# Were there many multi-gauge steam locomotives?



## Jerry McColgan (Feb 8, 2008)

We have come to associate some locomotive types with narrow gauge and others with standard gauge. Some were converted from one gauge to another.

There must be some reasons why certain types were used on one gauge but not on other gauges. Obviously no one would build a Big Boy to run on narrow gauge so I am really talking more about the Mikados and smaller locos. Size would seem to be an obvious answer but perhaps it is more complicated than that because many tiny locomotives were used on standard gauge.

Is there such a thing as a group of locos that would have been primarily narrow gauge, another list of those which were primarily standard gauge and others that were about as common on one gauge as another?

Just curious.

Jerry


----------



## Steve Stockham (Jan 2, 2008)

Jerry,
You actually partially answered your own question. The smaller locomotive wheel arangements were utilized both on standard and narrow gauges. The 4-4-0 American, 2-6-0 Mogul, 2-8-0 Consolidation, 4-6-0 Ten Wheeler, 2-8-2 Mikado were all regular designs for both standard and narrow gauge although the 4-4-0 and 2-6-0 especially were seen in standard gauge more in the 19th century. The 2-4-2 and 2-6-2 wheel arangements were designed to move both ways equally well and as such were seen more on narrow gauge whereas the 0-6-0 and 0-4-0 switchers were seen more on standard gauge roads. The 4-4-2 Atlantic was a standard gauge design with only one narrow gauge example. The 4-6-2 Pacific was also a standard gauge design. Narrow gauge locomotives never had exceptionally large drivers that were required for speed. They were always squat, low riding relatively small drivered locomotives. The 2-8-2 Mikado was about as large as a narrow gauge locomotive would ever get. Even then, in order to need the extra wheels, the engine had to be outside frame so that the boiler would be large enough for the firebox to require a trailing truck. Anything larger was standard gauge only. Geared locomotives came in all gauges.

By the time the 2-8-2 Mikados were starting to show up the narrow gauge had already begun it's decline. 2-6-0 Moguls would survive for a couple of decades on some narrow gauge roads like the C&S but for the most part, the 2-8-0 Consolidation became the workhorse of the narrow gauge. Mikados like the new Class 125 (later known as the K-27) were considered "monster locomotives" and were too big for some of the branches. They were restricted to running on "improved" trackage that had heavier rail and reinforced bridges and trestles. It's ironic that the K-36 2-8-2 Mikado is the main motive power for the Durango & Silverton as well as the Cumbres & Toltec Scenic RR (both part of the original D&RGW narrow gauge system) and that the 2-8-2 Mikado is also the main motive power for the East Broad Top as these are three of the five best known narrow gauge roads still in existence.


----------



## Totalwrecker (Feb 26, 2009)

Another facet to consider is the rail underneath. I read recently where a NG 2-8-0 was sent back because it was too heavy for their rails.... 

I seem to remember tho' that there were narrow ga. articulateds, but they spread out the load... 

John


----------



## Spule 4 (Jan 2, 2008)

Well, kind of yes and no. Case in point, there were many small narrow gauge locos in Europe that were constructed for the "30 zoll" lines, which could range from 750mm to 790mm, depending on the length of the "inch" in that country. So each country had its loco set to the gauge. Easier on the outside frame ones. 

The HF110 immediately comes to mind.... 

Then there were some locos that did double duty, this one should look familiar to all you LGB fans: 

http://img264.imageshack.us/img264/2466/a416nx0.jpg

Note while narrow gauge, it has standard coupling for working dual gauge trackage.


----------



## andyb (Apr 19, 2008)

Taking your question at face value, the Great Western Railway in the UK had a number of gauge-convertible classes of steam locomotives that originally ran on both that company's broad gauge (7 foot and a quarter inch), and later interchangeably on the broad and standard (4' 8 1/2") mixed gauge systems, and after 1892 when broad gauge was discontinued, solely as 4' 8 1/2" gauged locomotives on what became 'standard gauge'.

Andy B


----------



## Jerry McColgan (Feb 8, 2008)

I appreciate everyone's comments.

