Bravo!

QUERY RE 6029

Paul,

Loco  is standard gauge,

weighs 263.5 tons

T.E. 63,000 lbs.

55" drivers 

regards

John L 

Very Nice

It's always nice to see a steamer restored to running condition.

Bernd

Wow ...

... pretty impressive machine!  Thank you for sharing.

Neat looking locomotive

527,000 lbs and produces a tractive effort of 63,000 lbs. Seems to be the equivalent power wise of the 2-8-4s or the 4-8-2s of the N&W or W&LE. I would have expected much more power from a locomotive like that.

The design has a lot to recommend it with regard to allowing for a big fire box. If a good equalization process could be determined one could keep nearly all the weight on drivers. In looking at it I got the impression the boiler was about the size of an American Pacific Type.

Still think it is an interesting design, I'm wondering what could have been done with a similar drive train if Lima had applied their super power concepts to it.

Cool loco

Even though a little on the small size by US standards....I would think of it as the closest equivalent to a non NorthAmerican Big Boy.    Maybe that engine is why UP is rebuilding 4014?????

Thanks, John

Power of the AD60 Garratts

Hi all again,

As originally built, these locos were designed for a 16-Ton axleloading to work lighter-laid branchlines bringing in wheat from country silos to major hubs. They were also designed to handle 2% (i in 50) to 2.5% (1 in 40) grades and to eliminate double heading on these grades that had previously been required with smaller 2-8-0 loco types on these loads.

Later in there career several of them, including 6029, were fitted with extended coal bunkers, dual-controls to assist each- way running (coal bunker leading or stack leading) and ballasted up to 18-ton axleloading for NSWGR mainline work. The maximum tractive effort was limited both by the smaller-than US loading gauge (maximum dimensions possible) and the lighter weight of rail used on the mainline in NSW during this period.

Even at the end of their service careers in the late 1960's, with at times minimal maintenance due to increasing dieselisation of the network, some of their performances were spectacular. For example, hauling coal at Fassisfern on the run to the export port of Newcastle, double-headed with 1500 tons behind the drawbar, heading onto a rising 1 in 40 (2.5%) grade from a standing start. As usual YouTube is our friend with 2 clips of this action. Watch for the bridge over the tracks in both clips

Firstly, pulling away from the station -

and attacking the 2.5% grade with the train stretched out behind

Unfortunately I can remember only seeing the 60 class Garratt locos in service twice before they were retired, and one of those times it was a solo loco taking water at a large water tank. I do hope to be trackside sometime in the future when 6029 goes past.  

Garratt

Garrat Questions

John, 

First, thanks for linking to the videos.

Three questions (two related):
 - Do one or both of the engines exhaust through the chimney?
- What is used to draft?  The exhaust looks almost continuous - like drafting is primarily via a blower?
- How did Garrats maintain adhesion as the fuel and water load was depleted?

The axle loading is interesting.  For reference for North American non-steam guys, U.S. steam axle loads were 60,000 pounds,  with some very heavy roads (N&W, as an example) designed for 70K pounds per axle.  The outlier is the C&O Allegheny with some axles carrying over 80K!  To John's point - a high theoretical tractive effort would be useless without enough adhesive weight to take advantage of it.

It really puts some things in perspective

I thought the Garrats were very interesting locomotives due to their unusual design by American standards. When you look at what they were doing on rails that would not have been able to support most locomotives in use in America is really amazing.

The C&O and Virginian used 2-6-6-6s that were tremendously heavy. Another by comparison was the 2-10-10-2 the Virginian used in a much earlier time frame that was capable of generating 174,000 lbs of TE in simple form. But even with the heavier standards in America these monsters had to be shipped disassembled and many railroads of the day could not transport them!

When you look at 2 of the Garrats generating over 120,000 lbs of TE and putting less than 32,000 lds on the rails per axle it is a very impressive design.

Thanks for sharing

WEIGHT OF GARRETT

Rob,

re your 527,000 pounds

Am afraid you have fallen into the trap of using American (short) tons, (2000 lb/ton).

A 'long' or imperial, (English), ton is 2240lb. 

The Garrett actually weighs 263.5 X 2240 lbs = 590,240 lbs.

For the record an Australian firm

http://www.modelokits.com/modelokits_014.htm

is offering an 'O' scale (1:43.54)/7mm ft) kit which they had running at an 'O' Scale Expo in Sydney last March.... even in 'O' scale it is a big monster.

regards

John L

That is interesting as to the

That is interesting as to the weight. The other thing I noticed with them is the fuel and water is carried on the drive wheels and as it is used the weight on drivers would become less. That is the advantage of a tender as the fuel and water is used up the drag on the engine becomes less.

The thing I thought was most interesting on the Garratts were their unique articulation between two sets of drive wheels and the relatively light loading on the rails.

For the record an Australian

For the record an Australian firm

http://www.modelokits.com/modelokits_014.htm

is offering an 'O' scale (1:43.54)/7mm ft) kit which they had running at an 'O' Scale Expo in Sydney last March.... even in 'O' scale it is a big monster.

And, in HO scale, Eureka Models offers a ready to run AD60 with sound.

http://eurekamodels.com.au/Garratt.html

Mike

Here's the O Scale model & maybe some answers

Hi all, 

As mentioned in the previous post, the pilot model was on display last March. Here is a photo of the completed model displayed parked at a station.

This is a seriously large kit for the more advanced modeller - The completed model is over 3' long. Although this model is done in 1/43 scale, this would "bulk up" to close to US loading gauge (clearance) dimensions in 1/48 scale.

Hopefully some answers for the questions Matt.asked earlier - 

Q1 - Both engine units exhaust through the chimney. The steam seen coming from the coal bunker area behind the cab would probably have been from the steam engine that drove the coal pusher auger.

Q2 - With both engine units exhausting up the stack, the length of pipe run from the cylinder exhaust ports allowing the exhaust peaks to smooth out slightly before they get to the smoke-box under the stack, and with 8 beats per wheel revolution (4 beats/wheel revolution by 2 engine units with no synchronisation between engine units), draft would have been almost continuous. There was blower that was used to to build up steam pressure when stationary and also to prevent blow-back from the firebox into the cab when working in tunnels.

These units were that big that they were banned from lines with single track tunnels. If a Garratt loco had ever got stuck in a single bore tunnel, the clearances between the cab side and the tunnel walls were that tight that the crew could not get out of the cab.  .  

Q3 - Short answer is that they didn't. With only one regulator handle for both engine units, careful driving would have been required to prevent the lighter engine unit from slipping when hauling heavy loads near the end of the run. Adhesive weight was maintained by regularly taking water to keep the tanks topped up.

Lineside watering facilities were upgraded at some places where these locos ran with extra standpipes to allow filling of front and rear tanks simultaneously and with higher capacity tanks in some places to assist these locos to take on large amounts of water quickly so that they could be on their way again.

Also 105' turntables were installed at key "end of run" loco servicing facilities when these locos were introduced. 

I'm not sure that the above fully answers all the questions, but I hope that it goes some way towards it,

Thanks for the answers

Thanks John, for the feedback.  I wondered about the possibility of a long exhaust back to the chimney - but I decided that the path from the bunker engine would be too long and tortured to be realistic; but on the other hand, I could see no evidence of exhaust from that remote location either.   All the slip and pivoting joints required for bot the supply and exhaust steam must have been a good deal of work to keep in good condition.