Printable View
Very good info guys very impressive locos both of them. I didn't know the H class was an Australian design very cool. I knew Australia had different rail gauges but had no idea every state was using so many different classes i may be wrong but is all the models/classes used by all the states different in design or where the same but had different names?
There were a few locomotives used by more than one state (e.g. the Commonwealth Garret) but in general each state used their own designs, either locally manufactured or imported (usually from the UK). Some were more or less standard designs from UK manufacturers, but most were designed specifically to meet local requirements.Quote:
Originally Posted by disco man
Remember that not only did you have gauges of 5'3" and 2'6" in Victoria, 3"6" and 5'3" in SA, 3'6" in WA and Qld, 3'6" in Tas, 4'8.5" in NSW, but they alll varied in track clearance and track load capacity even where the gauges were the same.
The systems developed for nearly fifty years from the 1850s before any of them actually met, and in some states there were independent systems, not connected, within the same state.
Just to complicate matters, some states reclassified their locomotives with completely different numbers for the same bits of equipment. Then there were tender locos converted to tank and redesignated etc. All gets very complicated!
John
What a head****!!! It seems Australia preferred UK designs over the US i know many US designs did find there way over here but not in the same numbers as the UK locos. Why do you think that is? The US had some very impressive locos that were just as good and in some cases even better than the English gear.
Was it a cost factor? Or more a case of Australia's close link with the UK at that time?
There were significant import duty and tax benefits when sourced from Commonwealth countries. This applied pretty much across the board, which is why unsuited English cars were preferred over US offerings. Some US manufacturers circumvented the added taxes by manufacturing and exporting from Canada.Quote:
Originally Posted by disco man
It varied over the period of steam (roughly 1855-1955). When railways started in Australia, the prime expertise was in the UK, and most, if not all, state systems got their chief engineers from there, complete with their ideas and prejudices, which were passed down even when locally trained engineers took office. The USA locomotives were typically smaller and lighter than UK ones, usually wood or oil fired until late nineteenth century, not really suited to Australian conditions, although some locos were imported from the USA.
By late nineteenth century some US lines were building heavy track and starting to use much larger locomotives than could be used on UK lines which had almost all been completed by 1870, and had restricted loading gauges enforced by tunnels and bridges, not as much a problem in the USA with lower population density and long distances between towns. These larger locos were copied (rather than imported) mainly in SA early in the 20th century, but most of the Australian trackwork could not cope with their weight and dimensions. Victoria produced the H class (one example) about the start of WW2 from memory, but it could only run on a very restricted number of lines - it was planned to be used on the Melbourne -Adelaide route, but to do so meant rebuilding a number of bridges. This has never been done, even today.
To give some examples of local restrictions - the main southern line (i.e. Sydney - Melbourne) uses the original 1860s bridge across the Nepean; strengthened mainly by adding a pier in the middle of the main span, it is 150 years old and carrying loads and traffic densities the original designers could not have imagined. Similar situations exist throughout the networks. This is why large US - style locos were never used to any extent.
Restrictive practices required almost all locomotives used in Australia to be built here, but US-designed (or copied) ones could have been built just as readily. I don't think the dollar/sterling divide was a major influence, although it did mean a lack of contacts.
John
Thanks for your answers guys good stuff. I can't find info that shows Queensland built anything near the size and power of the mighty H class. I think it's a shame Australia did not preserve more of it's rail heritage,and naval heritage for that matter.
Yeah, I can't really assist with Queensland loco's, more up to date with NSW railways. I do believe there was a version of the Garrat up there (smaller than the NSW loco) but I don't think it was a huge success. Maybe JD or Ian could assist on that one.:DQuote:
Originally Posted by disco man
Yep, there's one at the Ipswich museum.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ausfree
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen...-Garratt_class
Regards
Robbo
[QUOTE=JDNSW;2129127]There were a few locomotives used by more than one state (e.g. the Commonwealth Garret) but in general each state used their own designs, either locally manufactured or imported (usually from the UK). Some were more or less standard designs from UK manufacturers, but most were designed specifically to meet local requirements.
It seems Queensland had 10 of the Garrett's built in the UK and twenty built in France with only a few little variations from other states.Also it seems they never lived up to the hype and also limited coal storage and huge maintanence costs 3x more than a B18 1/4.
Also the C17 class was used outside of Queensland know also as the NM class for the Commonwealth railway.I remember as a kid a loco in a park in Southport i loved playing on it. Did some research and found she was called the Southport Express her number is 996,in 2005 the council asked for it to be removed and was bought by the Queensland pioneer steam railway and is currently in bits awaiting a full resto.
No 944 has been in open air storage in Miles Queensland since 1971. Two more of the class are at Zig Zag No 934 is in working order and No 966 is waiting for resto.
Yes, Qld used the Australian Standard Garrat - until they managed to replace them with a decent engine!Quote:
Originally Posted by Ausfree
The main reason QR never used anything approaching the H class is that all the track is narrow gauge (3'6"). And some was originally laid to rather primitive standards - e.g. the Aramac Tramway (and probably others) was laid with unsquared sleepers.
Many miles of Australian railways were never going to make money and were buuilt very economically. Much was laid driect on earth with no ballast.
John