There were that many Garretts? Really? I knew a couple hundred were built.... I'll enjoy the information and links you send on those fascinating creatures. Thank you. Does anyone know if any 0-6-6-0s survive, American or otherwise?
Garratts inhabited much of the rest of the world beyond North America. RENFE operated them in Spain, several railroads in various parts of Africa, Indian Railways, some Australian carriers and a few in South America.
Lionel Wiener's work, "Articulated Locomotives", will provide you with a pretty good background on Garratts and various other articulated and semi-articulated locomotives, including several that you wouldn't consider to be articulated.
I'll have to check it out.
The largest locomotives on the road high in the Peruvian Andes back in the 50's and 60's were Garratts. I found them to be large and imposing as a youngster. They looked entirely purpose-built and no-nonsense.
Crandell
Some of the last steam locomotives being used in daily revenue service today are Garretts. There are a handfull of smaller locomotives were returned to service back in the mid 2000's by the National Railway of Zimbabwe for hauling commuter and tourist trains.
They are currently mostly used for switching around the capital city of Bulawayo...
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
Mntrain I know this will probably get many strong opinions. First of all I Would be happy to see UP restore a BIGBOY and they were great locomotives,But if one could chose to have one large articulated locomotive to restore what would be the best from a performance stand point? HP,TE slow speed HP. My thoughts N&W y6b massive TE ,slow speed HP,50mph top speed, efficiency of compounding, C&O Allegheny Massive HP,but very heavy ,designed for higher speed HP DM&IR Yellowstone good TE designed for slow speed HP,could go I beleave 60mph BIGBOY good HP, less TE than Yellowstone and Y6b Just thoughts to ponder, What do you think?
I know this will probably get many strong opinions. First of all I Would be happy to see UP restore a BIGBOY and they were great locomotives,But if one could chose to have one large articulated locomotive to restore what would be the best from a performance stand point? HP,TE slow speed HP.
My thoughts
N&W y6b massive TE ,slow speed HP,50mph top speed, efficiency of compounding,
C&O Allegheny Massive HP,but very heavy ,designed for higher speed HP
DM&IR Yellowstone good TE designed for slow speed HP,could go I beleave 60mph
BIGBOY good HP, less TE than Yellowstone and Y6b
Just thoughts to ponder, What do you think?
In response to the Y6b's...
They would pull any excursion train you could throw at them. However, as you stated, it would be way too slow.
A good "East Ender" option would be, of course, the Class A 2-6-6-4. Can run up to 70 mph and pull the earth as well.
Someone may have already suggested that, but I'm a late-comer to the conversation.
BE safe all!
_ Justin
The road to to success is always under construction. _____________________________________________________________________________ When the going gets tough, the tough use duct tape.
bubbajustinThey would pull any excursion train you could throw at them. However, as you stated, it would be way too slow.
Oh, but soooooooo easily fixed! Perhaps even just with minor adjustment to the booster valve -- but if not, with comparatively simple (in 'today's terms') implementation of Chapelon's modulated IP injection to get the front engine equalized in thrust and torque peak with the rear. Then dynamically-balance the mains, first on a fixture and then on rollers as installed. If you really, really want to make sure, rework the joints between the forward engine and the chassis, along the lines of what Bruce advocated on Challengers. You then wind up with something that runs about as well as, say, any 2-8-2 of comparabnle driver size ... and I believe you and I could name a couple of examples of that in excursion service...
Ed King among others noted that even relatively unmodified, a Y6 could be spun up to about 45mph or so (of course, they were making far less HP than a slippery NYC Hudson at that point) -- it's arguable if many excursion trains need to go that fast. Balance them better, and track speed in this modern age of coal and stack trains could probably be reached, if necessary.
Having said that -- of course, a Class A is a better answer all around, imho. There is even valid historical precedent, if not direct example for 1218, of using dynamic balancing and J-style rods on the class A -- in fact, 5 of them were built. A little care with front-engine compliance, and ... well, when they get 614 fixed Ross will have to keep his goggles on to go as fast... ;-}
However, as you stated, it would be way too slow.
.
Just a quick one here: After the Great Dismal Swamp wreck (another story) the Norfolk Southern steam program set a speed limit on excursions of 45 miles an hour. So, assuming a Y6b was restored to operation it wouldn't have to be a speedster anyway. It would just have to look cool!
UP's steam locomotives run at track speed, so does MILW 261. For that matter, most of the well maintained 4-8-4's out there can run at track speed. Track speed is typically in the 49 to 59 MPH range, but probably higher on UP.
Redore UP's steam locomotives run at track speed, so does MILW 261. For that matter, most of the well maintained 4-8-4's out there can run at track speed. Track speed is typically in the 49 to 59 MPH range, but probably higher on UP.
Interestingly enough, the last time I saw a reference to this, 844 and 3985 are rated FASTER than any existing road diesel, and I believe that included the Centennials. What I remember (this was in the early '90s) max diesel speed was 70mph; the steamers were allowed 83 (and no, I don't know why that number was used).
