America's Big steam and Garratts !

[nanaimo73]

When I think of large steam locomotives, I think of these five groups. None of these locomotives have operated in the last 40 years, and it is doubtful if any will run again. On the bright side, 14 of these locomotives from 4 of the groups are still around for us to marvel at.
The first group are the Southern Pacific 4-8-8-2s, commonly called Cab Forwards.195 were built by Baldwin between 1928 and 1944. They had 63" drivers, 250 lbs pressure, and weighed 657,900 pounds (1,051,200 with tender) and their TE was 124,300. The last one to run was on a fan trip in Dec. 1957. The only one left is the last one built, 4294, which is inside the CSRM in Sacramento.
The next group is the Northern Pacific 2-8-8-4s, called Yellowstones because they ran on NPs Yellowstone Division. 1 was built by ALCo in 1928 and 11 more by Baldwin in 1930. They had 63" drivers and 250lbs of pressure. They weighed 723,400lbs or 1,125,400lbs with their tenders, while the TE was 139,900lbs. All were scrapped between 1952 and 1957.
The third group are the 18 Duluth Missabi and Iron Range 2-8-8-4 Yellowstones which were built by Baldwin in 1941 and 1943. They also had 63" drivers and operated up to 240lbs. Weight was 699,700 (1,138,035) and TE was 140,000 lbs.They were retired in 1962 and 1963 and three are saved in Minnesota. 225 in Proctor, 227 in Duluth and 229 in Two Harbours.
Next came the UP 4-8-8-4 Big Boys. 25 were built by ALCo from 1941 to 1944. Pressure was 300lbs and drivers were 68". Weight was 772,250 (1,208,750) and the tractive effort was 135,375lbs.8 are saved- 4004 in Cheyenne, 4005 in Denver, 4006 in St.Louis, 4012 in Scranton, 4014 in Pomona CA, 4017 in Green Bay, 4018 in Dallas and 4023 in Omaha.
The last group are the 60 C&O 2-6-6-6 Alleghenys. They were built by Lima between 1941 and 1948. 67" drivers, 260lbs, weight was 775,330 (1,207,040) and the TE was 110,200.The last one ran during 1956 and two are left, 1601 in Dearborn MI, and 1604 in Baltimore.

[miniwyo]

I have seen the 4004 Big Boy in Holliday Park, in Cheyenne. Got pics too if anyone would like to see.

[Green Bay Paddlers]

Come on out to Green Bay' s "National Railroad Museum" to see Big Boy #4017. It's in beautiful condition. You can climb up into the cab and get some nice pics of yourself in the engineer's seat. The National Railroad Museum is a fantastic facility with many more pieces of railroad history on display!

[Anonymous]

Nanaimo73 - what is it about each of these groups that makes them appeal to you?

Old Timer

[nanaimo73]

Up here in Canada we had 20% of the US mileage but only 10% of the population. As a result, railroads up here did not have the density that required locomotives this large. The cost of these locomotives was pretty high, but there were other costs relating to strenghtening bridges, longer turntables and such.The capitol required for these locomotives had to be recovered by keeping them busy.The United States also had builders who could design and construct machines of this size and complexity. For these reasons the other countries of the World never had locomotives this size in common use.
I think all 5 of these groups represent the mazimum size a steam locomotive could have grown to. If diesel development had been slower, I don't think anything bigger would have been built. Priority would have gone to refinements like exhaust nozzels and rotary-cam poppet valves.
One of the most fascinating articles Trains has ever printed is in the June 1974 issue showing how much further steam still had to develop.

[daveklepper]

How did the largest Garrats compare in size, weight, and TE to the largest USA articulateds? Anybody got figures?

[tree68]

The size and weight of these behemoths was no less of a restriction here. It is only the fact that most of the mainline trackage has been beefed up that allows the 3985 (along with most of the big steam that's still running) to wander where it does. Even the NKP Berkshires were restricted to certain parts of the NKP system, and they are almost tiny when compared to the big articulateds.

