European freight yard operations vs US Operations



Until you show otherwise, Mallet invented the form of articulation consisting of ...
That being the case, "Mallet" refers to a form of compounding. His compounding patent does not mention any form of articulation. Logically, "Mallet articulation" can refer either to a compound system articulated locomotive or a simple articulated locomotive.
Regards, Greg.P.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Oh dear! All this medieval, how many patentees can dance on the head of pin, kind of argument ... come on guys, this is a hardly "The War of Jenkin's ear" (see wiki.) is it! 8-)
However, I found the following on www.steamindex.com/people/cotengr.htm which just might be of interest. I have no idea as to the extent of it being right or wrong, though I don't suppose for one minute that it will resolve any conflicts. 8-)
Mallet, Jules T. Anatole
Westwood, claims that Jules Anatole Mallet was remarkable amongst late nineteenth century innovators in that he achieved a influential success both in compounding and in a method for articulating the driving wheelbase. The resulting Mallet articulated locomotive became especially popular in the USA, where it attained great size. Mallets ideas on compounding inspired many subsequent designers to develop their own compound locomotives, some successfully, some very unsuccessfully.
Mallet was born at Carouge, near Geneva, in 1837, and studied and later taught engineering at the Paris Ecole Centrale des Arts et Manufactures. He first attracted attention in 1877, when the Bayonne-Biarritz Railway put two tank locomotives into service, designed according to Mallets two-cylinder compound system with a single high-pressure cylinder passing its exhaust steam into a second, larger, low-pressure cylinder. The Biarritz locomotives worked well, but like subsequent two-cylinder compounds they tended to be unsteady at high speed, because one cylinder exerted more thrust than the other. Mallet was unable to interest any of the mainline railways in his idea. This lack of enthusiasm is not surprising when it is remembered that even after compounding had been adopted by many railways, it was never adopted by a majority. Those who rejected the idea almost always did so on the grounds that any fuel economies obtained from so-called double expansion were lost by the extra complication of compound machines. This criticism of compounding would be reinforced after superheated steam had shown another way of overcoming the basic problem that compounding attacked: that is the condensation of steam inside the cylinders which resulted from the fall in temperature as the steam expanded. Compounding broke the steam expansion into two parts, divided between two cylinders and thereby made it easier to cope with cylinder wall condensation. Superheating raised the steam temperature so that even after cooling it would remain higher than condensation temperature. Ideally, from the point of view of thermal efficiency, the most efficient machine would be one embodying both superheating and compounding, and many such machines were built in the twentieth century. In the 1870s, however, compounding seemed the only solution. Mallet believed he had a workable compound system, but could not persuade French engineers to try it.
However, the proliferation at that time of narrow-gauge light railways gave Mallet another avenue of approach. These lines required more powerful locomotives than their winding tracks could tolerate, and the only solution seemed to be some form of articulated locomotive. Two articulation systems were already fairly widely adopted. These were the and the Meyer concepts, both of which embodied two pivoting engine units, supplied by steam through pipes with flexible joints. These flexible joints, so difficult to keep steamtight, were a weakness of these systems, and Mallet believed he had a solution in his own system of articulation, which he patented in 1884. Instead of two pivoting engine units, he had just one, placed beneath the smokebox. A second engine unit was at the rear, but this was non-pivoting. It was on this rigid rear unit that the boiler was fixed. For Mallet, the important feature of this layout was that it was a perfect setting for a compound system. Steam was taken first to the high-pressure cylinders of the rigid rear unit, and then piped to the cylinders of the leading pivoting unit for re-use at a lower pressure. In this way it was only the low- pressure steam which passed through the flexible steampipe joints, thereby easing the problem of steam leaks. The first such Mallet locomotive appeared in 1888, being built in Belgium for Paul Decauville. In 1889 Decauvilles 60cm gauge line at the Paris Exhibition carried more than six million visitors and assured the continuing success of his enterprise. It also assured the future success of Mallets compound articulated locomotive, for it was on this line that the first Mallet units made their debut.
The obvious success of these machines was followed by orders for similar narrow-gauge units from many railways, at first with the same 0-4-4-0T wheel arrangement but later in other versions. In the nineties the Mallet tank locomotive was joined by the Mallet tender locomotive in Switzerland and Germany.
1904 the Baltimore &amp; Ohio Railroad introduced the Mallet concept to America, ordering an 0-6-6-0 from the American Locomotive Company for use on its Sand Patch incline over the Alleghenies. By 1911 more than five hundred Mallets had been built for US railroads. During the First World War the Virginian Railway brought the original Mallet concept to a peak so far as size was concerned, ordering 2-10-10-2 units whose low-pressure cylinders were 48in. in diameter. This Virginian design represented the virtual limit of size for the conventional Mallet locomotive. The overhang of the boiler at the front end on curves was excessive, and the low pressure cylinders were so large that it was impossible to design adequate valves for them, which meant that they worked efficiently only at low speeds and long cut-offs.. Moreover, the 4ft diameter cylinders were the biggest that could be accommodated on American railroads. For this reason most subsequent American Mallet locomotives were simples, not compounds. Later, American designers eliminated another fault which inhibited high-speed running with Mallet locomotives. This was the rough riding of the forward engine unit, which was only loosely attached to the main bulk of the locomotive.
Eventually Jabelman of the Union Pacific modified the articulation and applied a four-wheel leading truck to produce the Challenger 4-6-6-4, which could run up to 80 mile/h. This type was developed into the 4-8-8-4 Big Boys, which are regarded as the most powerful locomotives ever built. Although, at its peak of popularity, the Mallet locomotive was ordered by railways in many parts of the world, it was only in America that it retained its market up to the end of the age of steam.
Garratt form of articulation, developed later, was technically superior, while many central European lines found that they did not really need articulated types. As for Anatole Mallet, it is said that he did not approve of the concept of the simple Mallet locomotive, as he had evolved his system of articulation as a means of promoting his compound system. In the twentieth century he was something of a grand old man of French engineering, regularly contributing comments on locomotive matters to the Memoires of the French society of civil engineers. He also designed the original locomotives for the Lartigue monorail system. Relatively little information has survived about Mallet the man, even though he was probably one of the three most important post-Stephenson locomotive engineers. Marshall noted that he died in October 1919..
Les Locomotives Articulees du Systeme Mallet dans le Monde A. E. Durrant, The Mallet Locomotive On the compounding of locomotive engines. Proc. Instn Mech. Engrs,
Cheers,
Brian
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 06:26:08 +1200, David Nebenzahl

