This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Better delete 0-4-0+0-4-0. The K class has it's own entry, and the 0-4-0+0-4-0 article has no real infomation. Very few garratts were 0-4-0+0-4-0 anyway. The contrary argument is that most other wheel arrangements have their own entries, so why not this one?-- Michael Johnson 05:25, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Merge - the article title has no context and is only two sentences at present. SM247 21:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
I've deleted the reference to Garratt as an Australian, in fact he never even visited Australia. As an Aussie myself, I would love to claim him, but there you go. Don't know where this furphy came from. -- Michael Johnson 07:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Was the K-class garratt the only one with this wheel arrangement? Tabletop 10:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I have a problem with the disadvantage section. It strikes me that most of the "disadvantages" described for the Western Australian and New Zealand sections are actually operating or engineering issues with the railways concerned. As it stands there appears to be undue emphisis on disadvantages, giving the casual reader the impression that the Garratt might not be a particularlly sucessful design. I'll leave this note here for a couple of weeks for comments, and then if nobody has an opinion rewrite that section. -- Michael Johnson 00:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Might it be worth clarifying the reasons behind the sparse usage of Garratts in Great Britain, a la the references to the NZR and Western Australian Garratts? It seems to me that the present remark on the situation might leave readers with the impression that the Garratt was simply not the sort of engine British railway companies wanted; of course, getting too deep in specifics on individual classes is something of a minefield, so I'll await any other opinions. 86.132.226.171 04:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Also, while I'm awake and functioning, I've edited out the statement that the AD60s were the most powerful locomotives operating in the Southern Hemisphere. At no point in their existence, to my knowledge, did these engines qualify for such a title; they were exceeded in Tractive Effort by the SAR GL class, the EAR 59th class and the RR 20th/20A class, to my recollection from memory. The AD60s, in comparison, developed 52,700lbs' T.E. at 75% boiler pressure (or, in the AD60++, 56,020) against 78,650lbs for the GL, 73,500lbs for the 59th and 61,176lbs for the 20th/20A class(es). 86.132.226.171 04:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
My personal understanding is that the EAR 59th has a tractive effort of 83,350 lbs. This is backed up by the definitive works on Beyer-Garratts " Beyer, Peacock, locomotive builders to the world by Hill ISBN 898432 05 8 page 255 paragraph 1 User Trevor Heath December 2007
From this, we can therefore compute the respective tractive efforts at 75 and 85% boiler pressure. For the 59th class we have:
73,543lbs @ 75% boiler pressure, or 83,550lbs @ 85%, versus for the GL class:
78,650lbs @ 75%, or 89,137lbs @ 85%. If you don't trust my working, by all means check :). Anyway, upshot is that you're right, but not right; the trouble here is that Beyer, Peacock & Co. used the 75% constant to calculate tractive effort, while the British standard is 85% (and the American, apparently, 65% - go figure, folks). Hills, I believe, is using the British constant, while Gavin Hamilton's brilliant site [1] uses Beyer, Peacock's 75% constant, as do all Beyer, Peacock drawings etc. that I've come across.
In short, the GLs win. But not by much!-- 1966: End of an Era. ( talk) 21:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I dont know if being away from this article for so long - but I was sure there was a better explanation of ASG's in Australia the article - it seems to have been edited in such a way as to not be understood what they were about. I am sure there was something about the ASG's on the Emu Bay as having a reasonable run. Also the "early Tasmanian garrats" - no class given seems to vague. Just an observation SatuSuro 02:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
It would be good to have some context for this- what is the capacity of a Garratt relative to other designs and what were the requirements of American rail companies? Thanks for an interesting article. Andy Duncan.
