Heljan Beyer garratt

[coachmann]

It seems the Derby politics reigned supreme and the design was by Andersen instead of Fowler. Andersen made independent approaches to Beyer Peacock with a Midlandised design except for boiler and frame. Derby trotted out the 1914 the short travel valves as on the S&DJR 2-8-0 despite the Crab and 2-6-4T having long travel, and worse yet, the 4F axleboxes too. This was in 1927 and three years elapsed before another 30 Garratts were ordered, enough time to see the design was badly flawed. In the meantime those same axleboxes got themselves onto the 7F 0-8-0.

 

Interesting as this may be, the model looks to be a good 'un and a Bill has been put before her indoors to be considered before the Easter recess (and my birthday) with outline plans for a weathered rotating bunker version on Trans-Pennine coal workings. 

Edited March 8, 2014 by coachmann

[Dominion]

I thought that's how the light worked - thanks.

 

The plate over the frame extension is a thin brass rectangle. On most models I've seen it sits awkwardly. I have assumed that it should sit flush at the same height as the rest of the footplate. Removing mine was quite easy as there was a gap into which I could insert a scalpel blade and then gently lift the plate off. It came away without damage and the underside was cleaned up with an emery board to remove super-glue residue. I then used the emery board to clean up the tops of the frames[plastic mouldings] and reduce their height slightly. A dry fit established how much I needed to remove. The cover was then re-attached using super-glue. It is worth doing and makes a significant cosmetic difference.

 

Removing the buffer beam to reposition the buffers was another matter altogether though !

 

Tony

On the tank removal, I forgot to mention just be careful to repositioning the 3 parts of the motion on each side when you replace it. They went back into place fairly easily.

[laurenceb]

I received mine on Tuesday. The model is superb and arrived in Australia with no damage.

The pony truck brakes are made from a flexible type of engineering plastic, so they can take quite a bit of rough treatment.

When I went to put the tension lock couplers in the spares box, I noticed that they were cranked. (sound of alarm bells ringing)

So my only criticism is that the NEM pockets are the wrong height.

This is an issue for me as I don’t use tension lock coupler, as I prefer the Kadee coupler.

This seems to hark back to the bad old days of Bachmann where the model is supplied with a cranked tension lock coupler to bring the tension lock coupler back to the correct height.

I would have thought that a European manufacturer such as Heljan, who are familiar with the NEM pocket would have pointed out this error at the design stage.  This has taken the shine off the model as I now have to modify the locomotive to fit Kadee couplers, with the now added risk of breaking some of the fine detail.

I dont think it is fair to blame Hattons for the coupler hight, this is a feature of other Heljan models. Anoyingly it is halfway between the right hight and Bachmanns so that you cannot fasten a NEM coupler underneath.

Laurence

[robmcg]

Without wishing to rain on the model's parade, the assessment in service was 'variable'.

 

The undoubted good feature was a free steaming boiler: this element was essentially Beyer-Peacock's sole work as a design, and fully reflected both their considerable expertise and the very good proportions in tube length especially, that this format permits. Probably the best boiler for evaporation per unit of thermal input that the LMS had until Stanier joined the party.

 

The flexibility afforded by the articulation was definitely track kindly, in this context the higher than expected flange wear especially of the inside drivers was regarded as disappointing: but that was why B-P had wanted inside pony trucks too...

 

...

 

I am aware of most of the points you mention, and I was not intending to be an apologist for the LM Garratts failings, but rather to point out that they did a lot of successful work on heavy trains,  as you point out and I would agree, in spite of the shortcomings of inadequate axle bearings, short travel valves, coal dust,  and no investment in suitable servicing sheds.

 

We in NZ tried Beyer Garratts too at the same time, c1927, and they were a failure, being equipped with 3-cylinder drives at each end with centre cylinder operated by semi-exposed conjugated gear, which was probably together with linkage and setting issues, the main cause...  then, as with the LM engines, good 8-coupled engines were designed and the Garratts were less-than-ideal, broken couplings also being an issue with the unprecedented power available and/or gradient changes. Ours were rebuilt as 'G' class 4-6-2s  still 3-cyl and still reviled by crews.

