the SA V class 0-4-4RT


John Peterson
 

Hello,


Great edition of Light Railways 243. I was very interested in the photo of the above and wondering about the advantages about the rear tank and the pivoting of the rear bogie. With the water and coal at rear it should mean that the locomotive could be built to the maximum weight for the rail. In the article it says that it replaced horses on the line so maybe designed for maximum efficiency on light rail? This was the claimed advantage for a Forney design in the US. A proper Forney had no flanges on the inner driving wheel to enable it to get around corners [I assume with a wide tread]. The V class is flanged. Would this mean the rear bogie has some sort of side movement?


Wondering why they didn't work out at Kingston?. Design faults? Over expectations? 52 miles is a long haul!  The class lasted well enough and I believe other local examples were made. So couldn't be too bad. Or were they modified to get them to work properly?


Cheers

John P


Frank Stamford
 

Hello John,

Very interesting questions.

The reason they did not work as expected was that they were just too small and too light for 'mainline' work. In that respect they had the same faults as the horses they replaced. I do not think there was anything fundamentally wrong with the design, and they worked sufficiently well in shunting duties to warrant building more of them even after they had failed in 'mainline' work.

You surmise correctly that the 0-4-4 design was intended to keep a constant weight on the driving wheels, and not to have the adhesion affected by water and fuel use.

The design was a spin off from the Norwegian 3ft 6in gauge Type VI 0-4-4T which was built by Beyer Peacock at that time. However the Type VI was about 50% bigger and heavier and they did work successfully on mainline work, double-heading on the southern section of the overnight sleeping car train from Hamar to Trondheim.

In turn, the Norwegian Type VI was inspired by the Forney 0-4-4Ts in use in suburban work in New York. The chief of the Norwegian Railways (Carl Pihl) saw the Forneys on a visit to the USA and Canada in 1870 or 1871. Another reason that Pihl was attracted to the design was that it was a way of reducing the maximum axle load on the driving wheels, since timber bridges on the railway north of Hamar imposed difficult restrictions. The Norwegian 0-4-4Ts were designed to do the same job and in most respects had the same specifications as the spectacularly successful Beyer Peacock 2-4-0Ts first used in Norway in 1866 (of the type later used in the Isle of Man).

I think there must have been controlled sideways moment on the bogie, but I don't have ready access to technical information at the moment.

One significant difference between the way the Forneys were used, on the one hand, and the Norwegian and South Australian engines on the other, was that the Forneys were operated cab first, so they were effectively 4-4-0s.

Whilst the 0-4-4Ts were successful in mainline work in Norway, they were nowhere near as successful as the 2-4-0Ts, and orders were not repeated for the design. Some were later converted to 2-6-2Ts in an attempt to overcome their shortcomings. However, they were successful in overcoming the short term restrictions imposed by the light timber bridges north of Hamar, which could not support two fully fuelled 2-4-0Ts.

The South Australian V class had a maximum axle loading of - if I remember correctly - 4 tons 4 cwt, which I am pretty certain was by far the lightest axle loading of any locomotive in Australia expected to do line work.

Regards,

Frank


John Dennis
 

Frank and John,

Peninsula Pioneer indicates that the maximum axle load of a V class was 4 tons 7 cwt, or 4.4 tonnes. Slightly heavier than Frank suggested, but still amazingly light.

John

On 1 June 2015 at 22:12, Frank Stamford frank.stamford@... [LRRSA] <LRRSA@...> wrote:
 

Hello John,

Very interesting questions.

The reason they did not work as expected was that they were just too small and too light for 'mainline' work. In that respect they had the same faults as the horses they replaced. I do not think there was anything fundamentally wrong with the design, and they worked sufficiently well in shunting duties to warrant building more of them even after they had failed in 'mainline' work.

You surmise correctly that the 0-4-4 design was intended to keep a constant weight on the driving wheels, and not to have the adhesion affected by water and fuel use.

The design was a spin off from the Norwegian 3ft 6in gauge Type VI 0-4-4T which was built by Beyer Peacock at that time. However the Type VI was about 50% bigger and heavier and they did work successfully on mainline work, double-heading on the southern section of the overnight sleeping car train from Hamar to Trondheim.

In turn, the Norwegian Type VI was inspired by the Forney 0-4-4Ts in use in suburban work in New York. The chief of the Norwegian Railways (Carl Pihl) saw the Forneys on a visit to the USA and Canada in 1870 or 1871. Another reason that Pihl was attracted to the design was that it was a way of reducing the maximum axle load on the driving wheels, since timber bridges on the railway north of Hamar imposed difficult restrictions. The Norwegian 0-4-4Ts were designed to do the same job and in most respects had the same specifications as the spectacularly successful Beyer Peacock 2-4-0Ts first used in Norway in 1866 (of the type later used in the Isle of Man).

I think there must have been controlled sideways moment on the bogie, but I don't have ready access to technical information at the moment.

One significant difference between the way the Forneys were used, on the one hand, and the Norwegian and South Australian engines on the other, was that the Forneys were operated cab first, so they were effectively 4-4-0s.

