Hi, can anyone help me with plans for the Garratt used in Queensland, which was smaller than the NSW AD60 class.
Many thanks,
Andy.

Hi, can anyone help me with plans for the Gareett used in Queensland, which was smaller than the NSW AD60 class.
Many thanks,
Andy.

Presumably you've tried here?

http://www.archives.qld.gov.au/Researchers/CollectionsDownloads/Documents/BG41RailwayLocomotiveandRollingstockDrawings.pdf

But really, you will improve your chances of finding stuff on the internet on Beyer Garratt's by learning the correct spelling. By the way, the spelling of Garrett, relates to a manufacturer of traction engines in the UK, later bought out by Garratt - just to add to the confusion.

Don't take this as being a SA, but it is important when on the internet to look for the right information, as its hard enough already.

Good luck in your search for more information.

Hi, can anyone help me with plans for the Gareett used in Queensland, which was smaller than the NSW AD60 class.
Many thanks,
Andy.

The Continental Modeller August 1997 issue had drawings of the QR Beyer Garratt.

The QR was was much smaller than the AD60 being only half the weight.

Being painted midland red it was the best looking Garratt ever produced.

By all means correct me if I'm wrong - but weren't there two different types or batches of garratts used in Queensland? The first was the ASG during WW2 followed by the much improved Queensland version of the garratt in the 1950s.

Tony

Which one is at Ipswich? I can't confirm that there were two, though, as the book I have hardly covers up to the 1920s...
http://www.australiansteam.com/qgrframe.htm
Hmmm, there was an ASG, of which there is only a tank left at Rosewood. 109, in Ipswich, is definitely a different model. It is simply referred to as the Beyer-Garratt, as opposed to the earlier Australian Standard Garratt.

No plans seem to have been posted apart from the SAR version.

Maybe just call the ARHS Qld?

The SAR version and the Queensland versions are quite close it is only really a matter of smaller details were they differ. I know of one modeller that has taken a kit or something of a Queensland Garratt and made it into a SAR one. This was years ago though back when near enough would be good enough. It might even have been a brass model I cannot remember off hand! I know it took a while though the conversion not because of the alterations needed on it but the time he had available to actually work on it!

The Australian Standard Garratt's were a dismal failure everywhere except in Tasmania and then most probably only because they took the flangeless wheel from the front driver and placed it elsewhere on the loco. The less said about them the better actually!

One of the ASG was used sucessfully on the short Fyansford line near Geelong. After being on display at the Williamstown ARHS Museum it is now back in the Geelong area at Queenscliff on the Bellarine Railway. Hopefully it will be restored to working order in the not too distant future. Donations would be very welcome I am sure if you like to contact the railway. It is currently near the engine shed at Queensclif but at some stage will be moved to Lakers Siding for restoration work under cover so now would be a good time to check it out (and have a ride on the railway).

There is a fantastic book called Crimson Giants, which has general arrangement diagrams for both the Bayer and the ASG. It has a fantastic section on the ASGs which is more of a comedic tale - well worth the read. It's quite in depth for the information about both locos. The ASG is my favorite QR locomotive, both aesthetically and for the story behind them (and the comedic value).

Chironex - the ASG there were about 65, some of which were never meant for QR, and of the 50-odd destined for Queensland, a handful was never even assembled due to them being such abysmal failures on QR's network. Some went south, and a couple that made it to the Emu Bay Railway were rather successful there.
Of the Bayer Garratts there were three batches, comprising of 30 in total, and yes, one of these is at Ipswich Workshops.

Cheers,
Jade.

There is a fantastic book called Crimson Giants, which has general arrangement diagrams for both the Bayer and the ASG. It has a fantastic section on the ASGs which is more of a comedic tale - well worth the read. It's quite in depth for the information about both locos. The ASG is my favorite QR locomotive, both aesthetically and for the story behind them (and the comedic value).

Chironex - the ASG there were about 65, some of which were never meant for QR, and of the 50-odd destined for Queensland, a handful was never even assembled due to them being such abysmal failures on QR's network. Some went south, and a couple that made it to the Emu Bay Railway were rather successful there.
Of the Bayer Garratts there were three batches, comprising of 30 in total, and yes, one of these is at Ipswich Workshops.

