Actually, it was very common here in the US to spread out the weight of a locomotive to reduce the axle loadings.
Take for instance a C&O 2-6-6-6, they actually out weighed the UP 4-8-8-4s, yet had 2 fewer axles. The result was the heaviest axle loadings of any locomotive ever built...and the ultimate machine for wearing out track. (That coupled with the penalty from grossly exceeding the total weight (a danger with bridges), the Lima Locomotive Works cheated in the scale house and lied about the total weight to avoid trouble with the C&O. It was eventually discovered when the Virginian ordered their "light" alleghanies that were quoted at a higher weight the C&O alleghanies...and the ensuing settlement with the C&O caused Lima to lose money on the 2-6-6-6 design.)
An excellent example of utilizing lighter axle loadings was what occured north of the border. The Canadian National, which was similar to our Conrail, utilitzed 4-8-4s to reduce the axle loadings on it's sub-par track while the well built Canadian Pacific utilized 4-6-4s.
Btw, the Beyer-Garrat pictured would be a meter gauge locomotive. They also have berkshires & such. If I recall, part of the design was to keep some of the weight from the water on the drivers, but the downside is that if you need to start a train without much water, you have a lower factor of adhesion.
Note: a Factor of Adhesion is the ration of the weight on drivers to the tractive effort. 4.0 was considered ideal. A locomotive with a low FoA will slip alot...especially when starting a train. The N&W class A's actually had their tractive effort reduced (limited cutoff) in order to help improve their factor of adhesion. It doesn't matter how powerful a locomotive is if it slips to much to start a train.
EDIT: the well known large US steam engines...Big Boys, Challengers, Yellowstones, Alleghanies, N&W Class As, and such were NOT mallets. A mallet recycles steam while these super power locomotives generated enough steam to not need recycled steam.