I find the operations in various gauges interesting yet in large scale there seems to be sort of an assumption that certain locos are automatically assumed to be of a particular gauge. This makes sense when the original was only made in a certain gauge (like a Challenger or a Uintah Mallet) but confusing when referring perhaps to a Mogul or Consolidation.

This is understandable when perhaps a railroad such as D&RGW or C&S is on the tender but I would think an undecorated Mogul or Consolidation could represent either narrow or standard gauge - or am I missing something?

Of course with our imagination we can do anything. For me, D&RGW was standard gauge because I run it on the same track as I run LGB Mikados. 

Thanks,

Jerry


----------



## Spule 4 (Jan 2, 2008)

Exactly. There were PRR Moguls, Consolidations, Americans and Ten Wheelers in both 3' (OR&W/W&W) and std gauge. The particular pen name has nothing to do with gauge. 

Ah, but as you are in the south Jerry, then the term "Dinky" comes into play. Used even by non railroad guys in some parts of east TN where there are still a few NG locos rusting in the woods.


----------



## Semper Vaporo (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Jerry McColgan on 26 May 2010 06:07 PM 
I appreciate everyone's comments.

I find the operations in various gauges interesting yet in large scale there seems to be sort of an assumption that certain locos are automatically assumed to be of a particular gauge. This makes sense when the original was only made in a certain gauge (like a Challenger or a Uintah Mallet) but confusing when referring perhaps to a Mogul or Consolidation.

This is understandable when perhaps a railroad such as D&RGW or C&S is on the tender but I would think an undecorated Mogul or Consolidation could represent either narrow or standard gauge - or am I missing something?

Of course with our imagination we can do anything. For me, D&RGW was standard gauge because I run it on the same track as I run LGB Mikados. 

Thanks,

Jerry


This is where the scale of the engine comes into play... if it is a 1:20.3 scale then 45-mm track represents 36 inch gauge, 1:22 scale is 39 inch (1 meter) gauge, 1:24 scale is 42.5 inch gauge, 1:29 scale is 51.4 inch gauge, 1:32 scake is 56.7 inch scale. (Of those last two, 1:32 scale comes the closest to 56.5 [4' 8.5"] of Standard Gauge.)

All you need to know is what the manufacturer's intended scale was to know what the gauge of the engine represents...

Of course, that implies the manufacturer uses the same scale for all the various dimensions (length, width, height), something which it seems some do not! Sometimes the scales are altered for convenience of manufacture, sometimes it is to allow the engine to blend with other scales and sometimes it seems to be the result of foolishness/stupidity.

Something you can do to make an engine look like the scale you want is alter the size of any doorways to represent the correct(?) height for the scale you want the rest of the loco to represent. Usually the door is the "give away" to any error in scale. The wheels could be "small" wheels for a 1:20.3 engine, or "large" wheels for 1:32 scale and that can represent real engines of narrow gauge or Standard gauge just fine... all gauges had engines with big and/or small wheels. But if you declare a 1:20.3 engine to be 1:32 scale and have a doorway that is 3.5 inches tall, that will seem odd since the door is 6-ft in 1:20.3 scale but 9-ft 5-inches in 1:32 scale. Put a header across the doorway to reduce the height or cut the walls down by an inch or so and then the relative sizes "look" right and nobody will know the change to the manufacturer's intended scale.

EDIT: correct a typo in the 1:22 scale is 39 inch gauge.


----------



## Totalwrecker (Feb 26, 2009)

Posted By Jerry McColgan on 26 May 2010 06:07 PM 
I appreciate everyone's comments.

I find the operations in various gauges interesting yet in large scale there seems to be sort of an assumption that certain locos are automatically assumed to be of a particular gauge. This makes sense when the original was only made in a certain gauge (like a Challenger or a Uintah Mallet) but confusing when referring perhaps to a Mogul or Consolidation.

This is understandable when perhaps a railroad such as D&RGW or C&S is on the tender but I would think an undecorated Mogul or Consolidation could represent either narrow or standard gauge - or am I missing something?

