I just read that DMIR crews called their Yellowstone locomotives “Mallets.” I’ve also read that SP crews called the cab-forwards “Mallets” (or “Mallies”).
But neither of those locos were compounds, AFAIK.
Was it somewhat common for railroaders to call any articulated a Mallet? Would that have been true on lots of roads?
Did crews back then, when saying the word “Mallet,” commonly pronounce it “Mallie?” Or Mallet, rhymes with ballot.
This is something of a timeless topic.
The canonical answer begins with Anatole Mallet, who ceaselessly waged a campaign to confirm that compounding was an essential part of his invention. It is for this reason that many refer to ‘simple articulateds’ instead of ‘Mallets’ – a matter of courtesy and respecting the inventor’s own wishes.
Now when I was little, Trains referred to D&RGW ‘Mallets’ with Elesco ‘brow’ feedwater heaters enough that I associated the two – you know, like a croquet mallet across the engine front. Somewhere in there I saw reference to “malleys” and realized that ‘Mallet’ and ‘ballet’ (which my sister had taken up) were from the same language and were supposed to rhyme … this was hard to remember to do at first. In those days, more than a half-decade before the reprint of ‘Articulated Locomotives’ and the dawn of the plus-sign craze in Whyte coding, the use of the phrase “Mallet-type” was used enough in the magazine that I understood it to refer to any large articulated locomotive of that kind.
More recently we have had opinionated posters who used ‘Mallet’ to refer to the chassis arrangement alone – to which I overreacted at the time. I note that Wiener refers at times to ‘Mallet-pattern’ (and the like) and I think that it is a matter of ‘individual conscience’ whether you respect the values of the dead or opt for convenience.
I have never heard a railroader say the word, so I can only go by the use of occasional phoneticisms like the aforementioned ‘Malleys’ to judge how various pronunciations or butcherings of the name were used. Considering the frightful and extremely widespread mispronunciations and misspellings of “Boxpok” in the ranks of professional steam men, I suspect that ‘Mallet’ was said all sorts of ways. (I recall reading that the way Anatole said his n
SP’s first cab-forwards were compounds, though most if not all were simpled by the 1920s. Since SP didn’t make any distinction between cab-forward and conventional layout in class designators, those can be used easily.
MM Class - Mallet Mogul (2-6-6-2 or 4-6-6-2)
AM Class - Articulated Mogul (most of these were rebuilt MMs)
MC Class - Mallet Consolidation (2-8-8-2)
AC Class - Articulated Consolidation (2-8-8-2, 2-8-8-4 or 4-8-8-2)
Some of the early cab-forwards had two wheel lead trucks. The 2-8-8-4 was the coal burning AC-9 class.
Thanks, OM and redrye.
I would guess Mr. Mallet said mahl-LAY. And I would guess no American railroader ever said it that way!
Despite Mallet being the proper designation for the two engine sets under a common boiler with one of the engines operating on low pressure ‘used’ steam from the high pressure engine - the term Mallet was used colloquially on many roads to apply to any steam engine that had two engine sets operating under a single boiler with both engine sets using high pressure steam.
As we know, while there can be narrowly defined proper terms for things; when the mass of population gets involved the definition can be made much wider.
We know this. What I explained is why some people have come to think differently.
What is also important is that not just “any” steam engine that has two engine sets and a single boiler is a Mallet chassis: it specifically refers to one engine rigidly attached to the boiler, and the other one hinged to pivot relative to the first.
