Talk:LNER Class A4 4468 Mallard

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))

---

Should there be a disambiguation page, so that Mallard (duck) is not the only thing you find when you search for Mallard? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeremymiles (talk • contribs) 07:35, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

Rival claims

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)

---

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 _T^E_C^I 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 18:00, 5 July 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 _T^E_C^I 18:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

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". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Exile (talk • contribs) 22:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

I'll say. I've noticed a lot of resentment from American contributors recently.

For what it's worth the centre bearing could be trouble on a few of those engines and it's undoubtedly the case that if the Germans - who the USA were fans of, especially at the time - hadn't changed proceedings, that weakness would have been engineered out. Gresley himself (who stood by the 125 mph recording) wanted to see 130 mph the following year. 31.94.2.87 (talk) 11:06, 3 October 2022 (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.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.40.183 (talk) 11:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chesapeake (talk • contribs) 21:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Revisited

The source for the "Significant downhill grade" issue—Was German 05 002 the World's Fastest—also happens to give the grade in question (1/240 or 1 foot drop for every 240 feet of run). This is the same as 0.42% or 0.24°. Please correct me if I am wrong, but this slight a grade cannot really have much of an effect. It sounds like sour grapes on the part of the German engine's fans to me. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 02:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

It should be noted that virtually none of the railway speed records set in Britain were subject to the "one run in each direction" rule found for normal land- and water-speed records. It should also be noted that this was just one test run in a series, the primary purpose of which was to test a new type of vacuum brake provided by Westinghouse: the "QSA" (Quick Service Application) type.

It should also be noted that Gresley himself never claimed 126 mph, because he was aware of the accuracy and limitations of the speed recording equipment; however by using the time taken to travel between two known fixed points, he could be certain that 125 mph had been achieved. The LNER publicity department were not scientists, and found that if the speed trace be interpreted in a particular way, a peak of 126 mph could be read from it; and this is what they decided to shout about.

A gradient of 1/240 (or 1:240) is not 1 foot drop for every 240 feet of run; it is 1 foot drop for every 240 feet of horizontal distance; the distance run is slightly more than 240 feet: 240.00208332429 ft.

The Mallard record was set ten miles after the commencement of a long downhill grade which wasn't a constant 1:240. The gradient profile shown here appears to be redrawn, not original; the official LNER gradient profile of the period, together with the plot of the train speed, has appeared in:

• Nock, O.S. (1945). The Locomotives of Sir Nigel Gresley. London: Longmans, Green & Co. p. 135. 16925.
• Nock, O.S. (1991) [1945]. The Locomotives of Sir Nigel Gresley (2nd ed.). Yeovil: Patrick Stephens Ltd. p. 119. ISBN 1 85260 336 4.

The gradients involved calculate (to 3dp) as follows:

1:178	0.562%	0.006 rad	0.322°
1:330	0.303%	0.003 rad	0.174°
1:200	0.5%	0.005 rad	0.286°
1:240	0.417%	0.004 rad	0.239°

0.239° doesn't seem like much, it is true; but it is significant. Most British rail speed records were set on downhill grades like this. Hope that helps. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I used "run" in the sense of rise over run for slope measurement, I.E. run is the horizontal distance. Regardless were talking about a slope that never exceeds one-third of one-degree, and is closer to one-quarter for most of its length (and where the record was set).

As for the train not running the track back and forth, It is my understanding that this is common for rail speed records of the time, including the record the Mallard broke.

Without a citation as to how much of a speed-boost such a negligible slope could contribute, the article should just state the speed was set on a track with less than one-third of one degree of downward slope, and let readers draw their own conclusions.

As it reads now the article is supporting a POV on the validity of an accepted record.

