Steam speed records including City of Truro and Mallard

Crockery?

 

The train hit the reverse curves going into the platforms at, I think, 57 mph (limit 20 mph). There was a lot of lemming-like jumps from high shelves by the dining car fittings.

 

It is never necessary to lift a boiler just for boiler tube replacement. A boiler may require lifting for inspection or work for its 10-year overhaul (always so for a boiler that sits between the frames) and the boiler will always require tube replacement at this point. I say always, but some of the NRM locos at Bold Colliery (for Rainhill 150th) had the same boiler tubes that they were withdrawn with in the early sixties! No doubt a few sample tubes had been replaced but.... Of course the NRM don't (didn't?) have to worry about insurance, being government owned. For the same reason, if you see a Hurricane or Spitfire over London, you know it's owned by the RAF. No one else can afford the insurance!

 

Seems to be a fair bit of speculation going on, quelle surprise! AIUI the German locomotives were only really being used for testing and experiments at the time, they weren't being used on day to day traffic, so its unsurprising that it would be unused between the high speed run and the exhibition run, and one would positively expect that it would be thoroughly checked and fettled in between, especially as they only had the two of them.

 

Absolutely agree Jim.

 

That is certainly consistent with the talk given as part of the Mallard 75 event here in Grantham 10 years ago. One of the Berlin railway museum curators* spoke very interestingly on the subject, but I've no recollection from that of the run being mechanically compromised or particularly fettled.

* - Unfortunately, I can't find the programme for the weekend, and online searches haven't helped. I do recall Robert Gwynne talking about high speed rail more generally, including reference to the relationship between containers, APT and Pacers...

 

According to Gottwaldt who cite the Betriebsbuch 05002 it was doing 3382km during 7 days in steam and was cold but fit for work 24 days in may 1936.

 

Don't forget 05 003 which had special boiler with a combustion chamber to run on pulverised coal. The loco chassis was turned round relative to the tender with the cab now at the front. Quite why they bothered I don't know, but in early 1945 it was rebuilt to be very similar to its two sisters but both bogies were of the inside framed type. AFAIK it didn't do any useful work that year.

 

Given the condition of Germany, I don't suppose there was much work for a high speed loco in 1945 (and probably rather more pressing issues than sorting out an experimental non-standard loco to boot). Just a suggestion ...

Tom

 

But, according to the less than trustworthy Wikipedia, not yet in existence in 1936?

 

I have now had confirmation from the DB Museum that the original dynamometer rolls for the German speed record holder 05 002 do not exist in preservation.

The closest we have is the interpretative graphs given on page 64 of the book Baureihe 05 - Schnellste Dampflok der Welt.

This has changed my views now and I think places the 05 locomotive back behind Mallard, particularly when given further context by the article that the DB Museum have offered to me, reporting on the day of the run.

We're now getting towards a tiering system for high speed record runs I think!

 

IIRC the Class 05 was designed specifically for high speed trials and not for normal service. This compares with Mallard which was designed for, and used on, normal services.

 

Certainly The Germans seem to have built a number of different short production run high speed loco's but in terms of numbers nothing approaching the A4's

 

3440 city of truro when it spent a while on the east lancs at bury certainly seemed like it could be rather nippy.

Although during winter I don't think the crews would want to as it's an open cab. It only had a tarpaulin attached between the cab & the tender for some protection but still the crew were getting rather cosy huddled round the firebox door to keep warm

Sadly I'm highly doubtful it's a loco we'll ever get to see work again as did hear it's got a leaking boiler barrel & I can't see the NRM being willing to shell out the cash for the repairs

 

All things considered I think I doubt that, but if we allow that that might be the case, what is the historiographical justification and purpose?

 

The recognition of limits in primary evidence and the issues with secondary sources.

 

So to give an example of my current thinking:

Authenticated Speed Record

• Vehicle has speedometer and print out exists for analysis
• Dynamometer car reading is available for analysis
• Secondary sources have strong basis in primary evidence

Partially Authenticated Speed Record

• Original records not available
• Secondary sources have sufficient data and strong basis in primary evidence to ascertain mathematical possibility of occurrence
• Timekeeping records where other data points or sufficient corroborating evidence exists

Unauthenticated Speed Record

• All timekeeping records without corroborating evidence (e.g. similar runs and findings)

"Nonsense"

• 130mph PRR T1
• 130mph Saint

 

So, in the classification of the various contributors here, I class you as an unrepentant empiricist Simon.

In all the categories I think there needs to be a theory filter. That is what rules out Rocket doing 80 or a Saint 130. There must be theoretical evidence that the combination of power output, gradient, train weight, drag factor, following wind...... is capable of delivering a speed of x. In other words, you need a model and it needs calibration.

Then I also think that this thread has taught us much about the measurement limitations, accuracy, error bands etc and the need to use the language of probabilities.

I think the most powerful results involve a combination of modelling, observation and interpretation.

 

I will take that as a compliment!

I do like your "theory filter" idea.

I absolutely agree with you, and it's something I am trying to do in the PhD, albeit at a slow pace currently. The question is how you build the model, what is it based on, and actually I am working on a proposal for the University of Southampton Wind Tunnel team, towards some physical modelling. Watch this space...