Well, sort of off topic.  We're from the "other side of the pond", Spokane
Washington, USA.  Just got back from a vacation in Canada.  Made the
mistake of going to an antique shop with my wife.  She bought one small
piece of jewelry, but I bought a commemorative plate for $30.

It's labelled as #206 of 2000 and shows the  LNER locomotive "Mallard"
which set a speed record between Grantham and Peterborough of 126mph in
1938. According to the plate, the record still stands.

I was surprised to find it so far from home (Nanton,Alberta, Canada).  I'm
sure I paid more than it's worth, but it'll look nice on the wall.

Can anyone tell me more about the plate or the locomotive?  Was the
locomotive preserved?  Does the route still exist?  Why does the record
still stand (as of 1988)?

All information appreciated.

P.S.  The model railroad club in Edmonton was selling packages of old
magazines to raise money.  Several of them were Model Railway Enthusiast
and Continental Modeller.  Interesting to read about modelling over there.

On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 11:11:01 -0700, Larry Blanchard
 said in
:

>Can anyone tell me more about the plate or the locomotive?  Was the
>locomotive preserved?  Does the route still exist?  Why does the record
>still stand (as of 1988)?

Google is your friend:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LNER_Class_A4_4468_Mallard

Guy
-- 
May contain traces of irony.  Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

On 29/06/2008 19:11, Larry Blanchard said,

> Can anyone tell me more about the plate or the locomotive?  Was the
> locomotive preserved?  Does the route still exist?  Why does the record
> still stand (as of 1988)?

If you google "mallard -duck" you'll find masses of information.  The 
loco does still exist, and is an impressive sight "in the flesh".  AFAIK 
the route still exists, although I would imagine it will have changed a 
lot in the intervening years, not least of which will be overhead wires. 
  The record still stands for a simple reason - it was never beaten 
during the age of steam, and now we no longer have steam with which to 
break the record.

http://www.nrm.org.uk/collections/loco/mallard.asp for it's current home.

-- 
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

Larry Blanchard wrote:
> Well, sort of off topic.  We're from the "other side of the pond", Spokane
> Washington, USA.  Just got back from a vacation in Canada.  Made the
> mistake of going to an antique shop with my wife.  She bought one small
> piece of jewelry, but I bought a commemorative plate for $30.
> 
> It's labelled as #206 of 2000 and shows the  LNER locomotive "Mallard"
> which set a speed record between Grantham and Peterborough of 126mph in
> 1938. According to the plate, the record still stands.
> 
> I was surprised to find it so far from home (Nanton,Alberta, Canada).  I'm
> sure I paid more than it's worth, but it'll look nice on the wall.
> 
> Can anyone tell me more about the plate or the locomotive?  Was the
> locomotive preserved?  Does the route still exist?  Why does the record
> still stand (as of 1988)?
> 
> All information appreciated.
> 
> P.S.  The model railroad club in Edmonton was selling packages of old
> magazines to raise money.  Several of them were Model Railway Enthusiast
> and Continental Modeller.  Interesting to read about modelling over there.
As others have said its preserved and does run sometimes viewable at the 
national railway museum York. The record is for the fastest steam train. 
The stretch of line is very much in use and the HSTs that run on it have 
the world speed record for diesel trains, 148 MPH from memory achieved 
on a stretch of this line in the 1980's. Most trains are electric and 
line speed for both and diesel and electric is 125 MPH.

Chris

In article ,
   Larry Blanchard  wrote:
> Well, sort of off topic.  We're from the "other side of the pond",
> Spokane Washington, USA.  Just got back from a vacation in Canada.  Made
> the mistake of going to an antique shop with my wife.  She bought one
> small piece of jewelry, but I bought a commemorative plate for $30.

> It's labelled as #206 of 2000 and shows the  LNER locomotive "Mallard"
> which set a speed record between Grantham and Peterborough of 126mph in
> 1938. According to the plate, the record still stands.

> I was surprised to find it so far from home (Nanton,Alberta, Canada). 
> I'm sure I paid more than it's worth, but it'll look nice on the wall.

> Can anyone tell me more about the plate or the locomotive?

