At the Ranhill trials of 1829, Stephenson's Rocket achieved 30mph, although wikipedia would later give a top speed of 28mph.
Unfortunately, the Bridgewater-Brunel Experimental Locomotive Trials of 1830 (2012) only yielded a poor 27km/h, not even 17mph, and scarely faster than the best stagecoaches of the day. Blame for this was laid at the poor quality of the permanent way made availabe to competitors. Organisers explained they had planned for improvements, but these would not be complete until 1835, and they apologies for any inconveniance caused to anyone's journies.
Shares in Associated Turnpike Company rallied after the news.
This is a somewhat difficult issue. Although speeds of the sort attained at the Rainhill trials were possible as early as 1829, my research indicates that, in practice, on the Liverpool & Manchester Railway, speeds were quickly limited to the number given because of the nature of the track used. It was only later that higher speeds were achieved regularly in service.
hmm, could probably use yet another transitional track between cast iron and wrought iron.
a track from 1830 to 1845 with 45km/h and 25t?
The specific tracks/speeds that I have used are based on historical figures. There isn't a precedent for the ones that you suggest.
Well, yes there is, it just depends what kind of precedent you're needing. The Rainhill Trials proved it was possible in 1829. That it wasn't done regularly thereafter was down to a number of other factors - but it could have been (given the same setup, and suitable economic incentives). If a specific game provides more incentive than real life did, it's not unreasonable to expect more enthusiasm for faster travel earlier.
Hmm. It would be useful to know more about why the LMR restricted speeds as it did in the early 1830s...
Running a locomotive a couple of times at a high speed is quite different from doing it consecutively in normal operation. Especially when only a two mile section of track is used.
For example: would curved track in that period allowed faster speeds? Was the wear on the tracks too high to have sustained operation at higher speeds.
Quote from: sdog on December 16, 2012, 11:59:18 PM
Running a locomotive a couple of times at a high speed is quite different from doing it consecutively in normal operation. Especially when only a two mile section of track is used.
For example: would curved track in that period allowed faster speeds? Was the wear on the tracks too high to have sustained operation at higher speeds.
I suspect that this may well have been the issue.
Quote from: sdog on December 16, 2012, 11:59:18 PM
Running a locomotive a couple of times at a high speed is quite different from doing it consecutively in normal operation. Especially when only a two mile section of track is used.
And even more especially when only a
brand-new two-mile section of track is used. The speed limit reduced both the wear and tear on the notoriously fragile track and also the risk of derailment if the track
was cracked or misaligned.
Best wishes,
Matthew
Quote from: sdog on December 16, 2012, 11:59:18 PM
Running a locomotive a couple of times at a high speed is quite different from doing it consecutively in normal operation. Especially when only a two mile section of track is used.
I was going to give this same answer. Top speed is often different from service speed. The TGV's top speed is 574.8 km/h, but it never (or rarely, need to confirm this) goes over 320 km/h in service.
I would guess the train was prone to derailment with the precision, or lack there of, of the tracks at the time.
Thanks all that you be talk over those problem.
In general all vehicle maximum speeds should be that regularly achieved in service rather than one off records. Mallard (90mph vs 126mph) and the IC125 (125mph vs 143mph) are good examples of how this is applied within the pak.