You can still ride on trains pulled by Garrett locomotives in the UK, at the Welsh Highland Railway in North Wales and the Vale of Rheidol railway from Aberystwyth to Devils Bridge
Nací en 1960 y en España, Europa se usaron Garrat para líneas con grandes pendientes. Del puerto de Tarragona hasta Lérida circulaba un tren de productos petrolíferos arrastrado por una Garrat doble Mikado y en medio del tren un coche de pasajeros con recubrimiento de madera estilo USA. Yo viajé en estos trenes.
I've been on the Welsh highland railway. A beautiful railway line with stunning views and intresting locomotives. I believe they are the largest narrow gauge locomotives in the world which meats up with the ffestiniog railway who operate double fairlie locomotives.
And if you think the LMS Garratts are big, look upon the NSWGR AD60 Garratts 4-8-4+4-8-4. They were incredible machines and fortunately one (6029) still hauls tourist trains, to see it in motion is sheerly awesome.
I remember seeing the Garratt's over in Africa and you have got to be impressed on how well they have lasted, I think Zimbabwe recommissioned theirs due to diesel fuel shortages and they are fiercely powerful loco's when fired right that could take some of the most arduous terrains like the African deserts and surprisingly tolerant of badly maintained tracks as the huge weight simply ironed out most the crinkles in a sun bent rail.
Currently Indian Railways has two Garratt locos - One is preserved in Delhi's national museum, the one you showed at the end of the video and another has been restored at Kharagpur workshop and has also done a few heritage trips in Eastern part of India. The Garratts were only meant to serve in the then Bengal Nagpur Railway, BNR of the unified India (now SER and SECR).
It must suck being at Beyer Peacock when you have Garratt locomotive designs you send out internationally, and then one of the Big 4 come in, slaps down a drawing some of their guys did and being able to see problems before the locomotive was built.
There is also a GMAM in Summerlee Museum on the edge of Glasgow. A very similar class to the GL in Manchester. MOSI also have all the Beyer drawings if you want to build one :-)
When I was on my mission in Bolivia I found a near intact 4-8-2+2-8-4 Garrett located in Potosí Bolivia. It was sitting on a siding rusting away locals told me it ran through the late 1990s before they finally parked it. In Uyuni there is a train graveyard with several garrets that are almost too corroded to recognize! Being from the United States it was fascinating to see these foreign locomotives everywhere and how some continued running long after the end of steam in America!
In Australia, addition to the New South Wales standard gauge Garrett there are two running on the 762mm Puffing Billy railway one converted from a South African 2ft gauge engine and the other built for the Victorian Railways. Puffing Billy also has a 762mm Climax geared locomotive, another type of articulated locomotive.
The fundamental design was good. From your comments any problems with them were due to LMS specifications and running practices. As for that rotating coal bunker! I saw NSWGR AD-60 Garratts double heading 1000 ton coal trains all through my school years. Our school was on the main line between the Appin collieries and the terminal in Sydney. We'd often be waiting for our trains to and from school as one of these monster trains rumbled through; and to get onto the footbridge across the line, directly over the blast pipe was a thrill that has to be experienced to be appreciated.
A small point, but the LMS didn't come into operation in 1921. It was part of the Railways Act, 1921, but, like the other three of the "big four", it didn't come into operation until 1923. I should also add that they weren't built solely for coal trains from South Yorkshire into London: they also operated coal trains from Derbyshire to Birmingham.
We had Garrats on the South Australian Railways too! Huge 4-8-2 2-8-4 monsters called the 400 class used on the 3ft 6in narrow gauge system in the north of South Australia. Mainly used for ore trains, they also hauled pretty much any sort of freight. There's one preserved at the NRM in Port Adelaide number 409! Absolute Beast!