Whilst the 0-4-4Ts were successful in mainline work in Norway, they were nowhere near as successful as the 2-4-0Ts, and orders were not repeated for the design. Some were later converted to 2-6-2Ts in an attempt to overcome their shortcomings. However, they were successful in overcoming the short term restrictions imposed by the light timber bridges north of Hamar, which could not support two fully fuelled 2-4-0Ts.

The South Australian V class had a maximum axle loading of - if I remember correctly - 4 tons 4 cwt, which I am pretty certain was by far the lightest axle loading of any locomotive in Australia expected to do line work.

Regards,

Frank



David Halfpenny
 

Thanks for that, Frank.

You are John are clearly familiar with Matthias Forney’s patent, intended initially for Elevated Railways where light weight and the ability to turn on a sixpence were both crucial. Since Forney designed his engines for use in cities, he specified them to run cab-first for visibility, like a Steam Dummy on a street tramway, though crews used to a hefty boiler out in front of them treated this with grave suspicion.

The fully equalised suspension makes a Forney so much more than a mere 0-4-0 with a bogie tacked on to carry weight. The locomotive is completely ‘compensated' on rough track, like a three legged stool on a rough floor, with the four driving wheels providing two of the legs and the king-pin of the bogie being the third. In effect, a Forney is an “American” 4-4-0 wheel layout and therefore shares the stability at speed of a 4-4-0. The two foot gauge Maine Forneys used to run at speeds that seem terrifying to those of us used to the sedate speeds of modern Heritage narrow gauge, and indeed the three foot gauge Manx Beyer Peacock 4-4-0s still do (though they don’t roll over like their American cousins).

However that very long effective wheelbase struggles on very tight curves on a way that a conventional 0-4-0 does not - hence the ‘blind’ drivers on the inner driving axle. I have a very nice commercial live-steam model of a Forney whose manufacturer, possibly unaware of the blind driver feature, has coped with tight curves by building it as a Single Fairlie, with a swivelling power truck under the boiler!

David 1/2d

On 1 Jun 2015, at 13:12, Frank Stamford frank.stamford@bigpond.com [LRRSA] <LRRSA@yahoogroups.com.au> wrote:

Hello John,

Very interesting questions.

The reason they did not work as expected was that they were just too small and too light for 'mainline' work. In that respect they had the same faults as the horses they replaced. I do not think there was anything fundamentally wrong with the design, and they worked sufficiently well in shunting duties to warrant building more of them even after they had failed in 'mainline' work.

You surmise correctly that the 0-4-4 design was intended to keep a constant weight on the driving wheels, and not to have the adhesion affected by water and fuel use.

The design was a spin off from the Norwegian 3ft 6in gauge Type VI 0-4-4T which was built by Beyer Peacock at that time. However the Type VI was about 50% bigger and heavier and they did work successfully on mainline work, double-heading on the southern section of the overnight sleeping car train from Hamar to Trondheim.

In turn, the Norwegian Type VI was inspired by the Forney 0-4-4Ts in use in suburban work in New York. The chief of the Norwegian Railways (Carl Pihl) saw the Forneys on a visit to the USA and Canada in 1870 or 1871. Another reason that Pihl was attracted to the design was that it was a way of reducing the maximum axle load on the driving wheels, since timber bridges on the railway north of Hamar imposed difficult restrictions. The Norwegian 0-4-4Ts were designed to do the same job and in most respects had the same specifications as the spectacularly successful Beyer Peacock 2-4-0Ts first used in Norway in 1866 (of the type later used in the Isle of Man).

I think there must have been controlled sideways moment on the bogie, but I don't have ready access to technical information at the moment.

One significant difference between the way the Forneys were used, on the one hand, and the Norwegian and South Australian engines on the other, was that the Forneys were operated cab first, so they were effectively 4-4-0s.

Whilst the 0-4-4Ts were successful in mainline work in Norway, they were nowhere near as successful as the 2-4-0Ts, and orders were not repeated for the design. Some were later converted to 2-6-2Ts in an attempt to overcome their shortcomings. However, they were successful in overcoming the short term restrictions imposed by the light timber bridges north of Hamar, which could not support two fully fuelled 2-4-0Ts.

The South Australian V class had a maximum axle loading of - if I remember correctly - 4 tons 4 cwt, which I am pretty certain was by far the lightest axle loading of any locomotive in Australia expected to do line work.

Regards,

Frank

Sent from my iPad

------------------------------------
Posted by: Frank Stamford <frank.stamford@bigpond.com>
------------------------------------

Material posted on this group may be adapted by the editors of LRRSA publications for use in those publications, including Light Railways and the LRRSA web-site www.lrrsa.org.au

This group is for members who share common interests with the members of the LRRSA, but the contents of postings are those of their authors and opinions expressed do not necessarily conform with those of any LRRSA member nor of the LRRSA Council of Management"

------------------------------------

Yahoo7 Groups Links



Frank Stamford
 

Hello David,

You raise a very interesting point.