Do NOT start in with the discussion about why all articulated locomotives ought to be allowed the same track speed as 3985. I would be hesitant to clear 1218 for that kind of speed without a very thorough overhaul and balancing -- but she would get there, and more, with the roller rods installed. Can't think of anything else both articulated and extant that would be safe at that speed -- yes, I would include Alleghenies in this because with their extra weight the imbalance would likely kill the track geometry...
RME
Even the D&H had at least one Steamer that burned oil in Dry season. It was #999, a 2-8-0 that was converted to coal the rest of year. Since 4-4-0 (400s) and 4-6-0 (500s) ran on same line, there probably was some of them also.
If you want shear power in a pusher, the D&H had some 0-8-8-0 in the 1600 series that were only used as pushers. Like one engineer said, "they would go 5 mph no matter what was in front of them".
The D & H had the 1500 series 4-6-6-4 Challengers, that could really step along, designed for dual service, they were not used in passenger service that I know of.
Warren
How about Southern Pacific Cab Forwards, with 256 in three wheel arrangements. The locomotives worked over almost Espee's entire system. They pulled everything Espee through at them. With 63" drivers they were able to get up to 60mph plus. It would be cool to see and hear her run again, especially hear her flying air-pumps on the monkey deck. Just my two cents into this thread.
I can remember being a kid riding with my dad at 80 plus across Iowa on highway 30 following 844.
eagle1030Random thought: maybe everybody likes Big Boys because they're relatively handsome. The Alleghenies and Yellowstones had those air compressors on the smokebox, and the Y6b had too small drivers.
You want handsome, go with an SP AC-9 (2-8-8-4). They were the only AC's with the cab where God intended a steam locomotive cab to be. (That'll draw some fire from Cab Forward lovers! ) The AC-9 looked like it was making 60 mph when it was standing still.
ChuckAllen, TX
I'm glad, if more than a little surprised, that there is an AC-9 to restore.
Where is it located?
[Disclaimer: there are FAR better locomotives to 're-create' for excursion service from scratch than an AC-9. Few of them are articulated: start with something 'small' like a MILW A, and then work up to Hudson or Niagara... I have more when those are done ;-} ]
OvermodWell, I wasn't aware there were cab-forward AC-9s.
That's because there weren't any AC-9 cab forwards. All other SP AC classes were cab forward except the AC-9.
OvermodI'm glad, if more than a little surprised, that there is an AC-9 to restore.
I didn't mean to suggest that there is an AC-9 that can be restored. I was only suggesting that it was one of the more handsome steam locomotives. Purely from an aesthetic point of view, the AC-9 was very easy on the eyes.
'Easy on the eyes' is an understatement.
Every bit as neat and pretty as a GS4, in my opinion.
How many other articulated locomotives -- dual-service or not -- had that kind of trim?
The D&H Challengers were a good visual competitor, very handsome locomotives in my view, and good performers also.
eagle1030 The only exception was the Allegheny, and that's only because C&O used what should've been the best fast freight engine ever on coal drags.
The only exception was the Allegheny, and that's only because C&O used what should've been the best fast freight engine ever on coal drags.
If you put it that way, maybe we should set up 1601 or 1604 for main line runs.
Blue Alert! We're at Blue Alert! Aw crap, it's a nondescript GEVO... Cancel Blue Alert!
Well, the Espee had produced the classiest steam locomotives of all times in MT's, GS's, and AC-9's simply by placing skyline casings on them. The P-10 was an exception in that, it got fugly with the casing.
My favorite American articulated steam are the 0-4-4-0 or 0-4-4-4-0 locomotives commonly known as Shay, Climax, Heisler, etc. Go anywhere you can lay something that resembles track. Haul anything you can put behind it. Just don't be in a hurry.
And for those who say that Shays are not Class one locomotives just look at a good roster of the New York Central, or the Western Maryland. I am sure that there were others too.
Mntrain I know this will probably get many strong opinions. First of all I Would be happy to see UP restore a BIGBOY and they were great locomotives,But if one could chose to have one large articulated locomotive to restore what would be the best from a performance stand point? HP,TE slow speed HP.
Just to be sure the point is made clearly enough:
"Restored" for what?
No one is going to restore a large steam locomotive in order to run very heavy, slow service. Except perhaps in case of successful EMP attack or massive solar flare damage to electrical infrastructure... and perhaps not even then.
So: excursion service is the available niche. A Challenger is a bit too big to be economical, but it is faster than a Mikado and perhaps a Berk of equal wheel diameter, and can pull just about any consist that could be sold out. It is also well-promoted, and supported with deep pockets and dedication. The same was true for the 1218. I suspect the same would be less true for an Allegheny, which is just too big and not (yet) well-enough known to have a strong following ... and whose home railroad is determinedly anti-steam...
