THE GARRATT - Sudrian Spotlight - NWR No.901 'Revenge'
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 20 ม.ค. 2025
- ... and now for something completely different.
This episode of Sudrian Spotlight is all about my custom built Beyer-Garratt 2-8-0+0-8-2, 'Revenge'. Hope you enjoy!
For more Railway Mania please check out:
www.railwayman...
Home to the Railway Mania Podcast and the Sudrian Histories project, Railway Mania is a hub for railway enthusiast entertainment, including videos on real-life railways as well as modelling builds and tutorials.
The Railway Mania Podcast is available to listen on all podcasting apps, as well as being hosted on the Railway Mania TH-cam channel. Often the video versions will include additional information and footage where possible.
For anyone wishing to give it a go and browse the back catalogue, all episodes are available on the website, please check out the shop and see what merchandise might take your fancy:
www.railwayman...
Awesome! I love the idea of The Fat Controller being so feed up with engines stalling on the hill that he has an engine built that is so powerful it makes the hill look like a bump! XD Great work!
I like garretts, and really like the idea of one built from surplus ex-ROD 2-8-0's. It's impressive how you were able to put Revenge together.
I've been inspired by this to include a 2-8-2+2-8-2 Garratt called "Zeus", built for Gordon's Hill in partnership between Crovan's Gate and Beyer Peacock in 1964.
I like a Garrett myself and this one is beautiful, and the way you told of it’s history makes me believe that this could have actually been a thing if the demand for garrett’s was high enough. It’s brilliant.
Wow, this is fantastic! You did an incredible job with this model! I hope to made an American style Garratt for my HO layout. Hopefully I can make it as nice as this one.
Thanks!
@@RailwayManiaNeti have an idea for an engine for sudrian spotlight if you want to hear about it, ex Atlantic island railroad no.1/ nwr no.430 'jacob the warrior locomotive'
Absolutely stellar. I love Garretts and this one looks and sounds very impressive
Splendid work! Your creation is a delight to behold!
Thank you very much!
Jolly good show!
Ich mag Garratts und habe auch schon einige gebaut. Die Garratt ist sehr gut !
Danke!
Lets face the facts, Edward is a 4-4-0, not designed for banking work. He, also, has a branchline. A main banker could seriously boost operations, and would be really needed once the Alumina trains started running.
We had Garratts here in New Zealand, way back in the 1920's. They weren't at all popular and got "upcycled" into Pacifics. No survivors.
Ah yes they came up when I was researching the Garratt podcast episode - huge things with (I think) inclined cylinders!
These were the only other 6 cylinder Garratts besides the Gressley U1, and their problem was the Gressley conjugated valve gear and the fact they were to heavy for the track they had to run on (altough most Garratts excelled in putting a huge adhesive weight on light trackwork due to the amount of wheels)
Over where I am, people at the Canberra Railroad Museum restored AD6029, a massive 4-8-4+4-8-4, Beyer-Garratt, Articulated Type Steam Locomotive. And she is kept well in working order. If you ever come down to Australia, I’d recommend seeing her.
I love it. Thanks.
I made a garrat that works for the Wellsworth banking Co. Called "Mighty" based on revenge.
superb model, but wheres the running video?
Holy shit, that's large!
My question: if it had a character face, would it be on the smoke box door, or the front water tank?
Wherever you would like it to be, my friend. I don't want to impose rules on these kinds of things.
I could see Revenge being replaced with a certain 9F named Murdoch
Nice build of an impressive Garratt. I'd like to see it run, though :)
Me too, need to get back on the layout
Whoa! I can already picture how big this engine would be.
This is a very nice built model, and product of the U1 and LMS Garratt mating, at least it should not have had the axlebox issues of the LMS machines if this was a real one, and the tanks and coal space do look better than on the U1, but this could be due to the absence of the center cylinder and thereby making the arch under the tanks superfluous.
This arch was there on the U1 to make the inside motion of the center cylinder accessible for lubrication and maintenance.
Hiya Tom, thanks for the comments :) Regarding the access holes/arches - to my knowledge the Robinson O4s did have the eccentrics and valve gear on the inside which is why I went with having the small arches (They are perhaps a little undersized due to trying to fit them around the motor). Though I think I still need to do some work to blend the cylinder area more, perhaps fitting dummy frames behind them and some suggestion of pipework perhaps.
@@RailwayManiaNet I see your point, as you used O4 chassis for the engine units, and the O4 did indeed have inside valve gear.
So you need arches for acces as well
The large arches which I pointed out on the LNER U1 were there because they did have one inside cylinder and 2 outside per engine unit, the inside cylinder valve was operated by Gresleys conjugated gear mechanism.
So there was a big crank on the second axle with a large connecting rod, making a rather large hole for acces necessary,
When are you making a Sudrian Spotlight video of No. 102 'Edward Faragher'?
When I finish it ;)
@@RailwayManiaNet Ah, I see. Thanks!