That may well be the same as the plate my mother gave me for my birthday
in 1988 (50 years after the speed record was made in 1938). She would have
bought it from Readers Digest who did a whole series of "limited edition"
plates during the 1980s. They were very popular and there were quite a few
companies like Franklin Mint, Davenport, Coalport selling them. A quick
look on the internet didn't show this particular plate but if you keep an
eye on
http://stores.ebay.ie/Busters-Bargains_Collectables-Decor-PLATES_W0QQcolZ2QQdirZ1QQfsubZ11QQftidZ2QQtZkm
you'll probably find it and similar ones will appear there from time to
time. (The prices look low but then look at the shipping costs!)

Alan

-- 
alan.dawes@argonet.co.uk
alan.dawes@riscos.org
Using an Acorn RiscPC

"Chris"  wrote

> As others have said its preserved and does run sometimes viewable at the 
> national railway museum York.

It is no-longer in servicable condition and the NRM consider it too valuable 
to restore to working condition.

John.

On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 15:45:21 +0100, John Turner wrote:

> 
> "Chris"  wrote
> 
>> As others have said its preserved and does run sometimes viewable at the 
>> national railway museum York.
> 
> It is no-longer in servicable condition and the NRM consider it too valuable 
> to restore to working condition.
> 
> John.

Thanks to all for their responses.  Now I know a little more than I did. 
BTW, the plate is going to hang next to another commemorating the John
Bull.

"John Turner" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:b-qdnfSpeeif3vfVnZ2dnUVZ8qTinZ2d@supernews.com...
>
> "Chris"  wrote
>
> > As others have said its preserved and does run sometimes viewable at the
> > national railway museum York.
>
> It is no-longer in servicable condition and the NRM consider it too
valuable
> to restore to working condition.

Well, she's being let out soon: http://www.nrm.org.uk/events/reunion.asp. A
quick perusal of this doesn't seem to mention whether she's under her own
power or not.

Cheers, Martyn
--

"M Roberts"  wrote

> Well, she's being let out soon: http://www.nrm.org.uk/events/reunion.asp. 
> A
> quick perusal of this doesn't seem to mention whether she's under her own
> power or not.

Mallard will be a static display only.

John.

>>It is no-longer in servicable condition and the NRM consider it too 
>>valuable to restore to working condition.

What a silly idea!

Railway locos are nothing if they do not work.

Martin wrote:
>>> It is no-longer in servicable condition and the NRM consider it too 
>>> valuable to restore to working condition.
> 
> What a silly idea!
> 
> Railway locos are nothing if they do not work.

It is the usual argument about the meaning of preservation for anything 
old. If every part is replaced by a modern component so that it still 
works, was it worth preserving it in the first place? Why not build a 
replica? (aeroplane anoraks do!)

-- 
Arthur Figgis               Surrey, UK

In news:N4GdnYAaNYtPIvbVRVnyvwA@posted.plusnet,
 <afiggis@example.com.invalid> Arthur Figgis bashed on  keyboard and typed:
> Martin wrote:
>>>> It is no-longer in servicable condition and the NRM consider it too
>>>> valuable to restore to working condition.
>>
>> What a silly idea!
>>
>> Railway locos are nothing if they do not work.
>
> It is the usual argument about the meaning of preservation for
> anything old. If every part is replaced by a modern component so that
> it still works, was it worth preserving it in the first place? Why
> not build a replica? (aeroplane anoraks do!)

Tales Of Festiniog

-- 
Trev
Nobody is perfect.
But Being a Yorkshire man is as close as you can get.

Arthur Figgis <afiggis@example.com.invalid> wrote:
> Martin wrote:
>>>> It is no-longer in servicable condition and the NRM consider it too 
>>>> valuable to restore to working condition. 
>> 
>> What a silly idea!
>> 
>> Railway locos are nothing if they do not work.
> 
> It is the usual argument about the meaning of preservation for anything 
> old. If every part is replaced by a modern component so that it still 
> works, was it worth preserving it in the first place? Why not build a 
> replica? (aeroplane anoraks do!)

"Mallard" has had 12 boilers and 7 tenders during her career.

I believe that there is virtually nothing original left on "Flying 
Scotsman", but then it's 15 years older than "Mallard", and it's seen a 
lot more service since retirement by BR.

-- 
Martin S.