It is very unlikely that restoring a Y6b to operation, in the absence of massive grants, would pay back the cost. Don't expect to operate it anywhere revenue trains have to run. Nobody in the excursion world particularly cares if they have starting-TE bragging rights -- although there are times when great adhesion would be beneficial, they are measured mostly in seconds. Would it be nice to see it running? Yes. Would you doublehead it with 1218, even though that was done 'back in the day'? I doubt it would pay once the novelty ran out.
So anyone intending to bring back a large articulated would need enough paying people to fill the ginormous consist required to justify the outlay. Or put together an organization and ongoing fundraising effort to make up any shortfall. I would rather pointedly note that this is an element sadly lacking in most of these "why don't they restore a xxxx" threads, both here and over on RyPN (where more people ought to know a little better).
And this before we get into track punishing and other issues. How much did the Allegheny weigh, and what is the peak axle loading when augment builds up at a critical speed? The "performance stand point" does not involve traditional measures of performance, or assume tacitly that conditions railroads bore as necessary evils in the '20s would possibly still apply equally today.
I am still bitter that a 'right-sized' locomotive more famous than any articulated, the PRR K4, was brought back to operating condition... TWO of them, in fact ... and there was not enough business or opportunity to keep even one of them running. A G5s will be nice to have, but it's no K4. It will be nice to have an operable Big Boy... the most famous articulated in the world, known to just about any train lover... but how long will the in-service operation last?
amannlines Well, the Espee had produced the classiest steam locomotives of all times in MT's, GS's, and AC-9's simply by placing skyline casings on them. The P-10 was an exception in that, it got fugly with the casing.
Actually, my admiration for the appearance of the AC-9 studiously ignores the skyline casings. In the words of a friend of mine, skyline casings are "gilding the lily". This is precisely why I've always thought the GS-5 "war babies" were more impressive than the GS-4. I see a certain beauty in functional design.
Overmod, I've never heard of two K-4's being restored, I've only heard about 1361. Possibly it didn't operate in a good enough venue to draw potential riders. A locomotive that big needs a sympathetic big 'road to operate on, and I believe 1361 was kind of restricted to the boonies.
What frosts me is how that same locomotive could go from operating condition in 1989 to darn near junk status by 2009. Does anyone know just what the hell happened?
A G5s is certainly no K4, but I'll take what Pennsy steam I can get. At least it's going to be in more than capable hands.
And how long will a Big Boy operate? Well, if the UP deal goes through it'll operate until Uncle Pete decides he doesn't need it anymore.
cefinkjr amannlines Well, the Espee had produced the classiest steam locomotives of all times in MT's, GS's, and AC-9's simply by placing skyline casings on them. The P-10 was an exception in that, it got fugly with the casing. Actually, my admiration for the appearance of the AC-9 studiously ignores the skyline casings. In the words of a friend of mine, skyline casings are "gilding the lily". This is precisely why I've always thought the GS-5 "war babies" were more impressive than the GS-4. I see a certain beauty in functional design.
You might mean GS6 war babies, not GS5. The GS5 class was two locomotives built with roller bearing axles and were streamlined the same as the GS4 class. The GS6 did not have the skirts.
CZ
CAZEPHYR cefinkjr amannlines Well, the Espee had produced the classiest steam locomotives of all times in MT's, GS's, and AC-9's simply by placing skyline casings on them. The P-10 was an exception in that, it got fugly with the casing. Actually, my admiration for the appearance of the AC-9 studiously ignores the skyline casings. In the words of a friend of mine, skyline casings are "gilding the lily". This is precisely why I've always thought the GS-5 "war babies" were more impressive than the GS-4. I see a certain beauty in functional design. You might mean GS6 war babies, not GS5. The GS5 class was two locomotives built with roller bearing axles and were streamlined the same as the GS4 class. The GS6 did not have the skirts. CZ
You may be (probably are) right. I claim a Senior Moment.
I seem to recall both Long Island G5s's being subject to efforts to return to service. I'm really glad to see one in the capable hands of the Strasburg folks. As for the K4s's, I don't believe there has been any serious effort to return 3750(1737) to service. Now, if we could just get the 460 back on the road, some open window P70's and establish a commuter service, somewhere my seniority would work, many of my selfish dreams would be fulfilled!
To rfpjohn: What's stymied restoration of those two LIRR G5s' is the "no steam" policy of the current LIRR. It just doesn't make sense to spend a million dollars restoring a steam locomotive if all you can do with it is putt-putt back and forth on a few hundred feet of museum track. There's no chance of the LIRR policy of "NOT nobody! NOT no-how!" changing anytime soon
Throw the Strasburg Railroad into the equation and NOW you've got something. A good nine miles for the locomotive to run on, plenty of power for any consist they want to hang on its tail, and it's the Strasburg. Need we say more? That engine's in the best place on the planet for it.
And who knows? Maybe Amtrak'll let it have a romp on the Harrisburg line one day. It's happened before with Strasburg steam, it could happen again.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.