|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Heaven: The SoF Railway Enthusiasts' Thread
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
When I clicked my own link, tinyURL said they couldn't find it. So I do have a problem somewhere in my system, I guess,
Try this one
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Thank you for the for the links. That was profoundly life enhancing. Kenya had some red ones as well, though my impression is that the Kenyan red was slightly brighter.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
"Beyer-Garratt Around the World" is 15-min. promo for the locos delivered to Queensland in 1950, such as 1009 described upthread.
As review of a totally different era, the movie is a hoot. The IMPORTANT tone of the voice-over, the terribly proper gentlemen in suits and solar topees approving the proper departure on time of a train in a minor outback station, all sorts of stuff.
But there are lots of clips of interesting train movements as well
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wesley J
Silly Shipmate
# 6075
|
Posted
![[Cool]](cool.gif) Brilliant!
I've found yet another YouTube video: This film here is from 1981 and another heritage run down under, and rather nice too. There's plenty of loco sound and horn and bell action as well.
To be honest, before watching the links here I hadn't been aware of Garretts being used on regular gauge railways too, which of course makes them even mightier. I more or less knew about the South African narrow gauge ones, but nobody'd told me how spectacular the Aussie Garretts are!
I'm just reading up in Wiki on Garretts, Mallets and Meyers, and have noticed that a Mallet's rear "is rigidly attached to the main body and boiler of the locomotive [...]" (Wiki), which I wasn't consciously aware of either - though I do see a preserved Mallet in action every now and then. The Garretts, however, seem to be a further development down that road, or rather track, and a very clever construction they are too.
What I found especially noteworthy from all the videos is the spectacular sound from not one cylinder per engine side, but of two working in unison, with a very short delay. And to know that this is actually one single locomotive and not two as in a conventional setting is really rather stunning!
--------------------
Be it as it may: Wesley J will stay. --- Euthanasia, that sounds good. An alpine neutral neighbourhood. Then back to Britain, all dressed in wood. Things were gonna get worse. (John Cooper Clarke)
Posts: 7354 | From: The Isles of Silly | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wesley J
Silly Shipmate
# 6075
|
Posted
And of course it's 'Garratt', not 'Garrett'! Apologies. Normal service will be resumed shortly. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
Be it as it may: Wesley J will stay. --- Euthanasia, that sounds good. An alpine neutral neighbourhood. Then back to Britain, all dressed in wood. Things were gonna get worse. (John Cooper Clarke)
Posts: 7354 | From: The Isles of Silly | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Garratts are fantastic locos. NSW Govt Railways had a standard gauge Garratt class, very useful for hauling heavy coal and other goods trains over the Blue Mountains and the dividing range a bit further west. The noise and sight of one pounding up Raglan Bank was fantastic.
The Australian Standard Garratt (only narrow gauge as far as I know), by contrast had a poor reputation amongst railwaymen.
Garratts had many advantages over Malletts, and I don't understand why they were not more popular in the US - think of a Garratt equivalent to a Big Boy or a Challenger. Not just the power to climb Sherman Hill and the like, but also the ability to race across more level ground at speeds well above safety in a Mallett. The boiler on a Garratt swings in across a curve, balancing the centrifugal forces on the bunker and water tank. In a Mallett, all forces are outwards, in additin to which, there can be severe balancing problems. On top of that, there is an exaggeration of the usual problems of high and low pressure.
The only express passenger Garratt I know of was the class run in Algeria under French colonial rule. That had the misfortune to reach the rails just before WW II, and its complexity of controls was beyond the facilities available after 1939.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
daviddrinkell
Shipmate
# 8854
|
Posted
British shipmates, and Baptist Trainfan in particular (being near at hand) - the 10 1/4" gauge Wells and Walsingham Railway is operated by a 2-6-0+0-6-2 Garratt, 'Norfolk Hero', built in 1987.
http://www.wellswalsinghamrailway.co.uk/newsletter.php
Just in case anyone didn't know......