[nanaimo73]

daveklepper-I don't believe the Beyer-garratts were anywhere close to these. I found one site with 4-8-4+4-8-4s listing them as the largest locomotives in the world on 50lb (!) rail.They were pretty small. I think they were just normal size locomotives stretched out for the rudimentary trackage in Africa. elg-OOO-g+g-OOO-gle them if you want. (Sorry-I could not resist). The September 1995Trains has 8 pages on them with the largest weighing 505,000lbs and having a TE of 69,333, about half of those big ones I covered.

[gabe]

50 lbs rail? That is not even trolley standards? Is there 50 lbs rail anywhere in the United States? Surely not; I would have hard time believing 80 lbs in something other than a spur.

Gabe

[daveklepper]

Good answer. I did see up close one Beyer Garret of the Rhodesian Railways while visiting Capitol Park engine sheds in Praetoria around 1986, and was very impressed with its size. But then I had not nearby US power for comparison, and had gotten used to the South African typical locomtives, which are large for narrow gauge but not any bigger than British standard gauge steam. By the way, the London and Northeastern had the only British Isle Garrets as far as I know, but I got to British steam first in 1962 after they had gone. I did photograph and ride behind a Gresley A-4 "Kingfisher", a Bullard Pacific London - Southampton on the Bournmouth Bell, and rode behind plenty of 4-6-0's. However, maybe the largest Garrat is comparible to the largest USA articulateds in one dimension: length.

[martin.knoepfel]

There have been several Garrats in Britain.

IIRC, the LNER had the only 2-8-2+2-8-2 Garrat (one engine).

The LMS had serveral 2-6-2+2-6-2's. They even tried - unsuccessfuly - to use them in fast passenger-service.

There have been several Garrats on British industrial spurs, mostly 4+4's without non-driving axles.

There is a book "Garrats around the World" or something the like.

[Anonymous]

I used to live in Zimbabwe and developed a big intrest in African steam and Garratts. The largest Garretts in South Africa were the GL's 4-8-2+2-8-4, weighing in at 211 imperial tons, TE 78,650 lb @75% boiler pressure. Beyer Peacock also built a one off Garrett for the Soviet Union in 1932, which was heavier and more powerful in tractive efford terms by about 500lb. In Africa many lines were build as pioner lines but industry never developed to the extent it did in the western USA. As for track weight 50lb per yard was branchline stuff. Main lines in Southern Africa were in the 75 to 80
lb per yard range. As for the LMS Garretts, they were never used on a regular basis on passanger trains, they were tested on a passenger train as there was a plan for passenger Garretts to be used in Scotland.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

Garratts may not be nearly as big as Big Boys, Yellowstones, Alleghenys, etc. but they are still an impressive piece of machinery. It would have been most interesting if Alco would have been able to sell a few Garratts to D&RGW for the narrow gauge lines.

I'll go out on a limb and suggest that Garratts may have been the last articulated steam locomotives built. South African Railways had some 2-6-2+2-6-2's built for their 2-foot gauge lines as late as 1968.

[nanaimo73]

Was ALCo trying to sell them to the D&RGW ? Do you know any details ?

[dldance]

Among the more unusual US large steam engines were Uintah RR's #50 and 51. These were 2-6-6-2T articulated narrow gauge locomotives used for moving Gilsonite (a coal like petroleum product) to the DRG at Mack, CO. I don't have the specs on these engines right now as my reference materials are in storage, but they were designed by Baldwin for 7.5 percent grades and 66 degree curves.

dd

[nanaimo73]

They went to the Sumpter Valley in Oregon and then rotted away in Guatemala.It's too bad one didn't stay in Oregon.

[daveklepper]

I remember reading about them. They were pretty clean well designed locomotives also, even though they were "tank engines". If I remember correctly, they ran equally well backwards as well as forwards.

[Anonymous]

Nanaimo -

What's wrong with the Virginian 2-10-10-2s, with a starting tractive effort in simple operation of 176,000 pounds? They only operated for 30 years, and one of them longer than that. Santa Fe had 2-10-10-2s too, but they weren't in a class with the VGN engines.