—MJBurrage^(T•C) 16:18, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Well now; this is interesting. It ought not to, but may, be stretching WP:CALC too far to notice that 120mph on a 1:176 gradient is a sink rate of exactly a foot per second, and that gravity is supplying over 1600 horsepower to a 400 ton train. (Other gradients and powers are available; e.g. almost 1200 on 1:240). 86.181.114.98 (talk) 07:47, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

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)

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 _T^E_C^I 18:53, 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))

(A) what does it matter? (B) I'm British and disagree - have often seen heard people speak about "Mallard" with no preceding article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.74.131.10 (talk) 17:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

"The"/"not The" varies according to usage. Some ship names are simple examples. You might refer to "HMS Ark Royal", or "the Ark Royal", but never "the HMS Ark Royal" unless the phrase was itself a qualifier (e.g. the HMS Ark Royal Preservation Society". The same goes for "Mallard", where the equivalent of the prefix "HMS" is "LNER Class A4 4468 .." I acknowledge that a casual listener might think otherwise. You must listen intently. Example: The stereotypical northern English tradition of dropping "The" and replacing it with either "t'" or nothing at all. 'Appen t'Mallard is wun o them, closer tha gets t't' north o'Doncaster. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:EA01:1090:C932:9BAF:7643:7693 (talk) 12:01, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Middle big end

I realize that we're dealing with people with varying amounts of technical knowledge here, but the term "middle big end" is introduced without any explanation or even a link, and never appears again. Can we get some sort of explanation, so that people who aren't early-20th-century British steam locomotive propulsion experts can understand the significance of this statement? --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 22:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The outside cylinders are connected to the big wheels via push rods. The big wheels have plenty of airflow hence the push rod bearings will stay cool. Gresley designed a steam power loco that had three driving cylinders, and his own valve timing system. The middle cylinder is more like a car engine's piston connected to a crankshaft 'throw' in the middle of the front axle. The airflow is restricted and the bigend bearing on the axle (the 'crankshaft') was always problematic. The D57/8 locos of the New South Wales Railways, the 'Lazy Lizzies', were in service from only 1949 to 1960. They were 3000HP and 55k lbs tractive pull. The centre cylinder caused the locos to spend more time being repaired than on the tracks.203.221.203.50 (talk) 09:13, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

The problem isn't air cooling, it's that the middle big end is in the middle - so it has to be able to fit over the crank axle, rather than slipping on from the end, as the outside big ends can. Gresley used a "launch-type" big end design here, rather than the more popular squarish "loco-type" big end. The trouble is that a launch big end isn't as adjustable, so it's harder to set up properly and very difficult to keep properly adjusted in service. As has often been said of Gresley locos (especially for the conjugated valvegear) if only they'd have been built in Swindon, they'd have worked a lot better. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:01, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

The OP asked for a simple explanation. Why the stink bombs if nothing got hot? The capped big end presumably had a throw 2 or 3 times smaller than the big wheels, hence the bearing loading must have been 2 or 3 times higher for the middle cylinder to do any work. The highly loaded capped bearing would have crapped out regularly, even if it was made in Swindon. The American Yellowstone monsters worked a lot better; 4 cylinders, 140k lbs pull and 6300HP. Spent most of their time doing useful work.203.221.203.50 (talk) 11:38, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

They didn't "run hot" as the underlying problem, they ran loose, then they trashed the whitemetal, and only then did they run hot. Once hot, the stinkbomb burst.

There were a number of problems to this design. The launch type can't easily be adjusted by a fitter in daily or weekly servicing (even on a Top Shed loco), you have to take it to bits and do benchwork instead. The conjugated valve gear had its tendency to over-drive the middle cylinder, especially at speed. Gresley gear is far from a harmonic design so its problems get worse and worse the faster you run it, owing to the inertia of the heavy cross levers. Lubrication of the Gresley bearing design was also less reliable than some other company's oiler designs - probably not a problem in Mallard's era, but definitely one during WWII.

Bittern also recently had problems with the same big end failing directly after an overhaul.

