Magnet Tramway Articulated Locomotives in Australia

Class 1 (Locobase 8413)

Data from RF Waller (Assoc M. Inst., CE), "The Magnet Tramway", in Tasmania:Report of the Secretary of Mines for 1901-1902 (Hobart, Tasmania, 1902), esp. pp. cxxiv-cxxviii) and a letter from Derek A Bayliss in The IR Society's online archive [], accessed 16 May 2007.

One of Locobase's great pleasures as he assembles the world's steam locomotives is spotlighting a particular engine in a particular environment. And when the location is the west coast of Tasmania and the engine is this little wood-burningMallet and the documents a contemporary report by the Tramway's head, its exoticism exudes a heady perfume indeed.

In exploiting the mineral deposits strewn about the West Coast, the mining companies had to figure out how to move the extracted ore to a port. In the case of the Magnet Range, which had some rich deposits but more numerous pockets of lower-grade ore of iron, manganese, silver, and led, its exploiters first tried a pack road with animals, but quickly saw that they needed more power. A 2 3/4-mile horse-powered rail tramway followed, but "...such a means of transport was utterly incompetent to deal with the ore available." So Waller turned to steam locomotives to move his minerals along a 6-mile track. The line eventually had 10 miles of track that included 196 curves!

An O & K 0-4-0T came first, followed by the first of two Mallets. Waller's detailed analysis of the fit between locomotive and service deserves close attention by any student of the period. The #1 could handle 35 tons gross up a 4 % grade (1 in 25) "quite comfortably" and proved economical on fuel, burning 50-80 cubic ft of wood in a 20-mile trip or about 170 lb of coal. Waller notes that while coal has a 2 1/2:1 advantage in calories per ton, wood fuel (in this case, myrtle cut in 2 1/2-ft lengths) was much cheaper. He acknowledged that getting the best, and more important, the fastest work out of a locomotive would require coal and if the traffic was heavy enough, "...it would pay to use coal exclusively."

Waller liked the combination of the long engine wheelbase and short rigid wheelbase implicit in the Mallet layout. The former made for a steadier locomotive, while the latter allowed more power on a very curvy layout. He also noted that the engine ran equally well in either direction. It was, however, "under-cylindered" with a boiler that could supply 8 1/2" x 12" cylinders. "In ordering another engine, I should increase these diameters to 9 and 13 1/2 inches; the engine would then have ample power for an emergency, a point in which it is deficient at present."

Derek Bayliss's comments following the IRR's publication of an article on Orenstein & Koppel said that #1 was joined by #3 of the same design in 1903-1905; later research credited the engine with O & K works #2609 and entering service in 1907. After the Magnet Tramway closed (in 1940), the two worked for other 2' mining tramways on the island. The IRR editor explained as well the unusual location of the HP cylinders behind its set of drivers as a way to encourage a longer wheelbase on the rear, fixed set. This contributed to a larger grate, which REW notes was the "main point" of the O & K adaptation of the basic Mallet design.