4464 Bittern to do 90mph on ECML - 29 June & 27 July 2013

After the euphoria of the high speed running, there was time to soak up the atmosphere of an A4 at Kings Cross. The sound of her chime under the arched roof was spine tingling.

FQ5A9857 by KING COBRA 92, on Flickr

 

The thing I think most about that claim is, I sure woulden't want to find out what the braking distance for a light loco from that kind of speed might be.

 

Yes, though I remember Kent Yeti, that doyen of NP timers, noting that not all mileposts are at regular intervals. A quarter mile post that is 50 yards short followed by one 50 yards long can give some strange peaks and troughs in apparent speed!

But beyond that, the story doesn't ring true to me for a more fundamental reason. In the 1930s, the LMS and LNER were battling for supremacy in speed and non-stop distance. The SR marketed itself on the cleanliness and clock-face timetable of its electric services. But the GWR gave an impression of being above such things. Instead, it plotted its own course as "the Royal Road", running swiftly but without apparent fuss; helped by a mainline that was ideally set up for continuous fast, but steady, running. Its public image was to portray itself as above the rather vulgar battle that its northern rivals were engaged in.

So I can imagine in the circumstances a rather nervous PR type asking Collett if there was any hope of a GWR loco doing something special for a bit of publicity. Collett no doubt initially refused, but eventually, after much pressing, agreed to do something to help out. But no public run with the press on board; instead a story concocted of a quiet Sunday afternoon run a quarter of a century before, impossible at that remove to verify. No doubt Collett chose a top speed he thought was so high that he felt no-one would take it seriously, and then doubtless had a quiet chuckle when the Railway Magazine swallowed it hook line and sinker, evidently too deferential of the GWR and its regal reputation. Or maybe the RM realised they had been sold a pup, but didn't want to lose their privileged access.

The bottom line is: did the GWR run in its locos fresh from the works by taking them out for a swift trip? I'm sure they did. Did that sometimes involve some hard running? No doubt. Could that have resulted in running at or near 100mph, even in 1906? Quite possibly - it would have to be quite an asthmatic loco not to reach 100mph down a steep bank light engine - and in 1906, Swindon locos had very modern front ends. But 120mph, when nothing on any other railway had got to even within about 25 - 30mph of that speed? That is simply stretching credulity too far. Quite apart from anything else, I can't imagine that a responsible workshop foreman would be desperately keen on pushing a newly outshopped loco so fast on its first run from the works.

BTW, I have it on no less an authority than "Curly" Lawrence that "Whitechapel" (the Spa Valley Terrier) ran a twelve coach train (4 wheelers) from East Croydon to Brighton and only lost time over the express schedule on account of water stops, running at 70mph through Haywards Heath. Not to mention a C class goods hitting 80mph through Farningham Road on the Kent mainline. 120mph from a Saint sounds equally plausible...

Tom

 

So Wind in the Willows was being economical with the truth when 65/592 hit 120MPH then ?

 

Of course N2s on Quad-Arts would regularly match the Silver Jubilee schedule out to Potters Bar.

 

Hopefully this thread about the reality of the recent A4 runs won't degenerate into farce with the stories of ridiculous speeds by steam. If I had £ for every one of those I'd build a new 35003 from whatever bits are still left, (only number and name plates), get it into 1967 condition by trial and error and then have some fun!

Not often I disagree with Al. But my view is that train timing peaked with the full use of continuous electronic timing, (ie a stop watch time), at every 1/4 mile post, (where available), by very experienced timers who knew the routes they were timing very well indeed. ie. All gradient changes and the accuracy of all mileposts:, (something all established timers knew way back in normal main line steam days). The resultant continuous timing spreadsheet left nowhere to hide errors. Relying almost totally on GPS these days does throw up differences outside of the error range of continuous electronic timing.

In view of some of my extensive research from the past I'd also stay away from dynamometer cars Al. At least those from the past. Strange things have happened with them. As SR showed when they debunked Flying Scotsman's once claimed 100 mph. Steam loco speeds do not jump 2 mph almost instantaneously and then fall back just as fast. But a jolted or knocked recording pen can.

That jolt or knock deprived us all of the loco that was the first to reach 100mph with no shadow of doubt, (even though it was highly likely reached earlier in the USA on more than one occasion). And that was a loco whose book meant it has always been a great favourite of mine: I was brought up on the book "2750, Legend of a Locomotive". But earlier, erroneous claims in the UK for the first ton, meant that wonderful machine was scrapped. A disaster IMHO.

Anyway. I've got a very nice house guest here at present , so I'll leave the debate and hope it doesn't really go downhill, (LOL), from now onwards.

PS. I'm not saying don't use GPS. But do so with caution.

 

For most of us GPS will be fine. Not an avid train timer as my passion is sound recording. My iPhone app was good enough for me. I ignored the transitory peaks and was happy with the continuous speeds being displayed.
So a maximum of 92/93 down Stoke is accurate enough although I respect the fact that others will want a more precise figure.

 

I should think the ideal, if it's possible, would be a high-quality GPS system (possibly better than currently available inside a smartphone) but linked to a smartphone or other computer to log the LOCATION rather than just the speed every few seconds. Then the log would be fed into an appropriately modified version of the Yeti's spreadsheet for analysis and exposure of errors.
(Edited: typo "of other computer" corrected to "or other computer".)

 

Most phones don't have GPS - they have location services based on triangulation from transmitters. I'd be wary about placing too much weight on the outcome… good for basic mapping, but I wouldn't recommend calling in an airstrike based on the results… ;-)

Simon

 

For me it was all about emulating the late, great Peter Handford. He got 112 of course and 60007 worked that bit harder and that bit further down Stoke Bank. He recorded three tons that day and I had to make do with three 90s but I've got my own Triumph Of An(other) A4 Pacific so I'm well pleased. If the success of these runs leads to more high speed trips then so much the better.

 

Your not suggesting tank engines can't go fast or that wheel size is an inhibitor to speed are you ?

 

Most smartphones have full GPS.

 

I run Memory-Map on my smartphone as well as a few other GPS based apps. I used to lug a laptop running Memory-Map and external GPS antenna around but there was no significant difference between the laptop results and the smartphone.

The location data is not always accurate with GPS. If the location data is wrong the speeds will be wrong as the speeds are derived from the location and time.

 

Yes, but the location errors will be easier to detect and adjust for, using the spreadsheet, than if one only has the speed data.