Kalmbach reprinted a book on (almost) all known different forms of articulation. I think it was some time in the 1960s. I have a copy boxed away somewhere if you need a precise reference. Chapelon was the French engineer who wrote the definitive railway engineers book on compounding. Don't personally have a copy - it's expensive! Camden Books in the UK will have a copy if anyone does.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 9/4/2009 1:48 AM Twibil spake thus:

That's similar to what I think about people who pronounce my home state "ill-a-NOISE". Being from Chicago, it's OK for *me* to pronounce it that way, but certainly not OK for you to.
--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yeah.
It's as bad as "Eyraq", "Eyeran", "Eyetalians", "Booey" (instead of "Boy" for "buoy") or "Sub-mer-rean-ers" instead of "Sub-mah-rin-ers", etc., etc.. :-)
--
Cheers.

Roger T.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Roger T. wrote:

Booey for "bouy" is a dialectical variation. Saying "boy" in some parts of the East Coast will get you rather strange looks.... ;-)
Never call down another person's dialect. In his ears, you're the one with the accent.
Hah!
Cheers, wolf k.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

fellafellaffalorry
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Or "Frisco"; which causes many San Franciscans to see red when it's used by outsiders, but is commonly used by San Franciscans themselves...
~Pete
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 11:19:41 -0700, David Nebenzahl wrote:

Er, uh, that's the "Sucker State", yeah?
--
Steve

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 9/6/2009 12:39 AM Steve Caple spake thus:

I beg your pardon.
I may have to get Carl Sandburg to send his homies over to open up a can of whupass on you.
--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 06 Sep 2009 11:41:51 -0700, David Nebenzahl wrote:

I'm one of his homies - born in Decatur, IL (Macon County Hospital), the same year the Wabash class P-1 Hudsons were born.
--
Steve

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 9/6/2009 7:06 PM Steve Caple spake thus:

OK. You can call it "ill-a-noise".
Decatur, huh? "Downstate" to me. I think the only time I was even near there was when my dad took us to Springfield, Lincoln's log cabin and all that, back in the 19-ought-60s, and to the Cahokia (sp?) mounds. Are those around there?
--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 06 Sep 2009 20:03:00 -0700, David Nebenzahl wrote:

You probably went to the park at New Salem, NW of Springfield - they have a number of buildings and cabins reconstructed during the '30s; even Decatur has some reconstructed log buildings, not all on the original sites as I recall, and an old log courthouse that they moved to it's current site - Old Abe is big business in mid-state Illinois. Cahokia though is a ways further south, practically just across the river from St Louis, in or near Collinsville.
Speaking of Lincoln and his times - and his generals - have you read "Master of War" by Benson Bobrick? He makes a good case that Grant and Sherman and Schofield smeared George Thomas, taking credit for his successes, blaming him for their screw-ups, and never crediting him for saving their bacon several times. Thomas was generally much more sparing of the lives of his troops and much better at seeing them well provided for. None of the classic "hey diddle diddle, right up the middle" BS so emblematic of mediocre generals. Not to detract from Grant's willingness to at least DO something, compared to McClellan: Grant would rip off the scab, while McClellan would worry at it for months, and lose almost as many troops for no gain. By comparison Thomas engaged in clean surgery. But Grant and company had the PR machine and the chutzpah to use it. The biggest slimeball in the bunch is Schofield - so of course the Army named an installation for him in Hawaii, he was their kind of guy, a hero in his own mind in the Westmoreland mold.
--
Steve

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I think that if you look a bit closer you'll notice that your two axled horse-drawn cart has the "hinge" directly in the center of the pivoted axle. You'll also find that modern two-axled truck trailers with a pivoted leading axle usually have the same arrangement. There's a good reason why they do it that way rather than placing a hinge mid-way between the two axles.

