Mallard. Well, did it?

"The dignity of this huge engine is in striking contrast to" ... the quality of the script. Best I can suggest is "... chuffing ancestors", but that doesn't seem quite right.

Richard

 

Of course it did it, and as for the accuracyof the recording equipment of the day,
everyone had the same equipment, so any error in the Mallard figures would be mirrored in other railways figures.
Like for like in the days back then it was the fastest,and it still is today.

The Melter

 

I think she did it and wasn't it said that had they not eased off or the loco failing they were looking at 130mph or so. I hope the record is never beaten.

 

While I think it's quite possible that the Pennsylvania Railroad had the fastest steam locomotive, the claims for 7002 were never really serious - it was based on the times the loco passed block stations - and based on the clocks within those block stations. So if one clock is running fast, the loco apparently would have been very slow in the preceding block, and very fast in the following block.

The faster loco was probably the T1 duplex. They had speedos that were pegged at 120 mph, and would have sustained runs with the needle on the peg. Supposedly the US railroads were worried about litigation and regulatory oversight if they went for speed records.

 

A view from someone in Pennyslvania today was that Mallards record doesnt hold, as the loco was going down hill and failed. Had it survived the run and done it on a level then it would have been far more credible.
They agree though PA should have saved 7002 and not disguise another as it in the way they did.
Now ive seen it up close I can see it could have a turn of speed, but 127 only a year or so after 3440 City of Truro managed 100.. ? am not so sure.
In defence of our Mallard, I did point out to the driver at the New Hope Railroad that Sir Nigel Gresley also managed a fast turn of speed some decades later, without failing.. I have to defend British interests

 

If you read my post again (and while I do live just a few miles from New Hope, I'm an ex-Pat Brit, and an LNER enthusiast!), I don't think that the 7002 claims hold up - they weren't timed in a way that can be believed. The New York Times reported a top speed of 82 MPH on that run, and the Chicago press reported 127.

On the other hand, the 1940s built T1's were routinely run over 100 MPH, hauling trains approaching a thousand tons, and variously claimed to have gone significantly faster - in the 130-140 MPH range, although of course there's not supporting evidence. Mallard is the rightful holder of the record as the run is well documented. My comment was that I wouldn't be surprised if T1's did go faster, as it seems likely that they were capable of going faster.

 

The Pennsylvanians can stick their opinions where the sun don't shine. Any halfwit can claim a record based on dodgy, uncorroborated evidence. As for Mallard failing, yes she was removed at Peterborough as a precaution due the middle bearing running warm but the record run was not brought to an end by any failure of the loco. A simple remetalling of the bearing saw 4468 back in service a few days later. If they want an example of an A4 failing with a middle big end problem they need to look at 2512's 113 on the Silver Jubilee when the bearing disintegrated and the piston went through the cylinder end cover, now that's a failure but even so the loco struggled to Kings Cross on two cylinders.
Good to see you defending our home team.

 

I've seen the 130+ claims for the T1s on an American forum but only the most blinkered accept them as fact. More than one person pointed out that at those speeds the trains would be arriving at grade crossings before the barriers had descended and it would have been kind of difficult to explain how the loco had gained a Chevrolet as a front end adornment.

 

I think Mallard did do 126mph and was capable of more, just read the testimony of the driver. I think the american claims are simply for publicity and bragging rights, rather than documented fact. Lets not forget that Sir Nigel Gresley was supposed to be planning another attempt for late 1939...

 

The one thing which strikes me about Mallard's record is the fact it was recorded, you can read off the graph it was recorded on, there's footage, witness statements, all press releases relating the same two numbers (125/126) and that the A4s proved their capacity for speed on several more occasions (Silver Link, 112, Sir Nigel Gresley, 114 I think it was post war?).

No other steam locomotive class in the world has the depth of information available on their "speed records" as Mallard and the other LNER engines have. In a world for which we supposedly value and support arguments supported by evidence and logic, there's a lot of railway enthusiasts out there who blindly ignore the fact that Mallard's run was recorded so comprehensively.

I wonder what the aviation industry would make of the "did she, didn't she, is something else faster" debate, given the number of speed records and documentation they have to support those in comparison.

 

I think much of the aviation industry would find the thought of a speed record set in one direction in a dive to be somewhat risible...

 

... and aren't land speed records calculated as an average of two trips in opposite directions? Wonder what speed "Mallard" would have reached in the opposite direction at Little Bytham?

Richard

 

The aviation got well excited about breaking the sound barrier with a conventional aircraft -as opposed to a rocket powered one - and for a long while that could only be achieved in a dive.
Time to height records obviously go in just one direction as do speed records between two points. Some records are recorded over a closed circuit, again just the one direction.

 

Out and out land speed records yes but some speed records are set on circuits.

 

Silver Link 112.5, Silver Fox 113 - a steam record for a train carrying passengers in the UK at the very least and 112 for 60007 in 1959 - a post war record for steam power. The number of verified 100 mph and faster runs by the A4s adds up to more than all other UK classes combined.

 

Surely a % of them could be down to having Stoke Bank on the ECML ?, other regions had long fast stretches and downhill stretches but rarely both combined, the fact 6220 nearly did an unscheduled remodelling of Crewe bears that out, maybe the A4's would still come out on top when that's accounted for, but I think something like Merchant Navies would give A1/A3's a run for their money.

 

It's not the A1/A3 Pacifics we're talking about though.

 

I'm unaware of any rail speed records being bi-directional but stand to be corrected.

 

Just been having a delve in to the history of the RAF High Speed Flight. They set several records before and after WW2 and they were all over a closed circuit. Post war that circuit was off the south coast with a 3Km timed section between Worthing and Littlehampton. According to Neville Duke's autobiography, while the timed run had to be level and not above 246 feet - including the 500 metres immediately prior to the timed section - he would start his runs at 1000 feet and dive to 120 feet to build up speed. So gravity was the aviator's friend too.