NSWGR #6029 and UPRR#4014 {Operational/preserved) 4-8-4+4-8-4 and 4-8-8-4

[samfp1943]

Was watching a 'Modern Marvels' TV presentation this afternoon, and the segment fearuring 'The Biggest' showed up... It was a rolling synopsis of these two steam engines.  The Beyer Peacock&Co,[Beyer-Garratt, pat.] #6029 4-8-4+4-8-4,  and UPRR's #4014 4-8-8-4 Big Boy... The#6029 was an active New SouthWales Government Railway, from 1954, until it was 'condemned' in 1974.  

Following is a brief description of the restoratoration' of the#6029 by The Australian Railway Hstorical Society [from the following linked website, with photos]  The website includes some of the surprising 'twists and turns' that the road to its final preservation took.  

   Linked @ http://australiansteam.com/6029.htm

FTA: "...ARHS volunteers made steady progress with the dismantling and overhaul of 6029 and in 2008 the replacement boiler passed hydrostatic testing. Restoration came to completion in December 2014 with the reboilered 6029 receiving authorisation for main line use. 6029 received impressive ‘City of Canberra’ nameplates during an official relaunch ceremony at the Canberra Railway Museum on 25 February 2015...."

Here is a linked YouTube vid of at 6.5 min of #6029 at speec @ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QM0u9GjdK2E

Also ,found this video from 1968 of some Australian mainline steam, and their trains; (they sure did it different then!.

Linked @ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePpG4tVHSMQ

Many here on this Forum are aware of the story of the Unoion Pacific's recovery of ,and the restoration of the #4014 Big Boy.  Its service life of 20 years. 

 I am including, [for a comparison ] from the Union Paciffic's own website an explanation of the statistics and brief history of the #4014 for those who may be somewhat unfamiliar with it.

See linked @  https://www.up.com/heritage/steam/4014/index.htm

Here is a linked v id showing #4014 enroute to Duluth,Mn. 

@ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAlK61l6yQI

here is a good close i[p's of #4014 9Provo, Ut.)

@ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAlK61l6yQI

and this, just because! 4014 &844 at Evanston,Wy. 

@https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAlK61l6yQI

 

 

[Flintlock76]

Wow!

Oh, wow!

Oh, wow, wow, wow!

6029's not a machine, it's a force of nature!  So's 4014!  

Thanks Sam!  STEAM RULES!  "Now and forever, world without end, amen!"

[MMLDelete]

So far I've only glanced at a photo, not read anything To speak of.

Does the Aussie engine have two tenders? That sure looks like a tender (water only?) in the front.

That thing is a monster! Wow.

Thanks for the post, samfp.

[samfp1943]

Thank You! Both Lithonia Operator, and Flintlock76 !  

 For quite a while, I've been fascinated by the 'Garratt' locomotive.  It is sort of a shame that their design has never been tried(?) on this continent ! 

  Some years back, I had come across an article on the Internet; that was written by a writer for an enthusiast publication for train buffs(?).    Specifically, it was a story of a gentleman/fan from Texas; that individual, had purchased from SAR (South African Railways) a  'Cape Gauge' 'Garratt' and had it in operation, on his porperty, somewhere in Texas... Unfortunately, the details are a little foggy, in my memory...  and  I found a website that has a history of the rationalle and invention of the 'Garratt' type of locomotive, and how they came to be. 

 Here is a link to that site: @  http://www.theheritageportal.co.za/article/big-fiery-giant-story-beyer-garratt-locomotive

titled: "The Big Fiery Giant - The Story of the Beyer-Garratt Locomotive"

Here is a C&P: FTA: :...The Beyer-Garratt differs from a conventional locomotive in that its boiler is not directly over the engine (chassis, wheels and motion), instead the boiler (cab) is mounted on a sub frame which is slung between the two engine sets which are allowed to pivot making the wheel base less rigid. On the front engine (chimney end) sits the water tank and on the rear engine sits the fuel bunker (coal/oil/wood)...."

To the question asked by Lithonia Operator:    Two Tenders?  Apparently, in Australia, the 'Garratts' are of a size [4'81/2" gauge] that is large enouth to accomodate an aquate water supply, on board, to accomplish their dispatched runs(?) 

   In the case of the S.A.R. they are of what is referred to as 'Cape Gauge' [apparently, that can be from approx 2' to 3'61/2"}(?) so they seem to 'run' with a 'water tender' [or two (?) ], at least in the photos, I've seen. 

Note: It would be terrific, if our Australian Engine Expert [M-636C/Peter ]

could weigh-in on this, topic !  

[Flintlock76]

Sam, I'm not really surprised the Garratt type never was tried here, it was probably just too weird for American railroads to take it seriously.  

And there's the "Not invented here" syndrome, which of course not only Americans are subject to.  Throw in the situations of just about all American 'roads having their own ideas of what they needed in a steam locomotive and I can see why the Garratt had so many strikes against it.

Wayne

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

Cape gauge is commonly defined as 3'6".  All Garratts by definition have two tenders, the tender ahead of the smokebox is a water tank and the tender behind the cab carries fuel (usually coal) and water.  South African steam assigned to long desert runs usually included a water cistern behind the tender.

Alco held the license for Garratt locomotives in North America.  They would have been suitable for various narrow-gauge operations.

[Overmod]

CSSHEGEWISCH

All Garratts by definition have two tenders,

Garratts by definition have no tenders; they are considered tank locomotives.  The water is in a 'tank' and the fuel is in a 'bunker'; you can see some of the correct nomenclature used in the description of a 'Union-Garratt' which, to make contemporary mechanical stoking more practical, carries the bunker on an extension of the boiler cradle (with the tank at that end usually on the corresponding engine as for a normal Garratt) ... I reviewed Union Garratts and it appears they had no tank on the engine at the bunker end; it was carried under the cradle instead.  See coverage on Classic Trains forum.)