I think, but I am not sure, that the Norwegian/Isle of Man Beyer Peacock 2-4-0Ts were fully equalised, and that that was one of the reasons for their success.

The Norwegian 0-4-4Ts did not need to cope with curves sharper than 9 chains radius, but they did have to cope with lots of curves. I do not know what the sharpest curve on the Kingston Narracoorte line was.

Regards,

Frank


David Halfpenny
 

Frank,

Yes, you’re right that (apart from Caledonia,) all the Manx engines were 2-4-0s.

I had the Met. locomotives in my head.

David

On 1 Jun 2015, at 13:50, Frank Stamford frank.stamford@bigpond.com [LRRSA] <LRRSA@yahoogroups.com.au> wrote:


Hello David,

You raise a very interesting point.

I think, but I am not sure, that the Norwegian/Isle of Man Beyer Peacock 2-4-0Ts were fully equalised, and that that was one of the reasons for their success.

The Norwegian 0-4-4Ts did not need to cope with curves sharper than 9 chains radius, but they did have to cope with lots of curves. I do not know what the sharpest curve on the Kingston Narracoorte line was.

Regards,

Frank

------------------------------------
Posted by: Frank Stamford <frank.stamford@bigpond.com>
------------------------------------

Material posted on this group may be adapted by the editors of LRRSA publications for use in those publications, including Light Railways and the LRRSA web-site www.lrrsa.org.au

This group is for members who share common interests with the members of the LRRSA, but the contents of postings are those of their authors and opinions expressed do not necessarily conform with those of any LRRSA member nor of the LRRSA Council of Management"

------------------------------------

Yahoo7 Groups Links



John Peterson
 

Thanks David and Frank.

 

Interesting to hear yet another Norway connection with railways here!

 

I think NG Downunder had a drawing set made of these locos that might show how the rear bogie was arranged to get around curves. Is someone able to check? They were used on wharves and piers with probably sharp curves so suspect there must be some arrangement.

 

Forney [the bloke] was an editor of a US engineering magazine who was very anti narrow gauge. He and Fairlie fought in publications about the merits of narrow-gauge: Fairlie pro narrow gauge, Forney very much against. Part of Forney's argument  was that his design of loco meant that you didn't need to go narrow gauge; a lightweight standard gauge line could do the same job with less disruption than a narrow gauge line. George Hilton who wrote American Narrow Gauge Railroads agreed with Forney. The fact that narrow gauge railways have died out meant that they were a waste of time being built.

 

It is ironic that the locomotive that Forney championed is mostly remembered for being narrow gauge!

 

Cheers

John P


From: LRRSA@... [LRRSA@...]
Sent: Tuesday, 2 June 2015 2:41 AM
To: LRRSA@...
Subject: Re: [LRRSA] the SA V class 0-4-4RT

 

Frank,

Yes, you’re right that (apart from Caledonia,) all the Manx engines were 2-4-0s.

I had the Met. locomotives in my head.

David

> On 1 Jun 2015, at 13:50, Frank Stamford frank.stamford@... [LRRSA] wrote:
>
>
> Hello David,
>
> You raise a very interesting point.
>
> I think, but I am not sure, that the Norwegian/Isle of Man Beyer Peacock 2-4-0Ts were fully equalised, and that that was one of the reasons for their success.
>
> The Norwegian 0-4-4Ts did not need to cope with curves sharper than 9 chains radius, but they did have to cope with lots of curves. I do not know what the sharpest curve on the Kingston Narracoorte line was.
>
> Regards,
>
> Frank
>
> ------------------------------------
> Posted by: Frank Stamford
> ------------------------------------
>
> Material posted on this group may be adapted by the editors of LRRSA publications for use in those publications, including Light Railways and the LRRSA web-site www.lrrsa.org.au
>
> This group is for members who share common interests with the members of the LRRSA, but the contents of postings are those of their authors and opinions expressed do not necessarily conform with those of any LRRSA member nor of the LRRSA Council of Management"
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo7 Groups Links
>
>
>

Important - This email and any attachments may be confidential. If received in error, please contact us and delete all copies. Before opening or using attachments check them for viruses and defects. Regardless of any loss, damage or consequence, whether caused by the negligence of the sender or not, resulting directly or indirectly from the use of any attached files our liability is limited to resupplying any affected attachments. Any representations or opinions expressed are those of the individual sender, and not necessarily those of the Department of Education and Training.


John Dennis
 

Peter Manning covered the V class in the Summer/Autumn 1999 issue of NGDU, which appears to be shjown as issue 8 on the publisher's back issue page on their web site. There's nothing obvious to me, although there might be some form of lateral springing. If I get the time I shall try and scan that segment of the drawing.

John

On 2 June 2015 at 14:11, 'Peterson, John J' peterson.john.j@... [LRRSA] <LRRSA@...> wrote:
 

Thanks David and Frank.

 

Interesting to hear yet another Norway connection with railways here!

 

I think NG Downunder had a drawing set made of these locos that might show how the rear bogie was arranged to get around curves. Is someone able to check? They were used on wharves and piers with probably sharp curves so suspect there must be some arrangement.