--------------------
David
Posts: 1983 | From: St. John's, Newfoundland | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
http://www.irsociety.co.uk/Archives/11/william_francis.htm.
I believe it still exists.
William Francis is very much still in existence, and resides at Bressingham. I don't think it's ever been steamed in preservation though.
And since we're on the subject of Garratts, I have to point out that for British articulation fans there are no less than six of them currently in service or being restored for use on the Welsh Highland Railway, including the first Garratt ever built - K1.
They get some lovely scenery to run through (and gradients to slog up!) as well. Very much worth a visit, I would say ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
[ 26. April 2010, 15:10: Message edited by: Marvin the Martian ]
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
The Challengers weren't Mallets which are double-expansion locomotives. They were articulated single-expansion locomotives. Each set of drivers drew directly from the boiler.
The Challengers never had a speed problem.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Darllenwr
Shipmate
# 14520
|
Posted
Did the Challengers have special arrangements to prevent the front engine from thrashing around and damaging the track? I have always understood that this was the main objection to the whole Mallet principal ~ insufficient side control on the front engine.
On the matter of express passenger Garratts, the Central of Aragon Railway in Spain ran some 4-6-2 + 2-6-4 Garratts with 5'9" drivers on fast passenger services. They were built in 1931 by Eskalduna and were still in service as late as the end of 1967. Unfortunately, my source book ("Garratt Locomotives of the World" by A.E.Durrant) was first published in 1969 and does not record what happened to these locomotives.
I have always wondered why North America did not make significant use of the Garratt principal? I am aware that cast steel bedframes were made in America for Beyer Peacock, and that, when BP proposed a 2-6-6-2 + 2-6-6-2 Mallet Garratt, Alco took up manufacturing rights, though none were ever built. I also understand that the American Trains magazine speculated on the possibility of 4-8-8-4 + 4-8-8-4 and 2-12-12-2 + 2-12-12-2 machines, the latter having a starting tractive effort of over 400 000lb, but again, nothing ever came of these speculations. A pity. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
--------------------
If I've told you once, I've told you a million times: I do not exaggerate!
Posts: 1101 | From: The catbox | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lord Pontivillian
Shipmate
# 14308
|
Posted
Here are two interesting articulated 15inch loco's found on the Kirklees Light Railway.
--------------------
The Church in Wales is Ancient, Catholic and Deformed - Typo found in old catechism.
Posts: 665 | From: Horsham | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
Once again, the Challengers were not true Mallet locomotives, though they were called that. Each set of 6 drivers drew its steam directly from the boiler independently of the other set. Mallet locomotives draw steam through the rear drivers and then pass it along to the front ones, thus using compound expansion. The Challengers didn't do this.
The rear drivers on a Challenger were fixed, all other wheelsets were articulated. The Challengers were often used for passenger work on the Union Pacific, they didn't have a speed problem or a thrashing problem. Both they and the Big Boys could do 70 MPH without a problem. Each set of drivers responded in parallel and in an identical way to the throttle.
In order to reduce hammer blow, the Challengers in common with all large North American locomotives had well-designed and extensive counterbalancing on the drivers.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Just about every steam locomotive had balance weights because of the off-center drive of the connecting and main rods. The problem was that, originally, it was thought that the balance had to be exactly equal to the rods, so some locos, particularly the small-wheeled heavy freighters had huge masses out at the rim, which led to huge hammerblows. It wasn't until some serious development work took place in, I think, the late '20s/early 30's, that proper cross-counterbalancing could be done. That along with the development of disc (as opposed to spoked) drivers gave us the smooth-running locos of the late 30's - the streamline era as well as the later "superpower" freighters.
For instance, the later batches of CPR's G3 Pacific classes, built in the '40s, could cionsistently out run the earlier ones of the same basic specs built in the 20's, and were far preferred by the crews because of their smooth ride.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Darllenwr
Shipmate
# 14520
|
Posted
As a matter of interest, did the Challengers have a common regulator valve for both engines (as Meyers and Kitson-Meyers tend to do) or did they have a separate regulator valve for each engine, like the Fairlies?
