Australian steam locos

[Gumboots]

Hey I was just looking over the drawings for the Tasmanian L and M class Garratts again (I've been working up several models, just to keep things interesting) and noticed something I hadn't spotted before.

The L class is 2-6-2+2-6-2 but it's not done like a 2-6-2 would normally be done. The bogies at each end have a pony truck, as you'd expect. The inner bogies at each end are just fixed to the truck frame like the drivers and coupled wheels are. There's no pony truck for the inner bogies.

So in terms of how the wheelbase works it's basically like a 2-8-0+0-8-2, except that of course the inner pairs aren't driven. I'm not sure why they did it this way. It seems weird. It's possible that the bogie axle was given some side play, but you can't tell from the available drawings.

The M class 4-4-2+2-4-4 has your normal four wheel truck at each end, but doesn't have pony trucks for the inner bogies either. OTOH, they're not just fixed to the truck's side plates. They use an Adams radial axle. Presumably the builders figured that with the greater speed of the express version something was needed for better tracking, and an Adams axle is more compact than a pony truck but does the same job.

[Gumboots]

Gone nuts again. These things happen.

So since I have old Number 1 mostly modelled I thought about what came next in NSW locos. About ten years after they got the first No.1 class locos, which were designed for general mixed traffic, they decided they needed something extra. So they ordered two new classes - the T14 for express and the E17 for heavy goods.

The T14's became famous for hauling "The Fish". This had absolutely nothing to do with fish, as far as I can tell. It was the express train from Sydney up to the Blue Mountains. Maybe they hauled a car of fish with it sometimes, since they'd need to ship them fast before they went off? Dunno. Anyway, it was always called "The Fish" and ran until 1958, although obviously they didn't use the T14's that long. The T14's were known to hit 70 mph, which wasn't bad for its' day.

The E17's had about 75% more tractive effort than the No.1 class, and about 40% more than a DX Goods, so were much better freight haulers than anything else in NSW at the time. One (E18) worked until 1953 and is still in existence.

There were a couple of other odd classes of one or two locos each, but the No.1 and T14 and E17 were the most numerous and handled most of the traffic. So if I had the No.1 class, and the T14 and E17 classes sorted, that would be all that I'd need to play the Across the Blue Mountains scenario with locomotives that were right for the time and place. This would be cool.

T14_&_E17_#1.jpg

T14_&_E17_#2.jpg

Well, they would do up to 1877, which is when I usually finish by. For people who need the full time limit until 1880, the C79 (express) and A93 (freight) were introduced then, so maybe some nutter could model those sometime too.

[RulerofRails]

So if I had the No.1 class, and the T14 and E17 classes sorted, that would be all that I'd need to play the Across the Blue Mountains scenario with locomotives that were right for the time and place. This would be cool.

Looking good. These and some paint (maybe from a satellite shot?) would give a far better feel to that scenario.

[Gumboots]

Satellite shot is a good idea. Hadn't though of that. Should be easy to apply.

I'm thinking about the skinning of these little beasts too. I'm reminded of something Hawk once said, namely that modelling was easy but skinning took all the time. Figuring out the best arrangement for all the UV mapping, then detailing all the lining and rivets and crud in Photoshop, can really chew up lots of time and energy. It may make sense to skin them neatly but basically to start with, just to get them running for motivation. Since the actual models will be good, they should still look quite decent in the game (no 1.06 mutants). Then, when time and enthusiasm permit, anyone who wants to can detail them up as much as they like.

[Gumboots]

Y'know I think I might try that satellite shot idea on that map. I should get some practice with using the bmp2gmp tricks for 64 bit OS anyway, and I still have the corrected tiles I made for that test image of eastern Oz. These would be usable for the Blue Mountains map too, or at least should be if the coastline and general terrain on the map is accurate, and I wouldn't need to use many of the tiles.

The other thing is that this map and the three locos mentioned above would really be ideal for testing the proposed cargo weight and passenger appeal scales. There's one locomotive each of express, mixed traffic, and dedicated freight. The Blue Mountains map provides a good variety of routes, with varying lengths and grades. The early timeframe provides enough cargoes to test everything while still keeping the complexity down. Could be a winner.

[Just Crazy Jim]

I teared up reading the first post in this thread. When we left Rhodesia in 1977, just before my 15th birthday, the train was pulled by a Garret. I grew up seeing them every day, I've not seen one since. I haven't thought about them for years. If no one has made one yet, when my Blender skills are up to snuff, I'm making one.

[Gumboots]

I have several of them partially modelled. TBH the number of things I'd like to do is more than I can realistically handle. If you'd like to collaborate on any custom locomotives I'd be more than happy to do that. I currently have several Garratts partially modelled. These are:

Tasmanian Class M (4-4-2+2-4-4) and Class L (2-6-2+2-6-2). The Class L is almost identical to several of the smaller SAR classes.

Also have the SPR Class R2 (4-6-2+2-6-4) and the monster SAR Class GL (4-8-2+2-8-4). The Class GL is the most complete at the moment.

And there's the fictional NSWGR Class AD39 (4-6-4+4-6-4) which I really must finish just because it's so much fun.

I also have drawings, some of which are original works GA's, for a pile of other locomotives.

[Just Crazy Jim]

And there's the fictional NSWGR Class AD39 (4-6-4+4-6-4) which I really must finish just because it's so much fun.

That sounds brilliant... all of it. Now, I just need to make the day have more hours to get all my new projects completed.

[Gumboots]

I'm going to try an experiment with that AD60 basic test model. I was wary of doing Garratts as loco+tender, with the "tender" being the rear unit of the Garratt, for two reasons:

1/ I wanted to leave open the option of double heading them, which is probably nuts anyway.

2/ The main reason, namely that the connection between loco and tender is pretty rubbery at times. I was worried this would make Garratts look stupid too often.

However, if it only looks stupid sometimes (all RT3 locos do) and it looks good the rest of the time, then this is better than not having it at all. So I took another look at the geometry.

I think I might be able to get it working fairly well if I set the inner truck of the front unit as the "loco body" for game purposes (ie: the purple bit in 4-8-4+4-8-4). The rest of the front will be set as the loco's Truck1. The actual loco body (boiler, cab, etc) and the inner truck of the rear unit (ie: 4-8-4+4-8-4) would be set as the loco's Truck2. That leaves the rest of the rear unit (water/coal and 8 drivers and last 4 wheel truck) to be set as the tender.

This looks like it should work out ok for pivot points and other attachment points. The only question is how well it will behave over lumps and bumps. The wheelbase of the loco unit will be knocked back to 80 units by this dodge, so that part is fine. What I want to check out is how often and how badly the loco leaves the tender behind, and if this looks too stupid. It might be fine, because after all we don't worry about it with normal locos and tenders.

The other good thing about trying it this way is that if it works, it will allow an extra image for skinning the rear unit. That would be really helpful on a large Garratt.

[Just Crazy Jim]

The Big Boy is technically an articulated locomotive along the Mallet design, but I've not really noticed that the RRT3 model demonstrates anything like a Mallet arrangement. So Garratts maybe don't need to be quite so articulated as to be realistic. It would be nice if they were, because that's the point of a Garratt, but game-limit and all that. I mean, come on, Shays are almost always narrow gauge and no one is quitting the game because the game doesn't have a separate narrow gauge rail bed. And, although the Shay is handy, on some of the maps, you need a funicular railway to access some of the mines and towns. I have to giggle about the idea of adding funiculars to RRT3 - as Mrs. Hudson says with motherly sarcasm in Sherlock - "there's a crying need for that".