This post is regarding those railroads who did not have malley's.
I believe that the NYC and PRR were two major roads that the have any malley's.
Can anyone help me out with the rest of the list?
Also, who had the largest number of malley's (of all classes)?
Thank you,
Ed Burns
Retired NP-BN-BNSF
The locomotives are actually called Mallets, being invented by Mallet, a French man. (Prounounced Mal-lay, but Anglicized to Malley, like valley).
Are you asking about solely Mallets, or simple articulateds*? Mallets were compounds that used their steam twice.
Probably the largest user was the N&W.
*Juniatha refers to these as "Simple Expansion Mallets".
I did not know that there were different types of Mallet's
For some reason, lots of fans like to think "Mallets" have to be compounds. No one knows why.
NY Central and PRR both had a few Mallets. PRR had one simple 2-8+8-2-- maybe the first simple Mallet?
timz For some reason, lots of fans like to think "Mallets" have to be compounds. No one knows why.
It's well understood why -- M. Mallet himself forcefully declared he did not want his name associated with non-compound versions. The term 'simple articulated' was developed to express the idea of 'single-expansion Mallet' without using the name -- out of respect for the inventor's wishes. It's just as OK to honor the inventor for devising the chassis arrangement... he is dead and no longer complaining. ;-}
Lionel Wiener is sometimes invoked as an authority on this question. It might be gainfully remembered that he said, in his book 'Articulated Locomotives,' that "The Mallet locomotive has four cylinders working compound ... this is an integral part of the system." (p.471)
Wiener indicates there were simples before 1912, but doesn't come right out and name them; his only other defined example that early isn't American (South African, on Cape gauge). See his table 95, p.472, for some other examples.
Do not forget the PRR HC-1 2-8-8-0, a decidedly different, much larger, much more advanced, much more powerful locomotive.
It should be remembered that when 'Articulated Locomotives' was published in 1930, almost the entire history of 'real' high-speed single-expansion Mallets/simple articulateds remained to be discovered. Even the first ones optimized for high speed* were very new and comparatively untested when the book went to press (two experimental 2-6-6-2s from Baldwin). I suspect the use of 'simple articulated' as "the" semi-official term for the big non-compound versions dates from well after 1930 (was it David P. Morgan that publicized it?) and, of course, when Kalmbach reissued Wiener's book they did not edit the text materially...
*I am purposely leaving out the ATSF passenger Mallets, which were certainly intended for high speed, but were not particularly good either at reaching or sustaining it... ;-}
Santa Fe's experience with Mallets of all sorts was such that it caused them to swear off of articulated locomotives outright, resulting in some very big rigid-frame locomotives. The only exception of which I'm familiar was some secondhand N&W Y-3's purchased during WW2.
ACYNYC had compound Mallets in 2 wheel arrangements: 0-8-8-0's for heavy switching, and 2-6-6-2's for freight. B&A used some of the 2-6-6-2's for a while, but they were eventually concentrated on a coal branch in eastern Ohio. PRR had one HH1s 2-8-8-2 built in !911, followed by one CC1s 0-8-8-0 in 1912. Ten larger Baldwin CC2s 0-8-8-0's followed in 1919. All of these were compounds and intended for freight service, principally as pushers. Juniata built a simple 2-8-8-0 for mainline service in 1919, but it eventually went into pusher service. Then during WWII the road bought six compound 2-8-8-2's from N&W, PRR class HH1. This class designation did not conflict with the earlier 2-8-8-2 because it had been scrapped by then. Anatole Mallet evidently considered compounding to be an essential element in his invention, and I have always respected that and refrained from using the term when speaking of simple articulateds. In steam days, railroaders often called anything with a hinge a Mallet.
Johnny
Something like "A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court"???
- Erik
The B&O had a large number of Mallets (around 100 )in their EL Class. They were built as true compound Mallets around 1916-17. However, they were upgraded and rebuilt by the B&O shops in the late 1920's into more powerful simple articulated locomotives. After the rebuilds, they weren't technically Mallets anymore, but they were still called that name on the B&O. They were used until the mid-1950's.
SP's early cab-forwards were all built as Mallets. Many were rebuilt as simple articulateds in the early 1920's and re-classed from MM and MC to AM and AC.
Expressman's KidACY, I think you meant to say B&O instead of B&A.
Well, no, he most certainly did not.
I do confess, though, that I still find it exotic to think of NYC in West Virginia!
One point: the original post wanted to know the railroads that had NO Mallet locomotives. It's digressed into a discussion of simple vs. compound -- which was not what he wanted!
I'd like to apologize for being the poster that derailed this thread. I'm sorry.
I don't remember the Spokane International possessing any Mallets.
ACYExcept for those few on the B&A, I think New England probably had none
Don't forget the B&M (Hoosac Tunnel) -- notable also as being one of the demonstrated exceptions made by the USRA in standardizing locomotive design...
ACYMoPac and KCS had them, but I don't think Frisco or MKT did. Who can add to this or correct any of my inevitable errors?
Frisco did have true Mallets, although they were less than successful:
- James
ACYNow about that Frisco engine, what the heck is that on the pilot deck?
My bet is on a supplemental water tank -- see how small the tender waterspace is?
Note how this is out on the pilot deck where not only its mass but leverage effects aid in producing adhesion for the forward engine -- not that it probably needs all that much in actual reality. If I were running this, I'd ensure that the cistern on the tender can be essentially fully emptied before the forward tank starts... this being similar to the pumped-auxiliary-tank approach desirable on Garratts.
It is not a feedwater heater. See the big filler opening, and the lack of exhaust-steam piping. My guess is that there wasn't enough exhaust-steam energy for proper drafting, let alone additional feed heating... But at least someone appears to have been thinking.
ACYMy actual guess was an air tank...
In retrospect, I think you're probably right. Look at those little tiny supports under the tank -- those 'wouldn't hold water' ... ;-}
And that brings us to 'what can we tell about operation of this locomotive from the presence of that tank'. Perhaps hump service?. The ability to charge up a trainline in minimum time, perhaps on long cuts of cars with indifferent hose and gladhand-seal leakage, or in cold weather. What did Frisco run that would require heavy coal-train-style blocks of equipment desultorily maintained?
The Frisco Mallets didn't come with the air tank on the front porch as original equipment, Frisco apparently added them in the 1920's when they were transferred to Alabama. According to "Frisco Power", they were built to haul freight at moderate speeds on the rolling hills between Springfield and Thayer Missouri. Since the firebox was too small to make sufficient steam for their intended purpose, they were reassigned to Alabama, hauling coal until they were scrapped in the 1930's. Lots of good pictures in the book, not as many online... but here is one without that monstrous air tank:
I'm not absolutely sure, but I think that L&N and C&NW were Class 1's that didn't have any Mallets or simple articulateds.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.