Saint Class 135 ish mph

rather walked on my point.

 

Not true - but feel free to try to demonstrate it.

Part of the problem in doing that is so much depends on cylinder power and on the locomotive resistance - and there is virtually no hard data on generic figures for >80mph let alone data on the specific locomotives in question. (I'm not aware of anyone indicating a locomotive at 100 mph)

Regarding the two runs - no one has ever claimed 104mph for 3440, Rous-Marten claimed 102.3 but most commentators would say his timings pointed to 100 mph. Regarding 2903, as discussed higher up this thread, timing engines from the footplate is tricky - and I think the most can that be said from the evidence was that the speed was well over 100, you could use 110 for your calculation.

 

Didn't the criteria used in one of the calculations proving City of Truro couldn't have done 100 also 'prove' that Duke of Connaught couldn't have run from Bristol to London in under 100 minutes.

 

That might just be an indication of the number of speed exploits on the GWR.

Regarding the LMS, I can only think of one speed record - the 114 mph on the Coronation Scot - and no one believed that speed (conveniently 1mph higher than the LNER record) then or now.

For the LNER there is doubt over many of the records. Did FS do 100? Did Papyrus do 108? Mallard certainly didn't do 126.

 

might also be a result of the anti GWR bias so prevalent.

 

So far as the LBSC goes, there's not much disagreement about 'Holyrood's' record breaking Brighton Line run. If only the modern electric service were that enthusiatic, though many regular sufferers would have settled for anything which actually ran on several days this year!

 

According to the people who were there the Saint episode wasn't a record.

 

What would they know when there are armchair experts from 2017 who know better.

 

Salisbury was reckless , as you say , but Rous Marten commented in RM , that he had travelled thro Salisbury at around 70 mph in the recent past. He blamed the derailment on the engine , which had been rebuilt with a larger boiler, thus had a higher centre of gravity. Of course , that doesn't alter the fact that running that close to the ragged edge was totally irresponsible ,

 

But according to others who weren't there, it was.

 

Hang on one cotton picking minute!

You can go and see reproductions of all of the Dynamometer records for those locomotives by looking in Search Engine at the NRM - and several of those including the original Mallard roll are actually on display!

Flying Scotsman almost certainly did do 100mph. We have the roll replicated and it shows 100mph. End of. Papyrus did 108mph and this is also evidenced.

Mallard did 126mph albeit for a very short distance. It's on the roll which is freely available to the public to view. Gresley accepted 125mph because it was sustained. The LNER and later BR accepted the higher figure. It is undisputed that Mallard very much holds the world record for steam with clear evidence available.

The way you've described it it's as if the LNER made up the speed records. They did not. They evidenced them and they are now available for all to review.

Doubt? Only if you totally ignore the dynamometer car recordings and the repeated number of speed records the LNER holds and can evidence.

 

Without wanting to belabour a point made before, who precisely do you say is claiming this should be counted as a record? Because I reviewed the thread and couldn't see anyone doing so.

 

Come on now. As any GWR fanatic will tell you, all that's needed to claim a high speed run is approximate times taken at signal boxes at an assumed distance apart.

 

As far as I know the rolls for FS and Papyrus do not exist. I don't even think C J Allen's stopwatch timings still exist (there is more first hand data surviving from Truro's run than Scotsman's). We do have speed curves for FS and Papyrus but these were drawn by hand - and they are odd.

Regarding Mallard I am spending most lunchtimes poring over the dyno roll data (you of all people should know what it's like to get obsessed with a facet of railway history) - and it doesn't show the figures that the LNER claimed. There are (small) errors in how the dyno car worked and (small) errors in the measurements made from the roll plus poor use of some of the data. I will write an article on this at some point.

There is nothing groundbreaking in saying that Mallard didn't run at 126 mph - several others have said the same (see Journal of Stephenson's Locomotive Society) - but I think I can explain the errors that led to the claim and give a good estimate of the true speed.

I've no axe to grind on this - if the data had shown 127 mph I would be happy to publish it. If anything it pains me that I am lending credence to the other contender that had Martin Bormann and Richard Heydrich for passengers.

 

The LMS claimed 114 mph.

 

Quick question - does it really matter whether it ran at 113mph or 114mph?

Sent from my SM-J330FN using Tapatalk

 

You are right in that we do not have the original rolls but we do have the speed curves. The speed curves are based on the roll data and whether they were drawn by hand or not is fairly irrelevant: without the original rolls being present in the first place we would not have the speed curves (as you well know).

Claiming we have more first hand evidence for Truro than Scotsman is an utter nonsense. The speed curves are developed from the Dynamometer car records. That is degrees of amplitude more accurate than the stop watch records for Truro.

You claiming the speed curves being drawn by hand but based on actual recorded data from a machine designed to measure speed, horsepower at the drawbar and other measurements are odd, in comparison to relying on stopwatch timings made by hand and by sight of signs and signal boxes, is a bit like saying an axe is more accurate in cutting wood than a laser cutter.

I would be interested to know how exactly you arrived at this conclusion, given what I know about the how the dynamometer was set up and used by the LNER over the course of its working life. It was also used as the primary recording vehicle by BR during the exchange trials - yet you have not made mention of this and called into question those results?

I would be interested to read this and will try to keep an open mind. However I feel the idea that the LNER records are without merit or are fundamentally flawed in a thread discussing whether a Saint did 135mph to be rather trite!

 

My money's on Simon on this one.