When you see a photo of them, you almost always see the right side of the locomotive, as that's where the pistons and the drive train are. You almost never see the left side of it. The left side is much more uninteresting.
However, having seen them and been somewhat fascinated in them for years and years, when I finally saw one live, it never occurred to me that the cylinders were only on the right side. I simply projected that the other side has a similar set, just like every other locomotive.
Not only that, but the boilers tend to be a bit off center on the chassis also.
Just funny when all you have is one perspective, how someone can incorrectly fill in the rest from other knowledge that seems coherent, but it completely wrong.
Oh that's a fun fact. It reminds me of the comments on HN recently that pointed out that almost all photos of bicycles have them facing towards the right so that you can see all the parts. Same reason as on these locomotives. Indeed it seems advice online does concur for the bikes: https://www.purecycles.com/blogs/bicycle-news/136740359-how-...
The railroad going up Mt. Tamalpais employed Shay locomotives as well as Heisler. I used to think they were all Shay but learned that the No. 9 that is being restored is a Heisler.
"The most significant design difference between Shays and Heislers was the arrangement of the driving cylinders. The Shays had either two or three driving cylinders mounted on the right hand side of the locomotive. Since the weight of the driving cylinders sat only on one side, the boiler was mounted offset to the left to provide a counterbalance. In the Heislers, the driving cylinders were located in the middle of the locomotive."[1][2]
> The most significant design difference between Shays and Heislers was the arrangement of the driving cylinders.
Another very important difference (and one that makes Heislers superior to Shays) is that the driveshaft is centered on the loco frame.
That means the driveshaft doesn't need expansion joints, which tended to get jammed under high torque and prevent the trucks from pivoting under the local (thus splitting the rails).
Bay-area folk may be familiar with Roaring Camp Railroads up in Felton, which has a Shay engine pulling the train along the scenic tour. Fun stuff if you have any kids who like trains.
These were used in Australia on the Newnes railway line. Newnes was a shale oil mining town; its history is particularly colourful because its remoteness made it difficult to import sufficient food for the town's population.
I have fond memories of riding the one in Duncan BC as a kid! The museum (now labelled a "discovery center" for whatever reason) ha sall sorts of old equipment for kids (and adults) to climb on and gawk at.
This is one of those things that I learned about in my youth when I was a bit obsessed with model railroading (although that obsession only extended as far as dreaming and not actual building). I remember reading an article about Shays in one of the 70s model railroading magazines and I think had instructions for kitbashing one from existing model railroad parts.
I was wondering where the 116 surviving machines are. These are not the type you see in Utah (American made 4-4-0). Instead they were built for rough (sometimes temporary) track and steep inclines. Often used in mining and logging.
As Wikipedia partly mentions, Shay designs were very well suited to low-speed operation on dirt-cheap (often temporary) tracks. That generally meant narrow-gauge, light rail & iffy roadbed, tight curves, and steep grades. Low-speed-only was the only sort of operation you'd want to attempt - tracks suitable for higher speeds would have cost far more, but provided minimal benefit for logging, mining, and other Shay use cases.
A bit fuzzier, but I also recall Shays being considerably more easily maintained (vs. conventional steam locomotives) in situations with minimal facilities, equipment, and trained staff. Not sure how much that was locomotives being designed to the customers' needs, vs. being intrinsic to the Shay mechanical layout.
And a bit of context - a century or so ago, modern heavy road construction equipment and heavy trucks mostly didn't exist. Vs. railroad tech did. So for logging, mining, and many situations where we'd say "d'oh, just build a road and use trucks" - they just laid some RR track and used that.
It is indeed wild that the easiest way to do large-scale logging in those days was to slap together some tracks and roadbed and run trains up the valley. And then tear it all down again when it was time to move to the next one.
The railway is the historical norm, roads as we know them needed rubber tyres to really 'get traction'. This was a late innovation compared to rail.
Rails for high speed with safety, ride comfort and advanced signalling to maintain a scheduled service is a very different proposition to some temporary rails to get to the front line of a war, a new coal seam or forest 'port'. The latter is much easier compared to a road but now we have big machines for the latter, not the former.
Funny thing about Shays.
When you see a photo of them, you almost always see the right side of the locomotive, as that's where the pistons and the drive train are. You almost never see the left side of it. The left side is much more uninteresting.
However, having seen them and been somewhat fascinated in them for years and years, when I finally saw one live, it never occurred to me that the cylinders were only on the right side. I simply projected that the other side has a similar set, just like every other locomotive.