The best resolution this issue would be to have let the garretts be designed by Beyer, and keep their hands off the design. Proper axle boxes, other design features that you would see on the export models would have made locomotives that would have lived up to their potential, and probably lasted until the end of steam. Unfortunately both locomotives I’ve referenced were basically crippled by their owners wishes, not by the design’s suitability and their fates were sealed from the drawing board. This may not cover all the other details about why they failed, but it does in my opinion point toward the root.
I've also thought that a pneumatic fireless could have been added (semi-permanently coupled to the tail) , (and despite needing yet another crew member) kinetic energy could be siphoned by having the fireless put in reverse and recompressing air, acting as "dynamic brakes"
The 42 Garretts we had in NSW were a great success (standard guage). The Queensland railways had them on the 3ft 6 guage as did SA and they did a sterling job too. So it proves that customer "requests" are not always the best for the equipment they're ordering.
Fun Fact the LMS were thinking about making 4-4-2+2-4-4T express garratts but obviously this didn't go through. You can see this idea in Robin Barnes "Locomotives that never were" it has a round top fire box like the LNER garrat, implying the the Square Tops on the LMS Garratts were requested to be put on
The exported Garrett were a huge success, although they did need mechanical stokers if coal fired as no fireman could feed the firebox with enough coal. The downfall of British Garretts was due to the archaic train brake systems. Overseas trains have airbrakes on the train.
It's a recurring theme for Garratts, when Beyer-Peacock's designs were subverted by stupid demands from their customers, the resulting engines were poor performers. The LMS with their moronic application of substandard axle-boxes when B-P already made widespread use of roller bearings throughout, resulting in an engine that couldn't run as fast as it otherwise could. Or NZR with their asinine coal bunker requirements and rejection of B-P's bearing technology meaning that the 3 locomotives wore their bearings unevenly and required frequent maintenance. Meanwhile Garratts everywhere else were stalwart heavy freight hauling machines that served their railways all the way to the end of steam and beyond.
We always need more Garratt videos :-) The Garratt was an extremely successful export design, namely you could have a huge firebox and grate only restricted by loading gauge. Unions .... So ... I knew a guy who used to work on these, he was a fireman. He had lots of storeys. They used to over load them so they got stuck and .... After finishing late one night (early morning). He came across two union guys pouring sand in the oil boxes of all the Garratts. He was told to walk away under threat of violence and keep quiet. A Garratt is half the crew, half the maintenance staff, one boiler etc of two knackered 4f's and a lot more braking mass than two 4f's? So I think there's a bit of a bad myth about them, they were very unpopular with the unions, just like guard-less trains are today.. They were actually quite small for a Garratt for the gauge, if you compare with a GMAM, which had 50% bigger firebox, 30% more power and were only 3t 6 inch gauge. And that is despite being the second largest and most powerful steamer to run on UK rails. (And the biggest was also a Garratt). Now, like it or not, UK locos are actually primitive things, even 9f's were all manual stoked when nearly all large British made export locos post war were fully auto stoked, so fully enclosed cabs devoid of coal dust and mess etc. A GMAM is an example of what you can do with the design. And made in UK, they had one piece cast frames, that's a 50 ton one piece casting as per modern loco design and auto stokers. While Mr Riddles was still struggling with plate frames and working to his biggest design constraint, the size of a standard shovel and how fast 1 bloke could move 9 tons of coal into a little hole.
Agree with you about absence of mechanical stokers. British Railways in the 1950s had good locomotives but were very unambitious about using them. Locomotives were rarely worked to capacity because of the limitations of one fireman shovelling. When 60163 Tornado reached 101 mph on the test run in 2017, it was being fired by two men shovelling alternately every 4 seconds. No one fireman could sustain that effort for any length of time, hence the rarity of 100 mph running with steam.
I love Garratt locos, the absolute size, design, and the way they're set up is just fascinating. I'm currently working on a model of an "American style Garratt loco", because why not? (The "American" part is because it's two 4-8-4 northern class locos stuck together)
What were the LMS thinking by insisting that the Garratts have Midland axleboxes? Incidentally New Zealand Railways once had three 4-6-2+2-6-4 Garratts, but they were a complete failure and the engine units were reused in standard Pacifics. In the preservation era, at least three foreign Garratts have found homes in New Zealand (GMAM No. 4083 from South Africa as well as 15A class No. 398 and 14A class No. 509 from Zimbabwe).