 

A fascinating part of the age of steam nevertheless, and very impressive machines to watch at work.

[railroadbill]

The LMS effectively abandoned the concept with Stanier's arrival, he produced a competent 2-8-0 that could tackle any work the Garratt could perform, and gallop up to 75mph if required in passenger service, which the the Garratt wouldn't even begin to look at. The BR data condemns them: averaging under 20,000 miles p.a., and out of service 3 months a year, easily outperformed in all respects by the 9F, which sealed their fate. Writing retrospectively, A.J. Powell - engineer to the LMS and LMR - in 'Living with London Midland Locomotives' rates them as 'dreadful'. He was there and had to make them work, so it's an assessment worth notice.

Very interesting point about 8Fs doing the same work as the BG. As a very very rough rule of thumb, the BG produced  45,620 lb TE  so a lot of pull at the slow speeds it worked long freight trains at.   A 4F was 24,555 lb TE so 2 of them had a 48,110 lb TE (so double headed should have been able to do a little better than the Garratt).  The 8F had a 32,440 lb TE  so although in service very competent with fast freight and indeed passenger trains, would one have been able to haul an unfitted freight the same length/weight as a Garratt, although as a large standard freight class they presumably did.   9F was 39,670 lb TE so near enough with a more modern design.

 

While there are doubtless many other factors that could be used to compare abilities of different locos,  it would be interesting to learn what the laid down limits were (presuming there were some set) for pulling heavy freight trains by these locos.

 

The LNER Beyer Garrett had a tractive effort of 72,940 lb - now that is impressive :-)

[craigowen1976]

Very impressed with the Garratt, looking forward to trying it out on the garden railway if the sun holds... I couldn't get beyond 65 wagons as it's strength pulled them off the curved track sections! Anyway, thought viewers might enjoy this short video of Garratts first freight on indoor section of Blackbury Line...

 

[The Stationmaster]

There was one doing its stuff on one of the layouts at the Basingstoke show today and performing very impressively.  Not quite so impressive was what appeared to be its unpainted, raw black plastic, finish although the surface finish of the plastic itself was good.  Perhaps we have got too used to models with painted finish and in any case it wouldn't be too difficult to rectify of course.

[robmcg]

Well Stationmaster the unpainted plastic doesn't look bad on the lightly-weathered version I have, and it rather reminds me of my Kitmaster days.

 

And there will be other Heljan/Hattons' Garratt pictures of mine coming up, where unpainted plastic is the least of my worries! Of course, it isn't actual modelling... 

 

I would like to add that for people with one useful hand only, like myself, the best way to move this model around is bit-by-bit on and off a board, or section of track, with great care! This limitation (which I have, as well as T5 paraplegia) might go some way to explain why I enjoy modifying pictures of models. It's kind of relevant because I enjoy making the pictures, and have been rapped over the knuckles for modifying a pic Larry's Duke of Gloucester model, and one photo by Garrattfan, the reviewer here of the Garratt a few dozen messages ago p24?. Apologies again to those two gentlemen.

 

Rob

Edited March 9, 2014 by robmcg

[robmcg]

Very impressed with the Garratt, looking forward to trying it out on the garden railway if the sun holds... I couldn't get beyond 65 wagons as it's strength pulled them off the curved track sections! Anyway, thought viewers might enjoy this short video of Garratts first freight on indoor section of Blackbury Line...

 

 

Lovely video, fantastic, thanks.

[Stevelewis]

With reference to the  pulling  power of  the  Heljan garratt,  I was wondering  if  anyone   with  the  space & rolling stock   might  try to compare   the pulling  power of a couple  of            0-6-0s ?  ( just to  see!!)

[railroadbill]

With reference to the  pulling  power of  the  Heljan garratt,  I was wondering  if  anyone   with  the  space & rolling stock   might  try to compare   the pulling  power of a couple  of            0-6-0s ?  ( just to  see!!)