 

Forney [the bloke] was an editor of a US engineering magazine who was very anti narrow gauge. He and Fairlie fought in publications about the merits of narrow-gauge: Fairlie pro narrow gauge, Forney very much against. Part of Forney's argument  was that his design of loco meant that you didn't need to go narrow gauge; a lightweight standard gauge line could do the same job with less disruption than a narrow gauge line. George Hilton who wrote American Narrow Gauge Railroads agreed with Forney. The fact that narrow gauge railways have died out meant that they were a waste of time being built.

 

It is ironic that the locomotive that Forney championed is mostly remembered for being narrow gauge!

 

Cheers

John P


From: LRRSA@... [LRRSA@...]
Sent: Tuesday, 2 June 2015 2:41 AM
To: LRRSA@...
Subject: Re: [LRRSA] the SA V class 0-4-4RT

 

Frank,

Yes, you’re right that (apart from Caledonia,) all the Manx engines were 2-4-0s.

I had the Met. locomotives in my head.

David

> On 1 Jun 2015, at 13:50, Frank Stamford frank.stamford@... [LRRSA] <LRRSA@...> wrote:
>
>
> Hello David,
>
> You raise a very interesting point.
>
> I think, but I am not sure, that the Norwegian/Isle of Man Beyer Peacock 2-4-0Ts were fully equalised, and that that was one of the reasons for their success.
>
> The Norwegian 0-4-4Ts did not need to cope with curves sharper than 9 chains radius, but they did have to cope with lots of curves. I do not know what the sharpest curve on the Kingston Narracoorte line was.
>
> Regards,
>
> Frank
>
> ------------------------------------
> Posted by: Frank Stamford <frank.stamford@...>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Material posted on this group may be adapted by the editors of LRRSA publications for use in those publications, including Light Railways and the LRRSA web-site www.lrrsa.org.au
>
> This group is for members who share common interests with the members of the LRRSA, but the contents of postings are those of their authors and opinions expressed do not necessarily conform with those of any LRRSA member nor of the LRRSA Council of Management"
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo7 Groups Links
>
>
>

Important - This email and any attachments may be confidential. If received in error, please contact us and delete all copies. Before opening or using attachments check them for viruses and defects. Regardless of any loss, damage or consequence, whether caused by the negligence of the sender or not, resulting directly or indirectly from the use of any attached files our liability is limited to resupplying any affected attachments. Any representations or opinions expressed are those of the individual sender, and not necessarily those of the Department of Education and Training.



Frank Stamford
 


I have just had a look at the Peter Manning article in Narrow Gauge Downunder, and as there is also nothing obvious to me, from the drawings, on what form of lateral movement was provided.

However the Norwegian locomotives, which were built by the same builder at the same time, had Adams bogies. These allowed for controlled lateral movement using India rubber springs. I would think the SAR V class would have had the same.

By the way, a very nice photographic portrait of "Juno", one of the Norwegian engines, can be found here:

http://forsk.njk.no/mdb/visbilde.php?id=88361&aut=&eng=

and if you click: Vis full opplastet størrelse at the bottom of the picture you should get a much larger version (it asks for a user name and password but does not seem to need it!)

Regards,

Frank



On 2/06/2015 2:28 PM, John Dennis jdennis412@... [LRRSA] wrote:
 
Peter Manning covered the V class in the Summer/Autumn 1999 issue of NGDU, which appears to be shjown as issue 8 on the publisher's back issue page on their web site. There's nothing obvious to me, although there might be some form of lateral springing. If I get the time I shall try and scan that segment of the drawing.

John

On 2 June 2015 at 14:11, 'Peterson, John J' peterson.john.j@... [LRRSA] <LRRSA@...> wrote:
 

Thanks David and Frank.

 

Interesting to hear yet another Norway connection with railways here!

 

I think NG Downunder had a drawing set made of these locos that might show how the rear bogie was arranged to get around curves. Is someone able to check? They were used on wharves and piers with probably sharp curves so suspect there must be some arrangement.

 

Forney [the bloke] was an editor of a US engineering magazine who was very anti narrow gauge. He and Fairlie fought in publications about the merits of narrow-gauge: Fairlie pro narrow gauge, Forney very much against. Part of Forney's argument  was that his design of loco meant that you didn't need to go narrow gauge; a lightweight standard gauge line could do the same job with less disruption than a narrow gauge line. George Hilton who wrote American Narrow Gauge Railroads agreed with Forney. The fact that narrow gauge railways have died out meant that they were a waste of time being built.

 

It is ironic that the locomotive that Forney championed is mostly remembered for being narrow gauge!

 

Cheers

John P





John Peterson
 

A great photo Frank. It also points out that there was a great deal of world wide interaction between engineers in the pre-internet era.

 

Although the theory behind rear tanks [maximising weight on the given rail] seem good, it didn't seem to catch on here much.

 

The Baldwin 0-4-2RT's on a sugar line in Qld is the only one that springs to mind. What rail were they designed for?

 

Are there any other RT of note?

 

Were there other solutions to maximising the tractive weight on a given size of track? Or maybe in practice it was irrelevant or ignored?

