GMax and 3DSMax (And any other modeling program) screenies/renders

A nice thought, but the Rio Grande engines are at home there. I think of Garret's more in the deserts South Africa, Australia. But I don't think something that big and monstrous would be good on a line where everything is "quaint" and old. Jost my thoughts, while the thought of bringing a huge one of those Garret's to Chama appalls me, maybe a small old style one like the 2ft K1, but not a big one from the 1940s.
My Two Cents,
Saturnr
 
Ed, that li'l loco is a beautiful thing. I hope to run it far more than I should when it is complete.:)
garratt_by_trainboi-d8ib81s.png

My own escapades in Blender have started to turn up some results. Still nowhere near enough detail though, but it's getting better...
 
trainman7616 said:
Could also break them. You need to understand the size of the ng rails vs a garrett
Click to expand...

Gauge doesn't necessarily mean anything. East Broad Top had a good amount of 80 and 90 lb/yd rail, despite being 3' gauge. For reference, their biggest mikado needs only 56lb rail to run, and even a K37 is only slightly above this at 62lb. I don't believe DRGW used as heavy of rail in most places, but I don't know that for sure. Regardless, I think it's to be expected that they would use heavier rail if need be to run a larger locomotive they wanted to purchase.
 
trainman7616 said:
Could also break them. You need to understand the size of the ng rails vs a garrett
Click to expand...

Well, if you look at the concepts and ideals behind the garrett design, the main objectives were to increase the tractive effort of a loco to avoid doubling up on locos and overheads, whilst keeping the axle loading down. Here in Victoria we had two garretts constructed for our narrow gauge lines. They have approximately three times the pulling power of the typical NA class 2-6-2s which were the mainstay of motive power, whilst preventing the need to upgrade the track and bridges. They may be heavier in total weight, but with twice the number of axles and a better distributed weight, they were just as capable as double-heading two locos, but again halving the number of overheads like crews. That said the VR garretts were not as successful as other designs.

As to the QR garretts, they were very successful machines. Their main issue was like so many other locos in Australia. They were actually perfect for the jobs they were built to do; they just were about 10-20 years behind their time.

Cheers
Tim
 
Just wondering, why do people call them ""garretts"? Just curious, as i alwways heard them be called "garratts" (ga-rots).

Again, i have no problem with the way you guys say it, i'm just curious which pronunciation is correct.
 
The correct pronunciation is 'Garratt' (Gar-ra-tt); it named after Herbert William Garratt (8 June 1864 – 25 September 1913) was an English mechanical engineer and the inventor of the Garratt system of articulated locomotives.

Garratt began his engineering career by serving an apprenticeship under John Carter Park, then locomotive superintendent of the North London Railway, from 1879-1882 at the North London Railway Bow works. Further experience found him serving at Doxford's marine engineering works in Sunderland, and later as an inspector for Sir Charles Fox and Sir Alexander Rendel. Garratt transferred to the Argentine Central Railway in 1889, where he became Locomotive Superintendent in 1892, and between 1900 and 1906 he worked for railways in Cuba, Lagos, and Lima (Peru). In 1902, Garratt was elected to membership of the Institute of Mechanical Engineers. He returned to England in 1906 and worked as an inspecting engineer for the New South Wales Government Railways. Where under his leadership of his Australian masters developed the idea which is pattened in November which was presented to Beyer, Peacock in January, 1907.

Coming to the question that was put forward and Tim has answered why there was the savings with the design. It was due to the ravages of war, the Railways Department which administrates the Queensland Railways embarked in 1947 a period of post war upgrades which involved the Beyer Garratts but to run these locomotives with the weight of 137.5 tons would have been unworkable. So the sections between Wallangarra to Rockhampton and then Rockhampton to Emerald including the Dawson & Callide Valley Branch lines but the later was not completed in 1952 when a 35 mile deviation was built to replace the 1898 Rack Railway which was unsuitable for conventional locomotives. Rails were replaced with the 90lbs standard, timber bridges were upgraded or where possible replaced with modern steel examples. It was not until 1951 that 90lb rails extended to Cairns so that the Sunshine Express could finally enter without changing locomotives at Townsville for the more lighter 60 ton C17 type due to the Mulgrave River Bridge.

Yours Sincerely,

M.Gitsham

chris2001trainz2010 said:
Just wondering, why do people call them ""garretts"? Just curious, as i alwways heard them be called "garratts" (ga-rots).

Again, i have no problem with the way you guys say it, i'm just curious which pronunciation is correct.
Click to expand...
 
trainman7616 said:
Could also break them. You need to understand the size of the ng rails vs a garrett
Click to expand...