Cheers,
Jade.

Jade.

Not being picky but Bayer is a German (or was) a medical & medicine supplier.  The Locomotive name is Beyer Garratt, named from the Beyer Peacock company in England.

Jade.

Not being picky but Bayer is a German (or was) a medical & medicine supplier. The Locomotive name is Beyer Garratt, named from the Beyer Peacock company in England.

Beyer after the firm that manufactured them and Garrratt after Herbert William Garratt, Inspecting Engineer for the New South Wales Government, who brought to Beyer, Peacock the basic principle of locomotive articulation which has since borne his name.

Jade,

And I thought that I was the only one who was fascinated by the ASG's.

They were a locomotive that only a mother could love.

Maybe one day someone will produce a HO scale model of them for us.

Arthur R

Ahh I always mix up Bayer and Beyer and Garratt and Garrett. I can pronounce them correctly though, does that make up for it?

Arthur, no, you're certainly not the only one. I've loved the ASG's since the very first time I saw a photo of one, it just had character. Then I read the story in Crimson Giants and fell in love all over again. Next time you talk to Adam, ask him just how excited I was when I discovered the front water tank off one of the ASGs at Ipswich! They were imposing, so ugly they were beautiful, and yes, as you aptly said, a locomotive only a mother could love. All of their quirks make them so much more endearing.

So far as a HO model.... I would love nothing more! Adam and I were only talking about that yesterday. I daresay though it would be some years off in the future, as although you and I have affection for these beasts, I cannot imagine too many people wishing to have one running around on their layouts (hell, I can't imagine too many railways having them running around on their railway), so it would be a love project once we reach a position where we're not counting on covering costs.

Cheers,
Jade.

Anyone interested in these fascinating engines might consider the purchase of the Robert Buttrims book, Australia's Garratt. It is long out of print but copies come up on ebay and the ARHS bookshop in Redfern. Lots of detail and history there and lets hope the history will continue at the Bellarine Railway.

As an aside, I seem to recall the Don River Railway had a front water tank from one of these engines. The tank shape was quite distinctive and helped give these locomtives their unique appearance.

The ASG was a very distinctive locomotive, I have read different things about them and for the most part any problems relate to the flange less lead drivers.

Why anyone would design a rail bound locomotive with no flanges on the front of the driven wheels astounds me.

I was a Fireman/acting driver on the NSWGR's in the 1960's - 70's and if such a locomotive had been on our roster, I would have felt very concerned about working them.

It would be interesting to find any history in the written word as to why this was done, it seems totally illogical to me.

I really feel there would have been a much better acceptance of them if they could actually stay on the rails, every time you came to a curve, you would hold tight and pray!

Appearance wise, I really like them!

The ASG was a very distinctive locomotive, I have read different things about them and for the most part any problems relate to the flange less lead drivers.

Why anyone would design a rail bound locomotive with no flanges on the front of the driven wheels astounds me.

I was a Fireman/acting driver on the NSWGR's in the 1960's - 70's and if such a locomotive had been on our roster, I would have felt very concerned about working them.

It would be interesting to find any history in the written word as to why this was done, it seems totally illogical to me.

I really feel there would have been a much better acceptance of them if they could actually stay on the rails, every time you came to a curve, you would hold tight and pray!

Appearance wise, I really like them!

Ted, I would agree.

The only reason I could think of is to allow the engine to negotiate sharper curves & perhaps imitate what the U.S Mallet types did allowing the boiler to swing on the front engine unit.  Occassionally you read where some of those engines had problems with the lead engine slipping, same thing that was typical of garratts, as the front water tank water level dropped affectively reducing traction.  That was fixed with the 60cl when concerted to the heavy type, which also included heavier load capacity.

Remember also the 50cl had the centre drivers flangeless to allow them to run on tighter curves.

As for looks, I did not mind them either, after all beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.

