richard wrote:Maybe - when the LNER made one out of two O2s (=6 cylinder 2-8-8-2), the tractive effort was quoted at 72,940lb.
Of course the U1 was not considered a great success - even when converted to oil burning.
Richard
It sounds as if none of the Garratts that were built for British railways worked very well. The LMS ones were messed up by fitting duff axleboxes...
Didn't stop people planning them though...
Of course the U1 was not considered a great success
"
The LNER Garrett was specifically designed for banking coal trains up the Worsborough Incline in Yorkshire, three miles with an average gradient of 1 in 40. It cannot have been too unsuccessful as it kept this job as a one off locomotive for almost thirty years until electrification. One problem was that banking locos just tended to be getting into their stride from cold and making steam freely when it was time to shut off steam and everything stopped, so as to speak, with harmful effects on tubes,tubeplates and firebox, as well as poor economy. They might then just stand around for a lengthy period awaiting their next job.This was a problem with the BR 9Fs on the Tyne Dock -Consett iron ore trains in the north east flogged up to Consett white hot and then drifting back down the bank. Not a healthy regime for a steam engine. In addition the water supply for the Garrett at Worsborough was very poor, leading to tube problems and treated water had to be supplied. Even so the Garrett replaced two 2-8-0s on banking duties and could push a train of perhaps 750-1000 tons up the incline in some five minutes less. At least part of its unhappy post - Worsborough career can be put down to dislike by crews on the Lickey Incline, and enginemen's inate conservatism, though no doubt that 56.5sq ft of grate played a part, leading to the unsuccessful experiment with oil firing.
The LMS Garretts could no doubt have been good engines if the LMS had left it to the experts Beyer Peacock, but oh no. They had to be standardised ie 'midlandised'. By the end of their lives they were described by one LMR engineer as being virtually "unmaintainable" in the conditions of that time and the coming of the 9Fs sealed their fate.
[quote="stembok"The LNER Garrett was specifically designed for banking coal trains up the Worsborough Incline in Yorkshire, [/quote]
This is a myth. The Garrett was one of a pair ordered before the grouping by Robinson for running 100 wagon trains from Wath to Immingham. The original design used 8K (O4) 2-8-0 frames and possibly a colliod fueled boiler. The full story is in Great Central in LNER Days by Jackson & Russell.
[quote]Bill Bedford:"This is a myth"[unquote]
It is not a myth. The L N E R U1 Garratt locomotive 2395 of 1925 was built specially for the Worsborough Incline banking duty. This is stated categorically by both F.A.S Brown, 'Nigel Gresley,Locomotive Engineer' (1961) and also in 'Garratt Locomotives of the World ' (1969) by A. E. Durrant, as well as being mentioned by R.L. Hills in his history of Beyer Peacock and also in a number of papers presented to locomotive engineers' professional bodies at the time.
The first proposal for a Garratt for the Worsborough Incline appears to have come from the GCR, possibly C1910 and eventually evolved into a design based upon two Robinson 2-8-0s. It has also been stated that two locos were planned.The proposal resurfaced after WW1 and on Grouping was inherited by Gresley, who from statements to the Institution of Locomotive Engineers in 1920, was not it seems a fan of the Garratt concept , at least in this country. Nevertheless, the scheme went ahead. It was found that the G C 2-8-0 proposals would have given a tractive effort of 62,250 lbs, so another scheme was put forward based on two three cylinder Gresley 02 2-8-0s giving an increased tractive effort of 72,940 lbs. No doubt Gresley also preferred -not unnaturally - to base the locomotive on his own designs.This was the locomotive built by Beyer Peacock in 1925. It may be - as you claim - that the GCR had other traffic plans for a Garratt design in addition to the banking job , Gresley did not.
It is not a myth. The L N E R U1 Garratt locomotive 2395 of 1925 was built specially for the Worsborough Incline banking duty. This is stated categorically by both F.A.S Brown, 'Nigel Gresley,Locomotive Engineer' (1961) and also in 'Garratt Locomotives of the World ' (1969) by A. E. Durrant, as well as being mentioned by R.L. Hills in his history of Beyer Peacock and also in a number of papers presented to locomotive engineers' professional bodies at the time.
