I remember seeing 60700 at Cambridge in 1950 and being stunned by the size of the cab! What was 60700 doing in Cambridge, I hear you ask? An early morning stopping service from Kings Cross was used for running-in locos which otherwise exceeded the route availability. It came in at 8.30 a.m., and we would cycle down to the cattle market (long gone!) to spot the "ex" as we called it before hastily returning to the Perse School (then on the corner of Hills Road and Gonville Place).
It was a marine Yarrow water tube (not fire tube) boiler. There were several attempts pre-war at high pressure boilers. The LMS built Fury on a Royal Scot frame. It burst a tube, emptying the firebox and killed a crewman. (I remember seeing that loco rebuilt conventionally as British Legion while in Crewe paint shop in 1959).
There’s a lot to unpick here but the W1 was actually a very successful prototype, and needs to be seen in that context. The water tube boiler was an excellent piece of design and later setups with enlarged receivers and the double Kylchap made the locomotive more than an equal for the A3 Pacific. It never had “steaming issues”- I am not sure where you got that from. I would suggest having a look at William Brown’s book on the W1, costly but an excellent volume and well worth reading for a more accurate interpretation of the locomotives abilities.
I'll be sure to check out the book. The information was gathered from around the internet so it makes sense that some of it is a bit askew (as other sources of info about this locomotive are not very available) I do believe that i mentioned the boiler, but it is also true to say that it was costly and due to it's uniqueness, a drawback in terms of repairs, hence it's removal.
@@OnlyTheRightTrack it’s a good start but an internet search will only get you so far. The NRM has an entire file on the W1 which I found fascinating for my Gresley research towards my book on him. The W1 used to be a bit of a vague also ran in my thoughts but after thorough reading on it I believe it to be crucial to the development of Gresley’s high speed streamlined trains. In particular, the multi functional streamlined front end is a thing of beauty and a masterpiece in design.
@@OnlyTheRightTrackThere are three good books to check out for more on no.10000. "The Gresley Legacy" by Martin Smith says much about the loco's performance, especially post-rebuilding. Charles Fryer's book "Experiments with Steam" talks more about the design of the streamlining and air passages; and Robert Tufnell's book "Prototype Locomotives" is much more technical and has a lot of figures for dbhp and efficiency and the modifications Gresley made to the high pressure cylinders and blastpioe.
I have read about the W1 'Hush-Hush' and while it's a unique design, it was over costly with the many problems it was facing. Guess a water-tube boiler isn't a good idea to put in a steam engine. I have read in one picture note in the Flying Scotsman book by Andrew Roden that Gresley hoped it would supersede Flying Scotsman's speed record, but since its failure in performance, it prompted him to base the former's design to create the A4 Pacifics.
This is not correct. When built there was a critical subsystem that stymied the operation of the whole loco. The boiler and engine eventually met their design objectives but it took so long to diagnose that the A3 moved the goal posts on the design req before the A4 changed everybody’s thinking on what future high power steam looked like at the LNER and so gresley stopped development which is a shame as French engineer Chapelon showed that compound operation was the correct way to go for high power and high efficiency. The boiler outlasted the engine being used as a stationary boiler into the 60s with no major repair - so thing that traditional loco boilers couldn’t do. Try find a copy of William browns book on hush hush.
One thing that is not often considered with the rebuilt hush hush was that although yes the cab was larger than on an A4, that was actually quite disliked by crews! Especially firemen. That is because, on an A4, the cab was just the right length that the fireman could place himself in a spot where he could both reach the coal and yet be close enough to the fire door to shovel it in. But because of the longer cab on the rebuild hush hush, they could no longer do that. And had to step back and forth between shoveling up the coal from the tender and swinging into the fire.
Hush Hush is probably my favourite of these odd experimental locomotives. It’s got a very nice and unusual appearance and had a lot of unique features. Just a shame it did take off properly. It’s nice that there’s surviving archive footage of Hush Hush and that its tender survives on 60009.
I love how your videos get straight into the point. Other youtubers would make an hour-long documentary about this train, but you managed to fit it all into a short but sweet 3 minutes and 20 seconds. Very nice, keep up the good work!
Unfortunately it’s so short that it misses most of the story and perpetuates historical errors. It’s a bit like getting the right answer without showing your working out and what working out you did show was poorly copied from glancing at someone else’s wrong homework. The only right answer in this video is that 10000 was not good enough (when it was being judged) and the A4 was better (than a properly sorted out 10000 which would have eclipsed the A4)
@@creamwobbly see my other comments in the thread about this video. If you’d like to learn more about hush hush, I’d be happy to have a conversation, but if you’re going to be jumping to disrespectful insults, then you can go have more sex with yourself. Take care.
You might also have mentioned that the machinery was not conventional. The engine as built was a 4-cylinder compound, making it far more complicated than just a different type of boiler, and requiring a different driving technique. It was a case of too many new eggs in one basket. The rebuilding not only changed the boiler and the external appearance, it was converted to a conventional 3-cylinder layout as per Gresley's Pacifics.
Truly the only "experimental" British steam locomotives that not only worked despite having all sorts of radical design departures but succeeded in every way was the late Oliver VS Bulleid's Merchant Navy Pacifics, his West Country Light Pacifics, and Battle of Britain Light Pacifics in their unrebuilt form. Yeah they had a few quirks but despite everything, they did their job and did it very well.
Nice work. Although it was actually a 4-6-2-2 not a 4-6-4. The reason being that the trailing wheels were sprung independently from each other rather then sharing a bogie like the guiding wheels.
If it had had an oil burner, it might have worked. Water tube boilers lack capacity; they're like modern domestic gas boiler systems which generally have no hot tank, hot water delivered "just in time". I think it caught firemen out, as much as anything.