Of course with our imagination we can do anything. For me, D&RGW was standard gauge because I run it on the same track as I run LGB Mikados. 

Thanks,

Jerry
Locomotive builders were eager to build in both sizes and would apply what worked in Standard ga. in their narrow ga. engines, on a smaller scale. Shays and other geared locos were built in both ga.s.
What a road ran was more about the whim of the road than the builders. Economics was usually the driving force, the weight of the rail underneath was a limiting factor.

The time frame also defined locomotives sizes and wheel arrangements. After the pony truck was introduced few roads used 0-x-0 designs for road use, they became switchers (most of the time). Std and NG shared; 2-6-0, 4-4-0, 4-6-0, 2-8-0, 2-8-2 and some articulateds.
A flat land road might be able to use a 2-6-0, while one with hills needs a 2-8-0 and a mountain road might want a 2-8-2 if they could, other wise they had to double or triple head which required a paid crew for each of the smaller locos. A poor road will patch old equip. while a pat road can invest in bigger power and stouter rail.

Larger lumber roads had standard ga. RRs for interchange. So they had larger geared locos for lumbering.

I think this link will help, wasn't sure how I was going to use it...







;

Cherry Valley Golf Course Gallery[/b]

Source; a public golf course being built on the WSL Co. sawmill site. (don't know how old the site is)

A Heisler pulls 2 steel boxcars over a trestle, the cars tower over the loco. Many might assume somebody is mixing scales!

John

Dang the link was live before I submitted, guess you'll need to cut n paste. (edit)


----------



## Jerry McColgan (Feb 8, 2008)

Hi John,

A Golf Course and a Sawmill - Logging Railroads.

That must be an oxymoron.

Jerry


----------



## tacfoley (Jan 3, 2008)

Jerry, please do not overlook, as one poster has done, the 3ft 6in gauge locos of Southern Africa, humungous Henschel-built condensing-tendered 4-8-4s and HUGE Beyer-Garratts, as well as similar gauge locos in Australia and New Zealand. Not to mention the many large metre gauge locos in the rest of Africa.... 

I recall also that the Newfoundland had a three-foot gauge railway system with some very fine-looking 'miniature' Pacifics running on it.

And of course, Japanese Railways, with their jewel-like express Pacifics, the C-57 and C-62 classes.....as well as 2-8-2 and 2-8-0 mixed freight and passenger locos. 

tac 
www.ovgrs.org 
Supporter of the Cape Meares Lighthouse Restoration Fund


----------



## Jerry McColgan (Feb 8, 2008)

Posted By tacfoley on 29 May 2010 04:20 PM 
Jerry, please do not overlook, as one poster has done, the 3ft 6in gauge locos of Southern Africa, humungous Henschel-built condensing-tendered 4-8-4s and HUGE Beyer-Garratts, as well as similar gauge locos in Australia and New Zealand. Not to mention the many large metre gauge locos in the rest of Africa.... 

I recall also that the Newfoundland had a three-foot gauge railway system with some very fine-looking 'miniature' Pacifics running on it.

And of course, Japanese Railways, with their jewel-like express Pacifics, the C-57 and C-62 classes.....as well as 2-8-2 and 2-8-0 mixed freight and passenger locos. 

tac 
www.ovgrs.org 
Supporter of the Cape Meares Lighthouse Restoration Fund 




Hi Cousin,

Do you mean there is a world outside of the USA?









Good points. 

Then too the Tornado is worth mentioning even if it is standard gauge.

I saw a video recently of a Welsh narrow gauge railroad which was fascinating.

The main difference is that in the UK you preserve your history while we tend to scrap ours.

Jerry


----------



## Chris France (Jan 3, 2008)

My favorite narrow gauge lines were the 2 footers in Maine. They settled fairly early on the Forney design which did have std gauge examples, but they were rare. The really odd thing is that (if I'm not mistaken) the original forneys were built to run bunker first making them more of a 4-4-0. In Maine they ran almost exclusively boiler forward (where they could be turned), and until two wheel pilot trucks were added to those built after around 1900, were known for "oscilating" when they moved at any kind of speed. Although that didn't stop certain engineers on the Sandy River and Rangely Lakes for running the Rangely Express at 60 MPH! On 33" drivers and 2 foot gauge track.....scary


----------



## Spule 4 (Jan 2, 2008)

Good info and correct TAC on profiles. One minor correction was the Newfie was colonial gauge/cape gauge/3'6"...... Some Newfie cars were later used on the standard gauge lines of the CN. Not sure about the diesels tho.