Steam locos also have connecting rods rather than "push rods". They don't just push, they push and pull alternately. That's a problem because it means the direction of forces on the bearing are continually reversing. With a single-acting cylinder, as was used for many of the high-speed steam engines, the force is always in just one direction so they can be push rods. This makes their bearing design far easier. There's a similar issue for internal combustion engines: forces in a 4-stroke piston also reverse during the induction phase of the cycle (although the forces are less); forces in a 2-stroke engine are always compressing the rod (a "push" rod). At least one powerful 2-stroke aero engine, the Napier Nomad, like a number of 2-stroke engines was able to use "slipper" bearings in its con rod (both big end and gudgeon pin) which didn't have a bearing surface all the way round the pin, as they only had to support a compressive force, over a small angle.[3] As well as being a simpler bearing, this bearing is effectively self-adjusting as it doesn't need to have two opposing faces adjusted to the pin - the real difficulty with Mallard's launch big ends.. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:33, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

If "high-speed steam engines" often use "single-acting cylinders" why do the valves and valve gear cycle to alternately feed to both sides of the pistons? There is no way to build a "high-speed" steam engine with a single-acting cylinder since the need for a large flywheel to return the piston, rod, crosshead etc back to "TDC" AND drive the valve gear that isn't just there for adjusting "cutoff". Not to mention its pretty much impossible for a single-acting cylinder to provide REVERSE with "simple" valve gear. Have you seen a "reversing engine" on any machine powered by "high-speed steam engine" with a "single-acting cylinder?

And do you have sources for your "slipper" bearings in "aero engines" claim? Are you sure you're not talking about a fork and blade connecting rod system where to the average "enthusiast" looking at picture books it may APPEAR that a "slipper" bearing without bearing surface "all the way around" is being used when in fact in practical application and construction there is definitely bearing surface "all the way around"? I'm pretty sure you mistake a fork and blade system with its lack of "solid" connecting rods and caps and bearing insert shells "locked" in place in the cap and rod for a "slipper" bearing system you're pretty much inventing in your head because you've never had your hands on the hardware. I can assure you there is full bearing surface in a fork and blade connecting rod system. Because I've seen the paperwork and had my hands on the hardware. In 2-stroke diesels in locomotives. But I've never seen any reciprocating engine with "pushrods" ALONE transferring power from piston(s) to crank(s). Kinda impossible really. A PISTON ROD connecting the piston to a CROSSHEAD which then connects to the connecting rod is a little different story. But not one where the piston rod is referred to as a "pushrod".

Pushrods are pushed back and forth in both directions by mechanical force and return spring force. And there is no "reciprocating" or "rotating" action. Just at most some pivoting action at one or both ends of a "ball" in a "socket". Remove the opposing spring tension and a pushrod falls right out of place. Remove some of the cam lobe "lift" to the point that there is no longer "tension" at that end and the spring force is limited by its keeper and locks and the pushrod will again fall right out of place. A piston rod rigidly connects piston to crosshead and that "pushrod" can never fall out and is nothing but a means to move the "gudgeon pin" out of the piston and cylinder in situations where the rod would otherwise make DOUBLE-ACTING CYLINDERS impossible. There are PLENTY of single-action cylinders in steam engines but they're never what anyone would call "high speed" when in actual, full-scale working form. Little desk-top "models" are a different story but one that doesn't matter and "high-speed" is ALWAYS subjective and determined by the manufacturer, engineers or just "enthusiasts" later on as they "educate" others who dare challenge their "expertise".

Connecting rods always both push and pull to some degree and are part of both a reciprocating assembly at the "little end" and a rotating assembly at the "big end". They're present in both single-acting and double-acting steam engine cylinders of what must be both the "low-speed" and "high-speed" variety.And they always are the "converter" of AXIAL PISTON MOTION to CIRCULAR CRANKSHAFT MOTION. Period. Or at least that's the way I learned it and have always seen it executed in 40+ years of being a born gearhead nut for anything that turns money into noise as well as a 25+ year professional diesel mechanic that finds "steam" pretty damned simple by comparison but of course very similar when it comes to the fundamentals of machine operation. ALL machines ultimately end up being collections of simple machines. Inclined planes, wedges, levers, cranks etc etc etc.

I do respect and help out at every opportunity those who are not born gearheads or at least not the go out and get their hands dirty types or who simply don't have that opportunity and I help them out when possible. And most wannabe mechanics fit into that category. Then there are the wannabe "engineers" who like clean hands and white paper and non-greasy keyboards and when challenged or simply questioned or provoked by someone they consider a threat to what is usually their "historian" status, they attempt to baffle with b.s. those they cannot dazzle with their "brilliance".

