Talk:LNER Class A4 4468 Mallard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the LNER Class A4 4468 Mallard article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains.
See also: WikiProject to do list and the Trains Portal
This article lacks sufficient references and/or adequate inline citations.
Start Quality: start-Class. (assessment comments)
High Importance: high-importance.
DYK Portal "Did you know" on 2005-05-18.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject UK Railways.
This article is within the scope of the Locomotives task force.

Contents

[edit] Page name

Moved from Mallard (train) because it's incorrect; Mallard was a locomotive, not a train. —Morven 01:11, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I was just about to do the same thing when you did it (great minds think alike) G-Man 01:22, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Moved again, naming conventions. Duncharris 17:01, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
And some bugger moved it back. It needs to be at LNER A4 class 4468 Mallard; that way locos that weren't named can thos ein the same class can be named systematically. Dunc_Harris|☺ 22:38, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Renamed to make this article consistent with the LNER Class A4 article and other LNER locomotive pages. (Our Phellap 22:08, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC))

I have changed the wording (for anyone who is going to comment, etc) of the controversy section to read 'could probably' instead of 'could'. I think this is more accurate, unless someone knows to the contrary, but I do not see how we can say that other engines could travel faster than Mallard when none are properly documented as doing so. --John 19:43, 29 May 2004 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. —Morven 12:38, 30 May 2004 (UTC)


Should there be a disambiguation page, so that Mallard (duck) is not the only thing you find when you search for Mallard?

There's one at Mallard (disambiguation) now. --bjh21 18:17, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rival claims

The rival claims section reads like its written by a resentful american. Can the claims be cited, and some from outside the US be introduced. Philc TECI 17:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Btw PRR S1 and T1 were unlikely candidates due to significantly smaller wheels and greater weight. However the F7 reached 125mph in a test run with a dynamometer car. German DRG 05 class 002 (the previous record holder that was narrowly beaten by Mallard) should be mentioned. I smell POV from all three (British, German and US) sides, in the issue of the fastest steam locomotive.
And also, I`ve found an intriguing link: [1]. A German POV, or debunking of official British POV-ed account?
Veljko Stevanovich 4. July 2006. 19:40 UTC+1
The PRR S1 had larger (7ft diameter) driving wheels than the Mallard (as did the DB 05 locomotive with its 90 inch drivers), and while the S1 was indeed a heavy locomotive it also had an absolutely massive grate, so it had the potential to produce the huge horsepower needed to shift that weight at that sort of speed. It's worth noting also that the duplex design, in theory, allows for smoother high speed operation due to lighter connecting rods and thus reduced reciprocating masses. So on paper at least, and for all its other failings as a locomotive, I don't think the S1 was such an unlikely candidate for a top speed exceeding that of the Mallard. PS - I'm not an American, resentful or otherwise! ;-) Zzrbiker 03:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I think maybe engines that were widely claimed to have broken the record, but wasn't verified through use of a dynamometer car or other acceptable measure, should get a mention, but if an engine is only thought to be capable, that is subject to heavy debate. Philc TECI 18:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
As well as the capability of the locomotive, a long, straight downhill grade on well-maintained track is also required (no steam locomotive has been built that can haul a train at 125mph on level track), and some incentive - which was absent on American Railroads in the 1930s for the reasons given (would attract bad publicity for "reckless driving"). The claims made here should be treated with rather more scepticism than appears in the article as it stands. There is no actual claim of 125mph made for any particular run. That should be "end of story".

I must say I'm surprised at how many rewrites the "Rival Claims" section has gone through, and in my opinion it's never really improved in quality. I've just revised a rather non-NPOV edit, and that edit in turn was made to remove a {{Fact}} tag applied to the highly disputed 140mph claim for the PRR S1.

It seems pretty straight forward to me - Mallard touched either 125mph or 126mph (depending on whether you believe Nigel Gresley or the LNER dynamometer car) racing downhill, shortly before suffering mechanical failure, but despite this holds the record. The DB 05 may be on balance a faster locomotive (able to record 124.5 mph on near level track) but the fact is it never exceeded 125 mph so can't claim the record. Various US locomotives are undoubtably very fast, but the fact is noone ever recorded them at greater than 125 mph using a technique that would stand up to any independent verification or scrutiny. It should just be about documented fact, not something that attracts so much opinionated writing.

There's vast amounts of rail information on Wikipedia far less factual and far more in need of editing than this little subsection. Zzrbiker 00:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Why is there even a rival claims section here? This article is about Mallard, not the Pennsylvania Railroad S1 or it's capabilities. If it must be mentioned, surely it should be mentioned there? As far as I can see the rival claims section as it is is just a pretty poorly-disguised piece of anti-Mallard diatribe.

Rival claims should be moved to [[2]], The subject matter is the Mallard, which of course just happens to be the fastest documented steam locomotive, not about which steam locomotive is the fastest.