Or N&W's Y-5/Y-6 2-8-8-2, with 5600 DBHP and 166,000 pounds starting TE? How many of you, when visiting the transportation museum in St. Louis, walk right past N&W 2156 on your way to look at the UP 4-8-8-4? Big mistake.

Or are you only interested in blockbuster specifications? And if you are, what puts the Espee 4-8-8-2/2-8-8-4s in your spotlight, with their starting TE of 124,000 pounds? The fact that the last one still exists?

Your five groups puzzle me; engine weight, tractive effort, drawbar horsepower? These statistics mean little. The ones that mean the most are related to actual performance: Gross Ton Miles/Train Hour/Dollar (first cost, maintenance, fuel and water, crew costs, etc.). Put this equation to work and some of your groups don't look so good any more.

Old Timer

[DSchmitt]

According to Garratt Locomotives of the World by A.E. Durrant

The largest Garratt locomotive proposed (none were built) was the "Super Garratt" or "Mallet Garratt" to be built by ALCO for the American market

Wheel arrangement: 2-6-6-2+2-6-6-2, Tractive effort (85%): 203,000 lb

Compared to US locomotives (per a table in the book)

Virginian 2-10-10-2, TE (85%) 147,200 lb:

Erie 2-8-8-8-2, TE (85%) 160,000 lb:

UP Big Boy 4-8-8-4, TE (85%) 135,375 lb

The largest Garratt built was a single 4-8-2+2-8-4 built by Beyer Peacock for the Soviet Railways in 1932 TE (75%) 78,700 lb It was not successful and was dismantled in 1937.

The meter gauge East African Railway Class 59 4-8-2+2-8-4, ordered in 1950 but not delivered until 1955, had a tractive effort (85%) of 73,500 lb. It was the largest meter gauge Garratt. It was very successful.

[Anonymous]

One of the knocks on the Garratt for US service is that it used its fuel and water for adhesive weight. The farther you got up the mountain, the more coal and water you used, and the less weight you had on the drivers, and the more slipping you'd do.

Garratt fanciers liked to say that Mallets had to drag around a separate car for their consumables, but the farther you got up the mountain, the more coal and water you used, and the lighter your trailing load became. But you still had the full weight on your driving wheels.

Old Timer

[M636C]

The Australian AD60 class Garratts were the heaviest, I think at 260 long tons, say 286 US tons or 572 000 lbs. These were 4-8-4+4-8-4 and were introduced with an axle load of 15 tons (150kN, say 33000lb) for use on light rail. They were the most powerful steam locomotives in the country, with a TE of 59000 lb, later raised to 63000lb by increasing the cylinder diameter and increasing the weight on drivers by unloading the trucks.

Some contemporary locomotives in South Africa the classes GM, GMA and GMAM had relatively little water on board, and hauled a cylindrical tank car with water when on a train. They could run around a locomotive depot without this, but not far outside. This reduces the effect on adhesion of using up the water supply.

Peter

[UPTRAIN]

I've watched videos of them, they are as impressive as any steam power, but those tanks on the front and the empty space in the middle just looks funny, lol. I remember the first one I saw I wondered where the fuel tank was in middle.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

According to "Articulated Locomotives", which should be required reading for any steam fan, the tractive effort and factor of adhesion for Garratt locomotives was calculated with empty tenders and water tanks. Another advantage for Garratts over Mallets was the way the locomotive tracked on curves. On a Garratt, the mid-line of the boiler was on a chord inside of the curve in which the chord intersected the curve at the hinge points. On a Mallet, the mid-line of the boiler was on a tangent which extended outside the curve.