And they're a big part of why as time goes on its harder and harder to find young people willing to go into the technical trades or even "engineering" as "historians" and "professors" and "experts" who probably have never changed a tire on their car or other motor vehicle or even bicycle tell young people who are unfortunately increasingly "educated" by "enthusiast" magazines, blogs, online videos etc created by OTHER "book-smart" wannabe "engineers" try to make sense of it all and God forbid ask questions or especially make statements that "conflict" with what the "elite" of the classroom-dwelling wannabe "engineers" know to be "fact". Even when its complete b.s.

And unfortunately, like all young people, they are over-impressed and easily over-awed or at least "scared" by "authorities" and "experts" who may have their "futures" in their hands as "educators". So they listen to b.s. from "educated" wannabe "engineers" and "mechanics" who may or may not have ever picked up a wrench in their lives. I've seen you do exactly that time and again on Wikipedia. And you certainly never get any smarter yourself nor is it possible to do so when you already "know it all".

Which is a sure sign of an "expert" who fits the classic definition of "expert" as we who get our hands dirty with the real things think of them. An "ex" is a has-been and a "spurt" is a drip under pressure. Of course that's giving the "has-beens" the benefit of the doubt and more credit than they deserve "granting" that they were at some point not "has-beens" when in fact they're usually more accurately described as "never weres". And don't they all lust or a "legacy" to call their own and their name "in print" and maybe even "encyclopedia" and other "reference" articles to their "credit". If that's your goal and all you want to contribute, you can do so without attacking and belittling and trying to "silence" people with what to you might seem like similar or identical goals but who may aspire to actually "educate" themselves and then pass on what they know to be fact rather than assume to be.

And as a lifelong gearhead and long-time professional mechanic, I can tell you that "authors" of mechanical, technical and other technological "literature" worth reading rarely get or seek "credit" for their "work". Since its so rarely "original" anyway and those same simple machines and fundamentals and basic "shop class" facts and figures are just "recycled" over and over again. Whether "engineers" know it or admit it or would recognize it even in a "history book" or not. So if you want to ever be known and have a legacy as an "expert" on things mechanical due to your "contributions" to Wikpedia, you'd be much better off to go do some "own research" in a repair shop rather than making your fake facts up on the fly based upon what you and other self-taught "engineers" gather from paging through books about engineering and mechanical "theory" and "practice".

What I'd call "picture books" containing diagrams, illustrations, cutaways etc typical of what is required to "explain" fair simply concepts to those not mechanically-inclined enough to "get it" from written descriptions and hands-on experience with models, disassembled real-world hardware and "cutaways" tend to be pretty "elementary" and useless "reference" materials when it comes to real "engineering" and even just plain old "mechanicking". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.234.100.169 (talk) 11:18, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

'official world speed record'

Really? Who is the governing body of railway speed records, analogous to the FIM for motoring or the FAI for aviation? (Guinness (etc.) doesn't count for this purpose). 'UNofficial' would be a better term, in my view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.117.134 (talk) 10:55, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't dispute "and assistance from gradient or wind has always been acceptable in rail speed records" but surely this assertion requires a citation?Hayttom (talk) 19:48, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

It's a simple case of making up "rules" as you go along. There is literally no such thing as a "level" stretch of railroad track anywhere in the world on which to conduct "speed record runs" on that is also used for real revenue service and never has "record speed" needed to be "measured" rather than simply "calculated" for steam locomotives in countries capable of real "engineering" on the "supply side" of locomotive manufacturing. Nor is that "world record speed" remotely impressive as an absolute maximum over a short downhill run when at least one "contemporary" locomotive design on the "other side of the pond" and west of the Mississippi River was designed for continuous 120 mph operation and regularly operated "express" passenger/freight train combinations on the U.S. "Great Plains". And "uphill" as well as "downhill". In fact, its easier and safer to run "fast" UPHILL at least when trains are long enough to "bridge" the "hills" and "vallies" of a "railway" vs. a "railroad" and cars tend to "bunch" behind the locomotive at the bottom of a "valley" and then get rapidly and violently "stretched" as the locomotive gets a "head-start" up a "hill". That's enough of an issue even with decent "safety" couplers with knuckles that minimize coupler "slack".