Interesting that Revenge ended up being scrapped. I thought that The Fat Controller tried to keep all of the engines on his railway safe from scrap. Does that concept only apply to the RWS and the TVS and not this alternate universe?
At some point could you make a list of the nwr fleet ( including locomotives you haven’t modelled). I just wondered what locos work or worked on the railway but Aren’t as significant or well known . ( sort of like how the original Mid Sodor layout had engines that weren’t featured in the books)
Welllll... This is the closest thing I have, it's always being updated but is far from complete! Hope this sheds some light on it all....
docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1_eaw1o4RKgCk6Pnrtrp_bhfHsTNMesgEhSJu-pDtbvc/edit#gid=1944436724
In my Au My NWR Garrett is similar to yours Although it was built for heavy goods trains between tidmouth and vickerstown it was built in 1938 Along with an 0-8-2 tank engine also for the NWR The Garrett's name is Beyer After Beyer peacock and company
Awesome, the Garratt is such in impressive design.
The garret was built using 2 wrecked 8F locomotives from the LMS See in 1937 2 8fs were in a double heading accident And the 2 engines were roat off The NWR bought the 2 wrecked engines that used to whatever parts They could salvage and Sent the parts off to Beyer peacock and company all sets of driving wheels from the two 8fs were used on the garret However things like the cab and boiler were custom made along with the frames I'm going to build a model of it using 2 wood Thomas's for the chassis
How Did you Re-Mount the Motor May i ask?
Hi mate, I used styrene sheet to build up the layers on top of the chassis block so that it matched were the motor used to be, then lined the motor up with the gears and glued it on. Has held ok so far!
@@RailwayManiaNet Thanks!!! I plan on making A Robinson O4 based garratt and this will come in handy!
So in your take of the RWS you've increased the grade from 1-in-75 to 1-in-45 and shortened the climb from 5 miles to 4 miles. That would certainly make the climb much more difficult.
That's a grade increase from 1.33% to 2.22% for those who live across the pond.
That's right, my reasoning was it's not quite as steep as the lickey, but it is longer and more sustained, add in the exposed location and it becomes an operational nightmare - perfect for modelling!
@@RailwayManiaNet It also makes taking on the incline that much more "epic" of an undertaking in stories. Not that 1-in-75 is a walk in the park, but it is certainly manageable and only the heaviest of heavy trains would potentially need a banker. With this new setup, banking is almost a necessity.
@@davidwhiting1761 Certainly allows some justification for the NWR's own version of the U1 ;) The massive 2-8-4T 'Erin' also works this duty sometimes. I think that a similar operation to the Lickey would be good, where the power is graded to the locos based on ability, e.g. maybe the Garratt is '=3' power, whereas Duck or Thomas on the same duty would be '=1'
@@RailwayManiaNet named after hms Erin, a battleship originally ordered by the ottoman empire before being seized before completion when war broke out and commissioned in to the grand fleet.
You sir are creative.
BTW, can a Baldwin Russian Decapod work on sodor, if you modify it?
Thank you Vincent! You prompted me to look up the Baldwin Russian 2-10-0s and its fascinating how they reduced the gauge from 5ft to 4ft 8.5in by using wider tyres. It's probably a step too far for me to justify due to the enormous loading gauge, I think it would dwarf even the Garratt!
@@RailwayManiaNet So it's so big, it would make the Garratt look like a peanut roaster?
Anyway, these babies were built by Baldwin and ALCo for the Russian Imperial Railway, from 1915 - 1918, however because of the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917, 200 locomotives were left orphaned in the United States, but did find good homes on the Erie RR, the SLSF RR, and the Seaboard Air Line.
I just thought maybe the NWR would've adopted one or two.
way cool !
Love this absolute unit of a loco! With the 2 chassis's in one are they wired together or separate?
thanks mate, it's only on DC at the moment so they just operate as two independent chassis
Nice
So... is revenge a tank engine or a tender engine?
Amazing machine.
In real-life it was quite the beast to operate and loco crews hated that, they call it a "she-bear", didn't they? Because of its high-work-demanding nature and bad temperament? Or was that another Garratt class?
Thank you! Yes I imagine it would have been stifling in the cab, especially in summer. Imagine trying to manually fire such a huge grate! Perhaps a mechanical stoker would have been a much better idea.
@@RailwayManiaNet Didn't the main class used have a rotating mechanical stoker but it tended to jam up with coal outside the drum? Interesting that the rest of the planet successfully ran these locomotives but in England they were impossible to use; in far hotter climates also. They could easily have had 2 fireman and they were still saving costs on the Driver who probably was the higher earner. It reminds me very much of compounding which was also far too much trouble and effort in the UK but seemingly not elsewhere. Short track sections in the cramped envelope of the British railway probably did for them as much as anything. Also the lack of continuous braking in the hand braked 4 wheeled trucks in large use the UK up to the very end of steam must have been a problem in extra long configurations.
These are amazing models, I do wonder how big your layout/s are. Do you have many locations and are they on one layout or many?
