Most rigid compounds had bypass valves to route high pressure steam to the low pressure side on starting because of this problem.
But this negates the claimed advantage of compound mallets that there are no high pressure connections to the front power unit.
The legendary Cornish Engines used in tin and other mines in the late
1700s and early 1800s were often compound. In fact Woolf took out a patent for this in something like 1805.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.
On 9/4/2009 3:57 AM Christopher A. Lee spake thus:
[snip]OK, OK, cool it already!
Gosh, don't we just love it 'round 'heah when two loco-geeks get in a big ol' hissy fit?
So my question to the both of youse, as well as anyone else here who know about this stuff, is this: can you point us to an authoritative source of information on Mallets and articulation and compounding and all that?
And puleeze, don't even think about mentioning Wikipedia. I'm talking about reliable sources, preferably online (I don't currently have access to much in the way of real railroad books, though I'm sure this would be the best place to look for such information).
Any such pointers would be appreciated by us here in the peanut gallery who don't really know all that much about this stuff.
On 9/4/2009 7:09 AM Steve Caple spake thus:
I disagree. This is nothing like netkkkopping; just a reminder to one particularly stubborn individual that he's quite out of sync with the way almost everyone else here posts (and for good reason).
Or to quote Kafka*: "In the fight between you and the world, back the world."
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.. :-)
David Nebenzahl wrote: [....]
From Loco 1: Steam Locomotives (Linn Westcott, Kalmbach Publishing Co,
1960), p.235 sidebar, "The Articulateds"."The Mallets were built in Europe from 1888 onward. Alco built the first in [the USA] for the B&O in 1908. These 0-6-6-0 engines lacked guiding [pilot] wheels and so were not used for mainline running except as helpers. The first Mallet road engines were those for the Great Northern, plan 113. On both of these early engines, Stephenson valve gear proved impractical and Walschaerts was used."
Westcott also remarks that Mallets are compound engines. At first, he says, articulated engines were used for slow speed drag freight and hump yard duty (in part I suspect because balancing the steam consumption and tractive effort of high and low pressure cylinders is easier at lower speeds.) Simple articulated engines were built from the 1920s onward, when reliable high pressure steam-line joints were developed. These simple engines were built for higher speeds than the Mallets, and several were dual service locomotives. Westcott also mentions the problems of insufficient weight on the front engine, etc.
The use of "Mallet" for simple articulateds was, as already mentioned, an extension of the term for convenience sake. Thank you, Bill May, for reporting how the term was used when you worked as a fireman, and especially the etiquette of correct usage. This is the sort of information that lexicographers love to have. ;-)
As far as I can make out, articulation plus compounding was tried not only for agility around tight curves, but also for economy: until it was proven otherwise, people believed that one boiler feeding two engines would save fuel and water. As I mentioned earlier, fuel and water are only two factors in the cost of operating a locomotive.
See also: Locomotives in Profile, Vol 1 (Brian Reed, ed., New York, Doubleday & Co, 1971), pp 135-148, "The Mallets".
I have a couple other books that refer to Mallets and other articulated engines, most of which (including Mallets in Europe) were built for narrow gauge railways.
Cheers, wolf k.
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.
fellafellaffalorry
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
Simple graphic proof that the railroads themselves differentiated between Mallets and simple articulateds -and called them by those names- lies in the Southern Pacific's locomotive class designations.
The first S.P. articulateds -which *were* true Mallets- were designated "MC" -as in "MC-57"- which stood for "Mallet Consolidation (57" drivers)", and was promptly changed to "MC-1" -"Mallet Consolidation (1st version)"- just as soon as the S.P. decided that they were more or less a success and were going to be followed by other classes of similar locomotives.
When they turned these same locos around to become the first S.P. cab- forwards, the designation changed to "MC-2"; meaning "Mallet Consolidation (2nd version)".
And when the MC-2s were later converted to simple articulateds, their designation changed once more; this time to "AC-1"; meaning "Articulated Consolidation". (Having been simpled they were no longer Mallets, and hence lost the "M" designation.)
S.P. continued to use this same system for as long as it had steam engines, with "MC" or "MM" ("Mallet Mogul") always designating the true Mallet designs that featured compound cylinders, and "AC" or "AM" ("Articulated Mogul") always designating the simple articulateds.
Reference book here is Diebert & Strapic's "Southern Pacific Company Steam Locomotive Compendium", Shade Tree Books, 1987, pp. 221-231.
Now: while it's absolutely true that "Mallet" was often incorrectly used as slang to designate any old articulated engine, in reality the railroads, the engine crews, and anyone who knew the difference called them what they truly were.
"Steam Locomotive" is the set. "Articulated" is a subset of "Steam Locomotive", and "Mallet" is a subset of "Articulated Steam Locomotive". One that designates a particular *type* of articulated, just as "articulated" designates a particular *type* of steam engine.
However, I'm thinking of starting a betting pool on how long it will take Ser Lee to inform us that Diebert & Strapic -not to mention the Southern Pacific- "got it wrong".
~Pete
Er, uh, that's the "Sucker State", yeah?
It isn't. It's only used to described engines using his system of articulation.
Not incorrectly, because it was his system of articulation.
Is it American parochalism because they don't know all the other kinds of articulation?
More snide nastiness.
Do these simply repeat what others have said like you do, or do they cite Mallet's original patent? Why don't YOU post a link to Mallet's patent to back up your claim instead of secondary sources which simply repeat what others have said which themselves don't provide an original?
Here's a clue: if you hadn't added some snide remarks about people who know more than you do not knowing, then this flame fest probably wouldn't have happened.
Especially if you hadn't cut'n'pasted from a site that simply repeated it, coupled with a put down insult instead of even trying to understand why you were wrong.
