Would Garratt locomotives have been successful in North America if any were built?

[778]

If any North American railroads had tried out Beyer Garratts, would they have been successful? Countries with similar rail networks (South Africa & Australia) prefered Beyer Garratts over Mallets. South Africa tried both types, and the Garratts completely outperformed the Mallets. They could haul greater loads, and had better coal and water consumption.

There must have been good reasons why none were ever built for North American railroads, but I can't think of any?

 

[Irascible]

Were there patent issues? "this wasn't our idea" issues?

 

[33101]

This thread on Railway Preservation news may be of interest, with the greater clearances available on US rails, being given as a reason for not needing the Garratt style firebox/boiler between the articulated drivers. One of the links in the thread indicates one was made for use in the US.

 

[randyrippley]

..................... One of the links in the thread indicates one was made for use in the US.

It actually says a class of three were built

 

[Irascible]

This thread on Railway Preservation news may be of interest, with the greater clearances available on US rails, being given as a reason for not needing the Garratt style firebox/boiler between the articulated drivers. One of the links in the thread indicates one was made for use in the US.

While that's true, that would also presumably be true for Australia.

 

[ac6000cw]

Were there patent issues? "this wasn't our idea" issues?

Anatole Mallet was a Swiss locomotive engineer, so the Americans didn't invent the 'Mallet' either. What we know as the 'Mallet' locomotive design was patented in 1884, and the first US example was built in 1904 by ALCo, a few years before the first Garrett was built (in the UK for export) and after various 'Mallets' had been built in Europe.

So by the time the first Garrett appeared the Mallet was already an established design. It has the advantage of having all of its adhesive weight provided by the 'engine' part of the overall locomotive (same as on a rigid loco) so it doesn't vary, whereas on a Garrett the adhesive weight decreases as the fuel and water is used (as that sits over the driving wheels at both ends). Garretts also have two sets of flexible steam joints instead of one set on a Mallet (where only the front 'engine' is articulated).

It was originally 'mountain' railroads in the US that took to Mallets, where they replaced pairs of 2-8-0s and the like on low-speed coal drag and pusher service, halving the crew costs (on lines where large rigid locos would not have been able to cope with the curves). In that sort of service maximizing the adhesive weight was all-important, so probably the Mallet design was the most suitable. Railroads like the coal-hauling Norfolk & Western went for Mallets in a big way as a consequence - their home designed-and-built later 'Y' series 2-8-8-2 locos were the stuff of legend, possibly the best true Mallets (i.e. with compounding) ever built.

 

[Rescars]

This begs the question, what, boiler configuation aside, is the difference between a Fairlie and a Garrett? Both are double articulated.

 

[ac6000cw]

This begs the question, what, boiler configuation aside, is the difference between a Fairlie and a Garrett? Both are double articulated.

Basically a Garrett is like an extended tender loco with an extra water tank at the front. A double-Fairlie is like two tank engines joined back-to-back with a shared cab and firebox in the centre.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairlie_locomotive and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garratt

Being basically a 'tender' style loco, a Garrett has greater water and fuel capacity and the design scales up to larger sizes - big fat boilers with low centre of gravity, fed from big water tanks and fuel bunkers, so much more of a 'mainline' loco design. A Fairlie has the water and fuel limitations of a tank engine.

 

[Irascible]

It has the advantage of having all of its adhesive weight provided by the 'engine' part of the overall locomotive (same as on a rigid loco) so it doesn't vary, whereas on a Garrett the adhesive weight decreases as the fuel and water is used (as that sits over the driving wheels at both ends).

Ish - the boiler on a Garrett is of course still supported by the power ends, but it's weight is acting through the pivots obviously so it's not likely to be well balanced all the time.

There were German Malletts also, I think? not very knowlegeable on continental railways really.

This begs the question, what, boiler configuation aside, is the difference between a Fairlie and a Garrett? Both are double articulated.

I think the better comparison is a Fairlie & a Mallet, Only half a Mallet is articulated, but both have the driving axles under the entire weight of the locomotive. I guess the Ffestiniog was too tight for Mallets?

 

[ac6000cw]

There were German Malletts also, I think?

Yes (and other countries) - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mallet_locomotive#European_versions and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mallet_locomotive#Other_continents

I think the American versions are just much better known because they took the idea to the extreme in terms of power, size and weight (including over 250 Southern Pacific oil-fired 'cab forward' versions).