I've removed the photo of the Union garratt because of course it is not a proper garratt. However a section on garratt "ripoffs" is a good idea, so I'm storing the link here until the section is written. -- Michael Johnson 02:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I note a lot of editors on this page (including myself) are Australian. While we love our Garratts can we keep it in mind that Garratts were far more significant in other parts of the world, and we should be careful this page does not become the "Aussie Garratt" page! -- Michael Johnson 00:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
This is developing into a good article. Let's take it up to the next level, with inline citations. I've gone through and put citation tags at appropiate points, not because I dispute them. Rather by putting references in we can aim to bring this article up to featured article status. Most of them will be easy, some more difficult. If you have a citation but can't work out Wikipedia's formatting, don't worry. Put it in as best you can and someone will fix it up latter. -- Michael Johnson 00:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
In the intro, it says "however no railway that possessed Mallets and purchased Garratts ever purchased another Mallet" -- in the "Garratts around the world" section it says that the Russians, after purchasing a Garratt and not replicating more of them because of maintenance and politics, went on to experiment with Mallets. Karlkatzke 21:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Another disadvantage is that both power units are controlled by one regulator, thus if one power unit slipped the steam to both was reduced as the driver tried to control the slip.[citation needed]
Surely it would not be rocket science to build a double-regulator if this were really a problem?
Tabletop ( talk) 08:18, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
I've removed three recent specific good faith edits. The reason is the first two were class-specific issues that were properly dealt with in the articles on those classes. The third seemed to be more of an enquiry than additional infomation, one that could have been answered by reading the article, specificity the section on "The first Garratt". -- Michael Johnson ( talk) 22:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
A section has recently been added / come to my notice that seems to be WP:UNDUE. It claims that articulated locomotives are unsafe in tunnels, owing to a risk of trapping the crews after an accident. There are several problems with this:
I see a historical reason to include a note on the accident, but not to generalise this into a systematic fault of Garratts (or even that class of large narrow-gauge Garratt, without some good supporting reference). Thoughts? Andy Dingley ( talk) 17:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
When swinging around curves the boiler and cab unit move inward like a bowstring in the bow of a curve and this reduces the centrifugal force that would overturn a normal locomotive and which in turn permits faster running
The centrifugal force is a function of speed and radius. The change of the radius is minimal. What I think, the writer did misunderstand, basically it must be considered, that forces are transferred from the boiler bridge to the engine frames on the articulation points only. Therefore the horizontal position of the center of gravity of the boiler bridge - relatively to the rails - has no influence on the statics. I think, the real advatage of Garrett design is the vertical position if the center of gravity. It allows a low center of gravity even if the boiler diameter is much bigger than the track gauge.-- Helmigo ( talk) 11:40, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
''''''Hey, folks! What about SPANISH garratts? : 38 units, 7 types (one speciffically buid for passenger haul), 7 companies , 3 gauges (cape, metter, iberic broad). One broad gauge in working order (and now, one of the very few spanish steam locomotives in use), another in restoring ...etc''''Bold text Bold text' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.77.168.30 ( talk) 09:59, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm rather uncomfortable with the text referring to "two engines". 99% of the people coming here for information -- aren't they our customers? -- think an "engine" is a boiler + undercarriage and however pure this terminology may be to insiders, it utterly confuses the 99% who are looking for information here.
