Well, is it a 4-4-4-4 or is it a 4-8-4. It seems that even the "experts" can't
agree. For myself, I prefer to think of it as a four-cylinder 4-8-4. Even
front and rear driver sets are not connected, neither is the locomotive
Since it is a rigid frame, I think of it as a very exotic Northern.
What I want to know is: Who has one, or who can do a truthful user review based
actual operating experience? I would like to have one of these machines if they
well made, if they run well and if they are not as expensive as a Dodge Durango.
who knows? Who has one? Whadda ya think of it. How difficult is it to cut off
glad hands and disable the sound?
I got a chance to see one run last week at a friends layout. It pulled
the very same train that a few weeks before could not be pulled by a
Lionel Challenger, and did it beautifully! No wheel slip at all, and
ran very smoothly. Great sound too! The chuff, and whistle made the
Challenger sound like a sick goat!
I'm not a Pennsy fan, but if I were, it would be a "must have" piece.
=>Well, is it a 4-4-4-4 or is it a 4-8-4
It's a 4-4-4-4. If it were articulated, it would be a 4-4+4-4. See?
At least, that's how it was before the simplifiers got hold of the Whyte's
If you didn't want to go to Chicago, why did you get on this train?
A 4-cylinder 4-8-4 would have been really intersting. I always
wondered why they built these as duplexes.
Other countries built more traditional 4-cylindered engines where the
opposing piston thrusts balanced each other out, giving a very smooth
riding engine with much lower hammer blow to the track than other
designs. When they are designed this way you only need 2 sets of valve
motion, because the same set drives two cylinders at the same time.
These are vey nice engines (the models).
In DCC the sound can be turned off fairly easily, and there is a
volume control anyway if you just want to turn it down.
The detail on it is very nice. People compare these to brass engines
and compared to them, yes, there are a few items probably not there
like operating cab roof vent etc, but they also are alot cheaper.
The paint is excellent.
It comes with two of the four drivers blind. Flanged ones are
included. Thus it handles curves fine.
Gladhands? Yeah it can just be cut off.
It pulls a TON. Runs slowly.
The only issue I have is the front truck is lightly loaded (spring
pushed down) and once it a while it picks a switch. My track work is
not perfect so others may not see this.
Overall a very , very nice model. Of course I got mine at a discount
outfit so that factors in to my price/value equation.
One other thing about BLI locos. They need clean track and the wheels
on them cleaned once in awhile, but if you are DCC already then this
is probably SOP.
Hmmmm..........we've heard that before around here, this business of 4-6+6-4
instead of just 4-6-6-4 to indicate an articulated locomotive. If I was a
and referred to a six-axle/six-motor diesel as a Co-Co, then I would certainly
the European 4-6+6-4 to indicate either a Garratt or an articulated locomotive.
Being a North American and using that convention, however, I would say a
six-axle/six-motor diesel is a C-C and an articulated Challenger is a 4-6-6-4.
I cannot argue that you are wrong and I am right. In fact, the 4-6+6-4 convention
does help to avoid confusion- to a point- between multi-engined rigid and
frame locomotives. It's just that it is not the convention of common use in this
of the woods. Add to that the fact that multi-engined rigid frame locos were
basically confined to a couple of classes on the Pencilvania Railroad, and none
them had a wheel arrangement that corresponded to any articulated locos that ran
Anyway, as regards the class T, it could be called a Duplex American, Double
Duplex Atlantic, or just a Duplex, Double Atlantic, 4-4-4-4, Duplex Northern,
Northern, EE-1, AA-1 or any of several other names. The 4-6-0s were class G and
4-C+C-4 electrics were class GG. It stands to reason that if the 4-4-0 was the
A then the 4-4-4-4 should have been called the AA-1 and not the T-1. The 4-4-2
the class E so this could have perhaps been applied as well to the 4-4-4-4.
Anyway you look at the thing it is a beautiful machine I don't model the
or even steam. I don't even model a railroad that exists in any part of the
where you would have ever seen one of those machines, but I still would like to
A silent one with no glad-hands.
Actually no. There were several classes in the UK (and AFAIR mainland
Europe too), in the late Victorian era.
