Hi,
As a tangent to the "Narrow Gauge 2-8-8-2" thread, I was in a discussion (on another board) recently about the Garrett design being good or bad.
The understandable issue was like the Erie Tripplexes and the Southern Railway's tractors. They could not use the power of the engine under the tender since the water and coal weight would get used up.
My point about the Garratt is how did the manufacturer rate the TE. If the TE was based on roughly empty water and coal bunkers with a full boiler of water, then the Garrett design is a good design. His point was that reports by the users was that the Garratt's TE dropped off as coal and water was used.
If the manufacture rated the TE with full water and caol then the manufacturer is wrong.
If the railroad's operating department decided to ignore the manufacturer's TE (assuming it is rated with empty coal and water) and ups the TE (or tonnage) then the machine may be a good design but is misused.
It is like a fellow (I heard this from a law suit from the 1970s) who uses a Craftsman lawn mower and complains that it is hard to control and does not cut even. The law suit was for damages from Sears and the issue was that the fellow was trying to use the lawn mower as a hedge trimmer (holding it off the ground) which is misusing the product. I remember the suit because it was one of the first times I realized that the Judicial system in the US was not looking for the truth but who can afford to help. Sears lost the suit even though it had been proven the buyer was misusing the product.
I am trying to determine if the Garratt is a good or bad design by trying to find out about the TE calculations to determine if the complaint about the Garratt is due to misuse by the buying railroad or the misadvertising by the manufacturer.
In my opinion, the Garratt is a good basic design. Half the bridge and boiler/cab is on each engine and should not have a traction problem.
Thanks.
Doug vV