[edit] Definite article

In British English, isn't it normal to use "The" in front of the name of a vehicle (for example a ship)? The opening "Number 4468 Mallard" is OK, but when it's referred to later in the text, it should be "The Mallard". Using the name on it's own sounds Americanised (just like when the British captain says, "Titanic is unsinkable" in the film of the same name). Could a speaker of Commonwealth English who knows more about locomotives than me confirm this? Thanks, JRawle (Talk) 13:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

It does look wrong to me (a Brit) without the definite article. I may be tempted to come back and add it in later... 86.11.124.189 14:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
But it looks fine to me (another Brit :o) ). I cannot comment from a grammatical point-of-view, but I would never consider writing/saying "the Britannia", or "the Oliver Cromwell", or "the King Edward I", whereas I could imagine writing "the Queen Mary, "the QE2" or "the Great Britain" (there again, you probably wouldn't write "the HMS Ark Royal". Maybe it's different for ships as they are mostly one-offs?
In Mallard's case, I would be more concerned about the number of paragraphs that start "Mallard...".
EdJogg 17:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
In the UK, it isn't usual for railwaymen, or enthusiasts, to add 'The' in front of locomotive names, unless it is part of the offical name - some recent diesel namings do include 'The' as part of the name. Generally adding 'The' comes from non-railway people and source.(80.193.99.43 (talk) 10:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC))
You dont need one in this case because you only use the in "the Titanic" because titanic is a word anyway, effectively meaning titan-like, and is an adjective so needs the article to make sense. Mallard however is a noun, and so doesnt need one to make sense. Philc TECI 18:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Indicator diagram

Do we really mean "The indicator diagrams on the dynamometer car traced a momentary maximum of 126 mph"? As I understand it, an indicator diagram is a record of pressure against volume for a steam engine, and nothing to do with the locomotive's speed (see indicator diagram). Perhaps tachometer or speedometer is better? (If "indicator diagram" really is the right term, it shouldn't link to the page for the P-V type.)

Greg 14:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that a separate dynamometer car was used for the record-breaking run, which in the case of the LNER included equipment designed to accurately measure actual speed. As far as I'm aware, this is plotted on a paper chart against other variables (such as load, gradient, drawbar pull) etc. Zzrbiker 14:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure -- I saw the dynamometer car at the NRM recently in fact :) But the terminology "indicator diagram" seems inconsistent with the wiki page indicator diagram as the thing referred to there doesn't measure speed. Greg 22:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I've done a little extra reading[[3]] [[4]] - indicator diagrams are produced by machinery mounted on the locomotive itself, not by the dynamometer car. The indicator diagram readings on the locomotive were read by testing staff on the locomotive itself and were conveyed back to staff in the dynamometer car by telephone/intercom. The indicator diagram from the locomotive itself is not used to measure speed, so yes, perhaps we should change "indicator diagram" to "dynamometer car diagram", "dynamometer chart" or something more appropriate. Zzrbiker 03:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Interesting pages. The first of your links shows that a calibrated wheel is lowered from the dynamometer car for the purpose of making speed measurements. I've altered the text to remove the reference to the indicator diagrams. Greg 19:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

1-An indicator diagram measures pressure according to volumina / stroke position. It is used to adjust and check the control elements (valves etc.) of the engine. I.e. if valves and levers and all the fine mechanics are calibrated and adjusted well after reparations. This allows a calculation to the ectual machine power and to check if really everything is allright with a loco. 2- The measuring wheel in a separate car is a cylindric wheel with calibrated (very exactly measured) diameter (cylindric, which is NOT the case on normal car wheels which have conical wheels for the "sinus run" to stabilize the railway run). Also temperature etc. is monitored for a re-calculation of exact diameter and lengths to calculate the speed with the highest accuracy possible. Pls. excuse any bad english.. 77.11.224.139 09:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Last update - change of build date from 1938 to 1930s?

I'm not sure of the reason, but a user (bigjimr) recently edited this article to give a general decade, rather than a specific year, for the build date of Mallard. There is a photograph of the actual builder's plate showing the locomotive was built in 1938. Shall we revert to the previous edit, or am I missing something here? Zzrbiker 05:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

There being advice to the contrary, I've reverted to the exact year of build. Zzrbiker 22:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Picture

Could anybody be so kind to move the Mallard pic to commons? THX BerndB 23:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Merci beaucoup. THX. BerndB —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 16:11, August 26, 2007 (UTC).

[edit] 1948 Locomotive Exchange Trials

I've added a section of Mallard's participation in the 1948 trials, an overlooked episode in the locomotive's career. I'll be adding a page on the trials and other participants in due course. I've also amended the restoration period to reflect the three year certificate the NRM got for Mallard. Accurate dates for her creation and withdrawal have been added too from the relevant cited books. Steel city ady 10:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)