I'll leave this a wqeek or so but unless anyone has an objection I'll revise it a little. Afterbrunel ( talk) 20:29, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Garratt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:14, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
I decided to change the "centre" to "center" because mostly, Wikipedia consists of american users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrick901 ( talk • contribs) 23:51, 1 January 2021 (UTC) also find my bots editing stuff on wikimedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrick901 ( talk • contribs) 23:54, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
"because mostly, Wikipedia consists of american usersAccording to whom? This is a global encyclopedia, not an encyclopedia just for Americans. Note also that per MOS:TIES, an article subject with ties to a specific nation, like a steam locomotive invented by a British guy, would appropriately use British English. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 01:03, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Someone reverted my edit about how garratts have heavier axle loads than a contemporary articulated locomotive of similar weight; I mean mallets have more wheels under them throughout then garratts so the weight is more evenly distributed, I don’t see why someone would remove that. I can make a diagram if someone still can’t understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:245:C101:9C70:E561:E3C:F9FD:BED9 ( talk) 23:17, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Better delete 0-4-0+0-4-0. The K class has it's own entry, and the 0-4-0+0-4-0 article has no real infomation. Very few garratts were 0-4-0+0-4-0 anyway. The contrary argument is that most other wheel arrangements have their own entries, so why not this one?-- Michael Johnson 05:25, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Merge - the article title has no context and is only two sentences at present. SM247 21:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
I've deleted the reference to Garratt as an Australian, in fact he never even visited Australia. As an Aussie myself, I would love to claim him, but there you go. Don't know where this furphy came from. -- Michael Johnson 07:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Was the K-class garratt the only one with this wheel arrangement? Tabletop 10:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I have a problem with the disadvantage section. It strikes me that most of the "disadvantages" described for the Western Australian and New Zealand sections are actually operating or engineering issues with the railways concerned. As it stands there appears to be undue emphisis on disadvantages, giving the casual reader the impression that the Garratt might not be a particularlly sucessful design. I'll leave this note here for a couple of weeks for comments, and then if nobody has an opinion rewrite that section. -- Michael Johnson 00:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Might it be worth clarifying the reasons behind the sparse usage of Garratts in Great Britain, a la the references to the NZR and Western Australian Garratts? It seems to me that the present remark on the situation might leave readers with the impression that the Garratt was simply not the sort of engine British railway companies wanted; of course, getting too deep in specifics on individual classes is something of a minefield, so I'll await any other opinions. 86.132.226.171 04:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Also, while I'm awake and functioning, I've edited out the statement that the AD60s were the most powerful locomotives operating in the Southern Hemisphere. At no point in their existence, to my knowledge, did these engines qualify for such a title; they were exceeded in Tractive Effort by the SAR GL class, the EAR 59th class and the RR 20th/20A class, to my recollection from memory. The AD60s, in comparison, developed 52,700lbs' T.E. at 75% boiler pressure (or, in the AD60++, 56,020) against 78,650lbs for the GL, 73,500lbs for the 59th and 61,176lbs for the 20th/20A class(es). 86.132.226.171 04:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
My personal understanding is that the EAR 59th has a tractive effort of 83,350 lbs. This is backed up by the definitive works on Beyer-Garratts " Beyer, Peacock, locomotive builders to the world by Hill ISBN 898432 05 8 page 255 paragraph 1 User Trevor Heath December 2007
From this, we can therefore compute the respective tractive efforts at 75 and 85% boiler pressure. For the 59th class we have:
73,543lbs @ 75% boiler pressure, or 83,550lbs @ 85%, versus for the GL class:
78,650lbs @ 75%, or 89,137lbs @ 85%. If you don't trust my working, by all means check :). Anyway, upshot is that you're right, but not right; the trouble here is that Beyer, Peacock & Co. used the 75% constant to calculate tractive effort, while the British standard is 85% (and the American, apparently, 65% - go figure, folks). Hills, I believe, is using the British constant, while Gavin Hamilton's brilliant site [1] uses Beyer, Peacock's 75% constant, as do all Beyer, Peacock drawings etc. that I've come across.
In short, the GLs win. But not by much!-- 1966: End of an Era. ( talk) 21:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I dont know if being away from this article for so long - but I was sure there was a better explanation of ASG's in Australia the article - it seems to have been edited in such a way as to not be understood what they were about. I am sure there was something about the ASG's on the Emu Bay as having a reasonable run. Also the "early Tasmanian garrats" - no class given seems to vague. Just an observation SatuSuro 02:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
It would be good to have some context for this- what is the capacity of a Garratt relative to other designs and what were the requirements of American rail companies? Thanks for an interesting article. Andy Duncan.
