I started this thread with some odd questions in mind with the defense as there are no such things as dumb questions.
First of all the long held position (mind the pun) of the Engineer resting his elbow on the window sill of the cab to get a better view, why is that even in Diesel cabs with a window right in front of the throttle and for steam, if the steam locos were having massive boilers to look around then why not use a periscope or even in plain view a telescope occasionally to check up on the horizon.
Second I know before the transistion from Heavyweight to Lightweight cars and after the advent of all steel heavy weights the speeds increase for trains so the observation platform on heavyweights was closed of to form a room called the solarium but why didn’t they incorporate the rounded end design that was so popular in the double ended HWT interurbans it was practially common practice to have round end on interurban cars, why wait till the advent of lightweight/steamlined cars to create a dove-tail observation ends. (I know of the B&O HWT observation with aero end, which was more like a chisel, akin to those McKeen motor cars, than a blunt round or dove-tail end.
Third was there ever a FT, F3 or F7, E6, E3, E7 that was painted in pullman colors, I know at the time the marketing image trend was to be flashy and streamlined, but just cuz I can ask why I would like to know if there was a railroad that was, like just getting their feet wet with diesels and want to make it match the currently massive fleet of HWTs of its road and other friendly roads. Even if it was one unit painted temporarly to look austere
The reason Diesel Engineers leaned out of their window was when hood diesel locomotive came out, the crew ran them long hood forward. They did this cause they were use to having a long hood (hense boiler) in front of them. Also, you lean out of a cab window inorder to get a better angle of view in front of your locomotive. That is especially important when going through a crossing and you need to see both sides of the crossing, by leaning out you get a better angle.
Relatively few trains had an observation car with a platform. The speed increase had nothing to do with rounding the end, it was purely esthetic to look fast and streamlined. It wasn’t necessary for the speed of the train. Until the Acela’s the fastest train in the US were the Metroliners (tested at 160 mph) and they had basically flat fronts and rear.
Railroading is a grimy, dirty, heavy-industry business. Especially back in the steam era, periscopes and telescopes were/are precision instruments. These two levels of technology don’t always mesh well. Keeping the optics clean would have been a nightmare in the steam era. At low speed, the deck of a locomotive rolls and sways; at speed it seems to jump and buck. Putting one’s face up to an eyepiece while being jostled around by tons of steel would likely induce a black eye. Also, from a safety perspective, there is a reason why we don’t have “telescopes” attached to our automobiles to look far ahead on the roadway - one needs to stay alert to all surroundings and not get distracted by an overly focused view which limits peripheral vision.
As mentioned previously, the rounding of observation cars had virtually nothing to do with speed or streamlining but was an esthetic or design issue. Railroads preferred flexibility in their equipment. Specialized trailing cars required placement only at the end of the train and thus would often need special tu
Since we’re surrounded by lots of whoop-de-doo technology (NASCAR in-car cameras come to mind) it’s sometimes hard to remember that, during the steam and transition era such things were the provence of the more imaginative science fiction writers - about as practical as a trip to the moon…[(-D]
A WWII submarine periscope has an EXTREMELY LIMITED field of vision - which is why those old war movies show the skipper walking completely around the periscope well. Locomotive cabs don’t have that kind of space. Also, a submarine is very stable. Only a near-fatal depth charging could produce movement typical of a well-suspended locomotive on good-quality track. (OTOH, if a periscope was designed with a wide field of vision the image would have a ‘wrong end of the telescope’ quality - virtually useless for tracking potential problems.) [:(]
Addressing the possibility of a Pullman green full-body diesel, I know the Clinchfield ran a cabless unit (or maybe two) behind a light steam loco in excursion service. The photo I saw was black and white, so I’m not sure what color paint was used - but the units were allegedly camouflaged to resemble baggage cars. The separate diesel control stand in the steamer’s cab was home-made, [8D]
When I saw the title of this thread I thought it would be addressing things that modelers have done that could have been reproduced in 1:1 scale, like John Armstrong’s four-truck articulated covered hopper, the ‘Cementipede.’ My personal candidate was a hypothetical (designed but never built) six truck, six cylinder ‘Shay - er - Garratt.’
Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - with rolling stock that might have been, but never was.)
Chuck is right about the Clinchfield, but it wasn’t just “B” units assisting old 4-6-0 #1. These photos were taken in Erwin, TN February 11, 1979 when the A-B-A set was used on a round-trip excursion to Spartanburg, TN. This is excursion service, and the Clinchfield was not noted for its passenger service, but it does demonstrate that “Fs” painted to match Pullman green can be quite attractive.
