be 70-80 m.p.h tops speedwise. In contrast on 31st January,2009, 'Tornado' was booked York-Newcastle non-stop in 74 minutes for 80 miles, start to stop average around 65 m.p.h and a tough proposition with a 75 m.p.h top speed. Even allowing for easing of speed restrictions since the 1960s - as at Durham - this was faster than anything in steam days and with a 13 car train. In the late 1950s the 8 coach down evening 'Talisman ' was booked at just over 60 m.p.h non-stop from King's Cross to Newcastle, with normally an 8, or sometimes 9 coach train, of around 275 -300 tons.
In coal consumption trials carried out in 1946-47 post-war Pacifics on normal passenger duties with fairly heavy trains could be expected to burn around 40-45 lbs of coal a mile ,Of course you don't get 'owt for nowt' and higher speeds and heavier loads meant increased consumption. In 1939 on its Crewe-Glasgow test run Stanier Pacific, 'Duchess of Abercorn' averaged 68 lbs of coal a mile, but look at the power outputs recorded and with a 610 ton load!

[Flamingo]

In the 1940s and early 1950s maximum speeds were often quite low due to wartime arrears of maintenance and the schedules did not demand more, so that often -there were exceptions- it might be 70-80 m.p.h tops speedwise. In contrast on 31st January,2009, 'Tornado' was booked York-Newcastle non-stop in 74 minutes for 80 miles, start to stop average around 65 m.p.h and a tough proposition with a 75 m.p.h top speed. Even allowing for easing of speed restrictions since the 1960s - as at Durham - this was faster than anything in steam days and with a 13 car train.

They stopped for coal at Tyne Yard south of Newcastle so the distance was short of the full 80 miles, even so it was a good work-out for 60163. Whether it was achieved on a coal consumption as low as 33 lbs/mile I rather doubt. It would be a quite remarkable feat if that figure turns out to be correct. I have emailed the A1Trust with a polite request for clarification and if they reply I will post the gist of it here.

The matter of the coal consumption is worth sorting out because on another board people were debating whether an A1 would have been capable of running London-Edinburgh or v.v. non-stop. They never did, of course, because it was not possible for an A1 to run with an A4-type corridor tender (incompatible braking arrangements). My view was that even if that had been possible, a corridor tender could not have carried enough coal to feed an A1's 50-sq.ft. firegrate on a 6 1/2 hour non-stop run.

The point about the load being 13 coaches raises another question. When I watched the TV broadcast I counted it as 12 vehicles; on the A1Trust's website they say the load was 10. Take your pick. I am beginning to wonder if the footage we saw on Top Gear was a compilation from more than one run. How many times to date has Tornado run that far north on the ECML?

I don't think the 75 mph top speed limit was too big a handicap. Looking at published logs of runs on the Capitals/Elizabethan, they don't show all that much of the total distance being covered at more than 75. You might see an 80 plus between York and Darlington or perhaps a 90 coming down from Stoke in the up direction if the train was running late, but otherwise high 70s was enough to keep time.

If 60163 had been allowed to run above 75 would it have made much difference to the coal consumption? I don't think so. The basic point is that the loco has a bigger firegrate than an A4 and good firing technique requires that you keep all of it covered. Try running with holes in the fire and see what happens. 50 sq.ft. on an A1 is going to burn more coal per unit of work done than 41.25 sq.ft on an A4. 'Ye canna change the laws of physics, Jim'.

[third-rail]

i still think tornado did win,because they did not follow the old north rd as it then passed through every town and city on route as it is now motorway or dual carriageway most of the way apart from the streatch in northumberland that bypassed every place on route, if they had the jag would have been at least 2to3 hours late