My take.... Railroads in the UK, as I understand it, have operated under different conditions than the US. Smaller networks, shorter distances, smaller clearances, different needs, longer history. It does what it needs to do just fine and is impressive in it’s own ways. There’s no need for massive motive power hauling monstrous trains long distances. It’s just different is all and just as interesting when you dig into it a bit. There’s no need to “compare sizes” as one size does not fit all. And, outside of cab units, a few steamers and newer passenger trains, not much attention or importance has been paid to asthetics here in the US as the “frilly bits” just get in the way for maintenance.

My two cents....

In England, railways were built connecting urban and industrial centers that had been populated and productive for generations. In the US, those only existed along the east coast, and railways were used to open land for development and connect it to the eastern seaboard population centers. British permanent way engineering was of a much higher standard - finding 150 year old bridges still in service isn't unusual there - and needed to be fit in to other existing infrastructure, hence the smaller loading gauge. We found it expedient to build track into the frontier as rapidly as possible, and later come back and fine tune it to the extent we needed to, less constrained by stuff we had to fit our lines in between. Our bar framed steam locomotives were more flexible than the plate frames to help accommodate the less picky track, and we created the 4-4-0 with its triangular footprint while in the UK engine trucks weren't required until loads grew - the 0-6-0T was pretty much what was required in different classes of service for a long while. Technology matched local requirements, and comparing them without taking that into consideration isn't enlightening.

Sometimes a little more perspective is needed in the "mine is bigger (better) than yours battle. This may be a little apples vs. oranges, but impressive none the less.

Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-01grMv5lw

True, for a railfan. But I was talking about perception by the general public.


I have said twice now that if you are comparing them on an engineering basis, they are both worthy of respect. That is not my argument. I would explain it again here but I think my last post did a pretty good job of that.


Ok, I guess you didn’t read my last post at all then. You guys want to make this seem like all I am saying is “mine’s bigger.” It’s more nuanced than that. Read what I wrote for a full explanation. And as far as the boat link, I think the public does appreciate large ships. The massive cruise ships that dock in major cities always turn heads.

I think I get what you’re saying. Large steam working hard out on the main is indeed impressive but with a few exceptions, is lost to us. Those are the cards we’ve been dealt. If you want a place for big steam to stretch its legs, you’d have to buy a redundant stretch of mainline track. Then convince the locomotive owner(s) to move there. It would take a large coalition with very deep pockets. That horse has been beaten here on RyPN before.

I’d have to argue that steam in general is a draw no matter the size or speed or origin. It’s old tech, interesting to watch and even a small tank engine is big when compared to anything else to which the general public is exposed. I would argue that any size steam on a slower tourist road is a draw (ask the Gramlings about their diminutive engines). It’s not here and gone in a flash. You get the sensory input when you can walk around and examine it. Doesn’t matter where it came from. If it’s outside the norm of everyday life, it’s interesting. At times, the odder, the better. We have people stop and watch when we’re out with a motor car pulling two trailers of tools and track materials. To us it’s just another day, to the passerby, it’s “what the heck is that?”

I don’t think Thomas has ruined anything. Because of Thomas, we have some younger members due to that exposure.

The old verbal argument in sports car, motorcycle, and racing circles has been that while Americans show off brawn, power, and size, Europeans (and now the Japanese) show off engineering and performance capability in a compact package.

Some of that is at work, mentally, with foreign railways versus US ones. We have the Big Boy and N&W J, they have the LNER A4 and LMS Duchess. Or, the Chapelon steamers, or the DB 01 Pacifics, or......

Would Americans be able to appreciate, in 2020, the "world's fastest steam locomotive"? Or would they just say "nah, ours were REALLY faster!"??

Hmmm. But the PRR had insisted that E2 4-4-2 7002 was the "world's fastest steam locomotive."

Here's the RRMPA listing:

https://rrmuseumpa.org/wp-content/uploads/PRR-7002.jpg

Of course the engine representing E2 7002 is the former E2a 8063. The class difference is the E2 had a wagon top firebox and the E2a a Belpaire. 8063 was rebuilt into an E7s with larger cylinders with outside piston valves, Stephenson link motion and superheat. This is the engine at East Strasburg.

World's fastest? Mallard or 7002(I)? Your call.

Phil Mulligan

The LNER Mallard record of 126 mph was "officially verified", so that is their claim on the record, as is their claim of Flying Scotsman as the first steam locomotive to break 100 mph. Apparently standing in the vestibule with a stopwatch counting how fast telegraph polls are whizzing by is not official enough.

Further, UK mileposts were normally meticulously maintained to exacting standards, to the point where you could still purchase booklets in the UK in the 1990s telling you exactly how many feet were between UK mileposts per region/division of railway, to compare your timings perfectly. (This, of course, before consumer availability of GPS and the like.)

US mileposts, by comparison, are mere suggestions and insinuations by now after all the line changes, shifting, etc.

At least with CSX, every subdivision has a couple or a few actually measured miles that crews use to check their speedometers. They are shown in the employee timetable. Also, mileposts that are missing, or wildly off, usually for track relocation reasons, are noted as well.

It's my understanding 7002 was timed by the block operators at AY Tower in Lima and the station in Elida Ohio using their telegraph keys. The Division Office in Ft. Wayne was monitoring the progress on the Standard Clock.

PRR track charts show the exact number of feet between mileposts.

Phil Mulligan

Not necessarily true. I updated comprehensive track charts for a tourist line not too long ago. This was partially due to their required bridge management program. From the last survey, there was a discrepancy between two mile posts most likely from different starting points in the survey. This was accounted for in the chart.

Going back to one of the original themes, perception of British locomotives in the US, in 1991 two locomotives visited the Sacramento Rail Fair. These were the 0-4-4T Dunrobin, a small rich man's toy, built for the Duke of Sutherland, with inside 13" cylinders, and Great Northern No.1274, a traditional type of inside cylinder 0-6-0ST for shunting and short trip work. Both built by Sharp Stewart of Glasgow.

I gathered from the reports at the time their inside cylinders were a bit of a culture shock to some; of course it was a long time ago now, but is there any record of the general impression they made?

There was also a 2 foot gauge Welsh industrial well tanker there....