Reason I ask is not purely academic. One of my father's objections to 'Monarch' (the Meyer-type locomotive on the Welshpool & Llanfair) was that she had just the one regulator valve feeding both engine units. If the one engine started to slip, it would starve the other unit of steam and the locomotive could come to a standstill before the driver had the time to do anything about it. As he was Chief Mechanical Engineer of the line at the time, I guess he was entitled to comment. As he pointed out, with separate regulator valves, if one engine slips, it doesn't directly affect the working of the other engine, allowing the driver to take action to control the slip before the train comes to a standstill. In this respect, the Fairlies on the Ffestiniog were a better (though much older) design than 'Monarch'.
The Fairlies also have the advantage of a proper firebox. On 'Monarch', there was a power bogie right underneath the firebox, leaving no room for an ashpan. Bagnall's solution to this problem had been to build the locomotive with a marine-type firebox, with all that implies in relation to air supply to the front of the grate. Consequently, 'Monarch' was always a tricky steamer. With that firebox configuration, she would have fared better as an oil burner. Fairlies and Garratts have the advantage that there is plenty of room for the ashpan, an area where Mallets and Mallet-types are at a disadvantage (though no greater than a non-articulated locomotive in that respect).
--------------------
If I've told you once, I've told you a million times: I do not exaggerate!
Posts: 1101 | From: The catbox | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lord Pontivillian
Shipmate
# 14308
|
Posted
According to the link that Baptist Trainfan linked, to it seems the Moors Valley Railway has a Garratt with what I believe is a unusual wheel arrangement, of 2-4-0 +0-4-2.
For some reason it seems, to me at any rate, that articulated engines have not proved particularly successful, or popular, in Britain. Yes there are some exceptions like the Festiniog Railway, which I believe is the only line on which Fairlies have been successful and not quickly scrapped. The MSWJR had a fairly successful single fairlie from memory, though not great as it was scrapped after 20 years of service!
It must be said that the Meyer built for Bowaters was not that great a success, being flogged off to the Welshpool & Llanfair Light Railway, where I belief she wasn't particularly liked! Unfortunately this seems to be more to problems in the design, rather than british tastes. It seems to me that British engineers had a way of tinkering with designs that needed no tinkering, the Midland railway in particular.
I think it is a shame that Beyer-Peacock never managed to sell Garratts to neither of the Southern Railway, under Bullied, and the LMS, under Stanier.....it could have lead to some interesting machines! Of the Garratts that ran in this country, it seems to me, that those who were designed purely by Beyer Peacock, with little or no input from the end user, were successful, whereas the others weren't.....there was an early Garratt, built for Vivian and Sons of Swansea,in Swansea that, I belief lasted into the 1950's. Like most early Garratts it was a 0-4-0 + 0-4-0.
[ 26. April 2010, 20:31: Message edited by: Lord Pontivillian ]
--------------------
The Church in Wales is Ancient, Catholic and Deformed - Typo found in old catechism.
Posts: 665 | From: Horsham | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lord Pontivillian
Shipmate
# 14308
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Darllenwr:
The Fairlies also have the advantage of a proper firebox. On 'Monarch', there was a power bogie right underneath the firebox, leaving no room for an ashpan. Bagnall's solution to this problem had been to build the locomotive with a marine-type firebox, with all that implies in relation to air supply to the front of the grate. Consequently, 'Monarch' was always a tricky steamer. With that firebox configuration, she would have fared better as an oil burner. Fairlies and Garratts have the advantage that there is plenty of room for the ashpan, an area where Mallets and Mallet-types are at a disadvantage (though no greater than a non-articulated locomotive in that respect).
Apparently it was the intention of the Festiniog to convert Monarch to oil-firing.
--------------------
The Church in Wales is Ancient, Catholic and Deformed - Typo found in old catechism.