The first proposal for a Garratt for the Worsborough Incline appears to have come from the GCR, possibly C1910 and eventually evolved into a design based upon two Robinson 2-8-0s. It has also been stated that two locos were planned.The proposal resurfaced after WW1 and on Grouping was inherited by Gresley, who from statements to the Institution of Locomotive Engineers in 1920, was not it seems a fan of the Garratt concept , at least in this country. Nevertheless, the scheme went ahead. It was found that the G C 2-8-0 proposals would have given a tractive effort of 62,250 lbs, so another scheme was put forward based on two three cylinder Gresley 02 2-8-0s giving an increased tractive effort of 72,940 lbs. No doubt Gresley also preferred -not unnaturally - to base the locomotive on his own designs.This was the locomotive built by Beyer Peacock in 1925. It may be - as you claim - that the GCR had other traffic plans for a Garratt design in addition to the banking job , Gresley did not.
The LNER board approved plans to purchase two 2-8-0 0-8-2 locos on 4 August 1923 from Beyer Peacock. BP were to do the design work for the boiler on the engine units were to be based on 8Ks. At this stage Gresley was not involved as Robinson was still with the LNER as a consultant. He seems to have been retained with relationship to the alternative fuel experiment that the GCR had been running since 1917. A order was placed with BP in April 1924 for one engine only. Gresley's input was not felt until the 31st July when ask that the loco should be redesigned with 3 cylinder in each engine and his conjugated valve gear. This added £500 to the cost of the machine and increased the weight above that specified in the original design.
From all this it is plain that the original design was for a traffic engine and that Gresley's changes made what could have been an interesting attempt at a high powered freight loco into a white elephant. The actual loco was neither a good banker, because of a lack of controllability and crew visibility, nor could it be used for traffic, as the steaming capacity was beyond the firing ability of one man. Whether Gresley deliberately sank this project I don't know, but that was the effect of his changes to the loco.
Two other things are worth pointing out. First the GCR arrangements for banking at Worsborough were perfectly adequate. In practice it made no difference whether a train was banked by the Garrett or by two O4s. So to spend £15000 on a machine that at best will save a single crew seems extravagant. Secondly, all other Garretts in the world were used a traffic engines, only this one was solely used as a banker, its use at Worsborough demonstrated that it was unsuitable in that role.
Bill Bedford wrote:
The LNER board approved plans to purchase two 2-8-0 0-8-2 locos on 4 August 1923 from Beyer Peacock. BP were to do the design work for the boiler on the engine units were to be based on 8Ks. At this stage Gresley was not involved as Robinson was still with the LNER as a consultant. He seems to have been retained with relationship to the alternative fuel experiment that the GCR had been running since 1917. A order was placed with BP in April 1924 for one engine only. Gresley's input was not felt until the 31st July when ask that the loco should be redesigned with 3 cylinder in each engine and his conjugated valve gear. This added £500 to the cost of the machine and increased the weight above that specified in the original design.
From all this it is plain that the original design was for a traffic engine and that Gresley's changes made what could have been an interesting attempt at a high powered freight loco into a white elephant. The actual loco was neither a good banker, because of a lack of controllability and crew visibility, nor could it be used for traffic, as the steaming capacity was beyond the firing ability of one man. Whether Gresley deliberately sank this project I don't know, but that was the effect of his changes to the loco.
So, once again, a British Garratt was wrecked by people not letting Beyer-Peacock get on with it, and insisting on modifications for no good reason...
What did the people running railways in this country have against Garratts? I think E.S. Cox summed it up in... either Locomotive Panorama or Chronicles of Steam, when he said there was a feeling that Garratts were 'too good to be true'...
[quote /"unsuitable in that role" /unquote]
The LNER Garratt, locomotive, performed its duties, which it had been specifically designed and built for, from 1925 until superseded by electric locomotives in 1952, a long spell for a perceived "failure". If banking arrangements at Worsborough were "perfectly adequate" then why had the GC looked at a Garratt design to solve the problem as far back as C1910? As a one off locomotive I suggest that had it been the failure [white elephant ] you say its demise would have occurred much earlier than it did. Remember, it survived the Thompson regime. Why was it built? Because, despite its greater initial expense, it saved an engine and a crew. It performed duties at Wentworth for the week returning to Mexborough at weekends. It was not intended for other duties. Had it been, a mechanical stoker could have been fitted. In TI for August 1952 Peter Semmens reported on a footplate trip on the engine on the Worsborough Incline and praised its competence and the sensitivity of its controls, a feature of Beyer Peacock locos, this in addition to its superior performance, over two 2-8-0s.
Whatever other plans the G C may have had for Garratts Worsborough banking duties were certainly amongst them. The fact is that the U1 was built post-1923 by Gresley for a specific task, something he tended to do as a designer, eg the P2s. I am quite sure that had Gresley not wanted a Garratt he would not have had one. He was not a great fan of the Garratt design, which I think personally is a pity ,but in this case motive power wise the U1 filled the bill.
