What Ifs, and Locos that never were.

With 50% more adhesive wheels I suppose the Garretts could presumably stop and start normal length trains on steeper gradients and with lesser axle load, but was that how they were used?

 

The LMS garrats were intended really for just one duty, the Toton to Brent coal trains on the Midland route, which had always been double headed by pairs of ex Midland 0-6-0s and the idea was to eliminate this double heading. It was later found that the job was within the capability of an 8F

 

Thank you very much for all your great information and also the illustrations bluetrain! Much appreciated! (also thanks for adding measurement in metric)
I think I have to obtain this book(s) myself.

Knut

 

That's very fair comment. The LMS Garratts would be about equivalent in power to the unbuilt 2-8-2 and would have had an advantage of higher adhesion, albeit only when there was plenty of water in the tanks.

But with only a small number built, these LMS Garratts could be viewed as a false start in the development of higher-powered goods locos in Britain, in much the same way as the LNER P1 2-8-2. It is arguable that there was a hiatus in such development between Churchward's first Great Western 2-8-0 in 1903 and the arrival of the British Railways 9F 2-10-0 in 1954.

 

What was needed though wasnt high powered freight loco, it was all steel, high capacity fitted wagons..................

 

On the S &D the 7f was found to have advantages over the 8f. Better brakes and a higher nominal tractive effort. Clayton's design was worth a little further development it was unfortunate that the original was produced just as railway companies were getting to grips with long travel valves, narrow rings and associated lubrication issues. The contemporary K1 design had a better valve gear layout, the Midland 2-8-0 deserved some further attention and it would probably have rewarded its operators handsomely.
We are in the land of "what if" once again. The P1 was never fully developed but with driving wheels 5' 2" in diameter and three cylinders was it really a heavy freight design? It might have been proposed as such but it was more of a heavy mixed traffic in reality. Advances in valve and valve gear design, improved balancing and superior, more scientific, exhaust designs were arriving. Even without these the design could run at speeds in excess of 60 mph and produce more power than the drawgear of the time could safely handle. And the size of the trains that could be hauled presented problems. The K3 was more than powerful enough to deal with the maximum loads that the track layout could accommodate.
In spite of the efforts of some companies the well remembered unfitted freight train continued for many years. Locomotives of rather modest dimensions continued to handle heavy, loose coupled, unfitted trains working their way slowly around the land thanks to their skilful, capable crews. There were occasional areas where a uniquely powerful machine might be seen as required but the reality was that a modest improvement was all that was needed, it was all that the infrastructure could cope with. A fully fitted freight and mineral wagon fleet would present new challenges but this came about long after the LMS Garratt.

 

In mainline terms, the S&D, with it's famously tortuous route, for which the 7Fs (with their 4'-71/2" dia. drivers) were purpose designed, scarcely counted as 'galloping ground'. The long life and late survival of the two batches suggests they were at least competent machines for job. I always tend to think of any (mainline) loco with driver diameter south of 5'-6" as firmly in the 'freight' category, thence up to 6'-3" as 'mixed traffic'.

Perhaps it's worth noting that, over the water, the recently formed CIE reviewed all it's inherited loco classes in 1947, the report often commenting that several pre-GSR designs achieved formidable haulage due to their small drivers and mentioning known issues of increased wear and tear directly attributable to the higher rpm needed to run at mainline speeds.

 

The braking on the S & D 7Fs was improved because of the steep gradients on the line, yes, but they still had the usual undersized Derby 4 axleboxes which used to overheat. They were barely adequate for a 4F,but were also used on the Austin 7s and the Garratts, if they had been left up to Beyer Peacocks these would not have been used and the Garratts would have been much better.

BTW, on another rail forum I sometimes look at, a new build of one was suggested! The mind boggles!

 

It was also said that the LMS Garratts had the performance equivalent to a pair of "Big Goods" 0-6-0s, and also the coal consumption of a pair of "Big Goods" 0-6-0s.
Unless it was re-designed thoroughly, it would not be a pleasant proposition to operate and maintain - In any case, what use would it be nowadays? It wouldn't be a Main Line runner due to the low speed dictated by the aforementioned axleboxes, and there isn't a preserved line which would need one, unless the NYMR wanted to use one for banking trains up Goathland Bank - But that hardly warrants such a beast. It would just take up 2 locos' worth of space on a siding somewhere for most of its life, and cost an arm and a leg for doing so.

Richard.

 

Massively too big and cumbersome for a heritage line, and there would also be problems moving around the country as it would have to be split up into three parts to go on three separate lorries.

Also Network Rail would find difficulty in arranging paths for such a slow lumbering monster

 

Killjoy!

I wonder ..... if (and not dwelling overmuch on why!) there'd been the need for a Garratt, post nationalisation , what such a beastie might've looked like? I could imagine tank and bunker superstructures not a million miles from a stretched standard BR2 / BR2A tender (better line of sight fore and aft), double engine units based on class 3 or 4 tanks locos (experience showed locos with inboard carrying wheels were kinder to the PW) .... but the boiler and it's cradle? Given the unique nature of Garratts, perhaps Beyer Peacock, with the necessary tooling and patterns, might have produced these, though even on large EAR and SAR articulated locos, routing steam pipes around the firebox proved tricky. Within the constricted UK loading gauge, that would be one hell of a design challenge.

Oh look ..... it's time for my medication and a nice nap.

 

Look at it this way, its at least more sensible than the people who suggest the world needs a new build Bulleid Leader...

 

I can't fault that comment! The original Leader wasn't exactly a roaring success, was it? Designed to do the work of a class 5 wasn't it? We already have examples of the more modern equivalents... BR Sulzer Type 2 & 3 (Classes 24/25/26/27/33), as well as said Class 5s, in preservation, and they are probably infinitely more reliable (yes, even the diesels!).

Richard.

 

In view of the recent suggestions......Go Paget!

 

Do we really want a sleeve valved contraption out there, continually raising the spectre of 'Leader'?

 

We need both ... Helps illustrate a particularly important strand of locomotive design for educational purposes.

Tom

 

A bit like me offering an example of my OO tracklaying to Pecorama as an example of how not to do it

 

I believe the Leader was actually designed to replace locos such as the M7 tanks on short haul work!

 

Alas, that was what the Southern desparatley needed and what he was asked to produce but didnt

 

At exactly the same time as they were building the Leader, Brighton was building Fairburn 2-6-4tanks! Perhaps Bulleid didn’t venture into that part of the works...

Tom