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
---------->"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.
In other words the title of the patent is for an articulated locomotive not a compound articulated.
Which word didn't YOU understand this time?
I found this translation of a paper Mallet himself gave in French, in Railway locomotives and cars, Volume 65 from 1891
There is a drawing of his first articulated locomotive, which it interestingly calls the Decauville system (the builder).
He also refers to a paper from 1877 which I haven't found.
Incidentally, would his first locomotive, a rigid 0-4-2 tank engine that was a 2-cyliner compound also be called a Mallet by the "logic" that says only hic compounds should be called Mallets?
Even though it is the label given to both simple and compound engines using the system of articulation he devised?
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.
On Sep 6, 3:10=A0am, Christopher A. Lee wrote
Cite. I have done so multiple times. You either will not or cannot.
Sure. That must be it.
And that neatly sums up your position:
(A) Pete is wrong.
(B) Any website Pete cites that says anything other than what you want to believe also "got it wrong".
(C) Diebert and Strapac -who literally wrote the book on S.P. steam- also somehow "got it wrong".
(D) So did the engine crews who worked the actual locomotives.
(E) The entire Southern Pacific railroad "got it wrong" as well.
(F) And you, who can seemingly provide no cites to back your claim, are right.
So thanks for that clarification, because it tells us exactly where you stand: In mid-air with no visible means of support.
And now I bid you a fond farewell.
~Pete
On 9/6/2009 11:49 AM Twibil spake thus:
Whoa there big guy.
Before you get your panties further bunched up (and the same applies to Messr. Lee), allow me to intercede a moment if you will.
Don't you think that part of this issue, at least, is the difference between the specific technical meaning of terms such as "Mallet" and the common usage of such terms by those in the trade, which may not always jibe with the actual technical meaning?
In other words, the same term may mean different things to different people, subject to common usage (shoptalk, parlance, jargon), regardless of whether that term is precisely technically correctly used.
In the case of a particularly obscure term (to most laypersons) like "Mallet", seems to me this confusion is only compounded. So before you huff off calling the other guy a complete asshole, at least consider the possibility.
DISCLAIMER: I'm agnostic on the matter, not knowing enough to argue one way or the other.
Except that your cites have also merely repeated what other people have said.
Only if you can't read.
The web page you quoted just made the same claim you did without justifying it or citing any sources. Nor have any others I have found. Even Wikipedia just refers to a popular railway writer.
It is what some people call the "Wikipedia syndrome" although it's not just Wikipedia. Something is on the web so it must be right, without checking it.
The web is a good place to start research because it can tell you what to look for, but you need to compelete the process by looking for it.
Whereas I have explained WHY people use the name Mallet to describe locomotives using his system of articulation.
Hint: it's the same reason that Garratts, Meyers, Fairlies and all the others are given the name of the person who devised that system of articulation.
And also the same reason that De Glehn, Webb, Von Borries, Smith, Golsdorf and all the others gave their names to different systems of compounding.
Whether you like it or not, Mallet devised BOTH the articulation system that carries his name AND the compound system that also bears his name.
And whether you like it or not, there are a lot of other systems of both articulation and compounding which also carry the name of their developers.
And also whether you like it or not, people with any knowledge of railway history also recognise Mallet's contribution to compounding.
If the engines were described as "Mallet's patent engine" you might have had a point. But they're not and you haven't.
Care to tell us what other railway and non-railway patents he took out?
Would you describe his first patented compounds with 2-cylinders and a rigid wheelbase, as Mallets?
Where did Pete cite any original sources?
Why do you lie about "anything other than what I want" when you know perfectly well it's about backing up a claim?
Simply pointing to a web site that makes the claim without backing it up, doesn't make it so.
I suggest you look up the fallacy of the argument from authority. We need to know why say something not just that they do.
Do any of these quote Mallet's patent?
Do any of these quote Mallet's patent?
Did they quote Mallet's patent?
Why don't you learn to read and address the arguments raised?
Why do you feel the need to keep resorting to personal lies and nastiness?
A tacit admission on your part.
Here's a clue:
If you hadn't snidely said
A "Mallet", by definition, *is* a compound Mallet, although simple articulateds were also sometimes misnomered as Mallets by folks who didn't really understand the difference. In their minds two or more sets of drivers with a hinge in between equaled a "Mallet".
about people who do actually understand there would have been no problem.
because that is standard twibil behaviour.
But the question is whether his farewells are any more reliable and any less hypocritical than all his other pronouncements. They are certainly no less arrogant.
I just want a good explanation why "Mallet" shouldn't be used to describe locomotives using his articulation system. I've never liked the American use of "articulated" to describe this because in the rest of the world other forms of articulation were as common if not more so.
Do Americans consider Shays, Heislers and Climaxes to be articulated?
Christopher A. Lee wrote: [...]
You can use the term that way, and it is used thus by many people. But "technically", the term applies only to compound articulated locomotives.
Really, Chris, there's no point arguing about what a word "really means." Words just mean what people intend and understand them to mean. Meanings vary in space and time. This thread has testified to the fact that "articulated" and "Mallet" are used for several different meanings when applied to locomotives. What's wrong with that?
No. Well, I wouldn't, anyhow. ;-) The engines are mounted on the locomotive's main frames. The drive wheels are mounted in trucks (bogies) driven by gears/shafts from the engine. Just like a diesel.
An articulated locomotive is one with two (or more) frames carrying the engines. These frames are joined (hinged). The term is usually applied only to steam locomotives, but the GG-1, whose main engineframes are joined with a hinge, may be considered an articulated electric locomotive, and has been described as such. (Sorry, citation n/a.)
In USA/Canada, other types of articulation are named, eg, Fairlie.
HTH wolf k.
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.