There were some reactionary thinkers in the design/drawing office at Derby in the 1920s. Their own 7F 0-8-0 was also messed up by using Midland axleboxes. Some other engines were weakened by poor valve gear or odd boiler tube layouts. Whereas some designed by more enlightened staff were very successful, notably the Fowler 2-6-4 tanks.
The New Zealand Garretts had a number of design flaws. They were 3cylinder locos with Gresley's conjugated valve gear which presented many problems for maintenance crews. They were also too powerful for the rolling stock of the day. They could pull much larger trains than the wagons could stand and sometimes fell apart! The trains which they were capable of pulling were also too long for the passing loops on the mainly single tracks. They were eventually rebuilt as six 4 6 2 locos which were never popular with either engine crews or maintenance staff.
@@alanmcgunnigle4186 Yes, as with the LMS engines, the problem was not with the Garrett concept itself but with associated design decisions which were inappropriate for the intended duties. They would probably have been better as 2 cylinder engines; apparently Beyer Peacock recommended this but were overruled.
@@iankemp1131 Hi Ian Yes, it would have been interesting to see how locomotive design would have gone in NZ if a standard Garrett had been used. Instead NZ went back to standard tender engines. The J and Ja class 4 8 2 's which were both oil and coal fired and the mighty K and Ka 4 8 4 's which weighed around 145 tonnes and were oil fired.
Unfortunately, when the LMS was formed in1924 the Midland Railway became the dominant design people with their headquarters at Derby. Hence the unsuitable design characteristics. The Fowler 0 8 0s suffered from similar faults with hot axles so they could not replace the very reliable ex LNWR superDs. It took Stanier to sort out the situation with his black5s and 8fs as well as his fantastic Duchesses. Alan
Even the Super D's weren't that reliable; most LNWR engines were a bit primitive and had detail design faults of their own (notably the Claughtons). But the Fowler 7F 0-8-0s were worse, the axleboxes and running gear ruining a potentially very good design. Not all the Derby designs were bad - the Fowler 2-6-4Ts were very successful - but it seemed to be pot luck whether you got the less enlightened draughtsmen at Derby. There may have been some internal power struggles!
My number 1 biggest fear while driving is brake failure. I cannot imagine what the test team thought when the found a 100% brake mortality rate when going downhill…
Got one in oo. Nice model but most difficult one to work with It is probably the most important one in my collection due to it having personal nameplates
man we need a industrial age world builder game where you need to design your own railways, factories, trucks, mines, trading, etc. and you compete against other world leaders like you did in Railroad Tycoon 2 but in whole country level.
@@terrier_productions probably sympathy, and, of course, money however, they did not have enough money to have the great western railway give them more castles but the Southern Railway did give them the Nelsons Blue prints which would later be used for the blueprints of the Royal Scot
I love Garrats, and sadly in the UK these where not preserved as far I know. And in the 1950s there where no one who took a film of them running? I am sure there must be footage somewhere, maybe BBC Archive or someones attic?
Can still be seen on some African railways, locally mined coal will always trump expensive imported diesel fuel in price. A few of the African ones were converted to oil burning too having in its consist a huge water tanker and a huge oil tanker running behind the loco.
If you want to see garrets still in main line actice service pulling anything from goods to passengers. I would recommend Zimbabwe, granted the country is a bit (very) unstable, at least they have trains
Before the 1980s the majority of freight wagons had no automatic brakes, so the vast majority of freight trains relied on the locomotive and brake van to come to a stop.
All wagons had brakes, but had to be applied/released by hand. The train had to be stopped before the downhill section, the guard had to go along the train and apply a certain number of brakes according to a table of loads for that section of line. When they reached a level section of track, the train had to stop again, the crew go along and release the brakes. A very slow process and not very efficient, but apparently cheaper on routes over generally level track, for short distances, and where the wagons were frequently uncoupled.