"Mallet" is a specific form of articulation - Mallet invented it and it should _only_ be used in reference to a locomotive with one fixed frame (or engine unit) and a second frame (or engine unit) hinged to it.
The fact that Mallet only patented a compounding system does not alter the fact that he invented an articulation system. If you ever tried to patent something, you'd know how expensive it is to do so and you'd possibly understand why many inventions are not patented.
Regards, Greg.P. NZ
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

A.Mallet patented a compounding system for an 0-6-0T loco for his proprietry 600mm (2feet) gauge field railway system. His customers weren't happy with the capabilities of such a tiny loco so he quickly designed an 0-4-4-0T with the front engine unit hinged to the mainframe which included the rear engine unit. He made the mainframe engine unit cylinders high pressure and the hinged engine unit low pressure to minimise steam leakage across the hinged join.
The term "Mallet" was applied to hinged frame locos because Mallet was the first to build that layout. Few French or European locos were built in that format.
US builders took up the concept because of it's simplicity and because there were no royalties to be paid.
Regards, Greg.P.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 15:49:50 +1200, "Greg.Procter"

This was nothing close to being a primary source. Just a railfan site repeating what other sites say without any attribution.
But of course it's on the web so it must be correct.
Some web pages refer to P. Ransome Wallis who was a popular railway writer so it is possible he originated this. Or could himself be repeating this.

His initial compounds were two-cylindered and suffered from uneven piston thrust.

It was preceded by the Fairlie and the Meyer that I know about. If it had been the first one it might be legitimate just to call it "articulated".
Or more accurately "semi-articulated".

I haven't found Mallet's patent on line, but interestingly page 461 of the Biographical Dictionary of the History of Technology, Volume 39 at http://books.google.com/books?id=nqAOAAAAQAAJ
describes Mallet as "Swiss engineer, inventor of the compound steam locomotive and the Mallet articulated locomotive"
---------->"And".
Its bibliography reference, ie its source, is "1884, French patent number 162,876 (articulated locomotive)" which makes me wonder how many people who make this claim have actually read it or are just repeating something n-th hand.
It is a large book and takes a long time to download.
I don't have my copy of Jan Van Riemsdijk's book on compound locomotives to hand, but if any book has it, it would most likely be his.
Strictly speaking he didn't invent the compound, even the compound locomotive. It was just the first successful one.
James Samuel and John Nicholson had their "continuous expansion" locomotives on the Eastern Counties Railway in 1850, and there was a tandem compound on the Erie in 1867.
Compounding was invented by Arthur Woolf and patented in 1805 although this was for stationary beam engines. There was even an earlier invention in 1781 by a gentleman called Hornblower, but this was prevented because James Watt claimed it infringed his patents.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
As the fireman of a loco, I've experienced more than enough slippage from idiot engineers pulling the throttle out too fast. It also tends to pull the fire out the stack at the same time! Early artuculated designs didn't go through the process too well of equalizing the weight on the drivers. Also doing compound engines (Mallet designs) made for even more fun in the engineering dept. that they didn't figure on.
-- Bob May
rmay at nethere.com http: slash /nav.to slash bobmay http: slash /bobmay dot astronomy.net
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 12:26:31 -0700 (PDT), Twibil wrote:

Indeed, on the SP cab forwards were often called "backup Mallies", and the long shed alongside the Dunsmuir roundhouse was called the "Malley house". Perhaps reasonable since the first cab forwards WERE compounds, but as time went on SP ordered only simple articulateds, cab forward or not, and eventually converted most of the compounds to simple locomotives.
--
Steve

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
We're off on severa tangents here i in this thread. As to weight balance, Mallets (the engines with high pressure cylinders on one set of drivers and a low pressure cylinders on another set of drivers) have the problem of not having the ability to provide equal power to the two sets of drivers. This is because the high pressure vylinders have steam and the low pressure cylinders don't. Some work was done to provide high pressure steam to the low pressure cylinders to provide that power but then it was easy to overdo it and get the low pressure engine to slip instead. In addition, some engines weren't balanced properly to provide the right amount of TE at running speeds and the setting of the Johnson bar didn't help in that regard either. After all of that, you also have the effforts of stupidity by the engineering staft making the loco to over/under power the loco engine compared to the boiler cap. and so forth and things are all over the place. In all, the idea of using steam is a good idea which has been well used in stationary and marine applications but due to the way that railroad locos were run, they really didn't do all that great.
-- Bob May
rmay at nethere.com http: slash /nav.to slash bobmay http: slash /bobmay dot astronomy.net
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Bob, unless you include the part of the previous post that you're replying to, nobody else reading the Newsgroup can have any idea of *which* post you're replying to, who the author of that post was, or what point you're trying to make.
If you do as I did above; leaving the original poster's name at the top of the page -including enough of his post to provide a reference point- and then edit out the excess before you type in your reply, everyone will be able to figure out what you're talking about.
And we'd like that. A lot. Because an old fireman like you almost certainly has some information worth sharing.
~Pete
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.