Ok  Steve, you got it. Having arranged engineer's possession of the up main,  I made up a train of 30 coaches plus 1 van.  I first tested it with a Heljan class 47 and got it running round loft ok. I've previously found a Heljan 47 could pull 34 coaches which is my line's maximum before they start derailing etc.  I then ran the train with double headed Airfix 4Fs which rather to my surprise hauled the train ok. In fact, one Airfix 4F could haul 30 coaches. So that's 122 axles in total.

 

I attach a pic of the two locos (both numbered as locos that ran on the S&D in the 1950s so  obviously used to double heading)  after their epic run.

 

The 4Fs had been in a display cabinet for some time and I'm now very impressed by how well they run for an old fashioned design. (I got them about 1980).  Think they'll be out on the layout a bit more now.

 

Ok Steve, so that's how 2 4Fs pull trains. You don't need a Garratt  now, just 4Fs (Airfix ones will obviously do fine. Sure there are loads on e-bay.  As a matter of interest Hattons sold them for £11.50 in 1983, their ad in an old RM ).  That's saved you £199 plus £4 p&p

[Ian Hargrave]

Tender drive to add insult to injury.A thought-provoking posting.Many thanks!

[railroadbill]

Tender drive to add insult to injury.A thought-provoking posting.Many thanks!

Thanks Ian. Steve's suggestion was great fun, just had to be done! It started out rather tongue in cheek but  I found that 2 older locos that I'd put to one side actually ran much better than I thought they would, compared to the much newer stock I've acquired. So useful for me. (Not that I'd actually run 30 coach trains of course). Anyway I'd better not hi-jack the B-G thread but following 34theletterbetweenb&d's comments on the full size locos, and how they were used  has been very interesting.

 

ps the Airfix tender drive was apparently designed for a 450 hour life.  Once they are  run in, seem to settle down well.

pps Hornby Dublo once did a demo where a loco  (think it was a Castle) pulled a railed trolley (on a wide track)  behind it with a young lad sitting on it. 

[Stevelewis]

Tender drive to add insult to injury.A thought-provoking posting.Many thanks!

Thanks  for  that  Bill,  that  is  very  interesting  reading!,  If  i remember  correctly  the  Airfix  4f  has   traction  tyres?

 

Back  when  i  was  young!  i  had  a  00 garden  line  on  which  I was  able  to  run  longish  trains  and  i  was always  impressed  at  the  haulage  capabilities  of  some  ( but not  all)  of the  Airfix & Mailnlne  locos,    it  was  around  that  time  I tried  Hornby Zero 1  and  Airfix Multiple  Control  system   ( the less said  the  better!)

 

but  i wont be changing  my  Garratt plans!

[DAVREB05]

On the tank removal, I forgot to mention just be careful to repositioning the 3 parts of the motion on each side when you replace it. They went back into place fairly easily.

I have the same problem with my light not being as bright running water tender first, I removed the cover but was unable to get the light to shine any brighter, just be careful when refitting the tank cover that you don't knock the 2 small parts on the tender inside end off. I did and ended up superglueing them to the tender cover but all then fitted back ok.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

Very interesting point about 8Fs doing the same work as the BG. As a very very rough rule of thumb, the BG produced  45,620 lb TE  so a lot of pull at the slow speeds it worked long freight trains at.   A 4F was 24,555 lb TE so 2 of them had a 48,110 lb TE (so double headed should have been able to do a little better than the Garratt).  The 8F had a 32,440 lb TE  so although in service very competent with fast freight and indeed passenger trains, would one have been able to haul an unfitted freight the same length/weight as a Garratt, although as a large standard freight class they presumably did.   9F was 39,670 lb TE so near enough with a more modern design.

 

While there are doubtless many other factors that could be used to compare abilities of different locos,  it would be interesting to learn what the laid down limits were (presuming there were some set) for pulling heavy freight trains by these locos...

From what is available to read, load limits for routes were empirically derived by trials and experience in service. The tractive effort (TE) estimate is a very crude yardstick, even of the starting force available at the drawbar; and that's about as much as it is of value for. I would guess that any of the 8F 2-8-0s with a good valve gear would be at least equal in power output compared to the Garratt by the time they were running at 25mph, despite their typically 25% smaller starting TE.