If either or both engines are provided as ‘motor bogies’ - it’s not a Mallet. If both engines are rigid (as in a duplex) it’s not a Mallet. If the firebox comes between the engines, it isn’t a Mallet. (But if you have a Mallet-style chassis either side of a Beyer-Garratt boiler, the result was called by Beyer Peacock a “Mallet-Garratt”… apparently whether or not ‘compound’, as I don’t recall ever seeing a ‘super-Garratt’ that wasn’t single-expansion…) On the other hand, it doesn’t matter if the hinged engine leads or trails, and I don’t think it matters if the four cylinders face mutually in or out (there being a famous 0-6-6-0 built by Angus Shops with the former arrangement…)
A secondary issue that “might” concern the Mallet name is the type of hinge provided. In many of the early designs, particularly a couple from Baldwin, much is made of the vertical compliance in the hinge, allowing the forward engine to follow the track ‘away’ from the rigid line of the boiler. In practice this led to some exaggerated boogaloo action, particularly from large compound cylinders and excessive compression on the hinged LP engine, which no amount of practical snubbing or springing could compensate for. This was only solved by N&W in the A-class design by providing almost no vertica
I bet “Mallie” was the usual railroader term for any Mallet in the US, simple or compound. Maybe someone new to the RR mistakenly pronounced the T, but he would soon have learned better.
By that, do you mean any articulated?
Any railroad that used the word ‘Mallet’ to describe its articulateds.
My guess is that there were many systems that just used the number series, or the class, or even a type name. We’ll see what timz says.
In my neck of the woods “Malley” means this: https://malleys.com/ [;)][dinner]
Oh wow, those dark chocolates look goooooood!
Dark chocolate is the best. Bittersweet, like love itself! [:-^]
But back to the other Mallets. If what I’ve read is true, the real railroaders never called the locomotives by the popular names, but by the class numbers, as in:
“What are ya takin’ out today?”
“One of the 4000’s.” (A simple articulated, not a Mallet! Hint, hint!)
“Lucky guy!”
For the most part anyway.
Very true. Similarly, working railroaders tended to refer to scheduled trains by their number, not the names used in advertising / public timetables. “18 has to take the siding to allow 47 by” rather than “the Cannonball has to to take the siding to allow the Midnight Special by”.
I just meant any railroader that said “Mallet” pronounced it Mallie. No idea how many railroaders used the term at all.
“Any articulated”… were there any in the US, aside from Mallet-style?
Let’s see now, you have Shays, Climaxes, Heislers, Mason Bogies, among others. Wiener lists all of these, he also considered Mallets to be semi-articulated.
Correctly so, too. (Except for certain ATSF and Baldwin engines with ‘hinged boilers’ – really just fancy feedwater heater stuff in the hinged section…)
Never paid attention to those – do they have articulated frames?
Trucks that swivel ‘count’ as articulation, as do radiating axles/Klien-Lindner.
See if you can find a copy of Wiener’s ‘Articulated Locomotives’ used (there are usually Kalmbach -reprint copies available for a reasonable price shipped). Many is the interesting form of articulation you will see.
The thing missing from Wiener is a full discussion of why tender boosters were an unalloyed Bad Idea, and a good lead-in is in Fryer’s Experimental British Steam (there is an interesting discussion of the use of tender-type boosters correctly, too)
The Santa Fe “prairie mallets” had the original Mallet-style frame link with both vertical and horizontal motion. The accordion-style joint used on one engine (1157) had bad issues with cinders collecting in the bellows, especially on top, so a later engine (1158)had a sort of ball-and-socket arrangement that was equally (un-)successful due to poor seals at the joint. Baldwin also built a fair number of rigid-boiler Prairie Mallets that ran into the 1930s. Both flexible versions had damping devices to keep the two halves of the boiler from wandering too much. There was a 44" cylindrical flue attached to the rear boiler section to keep the joints clear of combustion by-products.
Baldwin sold a fair number of ‘conversion kits’ to turn your pounding hog into their version of articulated Super-Power – the whole forward section was not a boiler, but intended as a huge superheater/steam dryer and economizer.…
Hence Santa Fe’s 2-10-10-2s, which started out as, and ended up as, well, Santa Fe types (2-10-2).
Virginian’s 10 class AE 2-10-10-2s were built as such by Alco, and were reasonably successful, even getting drag freight assignments on the relatively flat East End during WW II.