"Martin"  wrote:

>>>It is no-longer in servicable condition and the NRM consider it too 
>>>valuable to restore to working condition. 
> 
> What a silly idea!
> 
> Railway locos are nothing if they do not work.

Mallard has spent most of her time since 1963 as a static exhibit.

-- 
Martin S.

Arthur Figgis said the following on 02/07/2008 18:50:

> It is the usual argument about the meaning of preservation for anything 
> old. If every part is replaced by a modern component so that it still 
> works, was it worth preserving it in the first place? Why not build a 
> replica? (aeroplane anoraks do!)

So do railway anoraks!

Tornado, Lyd & Taleisin are three that immediately spring to mind, as 
well as the Darjeeling replica.  Duchess of Hamilton is pretty much a 
replica now as well.

Besides, how much of Mallard was even original when it left BR service?

-- 
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

>> Railway locos are nothing if they do not work.

>Mallard has spent most of her time since 1963 as a static exhibit.

A waste - I last saw it on the main line at Stratford with SNG. and a couple 
of 47s

MartinS wrote:
> Arthur Figgis <afiggis@example.com.invalid> wrote:
>> Martin wrote:
>>>>> It is no-longer in servicable condition and the NRM consider it too 
>>>>> valuable to restore to working condition. 
>>> What a silly idea!
>>>
>>> Railway locos are nothing if they do not work.
>> It is the usual argument about the meaning of preservation for anything 
>> old. If every part is replaced by a modern component so that it still 
>> works, was it worth preserving it in the first place? Why not build a 
>> replica? (aeroplane anoraks do!)
> 
> "Mallard" has had 12 boilers and 7 tenders during her career.
> 
> I believe that there is virtually nothing original left on "Flying 
> Scotsman", but then it's 15 years older than "Mallard", and it's seen a 
> lot more service since retirement by BR.

"Original" is pretty meaningless with something like a locomotive. But 
something which retains components and evidence of manufacturing 
techniques of the past is often seen as "different" to something totally 
new. It is a philosophical point, rather than a practical one. 
Ultimately you could replace Mallard with a Class 91 and say it is the 
same thing :-)

It is possible to imagine the historians of the future being puzzled as 
to why a machine from the 1930-60 era was seemingly built using metric 
components and alloys which the books claim weren't invented for 
decades, using tools which were thought not to exist, or why bits are 
stamped "Made in China".

It comes up with things like paintings. Slapping some modern colour on 
an old master would give a better idea of what the artist and his 
customer actually saw, but galleries tend to avoid doing so these days.

I've been told that the Japanese are quite happy to replace old 
buildings with steel and concrete ones of similar outward appearance 
when things need fixing. Here we tend to like old stuff because it is 
old. Unless it is a Doric arch....

-- 
Arthur Figgis               Surrey, UK

On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 18:45:04 +0100, Arthur Figgis
<afiggis@example.com.invalid> wrote:

>MartinS wrote:
>> Arthur Figgis <afiggis@example.com.invalid> wrote:
>>> Martin wrote:
>>>>>> It is no-longer in servicable condition and the NRM consider it too 
>>>>>> valuable to restore to working condition. 
>>>> What a silly idea!
>>>>
>>>> Railway locos are nothing if they do not work.
>>> It is the usual argument about the meaning of preservation for anything 
>>> old. If every part is replaced by a modern component so that it still 
>>> works, was it worth preserving it in the first place? Why not build a 
>>> replica? (aeroplane anoraks do!)
>> 
>> "Mallard" has had 12 boilers and 7 tenders during her career.
>> 
>> I believe that there is virtually nothing original left on "Flying 
>> Scotsman", but then it's 15 years older than "Mallard", and it's seen a 
>> lot more service since retirement by BR.
>
>"Original" is pretty meaningless with something like a locomotive. But 
>something which retains components and evidence of manufacturing 
>techniques of the past is often seen as "different" to something totally 
>new. It is a philosophical point, rather than a practical one. 
>Ultimately you could replace Mallard with a Class 91 and say it is the 
>same thing :-)
>
>It is possible to imagine the historians of the future being puzzled as 
>to why a machine from the 1930-60 era was seemingly built using metric 
>components and alloys which the books claim weren't invented for 
>decades, using tools which were thought not to exist, or why bits are 
>stamped "Made in China".
>
>It comes up with things like paintings. Slapping some modern colour on 
>an old master would give a better idea of what the artist and his 
>customer actually saw, but galleries tend to avoid doing so these days.
>
>I've been told that the Japanese are quite happy to replace old 
>buildings with steel and concrete ones of similar outward appearance 
>when things need fixing. Here we tend to like old stuff because it is 
>old. Unless it is a Doric arch....

