RMweb Premium Barry O Posted February 7, 2013 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 7, 2013 Biggest problem on the hammer is the number of people who may have been needed to fill the firebox! Like the King Garratt - woudln't a 47XX be a starter for ten with the pivots a bit closer together? Mike, Cwmafon could do with a heavy coal engine..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium kevinlms Posted February 7, 2013 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 7, 2013 Only just stumbled across this one. Michael, that is one locomotive of phenomenal proportions that you have built up there. As has been said many times, 'If it looks right, it is right' and this is one of the best examples of that I have seen yet. On to the GWR proposals, in MR140 (I think) there was a drawing of a King Garrett, which I roughed out on MS Paint out of the Hornby King a while back (King shown for comparison). Also, I remember seeing someone of this parish (S.A.C. Martin if I recall correctly), making the GWR Cathedral in BR Express Passenger Blue. A looker it certainly was! Hmm, so a railway that had 'no need' for a Pacific, wanted to build one of these? 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Budgie Posted February 7, 2013 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 7, 2013 Hmm, so a railway that had 'no need' for a Pacific, wanted to build one of these? Things do change as time goes by. Why, when people consider these never-wozzas based on the King class, do they continue using the King bogie rather than use an all-inside-bearing bogie similar to the Castle bogie. If you read the RCTS book on the King class, it says that the outside bearing on the King bogie wasn't needed, but that wasn't discovered until after the first few locos had been built, and they decided not to change the rest of them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Michael Edge Posted February 8, 2013 Author RMweb Premium Share Posted February 8, 2013 So this would have been an 8 cylinder Garratt then? No Garratt ever needed more than 4 cylinders, the 6 cylinder LNER one was completely useless pulling a train. It's a shame that Beyer Peacock had to build two of the worst designs for use in this country. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
69843 Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 So this would have been an 8 cylinder Garratt then? No Garratt ever needed more than 4 cylinders, the 6 cylinder LNER one was completely useless pulling a train. It's a shame that Beyer Peacock had to build two of the worst designs for use in this country. Not sure, but I have attached a set of links to a copy of the proposal in 4-6-0+0-6-4 and 2-8-0+0-8-2 forms. The Australian AD60s made do with 4 cylinders quite well, although apparently they weren't the most reliable Garratts. http://users.powernet.co.uk/hamilton/bgpix/gwr460-064.jpg http://users.powernet.co.uk/hamilton/bgpix/gwr280-082.jpg Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Prism Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 A key issue for Garretts was whether the boiler was big enough to serve the engine units. The 'supercrab' looks great, but I doubt whether the King version was viable, and there wouldn't have been any point in the expense of 8 cylinders. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gilwell Park Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 Hi. Here is my attempt at the 4-6-2+2-6-4 Beyer Garratt proposed to BR in the early days of nationalisation. ref E S Cox. There were two versions, 5' 9" for Scotland and 5' 3" for freight. The model is powered by Hornby Railroad class 5 chassis, rear one powered, the other not. The centre unit is pure Kitmaster. The water tanks & coal bunker are made of card and are on their third version. When I am happy I will remake them of Plasticard and add handrails, water fillers etc. also the missing wheels. The loco runs very well but needs a fair amount of lead in the powered unit. The main problem is how do I justify such a loco on the GE section of the ER or the SW section of the SR. Perhaps is slipped in via the S&DJR. However the SR did consider running Garratts from Salisbury to Exeter in the 1930s .Any comments gratefully received before I resume work on it. Nett cost about £50 after I sold the Kitmaster drive units and the Hornby bodies and tenders on Ebay. Roger 7 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