 

Cheers

John P


From: LRRSA@... [LRRSA@...]
Sent: Tuesday, 2 June 2015 3:27 PM
To: LRRSA@...
Subject: Re: [LRRSA] the SA V class 0-4-4RT

 


I have just had a look at the Peter Manning article in Narrow Gauge Downunder, and as there is also nothing obvious to me, from the drawings, on what form of lateral movement was provided.

However the Norwegian locomotives, which were built by the same builder at the same time, had Adams bogies. These allowed for controlled lateral movement using India rubber springs. I would think the SAR V class would have had the same.

By the way, a very nice photographic portrait of "Juno", one of the Norwegian engines, can be found here:

http://forsk.njk.no/mdb/visbilde.php?id=88361&aut=&eng=

and if you click: Vis full opplastet størrelse at the bottom of the picture you should get a much larger version (it asks for a user name and password but does not seem to need it!)

Regards,

Frank



On 2/06/2015 2:28 PM, John Dennis jdennis412@... [LRRSA] wrote:
 
Peter Manning covered the V class in the Summer/Autumn 1999 issue of NGDU, which appears to be shjown as issue 8 on the publisher's back issue page on their web site. There's nothing obvious to me, although there might be some form of lateral springing. If I get the time I shall try and scan that segment of the drawing.

John

On 2 June 2015 at 14:11, 'Peterson, John J' peterson.john.j@... [LRRSA] <LRRSA@...> wrote:
 

Thanks David and Frank.

 

Interesting to hear yet another Norway connection with railways here!

 

I think NG Downunder had a drawing set made of these locos that might show how the rear bogie was arranged to get around curves. Is someone able to check? They were used on wharves and piers with probably sharp curves so suspect there must be some arrangement.

 

Forney [the bloke] was an editor of a US engineering magazine who was very anti narrow gauge. He and Fairlie fought in publications about the merits of narrow-gauge: Fairlie pro narrow gauge, Forney very much against. Part of Forney's argument  was that his design of loco meant that you didn't need to go narrow gauge; a lightweight standard gauge line could do the same job with less disruption than a narrow gauge line. George Hilton who wrote American Narrow Gauge Railroads agreed with Forney. The fact that narrow gauge railways have died out meant that they were a waste of time being built.

 

It is ironic that the locomotive that Forney championed is mostly remembered for being narrow gauge!

 

Cheers

John P




Important - This email and any attachments may be confidential. If received in error, please contact us and delete all copies. Before opening or using attachments check them for viruses and defects. Regardless of any loss, damage or consequence, whether caused by the negligence of the sender or not, resulting directly or indirectly from the use of any attached files our liability is limited to resupplying any affected attachments. Any representations or opinions expressed are those of the individual sender, and not necessarily those of the Department of Education and Training.


John Dennis
 

Attached are the relevant bits of Peter Manning's drawing of the V class.

John


On 2 June 2015 at 20:09, 'Peterson, John J' peterson.john.j@... [LRRSA] <LRRSA@...> wrote:
 

A great photo Frank. It also points out that there was a great deal of world wide interaction between engineers in the pre-internet era.

 

Although the theory behind rear tanks [maximising weight on the given rail] seem good, it didn't seem to catch on here much.

 

The Baldwin 0-4-2RT's on a sugar line in Qld is the only one that springs to mind. What rail were they designed for?

 

Are there any other RT of note?

 

Were there other solutions to maximising the tractive weight on a given size of track? Or maybe in practice it was irrelevant or ignored?

 

Cheers

John P


From: LRRSA@... [LRRSA@...]
Sent: Tuesday, 2 June 2015 3:27 PM
To: LRRSA@...
Subject: Re: [LRRSA] the SA V class 0-4-4RT

 


I have just had a look at the Peter Manning article in Narrow Gauge Downunder, and as there is also nothing obvious to me, from the drawings, on what form of lateral movement was provided.

However the Norwegian locomotives, which were built by the same builder at the same time, had Adams bogies. These allowed for controlled lateral movement using India rubber springs. I would think the SAR V class would have had the same.

By the way, a very nice photographic portrait of "Juno", one of the Norwegian engines, can be found here:

http://forsk.njk.no/mdb/visbilde.php?id=88361&aut=&eng=

and if you click: Vis full opplastet størrelse at the bottom of the picture you should get a much larger version (it asks for a user name and password but does not seem to need it!)

Regards,

Frank



On 2/06/2015 2:28 PM, John Dennis jdennis412@... [LRRSA] wrote:
 
Peter Manning covered the V class in the Summer/Autumn 1999 issue of NGDU, which appears to be shjown as issue 8 on the publisher's back issue page on their web site. There's nothing obvious to me, although there might be some form of lateral springing. If I get the time I shall try and scan that segment of the drawing.

John

On 2 June 2015 at 14:11, 'Peterson, John J' peterson.john.j@... [LRRSA] <LRRSA@...> wrote:
 

Thanks David and Frank.

 

Interesting to hear yet another Norway connection with railways here!

