Narrow gauge loco design

Have I got the name wrong? Yes I have, I meant Tongaat. The Bagnall 4-4-0T with very short coupled wheelbase. Preserved L&B ran a green one.

 

I have often puzzled about how certain wheel arrangements were arrived at. Lack of awareness on the part of the specifier or designer as to how a particular loco will be used? Does it really take hindsight to believe that a loco that is going to spend fifty percent of its time running "backwards" would be better off with a symmetric wheel arrangement? 2-6-2 seems such an obvious solution that I'm surprised that (once weight demanded more than an 0-6-0) much else was built except where weight demanded even more axles. How on earth did anyone arrive at the conclusion an 0-6-4 for instance was the way to go? (Single Fairlie excepted).

 

The Sligo, Leitrim and Northern Counties Railway found 0-6-4Ts very much to their liking, and ran nothing else. One of the last pair is preserved.

 

As this is a thread on such a topic, what do folks think of James Evans' Fariatt design as a proposed new build locomotive?

 

I like the concept but not being a qualified engineer I do not understand why one power bogie is 6 coupled and the other 4 coupled

 

Nearly, but not quite. Although all the steam locos designed for the line were 0-6-4t's, the SL&NCR did run a couple of 2nd hand 0-6-0 tender locos (into the ground!), both ex-GNRI A Class, No.31 (bought 1931, lasted 10 years) and No.69 (to replace No.31, bought 1941. Not sure when this one died). Both gloried in the name "Sligo", presumably the same set of nameplates were transferred between these locos.

I'd assume the A class was a replacement for one of the five 1882 vintage 'Leitrim' class locos. Theoretically, the first (Leitrim itself) was the first to be officially withdrawn in 1947. The only two of the 5 originals I've any firm photographic evidence of working after WWII were "Hazelwood" (the one which went off-piste near Collooney, during "The Troubles" of the early 1920's) and "Lissadell" (Officially wdn 1954 and lay dumped on a siding at Manorhamilton).

The last pair of 0-6-4t's (Lough Melvin and Lough Erne) were supplied (in 1951) on a lease agreememt with Beyer Peacock. As the UTA later found itself negotiating with BP for this pair, some time after the SL&NC closed, it's safe to assume that payments still weren't completed at this point.

 

From what I can tell it's basically a stretched single fairle mixed with bits of Garratt, hence "Fariatt" the rear power bogie is probably going to be lower powered but means there's no "dead weight" when the locomotive hauls things, every wheel provides power which means it's got more "grunt" when it comes to haulage.

 

Not a lot! Seems like a rather bizarre concept to start combining what are pretty effective designs in the own right into a Frankenstein creation. Seems to be a distinct lack of any information on the Net now other than now it's a Super Fairlie, even the announcement on the Launceston Steam Railway site has been removed.

The WHR don't need it and I doubt the L&B would be interested and unless someone is crazy enough to fund it, it's not likely to happen.

 

Yeah, I wondered why one wouldn't make a 6 coupled version of a Farlie in that situation. Would give you theoretically more traction power rather than the Frankenstein.

 

Is the "single fairlie" format of the Fairatt so you have one boiler, one firebox to feed, one draughting arrangement and avoid the issues of limited coal capacity that were the drawback on all large double fairlies? Not my thing at all, and I won't be sending them a cheque, but it is kind of interesting.

 

The general feeling I get is that the FR is not in anyway interested in building that thing. Motive power needs can be met by overhauling the locos already available. NGG 16s are a reliable established design and more than capable of what is asked of them.

The Double Fairlie uniquely works perfectly for the Ffestiniog because it is such a compact design.

The loading gauge restrictions of the FR make it the perfect solution. The Fairlie arrangement creates a lot of restrictions on fuel/water capacity, firebox size and crew comfort, among other things. So if you have a larger loading gauge other less restrictive options can be explored.

 

Bring back "The Barge"!

 

New build "Little Wonder" for (sunny) summer peak traffic

 

Although it and "James Spooner" (still!) are on the FR Heritage Group's "Wishful thinking" list ( https://www.frheritage.org.uk/activities/future-activities ) and I sort of love this notion, unfortunately, I believe it's a non-starter due to LW's unbalanced and unrepeated bogie design, which led directly to it's fairly (sorry!) short life. By all accounts, it's best considered a working prototype and I'm uncertain it could prove impossible to recreate more than a steamable ornament without so much redesign that you couldn't, in all honesty, call it "Little Wonder" and keep a straight face.

Here's a link to the relevant 'Festipedia' page:
https://www.festipedia.org.uk/wiki/Little_Wonder

 

In an ideal world, you would but railway worlds are not ideal. The need to do the job will have an influence, for a start. That will dictate the power requirements which can be met by various permutations of cylinder and wheel size. The number of wheels will to some extent be dictated by the allowable axle loading and where you put those wheels will also be dictated to some extent by the boiler, which will have to meet those power requirements. Length of haul can dictate the size of tanks and bunker. It can also dictate the size of the ashpan. You also have to take the centre of gravity into account. Taking an 0-6-4T, for example. Could you reduce the rear bogie to a pony and stick another pony at the front whilst maintaining the cab and bunker arrangement? This would involve moving the driving wheels relative to the boiler unless you have a long distance between the rear drivers and the pony, which might prove to be a problem with weight distribution. Designing locos isn't an easy task and is very much one of compromise.

 

Any thoughts on the new build Gowrie project?
There's talk of an update like with Lyn (i.e. it'll look the same on the outside).
What changes should the team consider?

 

I thought that project had gone quiet, has it been abandoned or is it awaiting the delayed completion of the restoration of the War Office 4-6-0T by the same team?

Personally I would have thought that Snowdon Ranger/Moel Tryfan would have been a better choice as a more successful (and prettier) design than Gowrie but perhaps they wanted something looking a bit more different from Taliesin.

 

Well, they appear to have woken up if recent news is anything to go by.

Announcement on their Facebook site that shares about to be issued and organization is now finalized. Shares to be at 600 quid a-piece, a total of 390 shares to be issued.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/906858619368479/

 

I clocked the "Gowrie" proposal on Barrie's 'isengard' site yesterday. As @LesterBrown says, it'd definitely be a departure from the Spooner look. Actually, to my mind, photos of the original which show the rear coupling look like a completely different loco to side or front views.

Does anyone know whether this group are closer to FR/WHR or WHHR? I ask, as "Russell" remains conspicuously absent from it's erstwhile stamping grounds, plus yer average WHR train looks a tad heavy for an 0-6-4t.

 

As I don't intend contributing it's not for me to say (the only new build I've made a donation towards is the Corris Falcon), but after looking at details of the NWNGR locos Beddgelert looks appealing (since Taliesin has been built, which is not dissimilar to the slightly smaller Snowdon Ranger/Moel Tryfan). If intended for any use on the WHR main line the extra weight and power could be useful too. There is a Facebook page gathering together info about this loco but they seem, sensibly, to have refrained from actually starting a new build appeal at this stage.

The Gowrie team do at least have a track record in locomotive restoration, unfortunately that doesn't make it any cheaper though.