Posts: 665 | From: Horsham | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Darllenwr
Shipmate
# 14520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
For instance, the later batches of CPR's G3 Pacific classes, built in the '40s, could cionsistently out run the earlier ones of the same basic specs built in the 20's, and were far preferred by the crews because of their smooth ride.
Was the performance difference down simply to the balancing / wheel design, or were there differences in the valve travel between the earlier and later batches?
The reason I mention this is that the original Gresley A1 pacifics on the GNR / LNER were perfectly adequate locomotives if a little heavy on coal. However, direct comparison (by exchange trial) with a GWR 'Castle' showed that the apparently smaller engine could, within limits, out-perform the A1's. In all honesty, one has to concede that in terms of all-out power, it is unlikely that the 'Castle' could out-perform the A1 ~ it's grate area was significantly smaller. However, the figure that really interested Gresley was the coal consumption, significantly better on the 'Castle' than the A1.
The remedy was to redesign the valve gear, increasing the travel and the port opening. The A3's pacifics that resulted were all-round better engines, freer running, easier on coal etc. Mind you, I doubt that the ride quality was noticeably different.
Having said all that, if a locomotive rides well, the loco crew would be willing to work it harder than one which rode rough. Were any dynamometer tests ever conducted on the G3's to see whether the better performance of the later engines was just down to their improved ride quality?
--------------------
If I've told you once, I've told you a million times: I do not exaggerate!
Posts: 1101 | From: The catbox | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Like the Forney tanks that ran some American city services, the Fairlies were an answer to a specific problem, one which didn't really occur on main lines. The Garratt was a solution for a problem that occurred on some main lines, particularly those that had axle-load restrictions combined with significant curvature.
There was quite serious discussion about garratts for the CPR's Short Line through Maine (the connection that made the CPR actually coast-to-coast!), which had several quite long bridges with severe weight restrictions as well as a lot of curves between Sherbrooke and Brownville. But the changed economics of the 1930's meant that bridge reconstruction was suddenly much cheaper, so the bridge problem was reduced. The CPR always preferred fairly small locomotives (in North American terms!), so a lot on Pacifics and Mikados were built during the war, and the double-heading of these solved the curve problem.
The same discussion looked at truly enormous Garratts for the Kicking Horse Pass and Spiral Tunnels, oil-fired, so that a separate tender would still have been possible, but, again, management preferred double-heading for limited sections like this, since this allowed for pretty standard locos that could be used system-wide.
The "normal" American articulated ("simple Mallet"?) simply wouldn't have made it through the Spiral Tunnels. Even run cab forward, the boiler would have scraped the tunnel walls.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Darllenwr
Shipmate
# 14520
|
Posted
Once again, I must commend the Museum of Retro Technology to all concerned, this link taking you to the Locomotive Hall.
HB, that's an interesting observation you make about Mallet-types in spiral tunnels. It wouldn't have occurred to me to think of that problem but, once somebody points it out, it is obvious ~ a boiler that long simply cannot get around a bend under those conditions. In that respect, a Garratt, with its much shorter boiler, would have offered a useful solution.
As I understand it, an objection to the Garratt in the USA was its limited coal and water capacity. Is this (was this) actually the case?
--------------------
If I've told you once, I've told you a million times: I do not exaggerate!
Posts: 1101 | From: The catbox | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
I believe that Challengers and Big Boys both had dual screw reversers, one for each driver. Slip isn't a horrible problem with these locomotives, as each valve has its own independent steam circuit from the boiler. Thus the drivers are independent.
A Challenger is at its heart a 4-12-4 broken into two parallel driver sets.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
The fuel/water thing was a significant problem for garratts for two reasons- (1)limited quantity, since the only space was above the drivers and limited in length to the length of the engine unit, and (2) the adhesive weight decreased as the fuel/water were used, so the tractive effort was not always what was intended. A minor issue was the need to shape the tanks for esthetic reasons, which would also lmit capacity - and we know that esthetics often trumped practicality!