Last edited by stembok on Fri Oct 24, 2008 8:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
From reading things like the RCTS books, I get the feeling that there was a certain amount of politics, and the Garratt project quickly lost favour with management. For example the the order for the second loco was quietly dropped without any explanation.
The LNER management did a good job of smoothing over the differences between the constituent companies (eg. turning a blind eye to Darlington's choice of green). I wonder if the U1 project was one of these "little" things that grew into something a bit bigger than intended?
Richard:The modification of the original proposal for the Garratt from four cylinders based upon two Robinson 2-8-0s to six cylinders based upon two Gresley 02s was to give an increased margin of tractive effort and performance over the original design for the duties Gresley had in mind for it. Six cylinders were going to need a big boiler to feed them when working hard, hence the increased grate area .Gresley was, as you say Richard, actually remarkably tolerant in accepting the designs of other engineers or the ideas of other companies, for example he perpetuated a number of pre-Grouping designs for service, such as the GC Directors in Scotland. While money - or perhaps the lack of it - played a part he was adopting a pragmatic course. One can think of other personalities who might have insisted on a different course had they been the CME at the time.
I personally think that it is a pity that the Garratt arrangement was not adopted more widely, as the design had many advantages and could have done well on difficult routes where double- heading was endemic, such as the Highland main line, the Edinburgh -Aberdeen route or perhaps in the West Country. The Garratt also never caught on in the USA, despite some interest shown by ALCO,yet the Garratt was arguably a better vehicle than the Mallet layout, on the basis of experience elsewhere. It seems that Garratt equalled for many people a locomotive built for lightly built railways in difficult terrains,eg Africa. This was not so, as the design showed in, for instance, Algeria with express services worked by Garratts. Sadly, the design, for all its successes, never really had the chance it deserved.
stembok wrote:I personally think that it is a pity that the Garratt arrangement was not adopted more widely, as the design had many advantages and could have done well on difficult routes where double- heading was endemic, such as the Highland main line, the Edinburgh -Aberdeen route or perhaps in the West Country.
True, but it wasn't that nobody considered them.
The LMS considered a number of 4-4-2, and 4-6-2 versions over a period of 19 years - one of which would have replaced the flawed 2-6-0 version they'd already got. The GWR considered 2-8-0 and 4-6-0 versions, but nothing ever came of any of them.
Arguably it was the failure of the LMS (2-6-0) Garratts that so few designs ever got built. And if they'd not interfered with Beyer-Peacock's design, they'd have been a lot better... So, I suppose the answer to 'why not more Garratts' is 'Blame the guys at Derby who just couldn't leave well alone.'
stembok wrote:[quote /"unsuitable in that role" /unquote]
The LNER Garratt, locomotive, performed its duties, which it had been specifically designed and built for, from 1925 until superseded by electric locomotives in 1952, a long spell for a perceived "failure". If banking arrangements at Worsborough were "perfectly adequate" then why had the GC looked at a Garratt design to solve the problem as far back as C1910?
I'm not sure of the date (probably 1914 or 1919), but they also considered an 0-10-2T loco...
0-10-2T: The M R appears to have gone down a not too dissimilar route with their 0-10-0 Lickey Banker 'Big Bertha' 2290, B R 58100 (1919-1956) though it had a tender. That engine's tractive effort is given as 43,300 lbs.
stembok wrote:0-10-2T: The M R appears to have gone down a not too dissimilar route with their 0-10-0 Lickey Banker 'Big Bertha' 2290, B R 58100 (1919-1956) though it had a tender. That engine's tractive effort is given as 43,300 lbs.
The M R also considered a couple of oddities - one was an unarticulated 0-6-6-0T, and there was also a sort-of Garratt (2-6-6-2) but it was basically a tank loco with the body over both sets of driving wheels, rather than the usual Garratt layout.
Oh, one quick question, have you got any more info on the (planned) GCR Garratt? Locos that weren't are a special interest of mine, especially Garratts...
Sailor Charon: Only general outline facts I'm afraid. A couple of years ago I spent a day at the MSI in Manchester which, as you probably know, holds BP's surviving records, correspondence,order books, etc . They were most helpful. Good luck.
stembok wrote:Sailor Charon: Only general outline facts I'm afraid. A couple of years ago I spent a day at the MSI in Manchester which, as you probably know, holds BP's surviving records, correspondence,order books, etc . They were most helpful. Good luck.
Thanks! Looks like I'll have to stop putting off that trip to Manchester...
