Garratts Rule, Arguments About Prices Drool

[andrechapelon]

NSWGR AD60 #6029 returns to steam.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5LoBazNb2sI

 

[andrechapelon]

A few months later.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=L_3VhrpacO8

 

Andre

[doctorwayne]

Very enjoyable viewing, Andre.  Thanks for sharing.

Here's another Garratt, from Airfix if I recall correctly.  I built this unpowered but moveable locomotive for a nearby hobbyshop, and lettered it, as requested, for a very popular local line.  The number used is next in succession for the road's two ex-NYC Hudsons.

Wayne

[M636C]

I came across 6029 working alone (without diesel assistance) for a recent Father's Day special from Canberra to Bungendore and return. It is fun to watch, and for our last shot we were standing on an old wooden bridge which shook with an exhaust blast as it passed underneath.

OF course there is an HO model...

http://eurekamodels.com.au/garratt.html

The good news is that the prices are in Australian Dollars with a current exchange rate of 0.70, which drops the basic model below $600.00

Now that really is on topic...

M636C

[Software Tools]

Wayne, that Garratt kit was by "Kitmaster" in 1/76 scale.

[hon30critter]

Andre:

Thanks for sharing those wonderful videos!

Dave

[Burlington Steam]

Just beautiful and a sweet sounding whistle to boot!! 

Thx Andre.

[trwroute]

Now, that is cool!  Thanks for posting the videos.

[doctorwayne]

Software Tools

Wayne, that Garratt kit was by "Kitmaster" in 1/76 scale.

 

Thanks, I was sorta grasping for a name when Airfix popped into my head.    The store got two of them, new in the boxes, when they bought an estate lot.

 

Wayne

[BATMAN]

Great video's! Are we allowed to watch them more than once?

[7j43k]

Wow!  The videos are a treat.  I've liked Garratts for a long time, but never got "into" them.  What marvelous beasts.

It's pretty obvious they never were in North America.  But they seem to have been EVERYWHERE else.  A person could wonder why.

One reason could be that the US had a very vigorous and successful locomotive building establishment.  And I'm pretty sure the Garratt would be built under license.  And said establishment would not be enthusiastic for paying licensing fees. And obviously did not have to, to be successful.  Because they WERE.  Without paying license fees for the Garratt.

The well-known disadvantage of the Garratt was that it was a tank engine.  And so its tractive effort would decrease over running time.  Now, it's not at all hard to predict the decrease.  Operators all over the world could handle it; so could operators here.   BUT.  Tank engines in mainline service were quite unusual here.  And tank engines in mainline service elsewhere were much more common.  So it wouldn't surprise me if the US folks just didn't feel like the Garratt could be "a part of their world".

If it had been operated here, it looks like it could have been a sweet little logging articulated, nice and low and flexible (this one even appears to be a 2-6-2+2-6-2.  How appropriate):

 

 

 

Should something like the above ever be done in HO standard gage, my logging railroad just might import one, what with being exceptionally flush with capital.

 

Once the "locals" (Americans and Canadians) learned how to operate a mainline tank engine, I think the Garratt would have stood a good chance on the "real" railroads.   BUT.  I am not convince that it could scale up to match our big articulateds.  And it would really have to.  There's no reason for using an articulated (Garratt or otherwise) when a standard engine will do the job.  Articulateds are more complicated than standards are--not cost effective.  The biggest Garratt had the same TE as a USRA heavy 2-8-2.  Which do YOU think was cheaper to operate?  Articulateds have to do MORE than standards.  Which means, in the US, the Garratt would have to get much bigger. No, MUCH bigger.  Could it?

 

That said, they're beautiful locos!  And I am serious about purchasing a model for logging operations.  Say, if Bachmann did one.

 

 

Ed

[NorthWest]

I believe that ALCO had a license for Garratt production in North America but major railroads lacked the loading gauge requirements that made them attractive elsewhere in the world and went with shorter Mallets and Simple-articulateds.

[7j43k]

NorthWest

I believe that ALCO had a license for Garratt production in North America but major railroads lacked the loading gauge requirements that made them attractive elsewhere in the world and went with shorter Mallets and Simple-articulateds.

 

Interesting.

I wonder what the license cost.  And I wonder what fees they would have had to pay the licensee if they had actually built one.  

Too bad they didn't--there is a bit of disappointment in this house.  At least, a demonstrator.  I wonder what it would have looked like, if they had.

I saw, online, a nice little HO model that looked a lot like it was built on two Mantua/Tyco 0-6-0T drives.  It wasn't, but it sure reminded me of them.  The Tyco drivers are a bit too big to be a logger (51" vs. 44"), but gets a person thinkin'...

 

 

Ed

[7j43k]

Here's a pretty good little Garrett logger:

 

 

 

 

I think the drivers are too big, but it's far better than the one I (didn't) make.

 

Ed

["JaBear"]

NorthWest

I believe that ALCO had a license for Garratt production in North America but major railroads lacked the loading gauge requirements that made them attractive elsewhere in the world and went with shorter Mallets and Simple-articulateds.

Very interesting, I would have thought that US loading gauge was generous enough to allow a creditable Garratt, but further to Eds analysis I see that a possible explanation was that the American Rail Companies did not regard the Garratts coal and water capacities sufficient for their requirements. I also wonder that with the advent of the first US mallet”Old Maude” in 1903 if the US railroads looked upon the first Garratt built 6 years later, not only as a latecomer but a small narrow gauge oddity? It was 1924 before the first standard gauge Garratt was built, and that was a one of, 0-4-0+0-4-0.

Still dreams are free....

http://www.railarchive.net/fantasysteam/prr_t1_garratt_rcl.htm

Cheers, the Bear.