G'day!

@train7616

Not necessarily. Standard sized Garratts like the ASG (Australian Standard Garratt) were run with great success on narrow gauge bogies on the 1067mm lines in Tasmania and Queensland. The Emu Bay Railway inTasmania regularly used Garratts (particularly the G Class) to haul iron ore trains from Zeehan to Burnie on the most treacherous railway line in Tasmania without impediment. :)

Cheers!

Jake.
 
trainman7616 said:
Could also break them. You need to understand the size of the ng rails vs a garrett
Click to expand...
As stated before me, this depends heavily on the narrow gauge and the Garratt. Sure, if you tried pushing in the wheels on a QR Garratt and running them on the 35-lb/yd rails of the Carson & Colorado, forget it. But keep in mind that these can and did run on 3' 6" gauge railways all over Queensland, and that the NSWGR AD60, which, as was earlier pointed out, is extremely similar to the QR Garratt, is classed as a "light lines" loco. Further keep in mind that "light lines" often indicates 60lb rail, the maximum rail weight for a "light railway" and that much of the D&RGW was not a light railway. In particular, the aforementioned Chama on the present-day C&TS was situated on an 85-lb/yd mainline with sidings going as low as 65-lb/yd. This could accommodate even a large Garratt. Also keep in mind that the first Garratt class was built for 2-foot-gauge railways, and that they were specifically designed to match double what a single locomotive could do. In essence, having a 3-foot-gauge 2-8-2+2-8-2 or 4-8-2+2-8-4 working the D&RGW would be equivalent to two large Mikados(cumulatively weighing 170 tons if we're talking K-36s; whereas the Queensland Garratt only weighs 137 tons, distributed over roughly the same number of axles) but with a single crew and less dead weight. Really, the only issues with the Garratt design were thus:
-Since they had British-designed boilers and controls, they had an unfortunate tendency for the boilers to prime if the engineer was not careful
-Plumbing technology made the construction of efficient articulated locomotives extremely difficult in the time when they would have been most effective
-For extremely long distances, even the two water tanks and 6-ton coal capacity put the Garratts at some risk of running out of fuel
-Overhauls were expensive due to the massive amount of plumbing involved in the articulated drive wheels, which also makes my job as a 3D modeler more difficult.
 
On the D&RGW dual gauge, the center narrow gauge rail was usually of a different weight and therefore size. There is at least one story of a K-27s counterweights striking the top of the unused standard gauge rail and creating dents because the wheels were machined to much.:hehe:
 
simulatortrain said:
... even a K37 is only slightly above this at 62lb. I don't believe DRGW used as heavy of rail in most places, but I don't know that for sure. Regardless, I think it's to be expected that they would use heavier rail if need be to run a larger locomotive they wanted to purchase.
Click to expand...
The D&RGW used on branches 45 pound (Silverton, Farmington, etc.) and on some mainlines (Alamosa to Antinito & Alamosa onwards on standard guage) 60 lbs. In recent years upgrades have been made in some area to 90lb. A Garrett probably could run, just with clearance issues on the Highline to Silverton, Toltec Gorge, Hermosa Bridge Rock & Mud Tunnels, Rio Chama Bridge, etc. and would look out of place I think in Colorado, like a K-36, Eureka, a C-19, ect. would look out of place in Australia.

Hope this helps,
Saturnr
 
Saturnr said:
like a K-36, Eureka, a C-19, ect. would look out of place in Australia.
Click to expand...
Just personally I think Eureka looks out-of-place in the high mountain passes of Colorado anyway. :p Mostly just with the rolling stock and structures, however. Having an 8-18C in Style 1 livery pulling deluxe yellow coaches doesn't look quite right, especially when you see the more authentic combine Dan Markoff has been building for her.
 
That is why Dan Markoff (according to the higher ups at D&S) likes to pull the Pullman green coach ( D&RG 291 King Mine) with Eureka. However I think she would still look more at home on the Sumpter Valley or the Antinito to Lava (sagebrush) area of the C&TS. She could pull one of the Tuscan red 1st/Presidential Cars too.

Saturnr
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
A railfan treat and special ride on the Boston EL. Part 1
Replies
6
Views
2K
JCitron
J
K
General questions & Suggestions
Replies
7
Views
3K
Roy3b3
R
A
GMax and 3DSMax (And any other modeling program) screenies/renders
Replies
0
Views
15K
afe_uy
A
H
Frustrated and disillusioned – a review of Trainz 2010
2 3
Replies
44
Views
36K
mrscsi
M
E
Rolling Stock and other questions from NEWBIES
2
Replies
22
Views
9K
er9m
E
Back
Top