As noted, an A-tank might be referred to as a 'water tender' on a particular railroad, instead of a cistern or gin or canteen or whatever, but it would have precisely the same name behind a different form of articulated locomotive, or conventional locomotive, that it would if coupled to a Garratt.

[kgbw49]

6029 has 55 inch drivers and 64,951 lbs tractive effort.

Total engine weight - 582,400 lbs.

 

(Source -www.steamlocomotive.com)

http://steamlocomotive.com/locobase.php?country=Australia&wheel=Beyer-Garratt&railroad=nswgr

 

[selector]

The traction figure places it squarely among the many variations of Northern type in the USA and Canada.  The drivers, of course, are considerably smaller.

[kgbw49]

A great AD60-class video.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-1EWpCQP7eE

[54light15]

I wish someone would make one of those in N scale! 

[kgbw49]

When you think about it, it makes sense that the AD60s had the tractive effort they had.

 

The boiler, which would have a lot of weight being continuously filled with water, and cab were supported by two four-wheel trucks. The drivers only had the water tank on one end with the water weight on it, and the coal bunker on the other end with the coal weight on it. And one would think tractive force would decrease as water and coal were consumed.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbGe4ktw_94

[Paul Milenkovic]

I heard that the knock on the Garratts is that you had long steam pipes, both for admission and exhaust and especially for the rear engine?  Those steam pipes resulted in a lot of pressure loss and reduction in power for the amount of coal and water used?

Wardale in Red Devil talks about whether his locomotive improvement project would have had a bigger impact if he worked on one of the SAR Garratt classes instead of the 25 Class 4-8-4 with less adhesive weight.  He talks about the long steam pipes as a problem, but he seems to think he could have solved it by "doubling up" the pipes -- would it?

Steam is not like electricity let alone hydraulic fluid (the Lewty booster concept?) where you can just pipe it around to power "steam traction motors", but the Garratt attempts such a thing as was the British Rail "Leader" class.  You even have this problem is a simple-expansion articulated like the Challenger and Big Boy, and from the massive steam pipes in the unorthodox arrangement on the Allegheny, it looks like they were seeking some kind of solution?

[BaltACD]

kgbw49

When you think about it, it makes sense that the AD60s had the tractive effort they had. 

The boiler, which would have a lot of weight being continuously filled with water, and cab were supported by two four-wheel trucks. The drivers only had the water tank on one end with the water weight on it, and the coal bunker on the other end with the coal weight on it. And one would think tractive force would decrease as water and coal were consumed. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbGe4ktw_94

Are Garrett's considered moving in the Forward direction with the smoke stack leading or trailing?

[Paul Milenkovic]

Short answer: yes.

[selector]

If that is too cryptic, consider the arrangement of the cylinders relative to the drivers under each tender.  Which one is going forward? 

For me, the cab's position and the stack suggest to me that forward IS toward the stack from both the firebox and cab.  Otherwise it's just a split AC.

[kgbw49]

The Norfolk & Western Y classes were similar in total engine weight to the AD60 class, but of course also had a tender for fuel and water. The Ys had simililar-sized drivers at 56 or 57 inches compared to the 55-inch drivers of the AD60. But tractive effort of the Ys was well over 100,000 lbs versus the approximately 65,000 lbs of the AD60.

https://www.steamlocomotive.com/locobase.php?country=USA&wheel=2-8-8-2&railroad=nw

[Overmod]

selector

For me, the cab's position and the stack suggest to me that forward IS toward the stack from both the firebox and cab.  Otherwise it's just a split AC.

Crews around the world historically preferred running Garratts with the cab leading, for obvious reasons, unless visibility around the bunker was compromised.  Since any practical North American-size Garratt would use front-end cameras it is reasonably safe to presume they would be preferentially run 'stack-back' and the valve gear installed accordingly.

B-P were not morons, and understood the 'correct' way to set up radial valve gear (in particular so no failure would drop the Walschaerts reach rod or equivalent into 'full reverse' for normal running.    This implied that one of the two engines would be oriented with its eccentric crank 180 degrees opposed and valves and reverser set accordingly.  Not all railroads thought this important on a 'bidirectional' engine, but it is certainly reasonable to apply to high-speed engines ... somebody check the early 4-cylinder Tasmanian double-Atlantics, probably the fastest of Garratts with conventional valve gear (the Algerian Garratts used the Cossart system and electric proportional reverse, and were truly bidirectional to high speed).

[L-105]

samfp1943

and the segment fearuring 'The Biggest' showed up

I’m not sure I’d classify the The AD60 class 4-8-4+4-8-4 Garratt as among the largest steam locomotives. Despite weighing 582,400 lbs, it’s boiler is smaller than even a USRA Light Mikado. It’s 63.5 sq ft grate, 238 sq ft direct heating surface and 2792 sq ft of indirect heating surface compare to 66.7 sq ft grate, 280 sq ft direct heating surface and 3503 sq ft of indirect heating surface of the USRA Light Mikado for instance. In fact its boiler seems smaller than some South African narrow gauge Garratts.

 

[NorthWest]

The main purpose for the AD60s was to provide more powerful locomotives for light lines, so axle load was more important than power.

NSWGR was recieving D59 Mikados (based on the WD 2-8-2) at the same time.

 

6029 is a beautiful locomotive and a lot of fun to see in operation.