 

I think NG Downunder had a drawing set made of these locos that might show how the rear bogie was arranged to get around curves. Is someone able to check? They were used on wharves and piers with probably sharp curves so suspect there must be some arrangement.

 

Forney [the bloke] was an editor of a US engineering magazine who was very anti narrow gauge. He and Fairlie fought in publications about the merits of narrow-gauge: Fairlie pro narrow gauge, Forney very much against. Part of Forney's argument  was that his design of loco meant that you didn't need to go narrow gauge; a lightweight standard gauge line could do the same job with less disruption than a narrow gauge line. George Hilton who wrote American Narrow Gauge Railroads agreed with Forney. The fact that narrow gauge railways have died out meant that they were a waste of time being built.

 

It is ironic that the locomotive that Forney championed is mostly remembered for being narrow gauge!

 

Cheers

John P




Important - This email and any attachments may be confidential. If received in error, please contact us and delete all copies. Before opening or using attachments check them for viruses and defects. Regardless of any loss, damage or consequence, whether caused by the negligence of the sender or not, resulting directly or indirectly from the use of any attached files our liability is limited to resupplying any affected attachments. Any representations or opinions expressed are those of the individual sender, and not necessarily those of the Department of Education and Training.



Frank Stamford
 

On 2/06/2015 8:09 PM, 'Peterson, John J' peterson.john.j@... [LRRSA] wrote:
�

A great photo Frank. It also points out that there was a great deal of world wide interaction between engineers in the pre-internet era.

�

Although the theory behind rear tanks [maximising weight on the given rail] seem good, it didn't seem to catch on here much.

�

The Baldwin 0-4-2RT's on a sugar line in Qld is the only one that springs to mind. What rail were they designed for?


I don't know, but I suspect about 30 lb/yard. The SAR V class may have also been made for rail of about that weight, which would have been acceptable on a railway built for horse traction. (I would be very interested to know the construction standards of the Kingston - Naracoorte line as built, but I don't think I have seen this anywhere.)

�

Are there any other RT of note?

I cannot think of any off hand.

�

Were there other solutions to maximising the tractive weight on a given size of track? Or maybe in practice it was�irrelevant or ignored?

Yes, the American approach which was to avoid the use of tank engines on 'mainline' work. (By 'mainline' I mean as opposed to shunting or use within industrial establishments.)

The effect of avoiding the use of tank engines can be seen in comparing the VR W class 4-6-0 with the VR NA class 2-6-2T. Both were built for similar sort of work, despite the difference in gauge. The W class had a maximum axle load of 8t 17cwt, the NA had a maximum axle load of 9t 9cwt. Despite the lower axle load the W class had a bigger boiler and bigger cylinders which was possible because it did not have to carry its own water and fuel supply.

Regards,

Frank

�

Cheers

John P





Brian <rallim56@...>
 

I think you may find the rear bogie under Forney’s was more or less a swing motion bogie, there by allowing some amount of side swing as well as the normal pivoting capability.
 
Brian
Qld. Aust.
 

Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2015 3:27 PM
Subject: Re: [LRRSA] the SA V class 0-4-4RT
 



I have just had a look at the Peter Manning article in Narrow Gauge Downunder, and as there is also nothing obvious to me, from the drawings, on what form of lateral movement was provided.

However the Norwegian locomotives, which were built by the same builder at the same time, had Adams bogies. These allowed for controlled lateral movement using India rubber springs. I would think the SAR V class would have had the same.

By the way, a very nice photographic portrait of "Juno", one of the Norwegian engines, can be found here:

http://forsk.njk.no/mdb/visbilde.php?id=88361&aut=&eng=

and if you click: Vis full opplastet størrelse at the bottom of the picture you should get a much larger version (it asks for a user name and password but does not seem to need it!)

Regards,

Frank



On 2/06/2015 2:28 PM, John Dennis jdennis412@... [LRRSA] wrote:
 
Peter Manning covered the V class in the Summer/Autumn 1999 issue of NGDU, which appears to be shjown as issue 8 on the publisher's back issue page on their web site. There's nothing obvious to me, although there might be some form of lateral springing. If I get the time I shall try and scan that segment of the drawing.
 
John
 
On 2 June 2015 at 14:11, 'Peterson, John J' peterson.john.j@... [LRRSA] <LRRSA@...> wrote:
 

Thanks David and Frank.

 

Interesting to hear yet another Norway connection with railways here!

 

I think NG Downunder had a drawing set made of these locos that might show how the rear bogie was arranged to get around curves. Is someone able to check? They were used on wharves and piers with probably sharp curves so suspect there must be some arrangement.

 

Forney [the bloke] was an editor of a US engineering magazine who was very anti narrow gauge. He and Fairlie fought in publications about the merits of narrow-gauge: Fairlie pro narrow gauge, Forney very much against. Part of Forney's argument  was that his design of loco meant that you didn't need to go narrow gauge; a lightweight standard gauge line could do the same job with less disruption than a narrow gauge line. George Hilton who wrote American Narrow Gauge Railroads agreed with Forney. The fact that narrow gauge railways have died out meant that they were a waste of time being built.