[jchnhtfd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH

According to "Articulated Locomotives", which should be required reading for any steam fan, the tractive effort and factor of adhesion for Garratt locomotives was calculated with empty tenders and water tanks. Another advantage for Garratts over Mallets was the way the locomotive tracked on curves. On a Garratt, the mid-line of the boiler was on a chord inside of the curve in which the chord intersected the curve at the hinge points. On a Mallet, the mid-line of the boiler was on a tangent which extended outside the curve.

to which one might add that Garrats (in the smaller sizes) were also found on some perfectly ridiculously crooked track, here and there around the world. Not only did they not have clearance problems, but overall they were phenomenally flexible, both laterally and vertically.[:D]

[Anonymous]

CSSHEGEWISCH -

No matter how you calculate the Garratt's tractive effort (and with empty tanks and fuel bunkers, you're figuring on some percentage of what the engine weighs on drivers, and unless that percentage is ridiculously low . . .) it will diminish as the consumables are used. It is true that it will be greater than that calculated when you have full fuel bunkers and water tanks. But what tractive effort is available, no matter how it's calculated, is going to be less and less the farther up the mountain you get.

If you consider a long mountain like UP's Wahsatch or some other western biggies, you'd have to set the tonnage rating for a Garratt not much more than what it would be with empty tanks and coal bunkers to make sure you had enough tractive effort to get you all the way to the top. But Big Boy's tender (and thus his trailing load) actually got lighter the closer to the top he got. Not much, considered as a percentage of his total train tonnage, but some. But the Garratt will lose weight where it will hurt him.

Old Timer

[K 103]

M636C

The Australian AD60 class Garratts were the heaviest, I think at 260 long tons, say 286 US tons or 572 000 lbs. These were 4-8-4+4-8-4 and were introduced with an axle load of 15 tons (150kN, say 33000lb) for use on light rail. They were the most powerful steam locomotives in the country, with a TE of 59000 lb, later raised to 63000lb by increasing the cylinder diameter and increasing the weight on drivers by unloading the trucks.

Some contemporary locomotives in South Africa the classes GM, GMA and GMAM had relatively little water on board, and hauled a cylindrical tank car with water when on a train. They could run around a locomotive depot without this, but not far outside. This reduces the effect on adhesion of using up the water supply.

Peter

 

Sorry Peter. You are wrong.

The D57 class was the most powerful locomotive in Australia.  Tractive effort was 64,325.  They were called the Lazy Lizzies, because of their ablility to heavy loads seem effortless. Don't confuse them with the D58, as they were not as powerful as the D57.

Most people even in Australia alway put the AD60, as the most powerful locomotives, even that it was the most powerful in the Southern Hemisphere, but there is at least 6 African locos that are more powerful, the GL's [SAR] were the most powerful of all of them, then the RR 59 class was next, even the GMAM [SAR], were more powerful than the AD60.  

[RME]

Peter indicated as early as 2006 that the 'quoted' values for D57 tractive effort were not correct; although I do not know what the "right" value would be, it would certainly seem from his comments that it was below that for the late AD60s.

I would also like to see the actual horsepower curve for both locomotives; the D57 having the advantage of three-cylinder balance, so should be able to develop somewhat better speed and therefore HP than an AD60's two-cylinder engine might permit. (Were the AD60s equipped with proper adjusted lateral on the trucks, and lateral-motion devices on the end driver pairs, to give better control of yaw and hunting?)

I'd also like to see the result of a 'proper' D58 with the revised conjugating gear actually constructed to reduce shaft whip, and cylinder bore and stroke set properly to achieve the comparable performance that NSWGR personnel seemed to like fibbing about.  But the amount of work needed to make a truly workable three-cylinder simple out of the locomotives as built (including the need to put the conjugating shaftwork behind the cylinder block, or else install some kind of lever or rocker system to get all the valve-stem expansions in the right direction) was 'too much' in the age of dieselization, and I can't imagine anyone doing T1-Trust levels of work replicating a 'corrected' one just to prove how the design would have worked out if Young had had 20/20 hindsight.

Perhaps if 5711 is fully restored, and given a running tender with proper axle loads, we could run dynamometer testing in comparison with 6029 and get a better answer than just consternation.

You can see right in this thread (May 18 2005), with reference to Dusty Durrant's book, that various Garratt TEs were, and are, adequately documented and known.

And humor me, please, in one thing: stop using TE numbers to characterize how 'powerful' a class of locomotives is.