Talk:Mallet locomotive

message: The diagram of the Mallet locomotive articulation is wrong. The front engine (not strictly speaking, a bogie) must translate laterally, otherwise it will derail on a curve. The wheels must describe an arc. It does not simply pivot on the locomotive centreline at the front engine centre as indicated. It must be allowed sideways play, provided by a pivot a long way from the centre, or by a bar linkage, or a pin, sprung to centre in a slot. In Baldwin Mallets, the pivot was usually near the rear, high pressure, cylinders on the fixed engine. The two carrying bogies on the diagram are irrelevant to the Mallet design: the rear one as drawn is incorrectly pivoted for the same reason as above; the front one is broadly correct. Two four-wheel engines would be sufficient to illustrate the concept.
The diagram also needs rails and some labels; a non-technical viewer cannot be expected to understand what is shown, because it does not say it is the underside of a locomotive on a curve, and the curved rails are not shown.
Verifiable references:
Robins J G, 1973, World Steam Locomotives, Bartholomew  illustrated the original 1887 Mallet articulated 0440
http://www.ironhorse129.com/prototype/Mallet/Baldwin65/Design.htm (last accessed 12/3/06) illustrated Baldwin's comparison to the Fairlie with illustrations from Baldwin Record 65
kind regards
Andrew Starr, Manchester UK
:The diagram has been replaced with one that is more accurate. Hellbus 15:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I'm a bit dubious about the claim for the Virginian engines. Can we find a reference that is actually accessible on which to base this? Mangoe (talk) 19:53, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I cited the reference, of which I have a copy here. All it says is that three locomotives pushed a big train. It doesn't even state a gradient. Is that so implausible? Afterbrunel (talk) 08:56, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like Reed got that one wrong. Far as anyone else knows VGN got the 2-10+10-2s for the 2% climb out of Elmore; Rwy Age for 7 June 1924 says they ran 5500-ton trains up there with the two 2-10+10-2s shoving, then 2-8+8-2s handled the trains Princeton to Roanoke. Doesn't says anything about east of Roanoke, but I'm guessing no reason to run 2-10+10-2s on the 0.2% grade there. (And I'm guessing Reed wasn't talking about after the 1925 electrification.)Tim Zukas (talk) 17:36, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious 

message: I'm dubious about referring to the front engine as a "Bissell truck".  While conceptually you could call any set of wheels and frames which pivots at one end a Bissell, the term is usually used to refer to two wheel leading trucks (pony trucks) and two or four wheel trailing trucks of the Cole or Delta type (as opposed to the center pivoted type sometimes used on tank engines).  None of the references I have, either steam era or modern, call the front engine of a Mallet a Bissell.  I'd suggest the article should be amended to more clearly describe how the front engine pivots on the rear, and eliminate reference to a Bissell truck.
Also, in the section on simple locomotives, it says the high pressure steam pipe "passes thru the truck pivot pin".  This is wrong, both in that the steam pipe obviously does not pass thru the pin (on locomotives using this routing the pipe passes above the pin - incidently the same routing was used on the C&O compound locomotives), and in that many simple locomotives did not route the high pressure steam forward from the pivot pin, but instead used a direct routing (more or less - two swivels and a sliding section isn't exactly direct) from the smokebox to the front cylinders.  Suggest either this be expanded to correctly describe the routing, or simply remove the misleading comment.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:558:6030:44:1B6:90A5:EC7A:E5A6 (talk) 23:06, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bissel Truck 

message: Substituted at 22:55, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mallet locomotive. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090922043838/http://www.steamlocomotive.com/bigboy/ to http://www.steamlocomotive.com/bigboy/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:58, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Were the low-pressure cylinders & drivers always in front of the high-pressure counterparts?  Put another way, were the low pressure components always at the opposite end of the Mallet from the firebox?  (I do not know.)  Let's answer this, in at least a sentence in the article. Acwilson9 (talk) 22:03, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Were the low-pressure cylinders & drivers always in front of the high-pressure counterparts? 

message: Some people like Grachester believe that the Big Boy is a Mallet, but this is false. Anatole Mallet's articulated locomotive used compound expansion (high and low pressure cylinders). The Big Boys are simple articulated and used simple expansion (the same pressure in all four cylinders) and therefore they are not Mallets. (NOT MY OPINION) Aitraintheeditorandgamer (talk) 20:50, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Big Boy is (not) a Mallet