I know there has been plenty of talk regarding the Beyer-Garratt. The story of how ALCO got a patent for it that never got anywhere. How railroads cited concerns about adhesion as a reason it never came to the US, and so on.

That said, I've always wondered. Were there even ANY proposals for Garratts anywhere on the US rail network at any given time?

Or at the very least, were there any American lines where Garratts might have been effective?

I’d imagine they could’ve been useful on some of the logging railroads operating articulated tank engines. But I really couldn’t see one operating for a typical class one railroad unless the railroad really needed one.

Maybe on lines where Mason bogies or fairlies operated. As we know, that was extremely uncommon in the US.

I found this post on http://cs.trains.com/trn/f/111/t/37290.aspx, after I couldn't find my copy of the book:

According to Garratt Locomotives of the World by A.E. Durrant

The largest Garratt locomotive proposed (none were built) was the "Super Garratt" or "Mallet Garratt" to be built by ALCO for the American market

Wheel arrangement: 2-6-6-2+2-6-6-2, Tractive effort (85%): 203,000 lb

Compared to US locomotives (per a table in the book)

Virginian 2-10-10-2, TE (85%) 147,200 lb:

Erie 2-8-8-8-2, TE (85%) 160,000 lb:

UP Big Boy 4-8-8-4, TE (85%) 135,375 lb

And as Durant points out, the swept cylinder volume vs grate area would have been very reasonable for the Super Garratt and much better than the Triplexes, plus the exhaust from all 8 cylinders would have been routed through the exhaust nozzle (the Triplexes sent half their exhaust through a feedwater heater and then to atmosphere), ensuring good steaming.

It’s a pity they never built one.

Personally I figured that a Garratt could have worked reasonably well for the Southern's Ratholle from Danville, KY to Oakdale, TN. At least until the eventual arrival of diesel locomotives. Likewise with the Virginian maybe operating Garratts instead of Triplexes then later cloned C&O designs.

It's been my understanding that one of the selling points of a Garratt is that the size of the boiler and firebox are not limited by the space above the driving wheels and under the bottoms of bridges, tunnels etc. The boiler and firebox are slung between the two driving engines, so you can have a fat boiler with a deep firebox.

In the USA this was generally not a problem, with the possible exception of the narrow gauge roads.

The VGN Triplex was not a success and Baldwin converted it into a 2-8-8-2 Mallet and a 2-8-2 before VGN would pay for it. The three Erie Triplexes ran for almost 15 years until the Erie went for speed (and 2-8-4's with 70 inch drivers) On a Triplex, only the rear engine (under the tender) did not exhaust through the smokebox, meaning 2/3 of the exhaust contributed to the draft.

A US Garratt would be interesting but US clearances were such that they were not necessary.

Phil Mulligan

I also remember a trains.com forum alleging a book where it's stated that Garratts were considered for the GM&O north of Cairo, Illinois.

http://cs.trains.com/ctr/f/3/t/63753.aspx

My comment on a Triplex draft was incorrect. They were compounds and the middle cylinders exhausted to the end cylinders. Thus only the front cylinders exhausted through the smokebox for 1/2 the draft.

Phil Mulligan.