Remember that for most classes there was a pool of spares particularly
boilers that got rotated when a locomotive went in for a general
repair. 

Boilers took much longer to repair than the rest of the engine so it
made sense to use one from the pool that had already been done. 

Other parts were replaced as they wore out.

They have a different view in America where for example there is a
beautiful 1870s Baldwin "cowboy movie" 4-4-0 at the Nevada State
Railroad Museum that still has its original boiler, operating at the
much reduced pressure of 80psi. There is no way the curator is going
to allow a new boiler which would not be allowed to use the original
method of construction.

They didn't have a pool of boilers, and kept the engine out of service
for as long as the repairs took. If an engine like this needed a new
boiler it was either scrapped or rebuilt.

Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 18:45:04 +0100, Arthur Figgis
> <afiggis@example.com.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> MartinS wrote:
>>> Arthur Figgis <afiggis@example.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>> Martin wrote:
>>>>>>> It is no-longer in servicable condition and the NRM consider it too 
>>>>>>> valuable to restore to working condition. 
>>>>> What a silly idea!
>>>>>
>>>>> Railway locos are nothing if they do not work.
>>>> It is the usual argument about the meaning of preservation for anything 
>>>> old. If every part is replaced by a modern component so that it still 
>>>> works, was it worth preserving it in the first place? Why not build a 
>>>> replica? (aeroplane anoraks do!)
>>> "Mallard" has had 12 boilers and 7 tenders during her career.
>>>
>>> I believe that there is virtually nothing original left on "Flying 
>>> Scotsman", but then it's 15 years older than "Mallard", and it's seen a 
>>> lot more service since retirement by BR.
>> "Original" is pretty meaningless with something like a locomotive. But 
>> something which retains components and evidence of manufacturing 
>> techniques of the past is often seen as "different" to something totally 
>> new. It is a philosophical point, rather than a practical one. 
>> Ultimately you could replace Mallard with a Class 91 and say it is the 
>> same thing :-)
>>
>> It is possible to imagine the historians of the future being puzzled as 
>> to why a machine from the 1930-60 era was seemingly built using metric 
>> components and alloys which the books claim weren't invented for 
>> decades, using tools which were thought not to exist, or why bits are 
>> stamped "Made in China".
>>
>> It comes up with things like paintings. Slapping some modern colour on 
>> an old master would give a better idea of what the artist and his 
>> customer actually saw, but galleries tend to avoid doing so these days.
>>
>> I've been told that the Japanese are quite happy to replace old 
>> buildings with steel and concrete ones of similar outward appearance 
>> when things need fixing. Here we tend to like old stuff because it is 
>> old. Unless it is a Doric arch....
> 
> Remember that for most classes there was a pool of spares particularly
> boilers that got rotated when a locomotive went in for a general
> repair. 
> 
> Boilers took much longer to repair than the rest of the engine so it
> made sense to use one from the pool that had already been done. 

Indeed, which is why "original" is pretty meaningless. "Authentic" might 
be a better word. A boiler from the 94th People's Liberation Boiler 
Words in Shanghai (or wherever new ones come from) would no doubt be 
different to whatever Doncaster or Swindon made in the past, which would 
be different to what they had made before.

Think of all those modellers who would end up with the wrong number of 
rivets :-)

> Other parts were replaced as they wore out.
> 
> They have a different view in America where for example there is a
> beautiful 1870s Baldwin "cowboy movie" 4-4-0 at the Nevada State
> Railroad Museum that still has its original boiler, operating at the
> much reduced pressure of 80psi. There is no way the curator is going
> to allow a new boiler which would not be allowed to use the original
> method of construction.

Sounds like a good example of the conflict between being in use and 
keeping the past technology. Though I've heard some stories about US 
attitudes towards boiler safety which make me happy to be a long way away!


-- 
Arthur Figgis               Surrey, UK