another post got me thinking....

I don't believe that I have at all.

I intrinsically disagree with your belief that CoT set a record on the basis of the lack of documented evidence. You stated that opinions from people such as OS Nocks carry more weight: my argument is, how can they with such evidence for the run?

That does not stop me from appreciating CoT as a machine and being grateful for the disputed record being that which led the LNER to save her for their York museum.

It never fails to amaze me how posts can be misrepresented by others.

 

chill....i said that the 102.3 was flawed but others such as O S Nock, one of the most respected recorders (had analysed the data and ) accepted that a speed of 100 mph was reached that day ( as recorded by the other recorder you mention).. How am I wrong to say that? Lack of documented evidence? well you mentioned the other recorder that day, is that somehow inadmissible evidence? Just because one recorder made a mistake, does that nullify the other?

Nock analysed the data from the flawed log and with his considerable experience, accepted that 100 mph had certainly been reached.

 

Fixed.

Nothing can be stated as certain unless the data is acceptedas accurate in its entirety. Using analysis on the data from a flawed log and applying experience cannot produce certainty.

Anyway, who cares - both locos were on a bank, so no-one can know how they would have performed on the flat. There may have been wind assistance or hinderance - for either loco - etc etc. All we know is both were fast and effective locos for the duties they had to perform.

If irrefutable evidence were to emerge that COT did 102mph, it isn't going to make me a GWR lover, just as irrefutable evidence tha COT only did 99 mph would make you a lover of the LNER - so why not get back on thread?

 

I'm sorry but that is not fixed. I was essentially quoting Mr Nock opinion and saying it carried greater weight than almost anyones, especially random blokes on the Internt..

 

From one random bloke on the internet to another - As I said, it's an opinion, therefore not certain.

 

Yes but the opinion I am putting forward isn't a random bloke on the 'net (me), it's O S Nock's opinion which carries a lot more weight... if he was happy that CoT did the ton, then so am I.

 

But it's based on evidence which is by no means on its own conclusive - there is a human error to consider and experience. One of those two timing the train was a postal worker - does his evidence have the same weight as the trained timekeeper?

In any event, it was noted that the timekeeper's watch measured time in a specific way (off the top of my head, I think it was multiples of a fifth of a second or something similar) and when examining his evidence further it's not so clear cut either.

OS Nock giving an opinion on such evidence doesn't lend the evidence more weight on its own.

 

his analyze of the available data, correcting the error as far as is possible led him to believe that 100 had been attained. That's more than an opinion

 

Two independent sources (one a time keeper, one a postal worker) gave different maximum speeds, using a technique with known quantities for human error.

There is no way of looking at any further data, unlike Scotsman's and Mallard's records where the dynamometer readings can still be looked at today.

Whatever you may think of OS Nock's profile, his belief that 100mph may have been attained on the basis of those two accounts gives no more credence to the evidence than if any of us were to believe it.

This is the same OS Nock who questioned, one might add, that certain more modern express passenger steam locomotives designed for high speed were not actually capable of 100mph but that an Edwardian 4-4-0 was.

I think - as with other subjects - blindly following the accepted knowledge without examining the evidence more closely puts railway historians and enthusiasts in danger of being accused of some bias.

 

Good grief, we are in agreement for once. No matter how experienced Nock was, the fact is he wasn't on the run and didn't time it. I accept his experience as a timer would enable him to analyse the data but in the end it can only be a guesstimate. He agrees on 100 but equally it could have been 99.7 or 100.3. We shall never know exactly how fast CoT went that day and no amount of post event analysis will give a definite answer.

 

Wonders will never cease!

 

4472s 100mph recorded was recorded by dynamometer with the mileposts timings giving a lower figure of 97.3mph timed by Cecil J. Allen. O.S. Nock describes the 100mph on the chart as being "a marked but rather unnatural peak of exactly 100." Although i suppose timing by quarter mileposts only gives average speeds for that distance.

Of course Papyrus managed over 100mph without dispute!

 

well, what about the evidence of the other timer, dismissed so easily as a Postman...? If he recorded 100 and OSN accepts that 100 was reached, that's a lot more than just an opinion of the sort that can be overcome by an internet bystander over 100 years later

 

If running on the main line I cannot think of any loco to have approached the miles run by 5407/45407.........whatever that mileage may be. I first photted 5407 on the main line or preserved line in 1980 and every year up to 2014 with the exception of 1985/6/7 and 1992. That's 31 of the last 35 years at least, surely a record no other loco can match.

 

It doesn't matter who recorded 100 and who subsequently analysed data and came up with 100. It certainly makes it more reliable, no doubt, but if there was no scientific recording then it will only ever remain a possibility, albeit a reasonably strong one, that CoT hit 100. What we need is a big blue box that can fit a dynamometer car through the doors...

 

the same argument applies to Flying Scotsman record too apparently. Manual timing does not confirm the Dynamometer car reading . Checkmate

 

Have you ever tried timing by using 1/4 mileposts? To get any sort of accuracy, you need to have your head in exactly the same position and watch the milepost go past the corner of the window, using this as a marker, Even a slight movement of the head will alter this. Rous-Marten's successive 1/4 mile timings also vary by 0.2 second over the preceding 1/4 miles, thus: 10.0, 9.8, 9.4, 9.2. 8.8 but his stopwatch only timed to 0.2/second. The subsequent readings would be interesting but I don't know what they were. We also have to know tha accuracy of the mileposts, which can often be slightly in error.
I wouldn't set any stall out on what Ossie Nock thought. He may have been a prolific writer and employee of W.B. & S. but, as with many things, subsequent investigation and analysis has cast doubt on various aspects. To write over 140 books and several thousand articles means that there is little time for in-depth research. Still a good read, though!
There is no doubt that it was a fast run but, how fast, we are never likely to know until someone invents a time machine.

 

What are you on about?

 

Err - doesn't that rather confirm that manual timings aren't as accurate as a Dynamometer Car - which is presumably why railway companies went to the expense of building such vehicles in the first place (in the absence of Sat-Nav and GPS!)

Steven

 

And the higher the speed, the greater the margin of error in mph. CoT's speed will be debated until the cows come home but in the absence of a dynamometer scroll, we'll never know just how fast she went.