I've removed the photo of the Union garratt because of course it is not a proper garratt. However a section on garratt "ripoffs" is a good idea, so I'm storing the link here until the section is written. -- Michael Johnson 02:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I note a lot of editors on this page (including myself) are Australian. While we love our Garratts can we keep it in mind that Garratts were far more significant in other parts of the world, and we should be careful this page does not become the "Aussie Garratt" page! -- Michael Johnson 00:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
This is developing into a good article. Let's take it up to the next level, with inline citations. I've gone through and put citation tags at appropiate points, not because I dispute them. Rather by putting references in we can aim to bring this article up to featured article status. Most of them will be easy, some more difficult. If you have a citation but can't work out Wikipedia's formatting, don't worry. Put it in as best you can and someone will fix it up latter. -- Michael Johnson 00:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
In the intro, it says "however no railway that possessed Mallets and purchased Garratts ever purchased another Mallet" -- in the "Garratts around the world" section it says that the Russians, after purchasing a Garratt and not replicating more of them because of maintenance and politics, went on to experiment with Mallets. Karlkatzke 21:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Another disadvantage is that both power units are controlled by one regulator, thus if one power unit slipped the steam to both was reduced as the driver tried to control the slip.[citation needed]
Surely it would not be rocket science to build a double-regulator if this were really a problem?
Tabletop ( talk) 08:18, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
I've removed three recent specific good faith edits. The reason is the first two were class-specific issues that were properly dealt with in the articles on those classes. The third seemed to be more of an enquiry than additional infomation, one that could have been answered by reading the article, specificity the section on "The first Garratt". -- Michael Johnson ( talk) 22:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
A section has recently been added / come to my notice that seems to be WP:UNDUE. It claims that articulated locomotives are unsafe in tunnels, owing to a risk of trapping the crews after an accident. There are several problems with this:
I see a historical reason to include a note on the accident, but not to generalise this into a systematic fault of Garratts (or even that class of large narrow-gauge Garratt, without some good supporting reference). Thoughts? Andy Dingley ( talk) 17:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
When swinging around curves the boiler and cab unit move inward like a bowstring in the bow of a curve and this reduces the centrifugal force that would overturn a normal locomotive and which in turn permits faster running
The centrifugal force is a function of speed and radius. The change of the radius is minimal. What I think, the writer did misunderstand, basically it must be considered, that forces are transferred from the boiler bridge to the engine frames on the articulation points only. Therefore the horizontal position of the center of gravity of the boiler bridge - relatively to the rails - has no influence on the statics. I think, the real advatage of Garrett design is the vertical position if the center of gravity. It allows a low center of gravity even if the boiler diameter is much bigger than the track gauge.-- Helmigo ( talk) 11:40, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
''''''Hey, folks! What about SPANISH garratts? : 38 units, 7 types (one speciffically buid for passenger haul), 7 companies , 3 gauges (cape, metter, iberic broad). One broad gauge in working order (and now, one of the very few spanish steam locomotives in use), another in restoring ...etc''''Bold text Bold text' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.77.168.30 ( talk) 09:59, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm rather uncomfortable with the text referring to "two engines". 99% of the people coming here for information -- aren't they our customers? -- think an "engine" is a boiler + undercarriage and however pure this terminology may be to insiders, it utterly confuses the 99% who are looking for information here.
I'll leave this a wqeek or so but unless anyone has an objection I'll revise it a little. Afterbrunel ( talk) 20:29, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Garratt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:14, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
I decided to change the "centre" to "center" because mostly, Wikipedia consists of american users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrick901 ( talk • contribs) 23:51, 1 January 2021 (UTC) also find my bots editing stuff on wikimedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrick901 ( talk • contribs) 23:54, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
"because mostly, Wikipedia consists of american usersAccording to whom? This is a global encyclopedia, not an encyclopedia just for Americans. Note also that per MOS:TIES, an article subject with ties to a specific nation, like a steam locomotive invented by a British guy, would appropriately use British English. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 01:03, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Someone reverted my edit about how garratts have heavier axle loads than a contemporary articulated locomotive of similar weight; I mean mallets have more wheels under them throughout then garratts so the weight is more evenly distributed, I don’t see why someone would remove that. I can make a diagram if someone still can’t understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:245:C101:9C70:E561:E3C:F9FD:BED9 ( talk) 23:17, 2 February 2022 (UTC)