[LensCapOn]

Who here doesn't have a mind that wanders to a KK-56 (If D&RGW wanted a bigger engine post K-28)

[7j43k]

LensCapOn

Who here doesn't have a mind that wanders to a KK-56 (If D&RGW wanted a bigger engine post K-28)

 

 

 

You make it WAY too easy:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ed

[trainnut1250]

7j43k

 

LensCapOn

Who here doesn't have a mind that wanders to a KK-56 (If D&RGW wanted a bigger engine post K-28)

 

 

 

 

 

 

You make it WAY too easy:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ed

 

Yep.... Dick Truesdale (owner of Westside Models) had a great imagination and sense of fun...

Love the videos

 

Guy

[7j43k]

I found what appears to be a littermate of the Garratt I posted earlier.  This one REALLY looks like a logger.  It's narrow gage, which won't work for my ritzy standard gage system; but, WOW......

It's even link and pin!

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ed

[7j43k]

Here's a link for lots more on this two foot South African railroad:

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/59139-south-african-two-foot-gauge-railways/

 

I especially like the shot of a South African version of a Pennsy long distance tender.

 

 

Ed

 

 

 

[NorthWest]

JaBear

Very interesting, I would have thought that US loading gauge was generous enough to allow a creditable Garratt, but further to Eds analysis I see that a possible explanation was that the American Rail Companies did not regard the Garratts coal and water capacities sufficient for their requirements.

One of the reasons that various railroads purchased Garratts was that they are shorter in height than an equivilent Mallet. US railroads did not have that problem and could purchase Mallets which are shorter in overall length (allowing more train to fit in a siding).Weight advantages to the Garratt were also not a concern in the US.

I think that the fuel and water problems could have been solved by simply adding a tender to one side (provided that oil is the fuel). While this makes it harder to run in one direction that isn't as much of a concern on US railroads as it is elsewhere.

Garrats also have the varying adhesion problem of other tank engines.

Finally, it should be noted that the Garratts were primarily used in British colonies. While B-P had the patents anyone could order one from them, but in colonies the British government could press railroads to use British suppliers.

[LensCapOn]

7j43k

I found what appears to be a littermate of the Garratt I posted earlier.  This one REALLY looks like a logger.  It's narrow gage, which won't work for my ritzy standard gage system; but, WOW......

It's even link and pin!

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ed

 

Anyone try blending one of those onto a Maine 2 Footer layout? (Or is this another D&RGW KK-52?)

[andrechapelon]

doctorwayne

Very enjoyable viewing, Andre.  Thanks for sharing.

Here's another Garratt, from Airfix if I recall correctly.  I built this unpowered but moveable locomotive for a nearby hobbyshop, and lettered it, as requested, for a very popular local line.  The number used is next in succession for the road's two ex-NYC Hudsons.

Wayne

 

The Airfix kits were of Garratt class built for the LMS. Hatton's of Liverpool commissioned Heljan to build a working model. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mYlM-9j1AQI

Andre

[Software Tools]

For Maine 2' etc applications, the very first Garratt loco, "K1", that ran in Tasmania would be ideal.....

... it is now running in Wales.

 

[LensCapOn]

Software Tools

For Maine 2' etc applications, the very first Garratt loco, "K1", that ran in Tasmania would be ideal.....

... it is now running in Wales.

 

 

It's so CUTE! Sqeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

 

 

 

 

OK  Now how do I get my manhood back?

["JaBear"]

NorthWest

......but in colonies the British government could press railroads to use British suppliers.

Yes, up until the UK joining the European Economic Community in 1973, New Zealand was certainly encouraged/expected (occasionally threatened) to “Buy British.

Strangely though in the case of New Zealand Railways, the 23 year old, Jamaican born, ex North British Railway apprentice, Locomotive Superintendant of the New Zealand Railways, Allison D Smith ordered eight 2-4-2 locomotives from the Rogers Locomotive Works of New Jersey, in 1877. The success of the Rogers “K” led to the order from Baldwin of six 2-8-0 locomotives in 1879. New Zealand Railways specified locomotives were still brought from British companies but as the specifications increasing were influenced by the American weight reducing methods, the British builders had difficulties building them to the correct weight. In fact both the “P” and “N” class locomotives were both   10 tons over weight, which while not sound a lot, was 20% overweight! The kerfuffle and ensuing delay, at a time when motive power was desperately needed, led to an order, in 1884, of 12 locomotives of the same specs, which was not only quickly filled  but also 400 Pounds cheaper per locomotive, from Baldwin.

Following Allison Smith, the NZR was lucky to have further far sighted men who, with the building of the first locomotive in New Zealand W192 a 2-6-2T, had successfully blended the best features of American, British and Continental locomotives, into what was to become a distinctive and generally a very successful family of New Zealand locomotives.

Unfortunately the NZR specifications for the three 4-6-2+2-6-4 Garratts ordered in 1928 were far too clever for their own good and they were definitely not a success.

NZR “G” Class, from a painting by the late WW Stewart.

 

 

Cheers, the Bear. 

[John Busby]

LensCapOn

 

7j43k

I found what appears to be a littermate of the Garratt I posted earlier.  This one REALLY looks like a logger.  It's narrow gage, which won't work for my ritzy standard gage system; but, WOW......

It's even link and pin!

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ed

 

 

 

 

Anyone try blending one of those onto a Maine 2 Footer layout? (Or is this another D&RGW KK-52?)

 

Thats easy you just use the Tasmainian 2' 0-4-0 + 0-4-0

job done

regards John

[7j43k]

John Busby

 

 

 

Thats easy you just use the Tasmainian 2' 0-4-0 + 0-4-0

 

 

 

If it's gonna be a Maine two footer, It's gotta be an 0-4-4 + 4-4-0.

 

 

 

 

 

Ed