Not only that, but the boilers tend to be a bit off center on the chassis also.
Just funny when all you have is one perspective, how someone can incorrectly fill in the rest from other knowledge that seems coherent, but it completely wrong.
Oh that's a fun fact. It reminds me of the comments on HN recently that pointed out that almost all photos of bicycles have them facing towards the right so that you can see all the parts. Same reason as on these locomotives. Indeed it seems advice online does concur for the bikes: https://www.purecycles.com/blogs/bicycle-news/136740359-how-...
The railroad going up Mt. Tamalpais employed Shay locomotives as well as Heisler. I used to think they were all Shay but learned that the No. 9 that is being restored is a Heisler.
"The most significant design difference between Shays and Heislers was the arrangement of the driving cylinders. The Shays had either two or three driving cylinders mounted on the right hand side of the locomotive. Since the weight of the driving cylinders sat only on one side, the boiler was mounted offset to the left to provide a counterbalance. In the Heislers, the driving cylinders were located in the middle of the locomotive."[1][2]
[1] https://www.friendsofno9.org/post/mechanic-s-corner-geared-l...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heisler_locomotive
> The most significant design difference between Shays and Heislers was the arrangement of the driving cylinders.
Another very important difference (and one that makes Heislers superior to Shays) is that the driveshaft is centered on the loco frame.
That means the driveshaft doesn't need expansion joints, which tended to get jammed under high torque and prevent the trucks from pivoting under the local (thus splitting the rails).
You can still ride a Shay-powered train at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cass_Scenic_Railroad_State_Par.... It's an old-time logging railroad that goes up into the mountains from a former https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_town founded in 1901.
Bay-area folk may be familiar with Roaring Camp Railroads up in Felton, which has a Shay engine pulling the train along the scenic tour. Fun stuff if you have any kids who like trains.
These were used in Australia on the Newnes railway line. Newnes was a shale oil mining town; its history is particularly colourful because its remoteness made it difficult to import sufficient food for the town's population.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newnes_railway_line
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newnes,_New_South_Wales
I have fond memories of riding the one in Duncan BC as a kid! The museum (now labelled a "discovery center" for whatever reason) ha sall sorts of old equipment for kids (and adults) to climb on and gawk at.
This is one of those things that I learned about in my youth when I was a bit obsessed with model railroading (although that obsession only extended as far as dreaming and not actual building). I remember reading an article about Shays in one of the 70s model railroading magazines and I think had instructions for kitbashing one from existing model railroad parts.
I was wondering where the 116 surviving machines are. These are not the type you see in Utah (American made 4-4-0). Instead they were built for rough (sometimes temporary) track and steep inclines. Often used in mining and logging.
Edit: They have a link to their known locations.
Wikipedia also has a list that is a bit easier to read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shay_locomotive#Survivors
If you are in Sili Valley and want to see a Shay, cross the hill to Felton to Roaring Camp for one of their excursion trains.
Not an expert, but...
As Wikipedia partly mentions, Shay designs were very well suited to low-speed operation on dirt-cheap (often temporary) tracks. That generally meant narrow-gauge, light rail & iffy roadbed, tight curves, and steep grades. Low-speed-only was the only sort of operation you'd want to attempt - tracks suitable for higher speeds would have cost far more, but provided minimal benefit for logging, mining, and other Shay use cases.
A bit fuzzier, but I also recall Shays being considerably more easily maintained (vs. conventional steam locomotives) in situations with minimal facilities, equipment, and trained staff. Not sure how much that was locomotives being designed to the customers' needs, vs. being intrinsic to the Shay mechanical layout.
And a bit of context - a century or so ago, modern heavy road construction equipment and heavy trucks mostly didn't exist. Vs. railroad tech did. So for logging, mining, and many situations where we'd say "d'oh, just build a road and use trucks" - they just laid some RR track and used that.
It is indeed wild that the easiest way to do large-scale logging in those days was to slap together some tracks and roadbed and run trains up the valley. And then tear it all down again when it was time to move to the next one.
The railway is the historical norm, roads as we know them needed rubber tyres to really 'get traction'. This was a late innovation compared to rail.
Rails for high speed with safety, ride comfort and advanced signalling to maintain a scheduled service is a very different proposition to some temporary rails to get to the front line of a war, a new coal seam or forest 'port'. The latter is much easier compared to a road but now we have big machines for the latter, not the former.
I think my dad had a copy of the book that had this data.
That site is borderline unreadable. You'd think there would be some basic info on the landing page.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shay_locomotive