simulatortrain
jointed freaking rails
Yeah, but you weren't the one that made it an argument. However he said that I started it, which is false.
There's no way this ran on the DRG&W.
- Thread starter TweetsieDude
- Start date
Yeah, but you weren't the one that made it an argument. However he said that I started it, which is false.
Atlantis27
Churnet Valley Railway
Post #2 was on-topic though. The comment about making the best might not have been, but the first entirely off-topic post was #3, YOUR "bud".
Blackwatch, you have to understand that some people can't just let a comment like yours pass; if you dare question the supreme superiority of their country's stuff, they see you as a threat and must defeat you... :hehe:
It's the sheer arrogance of certain members, and their tactless (and pointless) putdowns, that's really getting boring:
Is there REALLY any need to talk like that? That's not a well-thought-out point of view. That's just an immature, uninformed, and pathetic attack. Your country has plenty of imperfections, and things that other countries do better. That's true of every country.
As has been said a number of times in this thread, different countries have different requirements. WE don't NEED hundred-truck freight trains. WE don't NEED trains built for mountains, because we don't have any.
I's down to the situation, not the nationality. If the America colonies hadn't gone independent, then the trains would have been exactly the same, because the same people would have been there, designing the same things to overcome the same terrain challenges. And they would've counted as "British trains". So it's nothing to do with the nationality, it's simply adapting to the environment.
To say something on-topic though: I didn't know America had Fairlies. Thinking about it, haven't seen any American Garratts though. Were there any?
Blackwatch, you have to understand that some people can't just let a comment like yours pass; if you dare question the supreme superiority of their country's stuff, they see you as a threat and must defeat you... :hehe:
It's the sheer arrogance of certain members, and their tactless (and pointless) putdowns, that's really getting boring:
Is there REALLY any need to talk like that? That's not a well-thought-out point of view. That's just an immature, uninformed, and pathetic attack. Your country has plenty of imperfections, and things that other countries do better. That's true of every country.
As has been said a number of times in this thread, different countries have different requirements. WE don't NEED hundred-truck freight trains. WE don't NEED trains built for mountains, because we don't have any.
I's down to the situation, not the nationality. If the America colonies hadn't gone independent, then the trains would have been exactly the same, because the same people would have been there, designing the same things to overcome the same terrain challenges. And they would've counted as "British trains". So it's nothing to do with the nationality, it's simply adapting to the environment.
To say something on-topic though: I didn't know America had Fairlies. Thinking about it, haven't seen any American Garratts though. Were there any?
BLACKWATCH
Mechanical Engineer
OK, I was maybe wrong with the 20mph bit, but everything in post #4 is true & on topic.
As Mr.Fox requests, back on topic .........
When you look at Americas early loco's you will find quite a few instances of British railway engineering, simply because of the fact that America hadn't got the engineers to do it themselves in the early days.
IsambardKingdomBrunel
Joined June 2001
Strange that considering the first steam loco to run in the USA "Tom Thumb" was US built for the B&O.
It would be a pity if it got to clashes but I see it as a frank exchange of opinion and others panic and think it's war!. The comment was made that the feeling is when someone from one country can do everything bigger and better and when that is challenged things go awry! That was expressed with some over confident surprise so to speak. The opinion during the discussion that countries will have different expectations of their own historical and practical situations is a correct one that I can go along with.
The debate was accentuated by the attitude that such an engine wouldn't be on a particular railway then extended to the bigger and better syndrome that does effect some of our cousins across the pond! I dare say that if we were running the long freight trains that the USA has we would supply the motor power to run them. Such a stance is not the prerogative of one country. As for me, I didn't go out of my way to up things or try to antagonise and content that we will all have different opinions. That we have those does not somehow mean that strong opinion is somehow to be derived as something else! Big engines? Fine. Wee engines? Fine. They are all trains!
The debate was accentuated by the attitude that such an engine wouldn't be on a particular railway then extended to the bigger and better syndrome that does effect some of our cousins across the pond! I dare say that if we were running the long freight trains that the USA has we would supply the motor power to run them. Such a stance is not the prerogative of one country. As for me, I didn't go out of my way to up things or try to antagonise and content that we will all have different opinions. That we have those does not somehow mean that strong opinion is somehow to be derived as something else! Big engines? Fine. Wee engines? Fine. They are all trains!
simulatortrain
jointed freaking rails
Post 4 has both an opinion and a superlative. You call "evidence" like that true? Wow.........
I'm not trying to continue this at all, I want to respect what Mr. Fox said, but in general you have to be suspicious of an argument built on those two things.
And on topic:
Sadly there weren't. There have been several models of them, though, (virtual and physical) including the Gossen one built into Trainz. I actually started drawing a huge, anthracite burning 2-8-2+2-8-2 recently. I figured a wreck rebuild in the railroad's shops, with help from Beyer-Peacock.