Thank you! I only have a small shunting layout as I live in quite a modest flat, though I dream of a larger modular layout depicting places such as Wellsworth or Killdane!
I Want Revenge!
I love this model but I was just wondering why you use battery powered radio-control? I think the RC idea is quite a good one but surely it would be so much easier to power your engines conventionally instead of using batteries?
It's about the same amount of work either way. Wiring batteries and receivers into locos isn't much more difficult than wiring in track power supplies (depending on the space inside the loco). Having recently been helping my stepdad build a large DCC railway, I'd say the work involved in DCC has been far greater than what it would have been in RC. Then, once it's done, all you have to do is keep the batteries charged. There's no track cleaning, maintenance under the baseboards, chasing short circuits. Plus the locos can run on any layout, analogue or digital. Slow, realistic running is much better. They never stall on points or bad sections, for me a loco stalling breaks the willing suspension of disbelief. They do have their problems too, but for me I love the way they drive :) The cost is really the biggest downside - a receiver is circa £35-45 per loco.
@@RailwayManiaNet How very interesting, that does seem to be a great alternative, I also hate engines stalling, you'd think they'd have figured out how to do pickups properly by now but yet most engines still can't handle a plastic point isolator at low speeds. It's so strange that this sort of system isn't more popular considering it's used in most other types of model vehicle that move and that it's about as expensive as the cheapest reliable DCC chips. I'm still on DC, purely because of the cost. The only thing that really interests me about the system is sound but when that sound costs the same as another loco it's just not worth it for me. Still, it seems manufactures are beginning to innovate again with firebox flickers and hopefully headlamps on steam locos soon so eventually there may be very little need to splash out on a DCC system. Im sure DC sound chips already exist too.
Where I can buy this one!?
lol it's a one-off but I bought most of the bits from Hattons Model Railways
Looks a lot like the Robinson designed Garrat, with Robinson parts, not Gresley O2 parts.
All you need is a face on it to make it more like a Thomas and friends train
Where's the face ?
When the next one ur last one was 8 months ago
8 months already?! Crikey, time flies by. Hopefully soon
Day ,dal latino /romano dies che vuol dire giorno
Shame it wasn’t preserved. I wonder what his personality would be like if he was alive?
Open to interpretation 😎
@@RailwayManiaNet ok. I like to think he’s seen as a monster due to his size and strength but is actually a big lovable softie who just wants to help
Umm? The only North Western Railway I know of ran from Skipton down to Morecambe and was later absorbed by the Midland. Mention of Barrow and the Irish Sea seems to fit with that BUT, though the Midland (or its successor LMS) later had a class of Garratts, they were 2-6-0+0-6-2's. The LNER had one, as mentioned in the video, but that and the LMS ones were the only ones ever to operate in Britain (until the Welsh Highland acquired its South African NGG's).
Is this fictitious 'history'?
Correct! It is entirely made up. I thought it said as much in the VO but maybe it’s not in this one, this is a freelance modelling project, although the concept of the 8K based Garratt comes from what the GCR were originally talking to BP about making, which eventually became the U1
@@RailwayManiaNet The first couple of minutes of your 'history' fooled me! (Obviously I realised the loco in the picture was a model). I was trying to work out where the North Western Railway was located - India? Canada? Australia? Southern Africa? I was actually quite indignant for a moment when the penny finally dropped. But I realise now you hadn't intended to deceive anyone, and congratulations on the verisimilitude of your video.
Mention was made of the NZ Garratts (class 'G') - they were a sad story. You'd think the Garratt would be a sure winner in NZ - lightly laid winding tracks with stiff gradients and a tight loading gauge. But I think the NZR, after decades of struggling to get enough power, just got carried away and bought an engine that was far too big, twice the tractive effort of anything they had up to then. They were easily capable of breaking wagon couplings, they could pull trains that were too long for the crossing loops, when sitting waiting in a loop their big grates burnt too much coal just to keep the fire going, their automatic stokers gave trouble... I think a more modest-sized Garratt would have been ideal, but after the G class nobody dared mention Garratts.
Ahh yes apologies - it's in a long line of videos about this fictional railway, I think I fell into the trap of thinking everyone knew what I knew! Yes the NZ Garratts were a real shame, especially after the seemingly good experiences with Fairlies. A bit like the LNER P1s in that their capability may have been mismatched to the requirement?
@@RailwayManiaNet Yes, very like the P1's in being 'too much' for the job. Also, the 'G' Garratts were 3-cylinder (with Gresley gear), which was a complication, specially on 3'6" gauge. I love 3-cylinders, Gresleys and Bulleids, but the 'G' class probably only needed it to achieve its high tractive effort which, as noted, was too much. A 2-cylinder 'G' with a slightly smaller boiler and manual stoking would have been a much better proposition, I think.
The Fairlies did quite well in the early days in NZ, including the quite rare 'single' Fairlies. I think they gradually became outmoded as curves were eased and rails got heavier. The Fairlie is an inherently low-speed short-distance design because of the limitation in wheel size and coal capacity - not shared by the Garratt, of course.