A separate tender would be helpful for water (and oil, possibly) but would then be an impediment to running in the other direction - not just a switching move, since the piping would have to be reconnected.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
When water plugs are as far apart as they are in North America and tenders are a large as they are, carrying capacity is an issue.
Furthermore a locomotive that changes its adhesion characteristic is doomed from mainline running. The railroads simply wouldn't put up with that.
Challengers and the closely-related Yellowstones were used by roads such as the Norfolk & Western, Northern Pacific, Union Pacific and the Baltimore & Ohio. They worked beautifully.
I really can't see the appeal of a Garratt when compared to a Challenger. A Garratt is unnecessarily complicated given the adequate loading gauge (16' height) in North America.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Something that I've never got to the bottom of, is whether Garratts had any draughting problems. Both engines exhausted a long way from the smoke box. In both cases the exhaust had to go through an articulated joint. The exhaust from the rear engine had a particularly long way to go and had to get past the firebox.
I don't know how Garratts coped with slipping. A curious thing I've heard is that both engines automatically went into phase with each other within a few wheel revolutions of starting. I have wondered whether it was the force of two exhausts that did this.
On valve gears, single engines with two sets of cut off were not unknown. The original version of the Midland Compounds had separate controls for the high and low pressure cylinders but all later versions had a combined version. I believe most of the superior French compounds had separate high and low pressure controls.
On the Castle/A1 (original A3) comparison, I think the lesson was that better design could enable less coal to produce more steam, and then enable that steam to get through the cylinders faster and transmit its power to the drivers more effectively.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
3rdFooter
Shipmate
# 9751
|
Posted
quote:
British shipmates, and Baptist Trainfan in particular (being near at hand) - the 10 1/4" gauge Wells and Walsingham Railway is operated by a 2-6-0+0-6-2 Garratt, 'Norfolk Hero', built in 1987.
http://www.wellswalsinghamrailway.co.uk/newsletter.php
Oh my lord!!! I think this locomotive was built by my school friends dad in their double garage. I can't remember his first name but the family name was Simpkins. The web site says built in '86 but most of my memories are of the bits which would be slightly earlier.
3F
--------------------
3F - Shunter in the sidings of God's Kingdom
Posts: 602 | From: outskirts of Babylon | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
The management of the CPR was very Brit-centric, as proved by the sheet-metal work on the later locos and the curved-side coaches built at Angus, but even they realised that improving the track was preferable to buying a rather specialised solution to a local problem.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Oh my lord!!! I think this locomotive was built by my school friends dad in their double garage. I can't remember his first name but the family name was Simpkins.
According to the "Railway Magazine" of October 2006, "Norfolk Hero" was built in 1986 by Neil Simkins of Ashby-de-la-Zouch.
[ 27. April 2010, 15:02: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Darllenwr
Shipmate
# 14520
|
Posted
Thanks for the film link, Baptist Trainfan. A very nice piece of nostalgia, never mind about technically interesting.
The film does make the point that the engine units of a Garratt did not 'get into step' ~ at low speed, you can clearly hear the syncopated beat. According to A.E. Durrant, the story probably started with the early Garratts, fitted with flat, short-travel valves, and Z-ports. Combined with the long exhaust passages, this made the exhaust beat from the rear engine very muffled, which meant that only the front engine was clearly audible, leading to the impression that the engines were 'in step'. A brief calculation based upon the possibility that the front and rear engine wheel diameters could be different serves to make the point.
What was the attraction of the Garratt over the Mallet? Threefold:
1. The boiler could have good proportions, ie short and fat. This gave good evaporative area and short tubes without having to resort to extending the firebox into the boiler barrel. Doing this involved the use of some very expensive press tools, which made alternative solutions attractive. Garratt boilers (certainly on BP examples) were really very simple, which kept the costs (both initial and in-service) down.
