Ozzie steam:
Garratts look weird to my eye.
Friday, January 1, 2016
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
A blog by a "sucker" and a "loser" who served her country in the Navy.
If you're one of the Covidiots who believe that COVID-19 is "just the flu",
that the 2020 election was stolen, or
especially if you supported the 1/6/21 insurrection,
leave now.
Slava Ukraini!
European Union laws require you to give European Union visitors information about cookies used on your blog. In many cases, these laws also require you to obtain consent.You're here, you've consented. If you don't like it, go read some other goddamn blog. It's not as if you're paying me.
3 comments:
Never even heard of this style before. Seems an unnecessary complication to have to provide steam to two motive sections from a central boiler, but...
And,,yes, it don't look "right".
I would have thought it simpler, on at least the Aussie one, to have the cylinders closer to the boiler. Less piping and it might have made the blastpipe more efficient.
heh! The cylinders closer to the boiler were tried. The crew were
not happy about the heat.
Yes they do look misshapen.
Turns out that Garretts were still in the optimization stage even
late in the game. For all the other styles there were critical
dimensions (height, width, length, and weight) that were maximum
performance limiting. Garratts has a little room for expansion.
Example despite the size of the firebox at one end if the boiler
is long because it can't be made a greater diameter the amount
of heat extracted at the stack end is low. Its an efficiency
battle.
Unlike the Mallet which swing out and makes for balance issues at
speed in a curve the Garratts straddle in, a better direction for
balance. Both cases have issues with tight turns and clearances.
Look at all the large engines be they Decapods, Triplex, Shay,
Mallets, or Garratts complexity is a standing matter of fact.
Even the modern oil burners still have the same challenge of
greatest possible tractive effort for the gallon of fuel or
lump of coal.
Eck!
Post a Comment