Saint Class 135 ish mph

Okay, in fairness you are quite correct.

 

Its merely an acute outbreak of W.I.B.N. on their part. There is nothing "proportioned" about W.I.B.N.

PH

 

All very interesting, whichever side of the argument one is on! It does seem very odd if the GWR did routinely test light engines in this way, as the evidence suggests. Why, given the alternative suggested by Tom here?

Had the Loco Dept thought the risks through? Giving suitable instructions to the signalmen could in principle deal with the issue of providing enough "clear" line space to allow a light engine to be braked down to a stop after a high speed test that went according to plan. But it would do nothing about any undiscovered track faults that might make their presence felt at abnormal speeds; and nothing about the risks from any obstructions on the track (e.g. something large falling from a bridge, or a herd of cows getting onto the line). Not a happy thought, to come rushing round a gentle curve and see something like that, far too close ahead to stop!

How much more braking distance was required for a light engine of that era compared to a short train of braked vehicles - does anyone have figures?

I take the point that achieving high speeds in passenger service was a marketing tool; and that risking railwaymen's lives during testing might not have been as big a no-no in that era as it is now. But surely any high-speed derailment of an engine on test would have been very bad for the company's business, so why risk it?

 

it was a different world, you can't analyse it using todays H&S paranoia.

 

I know that there was the SPAD at Stafford a few years ago with a pair of 47's which was partly related to them being 'light engine' but have there been any other 'light engine' accidents where speed and/or braking were an issue?

 

Hardly paranoia but an attempt, not always fruitful, to get people to think things through in advance.

Similarly, one should always look at NP threads from the beginning. Had I done so, I would have twigged that the 135 m.p.h. canard was perpetuated by one "Reading General" and not some of the "antis" as has been alleged.

PH

 

absolute nonsense. I always treated the 135 claim with extreme caution...it's even in the title.

this is from the very first post "
Now I think that there was plenty of scope for inaccuracy in the 135 figure, but reading between the lines, would Collett have played it down by quoting around 120? "

 

Well why did you bring it up at all then, with the "magic" figure up in the heading? Rather journalistic I fear.

PH

 

Presumably because Tuplin plucked the number from the air!?

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk

 

Well, so much for the line suggested drawn in Post 221 and supported in Post 222. Not noticed any facts suggested by 222.

 

To be fair to @Reading General, it woz Tuplin wot started it ...

In one of his entertaining novellas, he wrote:

"[...] no-one would seriously support their suggestion of 135mph, but the time could have been 2 1⁄4 minutes without disproving the two-miles-a-minute claim."

thus simultaneously implanting the notion amongst readers of 135mph, while giving himself plausible deniability that he ever meant it, and at the same time diverting scrutiny from an assertion about 120mph - a journalistic bait and switch technique much in evidence today from Northcliffe House. Effectively, he was encouraging his readers to believe 120mph not on the basis of rigorous evidence, but because it was slightly more reasonable than the clearly implausible 135mph.

Tom

 

It's there in the first post..."interesting story isn't it" and it is. Now go read post 222 as has been suggested by Greenway

 

Now just read post 232 by Jamessquared about Tuplin using a journalistic bait and switch technique and one which sounds rather familiar.

PH

 

According to Tupilin in Great Western Steam. The rush was between Hullaington, and Little Somerford boxes which are 4.5 miles apart. According to the signal box records which stil exist, the passing times of the 2 signal boxes was less than 2 minutes

 

Although I've nothing to add to my earlier posts on the "pros and cons" of this particular run, I would make the following point. One accepted principle of good experimentation is that it is readily repeatable.

For whatever reason, perhaps the Salisbury disaster, or maybe everyone on the footplate realised all they had proved was that "just about survivable" isn't much use for regular services, this seems to have remained a one-off.

 

And the clocks in said boxes were perfectly synchronised of course and the signalmen noted the times to the nearest 1/10th of a second.

 

Out of interest, what were the results of the braking tests undertaken that day?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

The object of the run was stated to be to see if a loco fresh from the shops could run 100 mph. Probably the absolute maximum a loco might normally be called on to run at that time would be no more than 90. So a ten percent margin (as with Tornado) over this might show that there was no need to impose a speed limit until the end of a running in mileage.

As to why the run was made 'light engine' - enough instances of fast runs of engines out of shops have been quoted for me to accept this had become a standard practise. The run Holcroft describes with a 3521 tank, which had a history of derailing, actually sounds more dangerous even if the speed was a lot lower.

 

I don't know off the top of my head, but I'll go look it up and come back to you when I can.