micknich2003 Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 Roger, a very interesting and unusual model. Mick. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gr.king Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 Another one to contemplate: http://www.lner.info/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2443&start=1845 9 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scots region Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 Gilwell, did you get the idea for the garret from 'Locomotives Panorama'? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gilwell Park Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 Gilwell, did you get the idea for the garret from 'Locomotives Panorama'? Hi. Yes I did, the drawing in the background is a scaled up photocopy from the book. The Hornby driving wheels are a scale 3" too large, I thought the railroad class 5 still used wheels that were too small. The water tanks and coal bunkers are as close as I could get them to the drawing. The front tank is tapered in as on modern Garratt designs and will eventually be given rounded edges used on those designs. I do not like the design of the rear unit, I prefer the Australian AD60 design, but have kept the model to the book design. With pick up on all 12 drivers it runs well. Roger. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PenrithBeacon Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 Another one to contemplate: http://www.lner.info/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2443&start=1845 Interesting! I think, but I'm not sure, that George Dow refered to this in his history, but looking at the stills on the link above the firebox seems to be very small for the size, particularly the length, of the boiler. Good thread, I'm enjoying it Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gr.king Posted February 10, 2013 Share Posted February 10, 2013 (edited) A standard gauge interpretation of this never-built YEC Poultney Patent Locomotive for the Spanish broad gauge ought to look very much like a Fowler loco and provide an interesting counterpart to the Hughes Mallett or the Garratts. Edited February 10, 2013 by gr.king 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gilwell Park Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 The ashpan and draughting is for sure in trouble on a grate of the size implied by the boiler design. Jiggling the wheelbase to allow a bit more ashpan space by having the rear chassis assymetric; moving the second driver forward slightly, third driver back a little, a possible fix. Lack of a front pony truck would have meant severe limitation on speed; the US experience of the exciting snaking that was possible once speed got up to something like 20mph with this configuration saw them very rapidly use front trucks - and rear trucks - to mitigate the instability. Now the alternative version would be the same boiler on a 2-8-2 chassis. Just screen off the chassis from view and the topsides look very P1... The Stanier 2-8-4T just 'builds itself'. The 26' loco chassis of the 8F substitutes for the 25'6 wheelbase of the 2-6 element of the Stanier 2-6-4T, with the foot less driving wheel diameter bringing the rear of the flange of the 4'8" wheel to the same position as that of the 5'8" wheel. I knew a guy who had one which operated on an exhiition layout, and he reckoned on getting one or two 'challenges' a day at most. The machine just looked so 'right' it passed for the genuine article in his opinion. Hi I have never heard of the Stanier 2-8-4T but here is a picture of the equally little known BR standard 2-8-2T. It is a very old triang 2-6-2T body on a Hornby 8F chassis. The Triang body is too long when compared to the prototype but suits the longer 2-8-2 chassis. Normally used on the pw train but sometimes on coal empties and rarely on local passenger. Roger 5 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
69843 Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 DSCF3555a.jpg Hi I have never heard of the Stanier 2-8-4T but here is a picture of the equally little known BR standard 2-8-2T. It is a very old triang 2-6-2T body on a Hornby 8F chassis. The Triang body is too long when compared to the prototype but suits the longer 2-8-2 chassis. Normally used on the pw train but sometimes on coal empties and rarely on local passenger. Roger This reminds me of the 7200s. Lovely to see that BR built a few as well! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlfaZagato Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 If anybody is still paying attention to this thread, maybe you can satisfy my curiosity. Seeing this Mallet has me thinking of doing one in N. I have an old Poole-made Farish 8F, and was thinking of fitting the body to a de-trucked American compound. Would this be a reasonable approximation? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