It would be a recipe for rail disaster with "buffer and chain" so-called "couplers" such as those still in use in the UK. The "American" locomotives designed to run 120 mph "straight up" and "all day long" were/are the Union Pacific "Pacific" locomotives and one is still on the roster and in "revenue service" for Union Pacific as the only steam locomotive on Earth to be placed in revenue service and never "retired". Unfortunately for her but fortunately for the British and even the "high-speed rail" crowd which has apparently and VERY "conveniently" determined "high speed rail" to be "designed continuous operational speed above 120 mph", UP 844 is "only" capable of "highballing" at the same 75 mph maximum speed for Class 1 "freight railroads" that her much younger, diesel-electric locomotive sisters "top out" at on UP mainline "out west". And since Amtrak "out west" runs all BNSF Railway (UP is THE "railroad" while BNSF is "just" a "railway") track where there's straight and "level" enough track to run "flat-out" and Amtrak only runs that same 75 mph there because otherwise it would obviously be "running down" freights, UP 844 will never get the chance to "challenge" that "world record" even if UP were in the "record setting" instead of "freight hauling" business.

Any "railway" or "railroad" that has time to play at "record setting" probably needs the positive PR and press just to keep "revenue" flowing sufficient to keep its real "business" operational. And as the "Germans" found out, when it comes to "world records", the first liar doesn't stand a chance. Neither does anybody trying to legitimately set "world records" outside the UK where no doubt the NEXT TIME a "world rail speed record for steam locomotives" was "set" Guinness WOULD be the "official" overseeing the "record attempt". Do you supposed "Guiness" has many "mechanical engineers" or even "mechanics" sufficient to keep "honest" the personnel, hardware, instruments etc involved in such a "record attempt" in the UK even if it had the desire to see the record "leave home"? It doesn't matter. There is never any such thing as a "world record" and never has been UNTIL someone "created" it and then "set" it. Again, first liar never really has a chance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.234.100.169 (talk) 11:43, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

No. Not important. Mallard's record was set by satisfactory measures and has never been broken. The Union Pacific FEF-3 class, of which No.844 has been preserved for publicity purposes, was rated for a 'never exceed' (and most certainly not 'all day long') speed of 120mph. It weighed twice as much as Mallard but had less than double Mallard's tractive effort. It could never have broken Mallard's record. The LNER didn't have 'time to play', except that they needed speed tests on a new Westinghouse brake anyway and it seemed like a good opportunity for a record. One Mallard crew reported that they had probably made 130mph in normal revenue-earning service.

In 1955 the French electric locomotive CC-7107 set a staggering world rail speed record of over 205mph on the straight Bordeaux-Hendaye line. They had to build an extra power station just to ensure that the locomotive could draw enough power. The loco only pulled a three-coach train with special rubber connectors for streamlining and all the external carriage door handles removed. The lead coach had a periscope fitted so that the engineers could monitor the state of the loco's pantograph, and when the pantograph glowed red-hot and started to disintegrate they phoned the driver to lower the pantograph and back off. The train's pressure-wave was throwing ballast up to window height. Normal braking wasn't possible, so the brakes were applied only to the coaches, not the loco, at pressures calculated in advance, and the engineers opened all the coach windows to increase air resistance. The train took eight miles to stop. Completely unrealistic, monitored only by SNCF, but none of that mattered and everyone knew it was a stupendous and undeniable world record. Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:12, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

On the matter of couplers: those A4s that were provided with corridor tenders also had knuckle couplers on the tender rear (see photo), to suit the knuckle couplers that had been standard on East Coast coaches since the early 1900s. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:59, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Incidentally, I notice there aren't any angry IPs from Kansas raising pointless quibbles on the talk page for SNCF Class CC 7100. Odd, that. Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:59, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Is it named after anyone or anything?

Many things are named after other things.

As such, what is this "Mallard" named after? 2600:8800:204:C400:ED3A:E571:ACC2:7346 (talk) 19:33, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

A glance at the LNER Class A4 article on here will tell you that a few of them were named after birds. A Mallard is a kind of duck. Britmax (talk) 19:44, 10 April 2022 (UTC)