These were "double singles" of the 2-2-2-0 and 2-2-2-2 wheel
arrangements. The London and North Western Railway had some designed
by Webb, and the London & South Western had some designed by Drummond.
The idea was to reduce friction in an era when engineering wasn't as
precise as it was a few decades later, hoping for faster and more
These were 4-cylinder compounds which contributed to some of the
problems. And rigid duplexes which made it worse - duplexes are
inherently slippery engines as there is no weight transfer between the
two halves. And single drivers are by their nature also slippery due
to lack of adhesion.
Webb's engines used Joy valve gear which isn't a particularly good one
in the first place, on the high-pressure cylinders/axle. But the worst
feature was the use of live-steam-model type slip eccentrics on the
low pressure cylinders/axle - which meant a fixed cutoff at the LP
Something funny and unheard of happened on more than one occasion....
Any live steam modeller will tell you that slip-eccentrics move into
forward or reverse once the engine is moving. On models they raise
steam and then give the engine a push in the direction the want it to
But in this case the engine would back onto a train at the terminus.
Leaving the slip eccentrics in reverse.
The idea was that steam applied to the HP end would get it started,
and that would set the slip eccentrics to forward.
But there was only a small proportion of the weight on the HP axle. So
it could slip very easily.
While the rear cylinders/axle were still in reverse.
So the HP axle would slip in forward - then steam would reach the low
pressure cylinders which were still in reverse....
And you had the sight of the driving wheels spinning in opposite
The first 2 pictures at
examples. The inside cylinders drove the front driving axle, and
the outside drove the rear. There is no side rod although you have to
look hard to realise this.
On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 12:57:50 +1100, Mark Newton
Right. I've very little experience with Garratts and need to have a watchful eye
the lookout when I bring them up.
Yes, and I tend to conform to that line of thinking as well. I have always
the thing as some sort of 4-8-4.
It could also be a 4-6-0+0-6-4.
Were any Mallet-type (US-type) articulateds built with inside trailing
This notation can get even more complicated. For instance some early
Crampton-designed single drivers were described as (2-2-2)-2-0 with
the brackets showing that it had three rigid carrying axles in front
of a single driving axle, not a 6-wheeled truck.
Yes, it could*. My point was that a Garratt described in Whyte notation
would be x-X-x + x-X-x, not x-X+X-x. I used the 4-6-4+4-6-4 notation
merely as an example.
*In which case it would the unique Colombian Pacifico Railway engines
built by Armstrong Whitworth.
The intent was to bring the piston thrusts and the weight of
reciprocating and rotating parts below those of a comparable
two-cylinder 4-8-4 engine with the same power output, to obtain higher
running speeds. Also, the divided drive layout offered improved steam
distribution and smaller cylinder volumes.
In respect of these criteria, the T-1s were a success.
The divided drive concept was well developed in Europe, in particular on
locos designed by the French engineer Andre Chapelon.
He was Baldwin's Chief Engineer during the late steam era, and a vocal
advocate of duplex/divided drive steam locomotives. He was able to
convince the Pennsy to buy the first two T-1s in 1940, otherwise Baldwin
planned to build a demonstrator locomotive for themselves.
He got it from De Glehn, as did Churchward in England. But these
engines weren't duplexes - they were fully coupled with the inside
cylinder(s) working the first driving axle, and the outside cylinders
working the second one.
With four cylinders, only two sets of valve motion were needed because
the adjacent inside and outside ones effectively opposed each other.
One pushed and the other pulled. The thrusts balanced each other out
so there was very little hammer blow on the track and they were very
Good point Dan, perhaps Whyte is not really the best system for
describing Garratts. But I doubt I'll convince many people here to start
describing our local Garratts as (4-8-4)-(4-8-4)...
Yup! Confusing at best.
Just like most people HERE would describe them as 4-8-4-4-8-4, which
could be interpreted as just about ANYTHING!
Reminds me of the late Jerry Drake's famous (in NMRA circles)
tounge-in-cheek HO scale BSL 2-4-6-8! ... with every driver set a
different diameter to boot! At least it wouldn't get 'synch locked' like
some other duplex or articulated locos could. The goofy model actually
ran pretty well. Does anyone know who ended up with this model after
Jerry's estate was sold? I have several of Jerry's pieces, but I don't
know what happened to that one.