 

It is ironic that the locomotive that Forney championed is mostly remembered for being narrow gauge!

 

Cheers

John P




No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2015.0.5961 / Virus Database: 4354/9912 - Release Date: 05/31/15


Michael C.
 

Here are some photos of a Forney in Maine:
 
 
Cheers,
 
Michael Chapman

Follow my railway adventures on Flickr at http://tinyurl.com/nlvlnmt
Follow me on Twitter @mikenarrowgauge
Support the Welsh Highland Heritage Railway on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/WHHRly


 
 

In a message dated 03/06/2015 09:07:45 GMT Daylight Time, LRRSA@... writes:
 

I think you may find the rear bogie under Forney’s was more or less a swing motion bogie, there by allowing some amount of side swing as well as the normal pivoting capability.
 
Brian
Qld. Aust.
 
Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2015 3:27 PM
Subject: Re: [LRRSA] the SA V class 0-4-4RT
 



I have just had a look at the Peter Manning article in Narrow Gauge Downunder, and as there is also nothing obvious to me, from the drawings, on what form of lateral movement was provided.

However the Norwegian locomotives, which were built by the same builder at the same time, had Adams bogies. These allowed for controlled lateral movement using India rubber springs. I would think the SAR V class would have had the same.

By the way, a very nice photographic portrait of "Juno", one of the Norwegian engines, can be found here:

http://forsk.njk.no/mdb/visbilde.php?id=88361&aut=&eng=

and if you click: Vis full opplastet størrelse at the bottom of the picture you should get a much larger version (it asks for a user name and password but does not seem to need it!)

Regards,

Frank



On 2/06/2015 2:28 PM, John Dennis jdennis412@... [LRRSA] wrote:
 
Peter Manning covered the V class in the Summer/Autumn 1999 issue of NGDU, which appears to be shjown as issue 8 on the publisher's back issue page on their web site. There's nothing obvious to me, although there might be some form of lateral springing. If I get the time I shall try and scan that segment of the drawing.
 
John
 
On 2 June 2015 at 14:11, 'Peterson, John J' peterson.john.j@... [LRRSA] <LRRSA@...> wrote:
 

Thanks David and Frank.

 

Interesting to hear yet another Norway connection with railways here!

 

I think NG Downunder had a drawing set made of these locos that might show how the rear bogie was arranged to get around curves. Is someone able to check? They were used on wharves and piers with probably sharp curves so suspect there must be some arrangement.

 

Forney [the bloke] was an editor of a US engineering magazine who was very anti narrow gauge. He and Fairlie fought in publications about the merits of narrow-gauge: Fairlie pro narrow gauge, Forney very much against. Part of Forney's argument  was that his design of loco meant that you didn't need to go narrow gauge; a lightweight standard gauge line could do the same job with less disruption than a narrow gauge line. George Hilton who wrote American Narrow Gauge Railroads agreed with Forney. The fact that narrow gauge railways have died out meant that they were a waste of time being built.

 

It is ironic that the locomotive that Forney championed is mostly remembered for being narrow gauge!

 

Cheers

John P




No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2015.0.5961 / Virus Database: 4354/9912 - Release Date: 05/31/15


John Browning
 

The first Fairymead Mill Baldwin 0-4-2T was built in 1889.

This suggests to me that the most likely rail weight for which they were designed to operate on was 20lb or at most 24lb.

John

 

John Browning

Brisbane

Australia

 


Frank Stamford
 

Hello all,

I have just found an article by Gifford Eardley on the SAR V class in the ARHS Bulletin, June 1976.

Whilst it does not explain the form of suspension of the rear bogie, it does say that they wagged their tails, and that this feature was very obvious when seeing them in operation. The author also says the locomotives could easily cope with sharp curves which made them highly suitable for shunting in confined spaces. This would all imply that the bogies allowed lateral movement.

He also answers one of the questions which I raised earlier, the weight of the rails used on the Kingston - Naracoorte line were 35 lbs/yd.

The last paragraph of his article contains this wonderful pen portrait:

The "V" - class engines were indeed quaint and quite capable of making delightful and furious noises when hard pressed propelling an unresponsive rake of four-wheel wagons laden with wheat or concentrates from Broken Hill. They could scurry around the most alarming curves with the utmost ease, tootling their peanut whistles at blind street corners, or to clear ambling horse traffic out of their imperious way. They certainly made Ellen Street, and other thoroughfares of Port Pirie, come to active life as they wended along the track to and from that fantastic maze of sidings which once served the wharf area. Those fortunate people who have seen them in their spirited action have very pleasant memories of them on the 3' 6' gauge railways of South Australia.


Regards,

Frank


On 2/06/2015 3:27 PM, Frank Stamford frank.stamford@... [LRRSA] wrote:
 


I have just had a look at the Peter Manning article in Narrow Gauge Downunder, and as there is also nothing obvious to me, from the drawings, on what form of lateral movement was provided.

However the Norwegian locomotives, which were built by the same builder at the same time, had Adams bogies. These allowed for controlled lateral movement using India rubber springs. I would think the SAR V class would have had the same.

