Large Scale Central

Building a Beyer Garrett

Modeling Motive Power
#1

After years of collecting the bits and pieces and building of my own skills and ambition I have finally started to bash them into a Beyer Garrett type locomotive. The 2 drive trains are Bachmann 4-6-0 's with all the linkages in metal and the cab and boiler is also Bachmann.

It is slow going due to the engineering hurdles and figuring out what fits and will work where. So far the front tender is attached to the chasis, the boiler has received a frame and the rear tender is about to be attached to its chasis. Still to do is to build the coal chute and to figure out a way to get the boiler and cab to pivot between the 2 drive trains and also make it so it can be easily removed for transport.

I thought about making a tote for this engine but it is 42" long so I’d rather be able to move it in 3 pieces.

One thing that I need advice for is, should I electrically link the drive trains together or leave them separate? If I should link them what is the best way to do this?

Thanks

#2

Todd,

a way to get the boiler and cab to pivot between the 2 drive trains and also make it so it can be easily removed for transport.

Perhaps use pins and drop the boiler nto the two end frames. Lift it off for transport.

The only reason I can think of for linking the drive trains is to maximize the number of track pickups. There’s no other issue I can think of - they are both getting the same power/volts from the track.

#3

I was thinking using pins Pete. The little hook that connects the tender to the engine has been removed leaving a strong point to connect to.

I might add a small pair of wheels to that point to make the loco a 4-6-2-2-6-4. If I use 2 long bolts I can secure one to through each hole on both sides and then maybe use a brass tube attached to the boiler on one side and the cab on the other and it will slide down over the top of the bolt creating 2 pivot points. This thing is going to look cool going through a switch or tight curve.

With all the pickups that each unit has I doubt that one will lose power entirely. It would be easier to not connect them together but I still wonder if they should be linked together electrically?

Any thoughts?

Here is how it looks right now. Yes still a mess but coming along.

#4

Are both those drive trains going to be facing the same direction or facing opposite each other? If you have them facing in opposite directions, one of them needs to have the motor wires reversed. That’s the only thought I had.

#5

Ken, no, the motor leads do not need to be reversed on straight DC track power.

I have a kit-bashed 0-6-6-0 made from 2 Lionel locomotives. Someone else built it, and they did a fair job. But the 2 drives are not electrically connected to each other. This has caused the locomotive to stall, when one drive does loose power for some reason or another. So my vote would be to connect them together electrically, maybe with the little servo plug in connectors they sell at RC hobby shops.

#6

Todd,

Consider using a phono jack and plug for the ‘pin’ to connect the sections. This will allow electrical connection from front to rear (power only) eliminating the issue Dave M has with his. It will also make assembly and dis-assembly a snap. Being as the jack/plug are pretty rigid, it might be a good idea to create s system to allow movement in other directions.

From my ‘For What It Is Worth’ department.

Bob C.

#7

if you go to ECLSTS 2016 you might see this one Tood

#8

I agree with you guys I should connect the 2 drive units the benefits outweigh the extra step to make it happen.

Hmm that is an idea Bob. I used a phono plug for my turntable and it works well.

That is the style I’m going for Dave M. I do plan on having the boiler and cab hunker down to the track a bit more and build a coal chute for the back tender.

#9

If you haven’t seen many Beyer Garrett type locomotives check this link.

https://www.google.com/search?q=Beyer+Garratt+type+locomotive&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjJp4u0sKnJAhWCcz4KHdLEAO0QsAQITw&biw=1152&bih=549

#10

Oh my GOD. I didn’t know there were so many of 'em !

#11

Garretts were very popular in Australia and Africa. They could haul a heavy train long distances and use less fuel than a similarly sized American locomotive. I don’t know why they never caught on here in the US. They are odd looking and long maybe that had something to do with it.

A good link Dan. I have been using that link to design my loco. I usually have my laptop open on that page when I’m fitting and designing.

I am not modelling any loco in particular but going for an overall theme borrowing design bits that I like from each one. The red one with the gold trim has really caught my eye since my colour scheme will be close to it.

Garretts are GREAT!

#12

One of the real benefits of the Garrett was the low axle (wheel) loading. The Garrett was powerful, but could run on light rail without causing damage to it. They are really cool engines and one is on my “someday” build list.

One of the disadvantages of the Garrett design, is that the water is carried in the front “tender”. Toward the end of a run, the front tender became light as the water was used up, and that could cause the front engine to slip and spin its wheels.

#13

The Garrett is coming along and may actually be track tested this weekend. Once it is cleared it will be sent to the paint shop.

Slowly but surely it is coming along.

#14

Todd i cant wait to see what you have come up with

#15

The other great advantage of the Garratt was the fact than on a bend, the boiler was ‘inside’ the curve, and not outside the curve, thus transmitting all the tractive effort onto the track. By way of contrast, the Mallet-style design had a boiler, particularly the Big Boy, Challenger, Allegheny and so on which hungover the track, as, of course, did the big Texans and others.

Just as the Beyer-Garratt design was becoming more popular in Europe, Africa and Australia, so also was the Mallet-style articulated loco in the USA, and there, the Mallet won. Even the UK had them - some on the LMS - 2-6-0+0-6-2 and a single 2-8-0+0-8-2 on the LNER. This one was actually MANUALLY fired! In fact, my old RAF Warrant Officer’s step-father had been fireman on it for much of its life, but it was not a great success

Apart from the USA, the Beyer-Garratt won out, in spades.

tac

#16

And to me, the Garrets are cooler.

#17

Yeah but if us good old Yanks decided on the Mallet over the Garret then the Mallet must have been better (http://largescalecentral.com/externals/tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-wink.gif).

Now as for which one is cooler boy that’s a tough call. I really like the articulated locomotives they just look cool to me. But but taking a locomotive off its chassis and then adding said chassis to the tender and making a duplicate and then stringing the locomotive between them well that is interesting. The mallet to me is prettier but the garret is more unique.

#18

That is what it is all about the Garrett is unique. I have always liked rugged looking engines that appear like they could pull a mountain. I have 3 bachmann geared locos plus a 3 truck shay and a 2-6-6-2. That one in particular looks awesome pulling a train.

I think the garrett is gonna be an awesome addition to the roster but at 42" long it is going to need some special accommodations.

I will have to find the story about the test that was done between a Garrett and a (—) where the Garrett won.

#19

A Garrett Test

#20

Worth a view…Beyer trial run “Down under” after restoration

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NImBrqECYlU