 

The other big factor in running the unbraked freight that was the typical train load, was the available brake force. The Garratt at 155 ton all up maximum, had over 30 tons on the pony trucks leaving somewhat less than 125 ton on the coupled wheels. The 8F by comparison was 125 ton max, with 8.5 ton of that on the pony truck for 117 ton braked. Braked to the same factor the Garratt has little more available brake force than the 2-8-0, and greater unbraked mass unless the pony trucks are braked as well. (Garratts operating outside the UK were typically in a continuously braked operating environment: the colonies were significantly more advanced than the homeland in this respect.)

[railroadbill]

Thanks  for  that  Bill,  that  is  very  interesting  reading!,  If  i remember  correctly  the  Airfix  4f  has   traction  tyres?

 

Back  when  i  was  young!  i  had  a  00 garden  line  on  which  I was  able  to  run  longish  trains  and  i  was always  impressed  at  the  haulage  capabilities  of  some  ( but not  all)  of the  Airfix & Mailnlne  locos,    it  was  around  that  time  I tried  Hornby Zero 1  and  Airfix Multiple  Control  system   ( the less said  the  better!)

 

but  i wont be changing  my  Garratt plans!

Long trains in the garden must have been good.  Took me years until I moved to a house that had a usable loft space for a layout. (and understanding swmbo). So some of the stock I bought/built/modified etc  over the years has had a big gap between being displayed or stored and now having somewhere to run. Hence some locos like the 4Fs have never had much running, and more recent and technically advance stuff gets run first. However, I'm now finding that some earlier locos aren't that bad with a little tlc and enough running to settle down. Depends whether it looks and runs the part or not. But the Airfix tender drives do have rubber tyres, (which I don't normally like since it makes the tender wheels look weird) )  which no doubt accounts for their pulling ability.

Point of this though is that back in 1980 we wouldn't have expected a high quality model like the Garratt (or baby deltic or dukedog etc etc) to be commercially available so I guess we're spoilt by the current standard, really.  Mind you, Robmcg did mention the Kitmaster kit which must go back to the 60s but motorising it must have been a pain. Did anyone manage it, I wonder?

[dibber25]

I hope no one mind's a shameless plug (I don't personally make anything out of it) but I thought I would draw attention in this thread, to the book Toton Engineman by John Henry Woolley which includes quite a lot of Beyer-Garratt info and some excellent photographs from popular archives such as Rail Archive Stephenson. It is a 144pp hardback at £19.95 + £1.95 towards post and packing, from Steam World Publishing, First Floor, 2 King Street, Peterborough. PE1 1LT. 

[railroadbill]

From what is available to read, load limits for routes were empirically derived by trials and experience in service. The tractive effort (TE) estimate is a very crude yardstick, even of the starting force available at the drawbar; and that's about as much as it is of value for. I would guess that any of the 8F 2-8-0s with a good valve gear would be at least equal in power output compared to the Garratt by the time they were running at 25mph, despite their typically 25% smaller starting TE.

 

The other big factor in running the unbraked freight that was the typical train load, was the available brake force. The Garratt at 155 ton all up maximum, had over 30 tons on the pony trucks leaving somewhat less than 125 ton on the coupled wheels. The 8F by comparison was 125 ton max, with 8.5 ton of that on the pony truck for 117 ton braked. Braked to the same factor the Garratt has little more available brake force than the 2-8-0, and greater unbraked mass unless the pony trucks are braked as well. (Garratts operating outside the UK were typically in a continuously braked operating environment: the colonies were significantly more advanced than the homeland in this respect.)

Excellent! Thanks for that, couldn't get my head around the apparent difference in power between the B-Gs and 8Fs - but getting the train started isn't the only factor. Steam locos always seem difficult to compare objectively - claims by different railways that they had "Britain's most powerful loco" based purely on tractive effort were common but was a King really better than an A3 on that basis? Better not go there.