By the way, a very nice photographic portrait of "Juno", one of the Norwegian engines, can be found here:

http://forsk.njk.no/mdb/visbilde.php?id=88361&aut=&eng=

and if you click: Vis full opplastet størrelse at the bottom of the picture you should get a much larger version (it asks for a user name and password but does not seem to need it!)

Regards,

Frank



On 2/06/2015 2:28 PM, John Dennis jdennis412@... [LRRSA] wrote:
 
Peter Manning covered the V class in the Summer/Autumn 1999 issue of NGDU, which appears to be shjown as issue 8 on the publisher's back issue page on their web site. There's nothing obvious to me, although there might be some form of lateral springing. If I get the time I shall try and scan that segment of the drawing.

John

On 2 June 2015 at 14:11, 'Peterson, John J' peterson.john.j@... [LRRSA] <LRRSA@...> wrote:
 

Thanks David and Frank.

 

Interesting to hear yet another Norway connection with railways here!

 

I think NG Downunder had a drawing set made of these locos that might show how the rear bogie was arranged to get around curves. Is someone able to check? They were used on wharves and piers with probably sharp curves so suspect there must be some arrangement.

 

Forney [the bloke] was an editor of a US engineering magazine who was very anti narrow gauge. He and Fairlie fought in publications about the merits of narrow-gauge: Fairlie pro narrow gauge, Forney very much against. Part of Forney's argument  was that his design of loco meant that you didn't need to go narrow gauge; a lightweight standard gauge line could do the same job with less disruption than a narrow gauge line. George Hilton who wrote American Narrow Gauge Railroads agreed with Forney. The fact that narrow gauge railways have died out meant that they were a waste of time being built.

 

It is ironic that the locomotive that Forney championed is mostly remembered for being narrow gauge!

 

Cheers

John P






Frank Stamford
 

On 2/06/2015 8:09 PM, 'Peterson, John J' peterson.john.j@... [LRRSA] wrote:
�

�

Are there any other RT of note?

�

I have been doing some more probing on the SAR V class 0-4-4Ts, a class of locomotives which I have always found most intriguing.

It seems there was one other class of 0-4-4 back-tanks in Australia. In 1880 the Holdfast Bay Railway Company (South Australia) obtained two 5ft 3in gauge 0-4-4Ts with back tanks, specifically designed to cope with heavy excursion traffic on their North Terrace (Adelaide) to Glenelg railway. The locos came from Beyer Peacock and the HBR requested 4-4-0Ts with a maximum axle load of 8.5 tons for 50 lb rails. The weight distribution problem could only be solved by making them 0-4-4T back tanks. Unlike other Forney derived locomotives, these had inside cylinders. They later became GD class of South Australian Railways and were taken out of service in 1925.

It seems to have been accepted over a very long time that the V class was purchased as a replacement for horses on the Kingston - Naracoorte line. This is misleading. The decision to work the line with steam was made while the line was still under construction, and the order for the locomotives was placed during the line's construction. It is true that an informal arrangement was made when the rails had reached Naracoorte for private individuals to use their own horses to haul produce on the railway, but the SAR never ran a service with horses, V class locomotives were used from the time the line was officially opened.

With regard to the flangeless driving wheels on the Forneys, only the earliest Forneys used on the New York elevated railways (of which there were a number, operated by different companies) had flangeless drivers, later ones had flanges on all wheels (and obviously controlled side movement on the bogies). Similarly, not all the Maine 2ft Forneys had flanges on all wheels, some of the first ones had flangeless drivers.

I have been looking for an illustration of a very early Forney without success. So far the earliest I have found is an 1876 example, No.26 of the New York & Harlem Railroad. If anyone knows of an illustration of an earlier example I would be very interested. Note this example has flanges on all driving wheels.

Regards,

Frank


Frank Stamford
 

On 1/06/2015 10:12 PM, Frank Stamford frank.stamford@... [LRRSA] wrote:
 

Hello John,

Very interesting questions.

The reason they did not work as expected was that they were just too small and too light for 'mainline' work. In that respect they had the same faults as the horses they replaced. I do not think there was anything fundamentally wrong with the design, and they worked sufficiently well in shunting duties to warrant building more of them even after they had failed in 'mainline' work.


Since writing the above I have done a lot more probing. This has led me to the conclusion that the V class were not by any means failures on the Kingston - Narracoorte line. They did everything that was expected of them. After working on that line for three years they were superseded by the W class 2-6-0 tender locomotives, which was a design of locomotive which did not exist in 1875 when the V class were ordered.

The W class performed better in that role than the V, but does not mean the V failed. It was a case of evolution from experience.

From everything I have read the V class provided a reliable service, and carried all the traffic that was offering without problems to the customers.

When called upon to run excursion trains they could do the the 52 miles between Narracoorte and Kingston in less than 3 hours hauling trains with many hundreds of passengers. Less than three hours on a light railway with 35 lb rails, with a well loaded train is a pretty good effort I think.

Regards,

Frank