Super Garratt

why is this a thing

 

Because strong drink is available in the Gorton area of Manchester?

More seriously, presumably partly marketing, and partly patent protection (if you have drawn one, it's harder for anyone else to claim they had the idea first).

Presumably you'd have to pay royalties to Mr Mallet? A Mallerat? Garallet? Maragarrelletat?

 

Possibly even Kitson-Meyer given the bunker arrangement (and wouldn't that small bunker fill that vast box once before needing filling?)

 

its like they tried to combine all locomotive types

 

Why note place the cylinders opposing each other and add compounding whilst you are at it. May as well really go for it

That said, all Garratts are great, especially the RR ones

 

I was wondering how realistic any expectations of a boiler of such relative proportions would be if it were not a compound.

 

These figures may be incorrect but might give us some idea.

This machine has 8 cylinders 19" x 26" and is simple expansion.

The boiler offers a combined heating surface of 9,300 sq. ft. and the grate area is 160 sq ft. Which should help answering the boiler capacity question.

And no, I am not suggesting that anyone should build one, but if you have the money and fancy a challenge --------!

 

From what I've read on here, the LNER one wasn't very popular.

 

The new zealand garratts were also not a success, again where they built to others' design requirements.

 

In summary, if you wanted a Garratt, you were best off speaking to Beyer Peacock. If you want a Fairlie, you're best off speaking to Blodge. If you want a Leader, you need to speak to a psychiatrist.

 

I think the reason why both the LMS and LNER ones weren't good was due to interference from Derby and Doncaster in the designs. The LNER one had two unnecessary cylinders added as Gresley had this insistence that everything had to have 3 cylinders, in cases where two would do. The LMS insisted on using the undersized 4F axleboxes, where were barely good enough on the 4F itself.

On the LMS, there is a weak argument that it could be to use standard parts and do away with the need to have separate parts for one class, basically I think that the drawing/design offices on both railways taking umbrage as outside experts (Beyer Peacock) were brought in for a specialised design so they had to butt in.

I didn't know about the New Zealand ones so I've read up on them and they seemed to be even worse than the LMS/LNER ones.

 

According to the book on Garratt Locomotives of the World by Dusty Durrant, ALCO showed some interest in the design to the extent of taking manufacturing rights. I suspect it was a technical doodle just to see what would be possible.
In the real world coupling strength would have been the limiting factor, so only countries with knuckle couplers would have been able to use the tractive effort available.

Cheers, Neil

 

Three cylinder jobs (or rather six cylinder). They had Gresley conjugated valve gear, which didn't stand up well to the maintenance regime, particularly when after a while people started leaving the casings over the conjugation gear off, with the bearing subject to ash and dirt... As built, they averaged about 12,000 miles per year, a quarter of what other locos were achieving.

They were also over-powerful, gaining a reputation for pulling the drawgear out of wagons and, if used to full capacity, trains were longer than the available loops.

Sean Millar, in "The NZR Steam Locomotive", noted:

The success of Garratts overseas caught the attention of NZR's engineers as early as 1914, but the outstanding performance of the new, locally-designed AB class pacific caused further consideration to be deferred. Things changed in the mid 1920s, following. report on NZR by a Royal Commission consisting of two senior British railwaymen, Sir Sam Fay and Sir Vincent Raven. Fay was chairman of Beyer-Peacock, the leading manufacturer of Garratts, and Raven was a recently-retired railway CME with a noted preference for three-cylinder locomotives. Unsurprisingly given these backgrounds, the pair recommended Garratts for the NIMT [n.b. - North island Main Trunk - TJ] and a three-cylinder express locomotive for wider use.

NZR's newly-appointed CME, GS Lynde, was Fay's son-in-law. Like the Commissioners, Lynde came from England. With no previous experience of NZR and little apparent regard for local operating conditions, he combined the Commission's recommendations to specify a six-cylinder Garratt and driving wheels three inches larger than NZR's established standard for main-line locomotives. An order was placed with Beyer-Peacock in January 1928.​

In time they were rebuilt from three Garratts into six conventional three-cylinder pacifics, but they weren't well regarded, presumably on account of the valve gear.

As built:



As rebuilt - note the exposed conjugation gear right under the smokebox.



Tom

 

That cylinder inclination has got to rival the Crabs. Just wondering if they rocked from side to side as much when starting away with a load.

 

You could get the two ends rocking in opposite directions, depending on whether the engines were in phase.

 

“Look how she moves. That’s just like jello on springs”.

Tom

 

I think this wins ...



More such madness, some of it actual reality, from the ever excellent Douglas Self site:

http://www.douglas-self.com/MUSEUM/LOCOLOCO/triplex/triplex.htm
http://www.douglas-self.com/MUSEUM/LOCOLOCO/quadruplex/quadrapl.htm
http://www.douglas-self.com/MUSEUM/LOCOLOCO/hex/hex.htm

Tom