Steam speed records including City of Truro and Mallard

Yes, I can back that up. Go read my Gresley book. He’s an unreliable commentator on a range of issues, including but not limited to, conjugated valve gear.

You weren’t wrong Tom in your recollection. It is also quoted in a few sources outside of these books including to the association of locomotive engineers.

The reason I have an issue with what he says is that it’s a two week period after in which the locomotive was in works for repair. It’s significant, not immaterial, and Holcroft downplays the British efforts and maximises the importance of the German loco.

 

The loco spent about fortnight in the works then, but that's not the same as saying it needed a fortnight of work.

It's clear from Holcroft's account of the whole trip that the entire visit was seen as a major propaganda exercise by the Germans, and they went to considerable lengths to show off a range of their latest technology in its best light. In the circumstances, it is not improbable that the loco was fettled into tip-top condition; and also probably held back from any other duties to ensure it was ready to go for the visit by the British. But that is absolutely not the same as saying that it needed two weeks of solid repair work as a consequence of its record run on 11 May 1936.

Tom

 

In any event the 05 was one of three loco's primarily as far as I can see designed to break records.

I cant see that it necessarily had any regular work that required an 05 unlike an A4.

Clearly as far as I can see, if Mallard had had a period of not working in the same way then questions might have been asked.

 

What about a starting a new thread named 05002 was a fake/lousy/hyped/of no further significance? etc and answer my question put here a quple of times:

Who generated the numbers shown ?

Mallard by Hermod posted Dec 5, 2023 at 10:03 AM

They are physically impossible, systematic distorted and would bring a cassino owner behind bars if used for Lotto.

 

Boiler tube replacement, Tom. Come on - that requires a boiler lift, and removal of the casing.

Whilst that is true Tom, the context of the repairs indicates a lot of work done between the record run and the press run for the English group after, not a small job. Dismissing it as a few days between runs is unreliable reporting IMO.

I've never said that, nor has anyone else. Stop being silly, please.

You keep posting this image, which I don't recognise. Who made this graph?

Also: I would like to see your maths behind the "physically impossible" statement for this part of the run.

 

You don’t need to lift the boiler or remove the cladding to replace boiler tubes.

In any case, aren’t you making a big deal of what is at best a secondary or tertiary source about the repair effected? In the absence of the workshop repair card, that statement could cover pretty much anything from a couple of leaking tubes were replaced - a routine repair that happened thousands of times on shed - to something quite major. You just don’t know what was done, nor of the work done, how much was a consequence of damage sustained in the record run, how much was routine maintenance and how much was fettling up prior to a major propaganda engagement.

Essentially the fact that the loco spent 19 days in the works between a record run and the special trip tells you precisely nothing about what effect the record had on the loco mechanically.

Tom

 

On a page called Germansteam

http://www.germansteam.co.uk/

 

.
So that is by our honourable ex member Kent Yeti.

 

Around january 1932 discussions of a single 150kmh steam locomotive was started.
Before any ligth diesel thing.
At end of 1936 after having run the 05s as fast tram service between Hamburg and Berlin during Olympiade in company with diesels ,it was clear that diesels were the way forward and more was ordered.
The 05001 and 05002 served as normal fast locomotives for rest of their long lives.
The05003 was a special case.

 

You do for this loco Tom, that’s what was reported. I am reporting back to you on what I have found. Don’t shoot the messenger!

Tom, what I am doing is pointing out a bit of the historiography - much is made of Mallard’s middle big end needing remetalling but not much is made of the 05’s time in works.

I think for balance we should be reporting both accurately. That’s what I am saying.

 

So for me, that’s an instant red flag I am afraid - his analysis was not from the dynamometer roll but from Cecil J Allen’s reported logs.

Sources people, helps us all in the end!

 

Yep. Avoid. Sorry. Not a particularly accurate account for either the 05 or the A4.

He was not working from the primary evidence, the graphs he produced are very debatable (they do not appear to match up to my copy of the Mallard roll, for instance - which makes sense, as he states in there he is working from Cecil J Allen’s logs).

The 05 one is based on this:



Which is a not to scale reproduction of an original dynamometer car trace. So again, not from the original roll. I question how you can make that analysis based off of this from the 05 book - even scanning that page has presented problems for interpretation, IMO.

Quite frankly the presence of Cecil J Allen hangs over Mallard and 05 002 like some sort of spectre, for all the wrong reasons.

 

Where does it say the boiler was lifted? You have a secondary source that say the tubes were replaced - nothing (that I can see) about a boiler lift.

It's a matter of record that after its record run, Mallard was damaged to the extent that not only did it need a repair, but it couldn't even finish its rostered duty for the day. Whereas AFAIK, whatever repairs were effected subsequently, the 05 did run for a considerable period after hitting its peak speed, indicating there was no damage that limited its ability to run.

Tom

 

Back now I believe as @The Gricing Owl

 

Not in that piece of evidence - I’ve got a separate piece here reporting on the overhaul procedure for the 05s. Sorry, I should have made that clearer. The fuller picture from secondary sources is indicating the 05 was pushed very hard to the point of mechanical issues/damage. Same as Mallard, effectively.

But Tom, that’s precisely what I am saying.

That bit cannot be entirely true with the level of repairs required thereafter and how much time in works for repair. Mechanically it may have been able to carry on after hitting 124.5mph but there was clearly some damage.

You are falling into the same trap as other writers, I fear.

All I am asking for is that we consider both locomotives in the same manner. Assess the secondary sources and what happened and make a more informed report. It is clear both locomotives were heavily pushed to their upper limits. The o5 appears to have issues with the boiler, Mallard’s was the middle big end.

I don’t think I am being controversial in saying that.

 

I would be interested in hearing from him to understand his approach in producing those graphs and the full extent of his method in analysing the 05 002 run, because for me looking at his analysis I have some concerns.

 

Did 6220 sustain any damage after hitting 114 mph on the approach to Crewe?

 

Well it came back from Crewe to Euston with the special in 119 mins ( 79.7mph). That much we know, so on that basis, no.

 

No, it took the train all the way back to Euston that afternoon in 119 minutes, touching 100 and 99 mph on the way.

 

I think there may have been some replacement crockery required - and underpants …

Tom