The LNER Encyclopedia

I was pretty annoyed by Matthew Engel's assertion in his recent pamphlet that Mallard's steam record meant nothing because the same effect could have been achieved by pushing the loco over a cliff. I ignore the GWR claims that City of Truro did over 100 mph in 1902 or whenever...and that a King once did 130 mph down Saunderton Bank, but now, on the Mid Hants site further outrageous allegations viz -
'In the last days of steam on the Southern region, Merchant Navies regularly broke the magical 100mph. It is also said that 'unofficially', a Merchant Navy went faster than 126.5mph, therefore beating the world steam record held by A4 'Mallard', but this has never been proven. '
Simply cannot believe that in the last days of steam ANY loco was in the kind of nick to reach 120 mph......cloud cuckoo etc.

An "MN" beating 126? Utter piffle! Mind you, 100mph in a run down Pacific is quite enough, thanks!

Why is it that there is always someone who wants to knock the achievements of GB? I'm not jingoistic but I am patriotic!

(Mrs BB - time for his medication now.)

Have a look at this site:

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

I think it is fairly clear that at least one MN did reach 100 mph during the dying days of steam on the Southern on the 'racing stretch' between Woking and Basingstoke, mainly because the line had been upgraded for 100+ mph running for electrification - see Bulleid's Pacifics by D W Winkworth. I've never seen the 126.5+ claim, but it is ridiculous.

Yes, the MN's were in ramshackle condition by then (just like the rest of BR's remaining steam fleet) but the fact that MNs were able to reach such speeds is surely to their credit, not detriment.

In short, the idea that a non-streamlined Pacific achieved +120 is laughable. Having studied the calculations for the German contenders, which have been claimed to have gone above 110, any MN achieving 126+ is a nonsense.

Matthew Engel's assertions are siding on the side of ridiculous, as, given enough weight/mass, and vertical distance from the ground, anything could have topped Mallard doing 126 mph. I find his writings to be nonsensical at best, and certainly not scientifically based at the very least.

A Saturn 5 rocket would have gone quicker than Mallard over the same distance, but their efforts are hardly comparable, are they?

In short, there is always one person who tries to make everything less significant than it is, and always one person determined to "bring everyone else down to earth" when they themselves are on Mars...

For the benefit of us ex-pats, is Matthew Engel the same person who wrote Eleven Minutes Late?

Can someone post a link to this 'pamphlet', or is this in fact the book?

BTW, does anyone know the last time an ex-LNER loco reached a recorded 100 mph?

Driver De'Ath (known as Ton-Up) was a legend in 1967 with more 100mph runs than any other driver, I believe. Yup, a credit to the engine's designer and redesigner as well as the engineman.

Surprised that German Steam site doesn't mention the Coronation Scot class, which I think could have socked Mallard's record, had it been driven on a less curvy route.

Simply cannot believe that in the last days of steam ANY loco was in the kind of nick to reach 120 mph......

Did they ever say who originally spewed that myth?

Hate to steer off topic, but what would happen if a modern steam locomotive beat Mallard's record?

Excepting, of course, that the MNs were not run down just before withdrawal. There was a full steam service until the switch to electrics, and, unlike other pasifics, they weren't shunted from place to place for years trying to find them some sort of work. They were, in fact, withdrawn in their prime.

...and just how many of those, shouting 'rubbish' can actually remember seeing a MN is service, never mind driving one?

Bill Bedford wrote:Excepting, of course, that the MNs were not run down just before withdrawal. There was a full steam service until the switch to electrics, and, unlike other pasifics, they weren't shunted from place to place for years trying to find them some sort of work. They were, in fact, withdrawn in their prime.

...and just how many of those, shouting 'rubbish' can actually remember seeing a MN is service, never mind driving one?

Well I can, although I am not shouting rubbish - but for some reason the idea of pushing GWR locos off a cliff to get them over 100 mph brings a smile to my face.

Bill Bedford wrote:...and just how many of those, shouting 'rubbish' can actually remember seeing a MN is service, never mind driving one?

I for one can't, but I know from that I've studied that unless we're also pushing MNs off a very tall cliff, at a very high speed, the difference in horsepower required to go from the ton to 126mph is a jump in power that is still of some debate regarding Mallard's own record. Something I do not believe the MNs, rebuilt or not, were capable of whether they were run down or not, based on the facts and figures available to me.

I might add, having spoken on a multitude of occasions to ex-Bulleid drivers around the country, I am sure their view would be the same as mine. 100mph? Yes. 126mph? No.

G'Day Gents

Worting Junc to Shawford, is even faster, but must people forget that bit. Because most people get off at Basingstoke.

Is it true that a Great Western engine once got to 12MPH without the help of a banker !!!!!!

manna

I’m sorry folks but I’m a bit over the perhaps and might if’s, and yes what if had my dad been a millionaire. Let’s stick to the facts. The Coronation was only very marginally quicker than an early A4 without the benefits. There is quite a difference between 114 mph and 125.5 mph. So any opinions, and perhaps whilst respected, relate to speculation only. Therefore they simply don’t amount to cogent arguments. As for a Southern loco reaching 100 mph, yes there is plenty of anecdotal evidence to suggest that this happened. As for a non-streamlined loco achieving Mallards speed post WW2, well only an optimistic fool would believe this. I’m sorry but official records count, and the rest of the gossip is for the gullible.

Regards

Steve

Steve05 wrote:The Coronation was only very marginally quicker than an early A4 without the benefits. There is quite a difference between 114 mph and 125.5 mph. So any opinions, and perhaps whilst respected, relate to speculation only.

All we can do, sadly, is speculate. I'm not trying to say the Coronation was guaranteed to be faster than an A4, it's just I think it could have gone faster had it been on the right tracks (which is was not). Preferably with streamlining and the double chimney. At the same time, I don't think it's really fair to say "The Coronation was never capable of beating an A4".

As for a non-streamlined loco achieving Mallards speed post WW2, well only an optimistic fool would believe this.

Sadly, yes. The problem with many "official" rumors is no one ever says where they came from. For all we know, it could have been a 15 year old joker making it up.

Is it true that a Great Western engine once got to 12MPH without the help of a banker

I think many GWR locomotives did 12 MPH. Some even did 20!

Sorry if none of this makes sense, it has been a rough day on my end.

now guys we know you would all like (love) to see Tornado having a bash at Mallards speed thing'y , and as for MN's i presume the cliffe in question is Beachy Head

mr b

strang steel wrote: Well I can, although I am not shouting rubbish - but for some reason the idea of pushing GWR locos off a cliff to get them over 100 mph brings a smile to my face.