@@stephenarbon2227 the application of the hand brakes was only required on steep slopes. Most of the time it was the locomotive and brake van that did the work.
Out of pure curiosity could it be said that the overall design of the SBB Ce 6/8 II and SBB Ce 6/8 III show the application of the Garratt idea in an electrified locomotive? my question includes locomotives from other countries following a similar design langue to the "Gotthard Krokodil" like the German E94
No mention of banking which is what Garretts were perfect for with their low speed and high tractive effort. Also they had high rates of fuel and water consumption due to them not being compound engines which made them unsuitable for line engine work.
Australian ones too. Likely the largest being standard gauge. Australian NFSA has some very high standard film and sound of these and other Beyer Peacock locomotives on the main north line around 1968 ; ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-ePpG4tVHSMQ.html There is also 6029 running in preservation, mainly on passenger trains. : ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-dQ7bz2nzztE.html
those locomotives look like someone decided to fuse 2 in one and make a weird looking yet working abomination out of it that looks if it was made on a scrapyard but restored
a fireless loco could have been put in the middle to act as "dynamic brakes" by throwing the johnson bar in reverse and compressing the air into its tank. eases the braking issue at least.
The rotation shook the coal down from the top (back) end so that the fireman could access it easily from the cab. When coal runs low in a tender a fireman has to reach in or physically go into the coal bunker to bring coal to the front. On a locomotive that size, the fireman had enough to do just shovelling coal into the firebox. In the commentary he talks about dust. I'm not sure a rotating bunker would reduce dust, but maybe it did.
Does anybody know what the loco at 1:28 is? It looks like a cross between an SAR G16 (but too many wheels) and an SAR G13 (right number of wheels but completely wrong design).
Probably because they objectively suck compared to other designs. 25mph is really really slow. Then they were goods engines, so running them on a heritage line would not be historically correct. Plus a lot of work due to the unusual design.
@@countluke2334 8Fs, 9Fs, and S15s are all freight locomotives and there's a few of those running on heritage lines. Even then, they simply could've just put one on static display somewhere.
Quite simply the last one was scrapped in the mid 1950s, well before the preservation movement really started going. They had barely been maintained since the war so a lot of the crewmen were happy to have them replaced with new 9fs
Hardly, the single LNER Class U1 Garratt was heavier and substantially more powerful, (though 7" shorter than the LMS Garratts). The U1 was a 2-8-0+0-8-2, had six cylinders, tractive effort 72,940 lbs, as against the LMS 2-6-0+0-6-2, four cylinders and 45,820 lbs.
Lots of successful Garretts around the world and Beyer Peacock made very good simple designs too. A shame so little film and sound footage of the UK standard gauge Garratts exists. The more numerous Australian AD60 class give some idea of the in service feel. The Australian NFSA has some very high standard film and sound of these and others on the main north line around 1968 ; ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-ePpG4tVHSMQ.html There is also 6029 running in preservation, mainly on passenger trains. : ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-dQ7bz2nzztE.html
heres the reason i dislike these along with triplex's where one engine set is under the tender: if your adhesion factor, and by extension your useable amount of tractive effort, relies on the amount of water in the cistern(s) and coal in the bunker, there may be a few engineering problemos
I've heard that's the excuse US railways used for never trying out Garratts, but they seem to have worked well enough in other parts of the world. And the problems of the Triplex had more to do with insufficient steaming than with weight changes.
@@Lucius_Chiaraviglio I think you're forgetting a garratt's biggest advantage is it's flexibility and ability to run on light track. but the garratt's advantages are negated on US rails, the much bigger loading gauge enables the railroads to build bigger engines and as it stands, the strongest garratt only has a tractive effort of 83,350 lbs. a challenger is more powerful than the strongest garratt and is more familiar with shop crews, a garratt would be an alien to them.