2. The size of the ashpan was unrestricted by any frame-work or mechanism. Not strictly true, since there was quite a lot of 'stuff' that had to be run around the firebox/ashpan, but still far less restricted than on a Mallet, with the rear engine unit underneath the firebox. This was not too much of an issue if the coal was of good quality, but if it had a high ash content, the size of the ashpan quickly became important, both from the point of view of maximum distance one could run and also of choking the fire. A Garratt could have a very deep ashpan, something that was difficult on a Mallet, even with a trailing truck under the firebox (hence the adoption of 6-wheel trailing trucks on some of the late Mallets).
3. Less throw-over on bends. Not so much of an issue though, as has been observed earlier, a problem in spiral tunnels. Essentially, wherever a passenger coach could go, a Garratt could go. The same was not necessarily true of a Mallet.
Yes, Garratts were a somewhat specialised solution to a problem, but I would suggest that their international popularity lends support to the idea that a lot of people thought them a good idea. Either that, or the locomotive builders had bloomin' good Marketing departments. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
If I've told you once, I've told you a million times: I do not exaggerate!
Posts: 1101 | From: The catbox | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
Ah, but the CPR has the highest and steepest crossing of the Continental Divide of all North American mainlines. The CNR has the lowest, coincidentally.
North American articulated locomotives, particularly the Yellowstones, Big Boys and Challengers had the largest fireboxes and grate areas ever built in for North American railroading. This was partly because the western users, the Northern Pacific and the Union Pacific built their locomotives to burn low-grade coal from their lineside mines. North American locomotives with four-wheel trailing trucks never had ash pan or firebox issues. We can simply built a bigger loco.
Also the best solution for many roads to improve capacity is simply to rebuild the line. The CPR rebuilt and parallelled Mount McDonald Tunnel in Rogers Pass in 1980. The Union Pacific has been constantly improving and reopening western lines like the Southern Pacific Transcontinental line to Salt Lake City or the parallel Western Pacific. Or Moffat Tunnel in Colorado, another mountain crossing.
The CPR did operate 2-10-4 Selkirks in Rogers Pass, which was helper territory for most trains anyway.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
daviddrinkell
Shipmate
# 8854
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Oh my lord!!! I think this locomotive was built by my school friends dad in their double garage. I can't remember his first name but the family name was Simpkins.
According to the "Railway Magazine" of October 2006, "Norfolk Hero" was built in 1986 by Neil Simkins of Ashby-de-la-Zouch.
And according to the W&WR website, they have another one on order. The reasoning behind commissioning this type of locomotive was that it had much more pulling power. The gauge is only 10 1/4" and there are some steep bits. The original 0-6-0 was not up to it, and passengers sometimes had to get out and push.
--------------------
David
Posts: 1983 | From: St. John's, Newfoundland | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Darllenwr
Shipmate
# 14520
|
Posted
It's official! It's in Railway Magazine! The A1 Steam Trust (owners of 'Tornado') are to have another go. This time it is to be a reproduction Gresley P2 (think "Cock o' the North").
Thoughts?
--------------------
If I've told you once, I've told you a million times: I do not exaggerate!
Posts: 1101 | From: The catbox | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Darllenwr:
It's official! It's in Railway Magazine! The A1 Steam Trust (owners of 'Tornado') are to have another go. This time it is to be a reproduction Gresley P2 (think "Cock o' the North").
Thoughts?
I hope they give the result a name as inspiring as those given to originals!
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
That's great news. As I understand it, though, at the moment, the news is only that they are going to do a feasibility study, rather than actually start building. I hope this is feasible.
Two interesting questions the study will also need to address.
1. Which valve gear?, and
2. Which profile, Cock of the North or as an A4 or the W1?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Darllenwr
Shipmate
# 14520
|
Posted
Completely fresh tangent (as the previous one has sparked no trans-atlantic interest). In his book "A tale of many railways", Alan Keef makes mention of a locomotive made by Chance Manufacturing of Wichita, Kansas and used extensively by the Butlins Holiday Camp chain in this country. The locomotive in question was clearly North American in outline and, so Keef states, based upon a switcher that was used by one of the American Railways, though he does not specify which one.