Last edited:
jadebullet
might be back?
Ehhh, not entirely true. The first locomotive to run in the US was run on the Delaware and Hudson Canal Company's line in Honesdale, PA. It was called the Stourbridge Lion, and if I remember correctly, it was built in England.
Anyway, I apologize for my rant. Really, I don't have anything really against UK stuff, it just isn't my thing. I overreacted a bit at the junk about how the US stuff was useless compared to the UK's stuff.
Still, I hate to say it, but in my opinion, the best steamers were probably built by New Zealand. Just my opinion based off of technical specs. Nothing more.
And yes, you are correct. Each country built locos based on their needs. British steamers didn't have to be as powerful, or as large, as they were mainly running on the flats. US and NZ locos had to deal with steep grades, and thus tended to focus more on tractive effort than speed.
And yeah, the US had a few Fairlies. Not many though. They tended to be disliked do to some of the shortcomings of the Fairlie.
Mexico had a few as well that were modified with huge coal bins.
As for Garrets. Surprisingly, no, we didn't have any. I really have no idea why.
simulatortrain
jointed freaking rails
I love the looks of those things, I think they'd make a good ON30 model.
BLACKWATCH
Mechanical Engineer
NOTE the fact I stated "quite a few instances", that means someone else other than British was having a go as well.
Last edited:
Strictly speaking, there was (and is) one. It was imported from South Africa in the '80s. It lives in Texas.
I've never been clear on the reason for no Garratts in the US, but ALCo did license the Garratt patent in the mid 1930s to build them here. I think the reason ALCo never sold any was because they became available here at the height of the great depression, so no roads had enough free money to invest in an unknown technology. By the time money existed, it was starting to become apparent that the diesel was the way of the future.
My other guesses for why nobody built a Garratt in the USA:
1, our generous loading gauges and axle loading limits allowed us to make an equivalent engine on a single rigid frame.
2, we tended to engineer our lines which needed more power to accommodate stiffer engines.
3, the Mallet caught on much earlier, and we just improved that.
4, operating departments had concerns about the tractive effort changing depending on the fuel and water levels.
Now regarding Farlies, Mason famously built a lot of them (Mason Bogies). As I recall from reading, the main reason they didn't catch on was because of difficulties making a good, flexible steam connection between the boiler and driver unit during the 1870s. I think by the time Mallets came around, they had figured out how to solve that problem, but by that time Farlies were considered too small for most purposes. There was an exception: the Boston, Revere Beach, & Lynn continued to buy them into the 1910s.
Cheers,
Ben
...Our Trains are massive because we made the loading gauges of our rail lines fit to THEM, instead of overbuilding early, and not being retro-active with Tunnels, Viaducts and Platforms.
Being stuck with a restricted allotment of size for the Dimensions of locomotives and rolling stock is why you equate our trains to being 'massive' in comparison. :/
Atlantis27
Churnet Valley Railway
But did we? No.
No. Our loading gauge is what it is, because we don't NEED it to be any bigger. We don't need huge loading gauges for massive locos to pull hundreds of boxcars over mountains. We can (and did) build everything we need with our own standard loading gauge, so we didn't need a bigger one.
Also note that we built railways hundreds of years after everything else. Cities and places had already developed, and had lots of historical buildings and all that. We couldn't just tear everything down; it would cost loads, for one thing. You guys, on the other hand, had only been there a few decades, so it was no big deal to incorporate the railways into what you were building. And no history to worry about, so just build where you want.
Well, the Native Americans might disagree with you on that last bit
Seriously though, your point is VERY valid. (Now for a salvage attempt). I will say this about British locomotives, specifically steam locos: They're quite beautiful. I think whilst American locomotives were designed for utilitarian purposes (To be big, heavy-haulers), the only nice looking one (in my opinion) is the Southern Pacific GS series (SP 4449 for example).
However, British steamers are pretty much works of art, painted nice, sometimes bright colors (GWR had the best color, again in my opinion), shined brass parts and such. It's an art form in the UK, however, not saying that it isn't over here or anywhere else, I also tend to think that German steam locos are very nice too. Diesel locos are a different story. I think the only one from UK I liked was the "Deltic" Class 55, Class 47, and Class 60.
IsambardKingdomBrunel
Joined June 2001
I think this really only applies to preservation locos though I could be wrong. Most of the fellas I've spoken to give off about how dirty and smelly the railways were (locos included) during the steam era and say that people have just forgotten that through the years with all the nostalgia involved.
Sorry, I veer OT.
TorenHynes
The Maple Leaf Forever
Sorry you're wrong. The Canadian Pacific Railway had semi-streamlined engines for freight. What's more the Americans got the idea of streamlining trains with the Zephyr in the mid-1930s.