----------



## jgallaway81 (Jan 5, 2009)

As built in the US, the non-Mallet articulateds seemed to rule the standard gauge lines exclusively... likely because they were built mainly for high-speed, high-tonnage freight, both of which wouldn't be found on American narrow gauge.

Once the mallet design became a means for increasing engine size instead of Anatole's original reason of making existing engines able to negotiate the tight curves of narrow trackage, the design fell from use from narrow gauge, likely because of the issues associated with the overhanging of the boiler through curves... this would have increased the loading gauge of the railroad, which was built narrow to reduce the loading gauge to begin with.


This might also explain the lack of garretts on American narrow-guage, but still leaves open the reason for the lack of adoption.. or even prototype experimentation of the garretts on American mainlines. Its a shame... a Big Boy boiler tied to a 4-8-2+2-8-4 garrett frame might have held the door open for some truely impressive steam power... Highspeed 4-6-2+2-6-4 Passenger engines on the NYC... 2-10-2+2-10-2 Super Texas freight haulers on the Chesapeake & Ohio.... who knows?


----------



## NorthwestGarrattGuy (Oct 18, 2021)

interisting topi- oh wait this is old


----------



## Pete Thornton (Jan 2, 2008)

NorthwestGarrattGuy said:


> interisting topi- oh wait this is old


Still relevant though - just don't expect any of the original posters to notice.


----------



## NorthwestGarrattGuy (Oct 18, 2021)

Pete Thornton said:


> Still relevant though - just don't expect any of the original posters to notice.


ah yes wish Canadian Pacific had built a garratt


----------



## du-bousquetaire (Feb 14, 2011)

The german heresfeld bahn (military railway adminsitration) built some 060 with tender that were used on systems with diferent gauges ranging from 60 cm to 76 cm.Aster and LGB made a live steam model the Frank S. They also built a 080 that was adapted to 60 cmgauge in France on the Pithivier line where it can be seen today, and to 76 cm gauge in Austria. 
Who says that mallets in the United States where built exclusively for standard gauge?
what about the Uintah ones? Besides that Alco built some impressive ones for the serbian railways during WW1 for 76 cm gauge (2'6") I am sure that there were others. Never say never, take it from a Pennsy fan: indeed the PRR had mogules on the Waynsburgh and Washington, and 440s on the mount Gretna etc. And quite a few Porter 040s for tie treatment creosote plants and for pusshing ore and Cola hoppers at rail to ship terminals. And of course in Europe there were countless series of articulated mostly tank engines on narrow gauge, + garrats in the colonies of Britain and France.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Nobody said "mallets in the United States where built exclusively for standard gauge? "

I think you misinterpreted this sentence: "As built in the US, the non-Mallet articulateds seemed to rule the standard gauge lines exclusively... "

That sentence says that articulated locomotives that were NOT Mallets were more common than articulated Mallets....

(i.e. compound vs. Mallet, not standard gauge vs. narrow gauge)

the comparision was solely about articulated locos on standard gauge, no comment on narrow gauge until a subsequent paragraph.

English can be tricky.

Greg


----------



## du-bousquetaire (Feb 14, 2011)

Yes I tend to go through threads a bit too fast sometimes. Although some of the most famous articulated where not Mallets ( IE compounds) notably the most recent ones (Chalengers, Big boys, B&O and N&W A class for instance) I would seriously doubt that they were more numerous than the real US mallets built. They were very numerous in the 1900 - 1930 era and most were still being used right up to the end on short mine runs and as transfer locos. Many might have been simpled though, but they still were very useful engines. Notably for hill climbing where the Mallet was considered superior to the simple.


----------