My curiosity was aroused by the wheel arrangement ~ 4-2-4, which hardly seems an appropriate chassis for a switcher (Brits, read 'shunter') when surely one wants maximum adhesion? I appeciate that there were a number of North American designs that used 4- (and even 6-) wheel trucks under the firebox, presumably to allow a large grate to deal with low-grade coal, but combining this with a 4-wheel leading bogie and only a single driving axle does seem to be rather taking things to extremes.
Is there anybody in the US who can shed some light on this question?
As an aside, the Chance Manufacturing design was only steam outline ~ it used a petrol engine driving, not the 'driving' wheels, but the bogies, which would, I would have thought, have given it better haulage capability than the prototype.
Any thoughts?
--------------------
If I've told you once, I've told you a million times: I do not exaggerate!
Posts: 1101 | From: The catbox | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
As an aside, the Chance Manufacturing design was only steam outline ~ it used a petrol engine driving, not the 'driving' wheels, but the bogies, which would, I would have thought, have given it better haulage capability than the prototype.
I can't answer for the US but suspect that's the answer. It's a dude engine built by someone who thinks all you need is a chimney, and some driving wheels and doesn't know anything about how steam works. It's like train sequences in films.
The best one of those I've seen was quite a well known black and white film from the forties. A train is shown arriving at a station, and manages to change engines between approaching the platform and drawing to a halt.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Darllenwr
Shipmate
# 14520
|
Posted
The curiosity of it is that Keef indicates that the model (if one can call something over 4 feet high a 'model') was based on a real prototype. The precise wording is, "They are modelled on a 4-2-4 switcher which in itself must have been unique." This strongly suggests that Keef had reason to believe that there was a full-size prototype somewhere. As I cannot think of a much more impractical wheel arrangement for a shunting engine (it would make sense for a high-speed passenger tank, but little else) I am intrigued as to the provenance.
--------------------
If I've told you once, I've told you a million times: I do not exaggerate!
Posts: 1101 | From: The catbox | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
Here's something new and different in railways.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wesley J
Silly Shipmate
# 6075
|
Posted
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
--------------------
Be it as it may: Wesley J will stay. --- Euthanasia, that sounds good. An alpine neutral neighbourhood. Then back to Britain, all dressed in wood. Things were gonna get worse. (John Cooper Clarke)
Posts: 7354 | From: The Isles of Silly | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
Here's something new and different in railways.
Moo
I want one! (plus my own private track of course)
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Was this the 4-2-4 in question? It is quite well known, having been a museum item for most of its life since 1888 (apart from a short time as an experimental weed-burner!)
It was more the sort of engine used for hauling the director's private car ("saloon" in Britspeak) than for anything more serious, although it may have been mildly useful on some minor branch line.
But it certainly has the air of a dream-Wild-West gewgaw!
And (edited to add) that it may be a marvellous idea to have the weirdness of a passenger 2-8-2 as something to spend several million pounds on, but that simply is not going to happen anywhere over here, so there is not much point in our discussing it, unless you want to encourage shows of jealousy or feigned apathy.
The ranks of operable steam on mainlines are thinning fast, since most of the reintroductions last just until their next retubing and then go back into storage - and the next generation is simply not interested enough.
I'll be interested to see if the "steam wave" survives the passing of the boomer generation over your way.
[ 08. May 2010, 16:14: Message edited by: Horseman Bree ]
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
That would likely be it. Looks like a shortened/modified 4-4-0, for people who don't know better.
The SP in particular often had some weird steam designs before 1920, particularly "El Gobernador", a 4-10-0. It was a flop, the North American equivalent to "Great Bear".
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Darllenwr
Shipmate
# 14520
|
Posted
That's the bunny!
Thanks for the information ~ I would not have known where to start looking.
--------------------
If I've told you once, I've told you a million times: I do not exaggerate!
