Talk:Fairlie locomotive

image

I'm not sure that the picture I put up was the most representative, since it appears to show a fairlie without the joined boilers and thus an open cab -- but it was one I was sure was PD, since it was published in the US in 1908. Any better, please find ;) —Morven 00:45, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

We had them on the Northampton line in the 1870;s here in western australia - definitely needs a mention, will try to find a ref or something SatuSuro 03:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Powered bogies

Are double-ended locos not having powered bogies but with drivers, cylinders etc fixed to the frame still Fairlies? There are a couple of examples featured in the article. --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Appearance in Railroad Tycoon 3

"A Fairlie locomotive was in Railroad Tycoon 3 and it went at 18mph." appears in the lead paragraph. It may be true, but would appear to be slightly trivial to include in the lead (or, quite possibly, at all). Is there a strong feeling to keep it? MurfleMan (talk) 04:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, very trivial, and removed. --Michael Johnson (talk) 06:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Divided water space?

The article states that the double Fairlies have a divided water space - this is certainly not true of the Ffestiniog Railway locomotives which are currently in service. Is there any evidence that this was the case in the original design. I cannot find any. John (talk) 08:43, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

No idea were the idea of a divided water space came from. The Progress had a single firebox which caused draughting problems, however Little Wonder (the first FR Fairlie) had a boiler with a single water space and two fireboxes, have all subsequent models up to David Lloyd George. More at Festipedia --Stewart ^{(talk | edits)} 16:13, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Wheel arrangements

There is some inconsistency in the Fairlie wheel arrangements given in Wikipedia. I have always described Fairlies as 0-4-4-0 and 0-6-6-0 but, in Wikipedia, the Garratt designations 0-4-0+0-4-0 and 0-6-0+0-6-0 are sometimes used. Could we please standardize on 0-4-4-0 and 0-6-6-0? Biscuittin (talk) 09:24, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

In 0-4-0+0-4-0 there is a whole section on Fairlie locos which, I think, should be moved to 0-4-4-0. Biscuittin (talk) 09:27, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree there needs to be some standardisation here. The Whyte notation articles says : "Articulated locomotives such as Garratts, which are effectively two locomotives joined by a common boiler, have a + between the arrangements of each engine. Thus, a "double Pacific" type Garratt is a 4-6-2+2-6-4. Simpler articulated types such as Mallets, where there are no unpowered axles between powered axles, have extra groups of numbers in the middle. Thus a Union Pacific Big Boy is a 4-8-8-4; there are two leading axles." Therefore the + cannot be associated with particular articulated types as there are 0-4-4-0 Garratts.

Therefore if the above rule is applied throughout there will be a number of other changes needed - not least to the Whyte template, and also combining the 0-4-0+0-4-0 and 0-4-4-0 articles.--Das48 (talk) 01:04, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the + sign is related to the presence, or absence, of intermediate unpowered axles. Garratts always have a + sign, even when there are no intermediate unpowered axles. I think the + sign is actually related to the pivoting arrangement. This is certainly the case with diesel and electric locos. The difference between a Bo-Bo and a Bo+Bo is that the Bo+Bo has a link between the two bogies, in addition to the pivots. How this translates to steam loco practice is not entirely clear. Biscuittin (talk) 08:22, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I think I have worked it out. In the case of a Fairlie, the power units are just bogies, like those on a Bo-Bo or Co-Co diesel or electric locomotive. In the case of a Garratt, they are complete engine units, carrying fuel and water tanks. A Fairlie is therefore one engine with two power bogies while a Garratt is two engines linked together by the bridge which carries the boiler. The + sign for the Garratt represents the link between the two engine units. Biscuittin (talk) 10:05, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Compare British Rail Class 13 which is designated 0-6-0+0-6-0, although there are no intermediate unpowered axles. This, again, is two separate engine units linked together. Biscuittin (talk) 10:10, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

OK that seems to be the criteria for using +. Will you amend the Whyte notation article and Whyte template as well as the Fairlie article?--Das48 (talk) 01:53, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Will do. Biscuittin (talk) 11:56, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Done that. I'm now wondering how to classify the Meyer 0-6-2+2-6-0. Biscuittin (talk) 13:12, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Péchot-Bourdon locomotive

Quotes: (1) "The design was chosen with the belief that if one boiler or set of valve gear was damaged by enemy fire, the loco could continue to operate". (2) "The primary difference between a Fairlie and the Péchot-Bourdon is that the latter only had one steam dome". These two statements don't add up. If there was only one steam dome, there must have been only one boiler, so damage to one half of the boiler would put both halves out of action. Biscuittin (talk) 07:03, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the realistic belief (or at least the marketing version) is that they were resilient to some damage to the valve gear and cylinders. Any damage to the boiler would be likely to cause a boiler explosion, and that would destroy the loco quite well on its own. Hence there's no point in duplicating domes, if one broken dome is terminal either way. Overall though, I think the whole "redundancy against fire" argument is fallacious.

I can see some value to these locomotives on the poorly laid tracks of the Western Front, as articulated bogies give flexibility with good adhesive weight over the drivers. That said I've never understood the economics of Fairlie boilers and their awful cabs, compared to a Mallet. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:02, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Second thought - does Fairlie's patent specify two domes? A single dome might just be a way to dodge patents and licensing fees. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:03, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Interesting point. I think that avoiding patent fees was the main motivation behind NBL's invention of the Modified Fairlie. Biscuittin (talk) 19:46, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

In what wat different to Garratt?

The general reader coming here needs to be told how a Fairlie is different from a Garratt. (I don't know, or else I would edit this). There are also quite a lot of eccentric narrative styles in this article. I'll have a shot at them if someone else could provide an authoritative explanation of the Garratt issue. Afterbrunel (talk) 20:40, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Patent date

The patent drawing I just digitized is dated 1843-07-31. So I am curious how the patent date in the article is supported. I am digitizing for the Richardson Library at the Colorado Railroad Museum. Elrey (talk) 12:32, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Take another look at the drawing. The year on it is either 1872 or 1873. Robert Fairlie was born in 1831, so a patent date of 1843 is unlikely. Opolito (talk) 13:48, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

You are correct, it is 1873. Elrey (talk) 20:11, 4 September 2024 (UTC)