34theletterbetweenB&D Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 So this would have been an 8 cylinder Garratt then? No Garratt ever needed more than 4 cylinders, the 6 cylinder LNER one was completely useless pulling a train. It's a shame that Beyer Peacock had to build two of the worst designs for use in this country. Returning to this thread: the LNER Garratt was in no way designed as a road engine but as a banker. Lots of low down grunt over a very short run. Hopeless as a solo fireman hand fired unit for sustained steaming if fully loaded (which with the wagon stock of the day would have made an even more impossibly long train than that which made the P1 impractical) which would likely have killed the poor fireman in short order. Also hopelessly inefficient with the operationally practical maximum load train as it would be grossly underloaded: this would have left the fireman wasting coal just to keep the firebars covered, whenever the power requirement fell below about 1,000 bhp continuous. Which in steam powered heavy freight haulage was the vast majority of the time. Actually the Horwich Mallet would have suffered from much the same problems. The dimensions indicate a nominal tractive effort of about 65,000lb which is way in excess of what could be used in train haulage. it is actually significantly over-cylindered, reduce the cylinder diameter and stroke for a T.E in the 35,- 40,000lb range and it would be more practical. Interestingly the diagram in Gilwell's post 32 of the Cox proposal for a BR Garratt shows a much smaller cylinder capacity: so possibly something had been learned. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
0_gauge_novice Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 I just saw this topic! Nice built of the 0-6-6-0. Just a small comment. As I can see from the drawing the loco has 4 19x28in cylinders. This means the loco has simple expansion thus it is not a Mallet but a duplex. A Mallet has 2 low pressure and 2 high pressure cylinders so It is a compound loco which is not the case about this one. Regards Andreas Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
0_gauge_novice Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 I am sorry, I meant it is an Articulated Locomotive and not a Mallet. A duplex is sommething else...a rigid frame loco with two blocks of drivers and 4 cylinders...see PRR S1 in the US. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Michael Edge Posted March 8, 2014 Author RMweb Premium Share Posted March 8, 2014 Returning to this thread: the LNER Garratt was in no way designed as a road engine but as a banker. Lots of low down grunt over a very short run. Hopeless as a solo fireman hand fired unit for sustained steaming if fully loaded (which with the wagon stock of the day would have made an even more impossibly long train than that which made the P1 impractical) which would likely have killed the poor fireman in short order. Also hopelessly inefficient with the operationally practical maximum load train as it would be grossly underloaded: this would have left the fireman wasting coal just to keep the firebars covered, whenever the power requirement fell below about 1,000 bhp continuous. Which in steam powered heavy freight haulage was the vast majority of the time. From all contemporary accounts it was pretty useless as a banker as well. I suspect the origin was with Beyer Peacock as much as the LNER, wanting a showcase for the Garratt - Gresley's obsession with three cylinders didn't do it any good though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium John Besley Posted May 9, 2020 RMweb Premium Share Posted May 9, 2020 (edited) Awesome model, got any pic's of it at work on a freight... the Horwich Mallet I mean Edited May 9, 2020 by John Besley . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grovenor Posted May 9, 2020 Share Posted May 9, 2020 On 08/02/2013 at 07:10, Michael Edge said: So this would have been an 8 cylinder Garratt then? No Garratt ever needed more than 4 cylinders, the 6 cylinder LNER one was completely useless pulling a train. It's a shame that Beyer Peacock had to build two of the worst designs for use in this country. While it may be true that no Garratt ever needed more than 4 cylinders some were nevertheless built with more! Tasmanian Railways had 8 cylinder passenger Garratts, class M which ran so fast and smooth they suffered derailments from overspeeding. http://www.railtasmania.com/loco/garratts.htm NB. Beyer Peacock did offer proper designs to the LMS based on their experience but Derby insisted on Midlandising them so not really Beyer Peacocks fault. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Barry O Posted May 9, 2020 RMweb Premium Share Posted May 9, 2020 1 hour ago, John Besley said: Awesome model, got any pic's of it at work on a freight... the Horwich Mallet I mean I may have a bit of viseo of it working a freight on Chapel en le Frith. If I can find it I will post it here. Baz Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Barry O Posted May 9, 2020 RMweb Premium Share Posted May 9, 2020 Look for mallett on chapel at normanton on youtube. Cant copy it here on my tablet. Baz Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
doilum Posted May 9, 2020 Share Posted May 9, 2020 8 minutes ago, Barry O said: Look for mallett on chapel at normanton on youtube. Cant copy it here on my tablet. Baz Which year was that? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now