(The “img” movement from Photobucket doesn’t link up quite the same with the revised format, so I’m hoping that these go through…)
well I’ll be, I never thought I would get a report claim of such a thing happening, the question was just out of curiousity, but you sure got be flabber-gasted[:O]
ooo… ahhh… i am intrgued please do expand your thoughts on this. i like those ideas, of course those would be coalveyor/coalporter articulated gons now, and not too different from the articulated husky and maxi stacks running the rails
and since you mentioned - Garratt - this peculiar loco setup I would like to know more about ther role, function, pros&cons of this type of loco; why it was benificary to use such a loco in S. Africa only and why it never caught on as the Mallet in the US
DO NOT TEMPT THE DEVIL!!! As several people in other forums know I live and breathe articulated locomotives. There is only one Garratt in the USof A and that is an import from the RofSA -an NGG16. The only company to take out a manufacturing licence for a Garratt was the Alco group. They purchased a license from Beyer Peacock to manufacture the “Super Garratt” or “Mallett Garratt” for the North American market. These would have been 4-8-8-4+4-8-8-4 double “Big Boy” with the rights to produce a 2-12-12-12-2+2-12-12-2. These were to be used by :" Hempstead and Northern Railroad Texas". The Mallett was popular in the USofA because it did not require a patent supplication to M.Mallett -as a Garratt would have done to Messrs Beyer Peacock of Gorton Manchester. The lighter loading of typical southern african rail made for mutiple axles and the flexibilty of a Garratt made it easier to take the curves of Cape Gauge track work. Other types such as the Kitson Meyer were not as flexible and did not perform as well. For more information click the “Home Page” icon and examine the contents. Or simply look here: http://www.cabbagepatchrailway.co.uk/articulated.html regards ralph PS -I normally went to school on a Garratt…
Conrail had a couple of E-8s or E-9s and several business cars painted dark green. I don’t know whether they were Pullman green or Brunswick green or some other shade . Saw them several times, but always at night.
Interestingly, North America was the only continent (other than Antarctica) where the Garratt was never used. One explanation I have heard was that American motive power ‘experts’ were concerned that the Garratt would lose tractive effort as the fuel and water (which were carried over the drivers, with the boiler and other machinery slung between the engine frames) were consumed - and, at that time in history, tractive effort was KING!
Since the Triplexes had the same `problem’ I’m surprised that any railroad even considered them!
I would suppose that you look out the window rather than through the windshield for the same reason I do it in my car: I am getting glare through the glass, or I want some breeze in my hair, or I am backing up and cannot see well with those roof support struts in the way.
The “Hempstead and Northern” is the name of the private railroad in Texas that owns the NGG13, not an NGG16 - it has nothing to do with the proposed “Super Garratt”.
Henschel, Societe Franco-Belge, Societe St Leonard, Hanomag, Euskalduna and B&W, amongst others, all were licenced by Beyer, Peacock to build Garratts.
That’s very arguable. The one K-M that could be said to have suffered from this problem was the 8-coupled engine built by Robert Stephensons for the Colombian National Railway. It was undoubtedly too large and rigid for the FC Cundinamarca, but when the locos were re-allocated to an easier section of the the line, and fitted with a better design of oil burner, they performed well, according to P.C. Dewhurst.
Other examples of the K-Ms that ran in South America also acquitted themselves well , so I think your bias towards Garratts blinds you to the the K-Ms achievements. Me, I’ve fired on Garratts, and am very fond of them, but I don’t think they are the be-all and end-all of articulated steam.
Mark, Fair enough! My source of reference is the book “Garratt Locomotives of the world” by A.E.Durrant -which does confirm that a Texan bought an ex SAR/SSW NGG13. Also please examine Page 81 column 1… I am in the curious position of having built: a Garratt, a Golwe and a Kitson-Meyer. Of all of them the Golwe is far the most superior. The double hemisphere support system for the bogie gives far more flexible locomotive than does either the Garratt or Kitson-Meyer system. regards ralph
Steam engines had windows in the front of the cab, but with continual contact with wet steam, coal smoke and dust, oil etc. they were rarely that easy to see out. A periscope would have gotten just as dirty - if not more so. Engineers also had to lean out the window to keep an eye on the drivers and drive rods etc. to make sure everything was running right.
I think this was touched on earlier, but solarium cars had doors at both ends, so didn’t have to be the end car of the train - like if you had an inspection car or the company president’s car tacked on the end of the train.
[quote user=“AC10000CW”]
Third was there ever a FT, F3 or F7, E6, E3, E7 that was painted i
Which clearly states that Beyer, Peacock only ever proposed a 2-6-6-2+2-6-6-2 Mallet-Garratt, which Alco took up a licence for. The 4-8-8-4+4-8-8-4 and 2-12-12-2+2-12-12-2 were never seriously considered by BP, they were just speculation by the author of the Trains magazine article. The Hempstead and Northern Railroad is the name of the private line operated by the Texan owner of the NGG13.
I wouldn’t draw too many conclusions from the performance of some small-scale, non-steam models. Both Garratts and KMs used hemispherical pivots, they aren’t unique to the Golwe’s.
