Trivia and other useless but interesting items

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by superquag

Probably better efficiency with the triple-expansion set-up. - And 'All Wheel Drive'.[biggrin]

---

The only problem was that they didn’t like the sticks that stuck into the gearing on the side, it used to wear them out at a terrible rate, great pulling power, but hey, if you want to dive in 2nd low range everywhere… Oh they weren’t triple expansion engines, they had three cylinders on the right side and were primarily used on logging railways.

One at least was used on one of the canefields lines in Queensland, and four of the largest ones built were used on the Newnes railway line in the Blue Mountains. I am not aware of any being used for logging in Australia, but there probably were some.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JDNSW

One at least was used on one of the canefields lines in Queensland, and four of the largest ones built were used on the Newnes railway line in the Blue Mountains. I am not aware of any being used for logging in Australia, but there probably were some.

---

There may have been, but not very common here I was always told it was due to the external gears wearing due to the dust, grime, dirt etc that they picked up

The main advantage of the Shays was that they were able to go round bends in the track that were impossible for any locomotive of the same size, and at the same time, because all the wheels were driving wheels, had more traction than anything else with the same axle loading. The Garret could manage close to the same traction for its axle loading, but not the sharp turns. All the ones I have seen pictures of (and the canefield one I saw in Qld) have open air spur bevel gears, which are obviously open to picking up a lot of grit, creating rapid wear, and would also need to be frequently dowsed in oil to limit wear, even without the dirt. Something that may not have been done as often as it should have been.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JDNSW

The main advantage of the Shays was that they were able to go round bends in the track that were impossible for any locomotive of the same size, and at the same time, because all the wheels were driving wheels, had more traction than anything else with the same axle loading. The Garret could manage close to the same traction for its axle loading, but not the sharp turns. All the ones I have seen pictures of (and the canefield one I saw in Qld) have open air spur bevel gears, which are obviously open to picking up a lot of grit, creating rapid wear, and would also need to be frequently dowsed in oil to limit wear, even without the dirt. Something that may not have been done as often as it should have been.

---

Yep totally agree.

https://youtu.be/zVTJ-GO1bHg'si=SKmaeibcz9RIb_7t

This may or may not be the one whose relics are displayed on Esk Hampton Road, near Ravensbourne. That one certainty hauled timber, possibly after its Mapleton tramway duties.
The Shay's good points were weight distribution, good traction, ability to traverse tight radius bends and low gearing, the downside being high maintenance. Apart from the maintenance issues, all these characteristics made the locos ideal for poor quality or temporary tracks

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JDNSW

The main advantage of the Shays was that they were able to go round bends in the track that were impossible for any locomotive of the same size, and at the same time, because all the wheels were driving wheels, had more traction than anything else with the same axle loading. The Garret could manage close to the same traction for its axle loading, but not the sharp turns. All the ones I have seen pictures of (and the canefield one I saw in Qld) have open air spur bevel gears, which are obviously open to picking up a lot of grit, creating rapid wear, and would also need to be frequently dowsed in oil to limit wear, even without the dirt. Something that may not have been done as often as it should have been.

---

Well, the spur gears are one thing, but what really intrigues me is the open bearings on the crankshaft! How are they lubricated? Any lubrication system there would have to be a total loss system, dribbling more oil all over the flat than a happy Land Rover!

Lubrication was the same as the connecting rods and journals on any steam locomotive - oil can! Applied quite frequently. There may have been some parts that had grease cups or a small oil reservoir, but probably not. The axle bearings usually had an oil reservoir, which, again, needed frequent topping up.

The designer of this type of locomotive, Ephraim Shay, was a logger, and patented the idea in 1881, so it was designed specifically for logging. Most, if not all, were built by Lima Locomotive works in Ohio, USA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JDNSW

Lubrication was the same as the connecting rods and journals on any steam locomotive - oil can! Applied quite frequently. There may have been some parts that had grease cups or a small oil reservoir, but probably not. The axle bearings usually had an oil reservoir, which, again, needed frequent topping up.

The designer of this type of locomotive, Ephraim Shay, was a logger, and patented the idea in 1881, so it was designed specifically for logging. Most, if not all, were built by Lima Locomotive works in Ohio, USA.

---

I was more referring to the crankshaft. Yes, it bristles with oil lubricators, which with me being nearly as old as you, I have used many times! There is a big difference between connecting drive rods, cross heads, wheel bearing housings and journals that are all horizontal, and vertical connecting rods of an engine.

Attachment 191105

There is a very good description on Wiki about these engines, including some good photos.

Shay locomotive - Wikipedia

Stories of Buderim-Palmwoods Heritage Tramway

There is one shown here:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNzhak-vUgo