Posts: 1101 | From: The catbox | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
Cause I'm picky. ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
4-wheel trailing trucks were generally associated with "Superpower" locomotives that used superheated steam, which started to appear in 1920. The New York Central started the trend when they ordered the 2-8-4 Berkshire arrangement. 4-wheel trailing trucks were just as common on the eastern roads as the western, and the eastern ones like the B&O, New York Central and the Norfolk & Western all had access to excellent coal.
The fact that the western roads like Union Pacific and Northern Pacific ordered large locomotives with monster fireboxes to burn low-quality Western coal is just local circumstance.
Aside from the weirdness of a passenger Mikado, there is the tough question of what to rebuild. There are thousands of choices. I'd like a big New York Central loco, preferably a Niagara or a Hudson, aside from the costs Class I roads are becoming reticent about operatings steam.
The Union Pacific will only let its own Challenger and Northern operate on its lines. That means that 4449, the Golden State Northern from Southern Pacific, has to operate on BNSF.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
If they're going to do that sort of thing, why don't they build the Mikado that was supposed to be the BR Standard heavy freight engine.
They decided on the 2-10-0 because the trailing truck wheels couldn't be braked well enough for loose-coupled freight trains - and then got rid of the loose-coupled freight cars! The Mikado would have had a better firebox and a much better ashpan, and the driving wheels could have been about 6 inches bigger, so the speed and power of the thing would have been spectacular in Brit terms.
Plus the cylinders might have been better placed. Wouldn't have had to call them "Space ships".
The 2-10-0s were good at speed, despite the minuscule drivers, certainly over 60 mph regularly, and I believe one was clocked at 90. Just think what the Mikado would have been able to do.
And it would have been a Standard - no messing about with experimental valve gears or weird boilers.
On another tangent, how about a Pacific developed from the Star/Castle/King line? The possibilities are endless.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
LA Dave
Shipmate
# 1397
|
Posted
If I had my druthers about the class of American steam locomotive to build new (assuming, of course, that it could run on Class I roadbed), I guess that I would pick the Niagara-class of the New York Central. It is the one "super Northern" class that was scrapped completely, so we have no examples. It was fast, modern (roller bearings) and cool looking, with very low domes to meet the Central's loading gauge. (For pure looks and coolness factor, however, I would have nominated the Pennsy's S-1 class, one of (if not) the longest rigid-frame locomotive ever built.)
Thank God for 4449, the Southern Pacific GS-4 mentioned in SPK's previous post. I would have nominated that class for build new status had not the wonderful volunteers in the City of Portland kept that great locomotive running for the past 35 years.
Posts: 981 | From: Take a guess | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Just being pedantic, the second "4" of the 4-2-4 actually had nothing to do with the firebox of this particular locomotive, or with the actual locomotive, come to that. The rear bogie supported the extended frame which acted as the tender, in the same manner as CN's X-10a 4-6-4T tanks used in Montreal commuter service.
The X-10s were very similar to CP's D10 4-6-0s of the same era, except for the water/coal space on the extended frame, neither being paricularly related to "Super-Power"!
Boston&Albany had some 4-6-6T tanks, which also were just large 4-6-0s with an extended rear frame behind the cab.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
You have most excellent taste, LA Dave. ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Norfolk Southern still has 611, their J-class beauty, though she is in need of retubing and general refurbishment.
Other candidates include a Baltimore & Ohio EM-1, a 2-8-8-4 Yellowstone. Beautiful, powerful, and one of the biggest locomotives ever to run in the East.
I would rebuild a Pennsy K-4, as only two survive, and neither are in running condition. They are classic examples of the workaday passenger locomotive in North America.
Going West, a Southern Pacific AC-12 Cab-Forward would be an interesting candidate to rebuild. In addition to being wonderfully powerful, purposefully odd, and having a fantastic view from the cab, they were oil-burners. UP's Challenger was converted to burn oil in 1980 as it threw so many cinders on the line to Salt Lake City it started a string of grassfires, and people complained. UP fixed the problem. Besides, oil is easier to get nowadays.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