As you say, brake power must have been really significant especially for unfitted freights, presumably that requirement varied as well in hilly country. Read of locos such as WD 2-8-0s that were not suitable for lines like S&D with heavy gradients although ran very well in flatter country (and may have gone up hill ok although not safely down.) 

This is a very interesting subject, so thanks again. 

[JZ]

Just a thought. As the B-Gs were regulars at Westerleigh sidings in the early 1950s, they would have been seen on the Lickey. So would they have required banking? If so, the LNER U1 was there in 1948/50 and again in '55.................................. As I said, just a thought.

[robmcg]

To All,

 

Are there any particular tunnels which Garratts regularly went through which were uphill, wet, or difficult, notorious and requiring the crew to take ameliorative measures, like cotton-waste rags to breathe through, or down on the cab floor. Sharnbrook? Amphill? any others? 

 

I have in mind a pic where the engine is emerging from a tunnel, with some exhaust...

Edited March 9, 2014 by robmcg

[MarkSG]

Just a thought. As the B-Gs were regulars at Westerleigh sidings in the early 1950s, they would have been seen on the Lickey. So would they have required banking? If so, the LNER U1 was there in 1948/50 and again in '55.................................. As I said, just a thought.

 

It sounds almost too good to be true, but there is an eyewitness report that it actually happened. Quoth Wikipedia's entry on the Lickey Incline:

 

The LNER Class U1 Garratt was also tried out unsuccessfully in 1949–1950 and again in 1955. On one occasion it was banking a train hauled by LMS Garratt No. 47972 which stalled on the bank and was rescued by "Big Bertha", resulting in the formation of a train with nineteen driving axles.

 

The reference for that statement leads to http://www.steamindex.com/locotype/fowlerlo.htm which in turn references page 78 of "On railways at home and abroad" by P Ransome-Wallis.

[Re6/6]

Just a thought. As the B-Gs were regulars at Westerleigh sidings in the early 1950s, they would have been seen on the Lickey. So would they have required banking? If so, the LNER U1 was there in 1948/50 and again in '55.................................. As I said, just a thought.

Julian, I saw in the Railway Magazine some years ago some photos by Ransome-Wallis showing the LM garratt, the NE U1 Garratt and Big Bertha all on one train up the Lickey!

 

 

Some quotes from elsewhere:

This seems to be turning into something of a round-robin with exagerrated changes each time it comes up; especially with 9Fs *and* the ex-LNER Garratt involved.

 

The only photo of this event that I know of was taken by P Ransome-Wallis, and shows the rear of the train with only one wagon and a brake van in shot, plus the two banking engines 69999 and 58100. There may be others, but I cant find any reference to them.

 

 

 

Sep 15, 2007 - I have a book by a Mr. Ransome-Wallis on railways. One story is of 42 freight wagons pulled by a LMS 2-6-0+0-6-2 garratt arriving at Lickey bank. Out came this monster to bank it. The whole lot wheezed to a halt halfway up so out cam "Big Bertha" the 0-10-0 4-cylinder banker. What a sight that must have been!

 

 

Edited March 9, 2014 by Re6/6

[Captain Kernow]

Don't know about them getting to STJ, but I have a photo's of them at Gloucester and they are rumoured to have gone as far south as Westerleigh.

Never mind Westerleigh Yard, surely you've all heard about the time that Harold Morris, the Bath Green Park shedmaster got his hands on one, that one of his footplate crews had inadvertently brought back from Gloucester one day (well, it was very strong cider...).

 

Egged on by Ivan Petersfield and Norman Locksmith, Harold used it for a couple of weeks over the Dorset, working heavy goods trains down to Templecombe and back. He nearly lost it back to the LMR one day, though, when the northbound working was diverted via Engine Wood and Hallatrow...   

[MarkSG]

The photo of the U1 and Big Bertha together is on Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/64518788@N05/8541849931/sizes/l/

 

As pointed out in the comment quoted by Re6/6, it doesn't show whatever was at the front of the train, so we only have the verbal description to go by.