Welsh Highland & Garratts

Indeed, and the gearing arrangement is very straightforward, unlike say a Shay with its bevel drives. I suspect an Indonesian sugar mill Luttermoller is unsuitable on passenger work for a number of reasons, but I doubt if speed per se is an issue. I would guess a re-gauged Chinese C4/Polish Px48 0-8-0 would be a better bet - sticking the parameters into the SMEX tractive effort calculator gives 18,300lbs. The Chinese locos were used on very lengthy runs.

 

I think you're answering your own question at the start. The availability of suitable motive power is partly why the WHR is economically possible. Without them the railway would probably have to be shorter.

A C2 is similar to a double engine power wise but with smaller wheels and less adhesive weight. The Px48 is probably a better bet and I believe there were some 600mm gauge ones built. They are still nowhere near an NGG16 though.

Someone mentioned building a giant double engine. The double engine is the perfect machine for the FR because it is best way to fit a powerful loco into the loading gauge. It is a very compact design. The lack of water, coal, and people space isn't much of a worry on a 13 mile railway too. The WHR doesn't have the same restrictions though so you don't need to compromise the design of the loco like that. You could fit all sorts up there without having to deal with power bogies or flexible steam pipes.

Tim

 

I referred to a C4 (42T loco), which is based on a Px48. The C2 is a smaller loco.

 

I did ..... but only as a passing thought, although, there were other places where Double Fairlies found favour, not all of 'em with the FfR's restricted loading gauge. The (standard gauge) locos built for Mexico, totalling 42, of 4 classes supplied by 3 builders between 1872 and 1911, being an example.

 

I wonder what the WHHR (former ‘64 Co.) would have planned had their bids to run the line succeeded rather than the FfR’s. They did have a NG15 for a while but it was unrestored and has since gone I know not where.

 

A Super-Fairlie or ‘Fairatt’ (since it was not a double ended boiler) was proposed as a private project a few years ago but I haven’t heard of any recent updates:
http://launcestonsr.co.uk/new-super-fairlie-locomotive-project-can-you-help/

 

The Rampton collection

 

I wonder though exactly what the Luttermoller gearing specification is?

I suggest that for the WHR you would want helical gears with a proper lubrication system.

I suggest that something designed for a sugar plantation isnt up to something like the

 

The links on that page to "Fairratt outline drawing" and "An updated outline specification" don't work, so I'm in the dark as to what exactly a "Fairratt" would be. If it had a single boiler on two power bogies, with no wheels under the firebox, it would seem to be a Kitson-Meyer by another name.

Returning closer to the subject of this thread, delightful as a double Fairlie may be, and acknowledging their historical appropriateness for the FfR, does one really have any advantage over a garratt of similar total boiler capacity? Clearly the garratt has much more space for fuel, water and the crew. If you were designing a loco for the WHR from scratch, the specification covering only power and loading gauge, would you go for a garratt, a double Fairlie, or what?

Edit: typo corrected.

 

64 would have needed to build the line before the motive power question came up !

 

Comme ça?



(The name is rather appropriate, for those knowing their Roman mythology!)

Tom

 

If anybody still wonders why the WHR needed Garratts, watch this video posted on Facebook of an "all out" effort by Lyd and Blanche on a well-loaded 10 coach Santa special up the 1-in-40 today:-

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=981618595546443

Very impressive, but hardly sustainable on a regular basis. It's almost cruelty to little engines!

 

Sounds like Golfa!

 

FfR managed to do it the other way round.

 

Bit of a flaw in the plans, though, if you build a railway and then don't have any trains to run on it

 

It seems to me thst the avalibility of the NGG16's must have played a role even subconsciously on the FR proposal to reopen the line as presumably there must have been an outline business model from the very start of the proceedings looking at what the trains would have been like, how would they be run etc

 

What does 12 or 10 equate to in terms of Tonnage?

 

You'd have to imagine so, but without supporting evidence, it remains speculation for all that.

Regarding the 'Fairatt' ..... the outline drawing looked to represent [charitable mode \ ON)] a concept with a lot of work needed.

Just wondering .... is there any particular reason I've never seen mention of a Mallet?

 

Mallets have a bit of a loading gauge problem; the endthrow at the smokebox end can be pretty extreme. Not sure how that would have worked in Goat Tunnel. A Meyer might have been worth a look, more like a Fairlie in that respect.
Pat

 

Black's Railway Workshop built a working model of the Fairatt concept, photos are here:
https://www.facebook.com/pg/BlacksRailwayWorkshop27/photos/?tab=album&album_id=832891750072711