Of course the flange situation was the most destructive... How about the 1.5 steps the fireman had to take to shovel coal in because the cab was built larger than normal to be "spacious"? Or the fact that the weather curtains were on the inside of the windows, which meant that the rain hit the curtains, dribbled down on the cab floor and that, combined with the coal soot, made it incredibly slippery and hazardous? Or the fact that the tucker box was just a touch undersized, and thus didn't fit the standard issue QR lunch boxes? Just a few quirks off the top of my head Gotta love 'em!

The ASG was a very distinctive locomotive, I have read different things about them and for the most part any problems relate to the flange less lead drivers.

Why anyone would design a rail bound locomotive with no flanges on the front of the driven wheels astounds me.

I was a Fireman/acting driver on the NSWGR's in the 1960's - 70's and if such a locomotive had been on our roster, I would have felt very concerned about working them.

It would be interesting to find any history in the written word as to why this was done, it seems totally illogical to me.

I really feel there would have been a much better acceptance of them if they could actually stay on the rails, every time you came to a curve, you would hold tight and pray!

Appearance wise, I really like them!

You have to remember the circumstances under which they were designed & built. The QR was short on heavy haulage locomotives and since they couldn't be borrowed from NSW or Victoria (the states most likely to have spare locomotives). They certainly weren't a high priority for the British locomotive construction industry and the queue for them would have been very long indeed. At that time, they were struggling to build the Stanier 8F's & War Dept 2-8-0's.
So they had to design something locally very quickly, without any help from Beyer Peacock at all. Not surprising the result had major design flaws.

Interestingly, Stanier had investigated some Indian Pacific's in the late 1930's, which had been prone to derailing at high speed! The 'fix' was to strengthen the guidance of the bogie. Maybe this was a factor, in removing the flange of the leading driver - the theory that the bogie would 'steer' the loco around the bends.
Also since the chief designer was from WA, perhaps their tracks were straighter than those in QLD?

I seem to recall in the Buttrims book mention that Beyer Peacock were approached at the time. War time conditions meant they were in no position to build but were able to offer a design. As I understand it, the cost for the design drawings as quoted was considered too high and that was in part why they were designed locally (in Western Australia). Some might consider in hindsight that was a bad decision.

Some of the difficulties may have been the result of the different parts of the locomotive being built at different workshops and the locomotives then being assembled wherever thay were to be used. Moreover, different railways had different requirements, operational conditions, coal and water supplies and experience, skills and expectations of enginemen.

The fact that they were sucessful on the testing conditions of the Emu Bay Railway and the rather different Fyansford railway suggests they had their attributes and could have made more of a wartime and post wartime contibution if persisted with in other systems.

The ASGs were up against it from the beginning. First of all, they were designed by a committee, most of whom had never contemplated designing a garratt. Existing and successful 4-8-2+2-8-4 designs were already on hand, but instead the committee went out on their own. On the other hand, Queensland Railways, where most were expected to go, didn't want garratts, they wanted C17s instead - since the twenties QR had removed the word 'progressive' from all their dictionaries. So when the ASGs arrived with problems it worked in the favour Queensland Railways getting those extra C17s (in the form of AC16s) instead. The flangeless drivers would have been more successful if the middle two drivers had been blind, but somehow the 'committee' fouled that up completely. Sadly, the ASG was designed to fail. A little bit of thought and TLC would have fixed all their problems, but by the end of WWII everyone had moved on and wanted their own state designed locos again.

Just a short history lesson re the ASG. During WW2, Qld Govt Railways bore the brunt of wartime traffic. In fact, Gympie was considered the busiest marshaling yard in the Southern Hemisphere, the whole Northern line, Brisbane to Cairns, was single track and much of it followed along the Great Dividing Range and it's offshoots, hence there were many tight curves of 5 chains radius or less. The whole Queensland rail system had been commenced in 1865 as basically envisaged, as four separate railways fanning out from the principal port towns of Brisbane/Ipswich, Maryborough, Rockhampton and Townsville to serve the respective hinterlands. Later in the 19th century, these would include shire based lines such as Cairns, Chillagoe and others. The reason, in fact, why the 3ft 6in gauge was chosen in the first place. A "Pony" railway, tight curves, light lines but 3 times the length for the same cost as Standard Gauge. (At the time, 1859, when the Moreton Bay Colony became the State of Queensland, the entire European  population of the whole State was just over 12,000.)

In fact, although over 6,000 miles of railway, the entire system was not unified as a single railway until the nineteen twenties when the final connections were built to provide an unbroken link between Brisbane and Cairns. Knowing the limitations of their "Pony Railway", QGR were in favour of meeting the overworked wartime locomotive shortage by building more on the proven C17 class (also proven as a reliable light lines narrow gauge loco with Commonwealth Railways in it's NM class incarnation.) However, the Federal Government, as the sole controller of wartime allocations insisted on following the recommendation of it's advisory body under Sir Harold Clapp,  the esteemed Victorian Railways Commissioner, and go for the untried Australian Standard Garrett. And so, all the 3ft6in gauge Australian networks were stuck with the b**stard child of a broad gauge Commissioner!

As a kid, I well remember the many wartime delays to both passenger and goods services caused by ASG derailments on the notorious Eumundi Range! No wonder General MacArthur had the Yanks send us 20 Baldwin AC16 Class to relieve the pressure!

There used to be a ASG front tank hanging under a large tree just north of Rockhamption with a valve and water spray pipe,just high enough to fit a flat bed truck underneath to turn it into a water truck.

Stories about ASG,s derailing abound,the drivers did not even shut the throtle,just waited to the next curve and it would rerail it's self.  Then throw a note at the next station for the gang to check the bolts between the quoted mileage.



  RAYMOND

This would benefit from someone who knew it better, but I don't think the ASG at Fyansford was considered a great success either. And the line was hardly demanding, the only thing the ASG was good at was the steep grade out of the quarry. That's my recollection anyway.

This would benefit from someone who knew it better, but I don't think the ASG at Fyansford was considered a great success either. And the line was hardly demanding, the only thing the ASG was good at was the steep grade out of the quarry. That's my recollection anyway.

I have always been informed that the ASG was always something a long way from amazing in terms of performance.

Note that the information in the Singleton and Burke authored 1963 book, "Railways of Australia" is incorrect.
According to QR records 10 of the Beyer Garratts Nos. 1001 to 1010 were built by Beyer Peacock and 20 Nos. 1090 to 1109 were built by Societe Franco-Belge, France.

The QR Beyer Garratts while being similar in size and weight to the South Australian ones they are, to the discerning eye, quite different in appearance.

A model of one could not be modified to resemble the other.

Posted: Sun May 11, 2014 11:26 am
To digress, and switching the focus from the ASG and back to the other and happily much more successful Queensland Garratt, the Beyer Garratt introduced to QGR in 1950, as David Peters has already pointed out, this was a very similar loco to the South Australian 400 Class Garratt. To quote from the Singleton and Burke authored 1963 book, "Railways of Australia", their List of Locomotive Classes gives the following info:-

Q'ld Beyer Garratt
Built Year 1950, 30 in class; 19 built by Beyer Peacock, 11 by Societe Franco-Belge, France; Driving Wheel Diameter 4'3"; Cylinders 13.75" X 26" ; Tractive Effort in pounds 32,800 ; Weight 137 tons.

Sth Aust. 400 Cl
Built 1953, 10 in Class, all built by Societe Franco-Belge, Raismes, France; Drivers Dia. 4' 0" ; cylinders 16" X 24" ; T E 43,500 lbs ; Weight 149 tons.

Both types shared a 4-8-2 + 2-8-4 wheel arrangement, 200psi boiler pressure, and of course, a 3'6" track gauge.

I trust this may be of interest to modellers.

Thanks, David, for correcting my mistake in putting this in a separate post. Another "senior moment" from a computer dinosaur! I seem to get into more strife than Flash Gordon when it comes down to computers!

Desperado

[edit]
Deleted all the spelling posts, if you have a issue, report it rather than post. Or PM the user if you wish to be helpful.
[/edit]
Now back to those articulated things