It depends what you mean by “Failed”. There have long been trials as development proceeds, sometimes with some publicity, sometimes not. Sometimes they acquire a bad press, but even then they will have led to results that could be interpreted appropriately as the market developed. This pattern of thought is applicable to all forms of traction as they develop over the years.
Technically I wouldn't call it a failure I would just call it not meeting the Expectations that were set. it did work so in a sense the experiment was successful but it just didn't produce the results they were hoping for. a successful failure you could say.
I've often wondered what would happen if the 'Hush-Hush' locomotive was given another chance at an upgrade that with the most improvements. And come to think of it, if it *could* be done, would it have made it into a W1X or a W2? I'll have to consult this with engineering experts, same for other locomotives.
From what I heard, the W1 prototype worked fine, just wasn't bringing enough performance to justify the costly modifications. (Steamed poorly as per what was expected of it but apparently still worked as fine as the A1 Pacifics)
@@OnlyTheRightTrack initially, its purpose was not to outperform the a1 but to match them but with better economy. A serious problem with a sub system hampered initial operation and ate into testing time as it took a long time to diagnose. Meanwhile, the A3s came out so the goal posts moved for hush hush. It did eventually surpass these but the A4s came along at that is what the future looked like so no more dev on hush hush 😢. Such a shame, as Gresley’s initial ideas were right and proven completely by Chapelon later with his extraordinary 240P, 141P and 242A1 which was the best steam locomotive ever made.
Great video ! Loving your editing but I think it could be a bit slowed down (especially at the end where we have the channel overlay while you are still speaking, its a bit disturbing) Awesome channel nevertheless (I hope you'll make longer videos on these subjects in the future, those are really interesting)
An interesting and informative video about a locomotive I knew very little about and wanted to know more ever since I saw something about it in a model railway magazine...but by crikey, that was a quick commentary! If you could slow the narration down just a smidge it would make your uploads a lot more enjoyable!
I wonder why Gresley didn’t simply make either a proper 4-6-4 based on a A3 or A4. He should have kept the cab the same size but used a larger firebox. I mean, the A1 was inspired by the Pennsylvania Railroad K4s Pacific, so maybe he could have made an upgraded version based on a New York Central Hudson. I know that the 2-8-2s had problems derailing due to their long wheelbases, so a 4-8-2 probably would’ve had similar issues, but a conventional 4-6-4 could have been successful. Hudsons have more power at speed than a Pacific, so it could’ve been the perfect LNER passenger engine.
"I wonder why Gresley didn’t simply make either a proper 4-6-4 based on a A3 or A4." You have it backwards. Nobody sets out to make a locomotive with a specific wheel arrangement. The wheel arrangement is governed by the characteristics of the locomotive and its intended use. The W1 was a 4-6-4 because it needed to be, to support the firebox that it needed. The A3s and A4s didn't need bigger fireboxes, so there was no reason to build a 4-6-4 version of them.
@@beeble2003Although actually the loco in both original and rebuilt forms wasn't a 4-6-4 but a 4-6-2-2 because the two trailing axles weren't in a single bogie. Not that anyone uses the 2-2 designation
@@beeble2003Not quite: the steam drum was required to be 30ft long and the frames of a standard 4-6-2 would have left no space on the footplate for the crew. So the additional pony truck became necessary with lengthened frames. The rearmost water drums dictated the length of the firebox.
@@polbecca OK, but still the point stands: it was a 4-6-4 because the hardware required was too big to fit on a 4-6-2, not because Sir Nigel woke up one morning and thought "I've never built a 4-6-4 before -- let's do it!"
I'm fairly sure it was not very easy to manufacture (as a completely new novel design) and maintaning it was not simple either I think as there was only one and it was, once again a unique design, hence that being, i assume, a key factor in it's replacement with a conventional one.
@@OnlyTheRightTrack Yes, a one-off is always a nuisance to maintain but looking at the number of curved tubes, I’m guessing it was fundamentally more complicated to weld up and inspect than a conventional cylindrical boiler with ~50 straight tubes running through it? If so, more complicated, no real performance gains and compound cylinders to deal with. Simpler fire box, I imagine tho.
This might sound dumb to ask, why did this engine got a steaming issues or lacking in power? I mean, that marine boiler can propelled the much larger ships through ocean just fine so how come it didn’t work? Shouldn’t more PSI means more power? I don’t know much about how steam boiler works so I’m kinda wondering. I wish this engine was included into RWS. It can be made into character with similar character arc to Henry.
I'm not that much of a locomotive enthusiast to tell you why, but here is an exerpt from the LNER Encyclopedia: *"nevertheless steaming was relatively poor during test runs, and in spite of a number of modifications initially to the exhaust, boiler performance never reached the standards of an equivalent firetube boiler"*
The question is how much steam you can deliver at a particular pressure. If the boiler can't make enough steam, it's not going to work well. Note that Gresley didn't just take a boiler from a ship and put it on the locomotive. Rather, he designed a new boiler, using marine design principles -- specifically, it was a water-tube boiler, so it ran tubes of water through a barrel of hot gases, whereas locomotive boilers were normally a fire-tube design, with tubes of hot gases running through a barrel of water. The fact that water tube boilers were successfully used on ships doesn't guarantee that they'll work well in locomotives -- especially after being miniaturized for that application.
I see at 1:15 that the route from London to Edinburgh is a direct straight line. The rest of this "presentation" is similarly dubious in content. It feels as if the purpose [with overly rapid narration] is to ridicule Sir Nigel Gresley and the whole of the Doncaster engineering work's staff, or am I wrong?
I have a Hardback DORLING KINDERSLEY DK EYEWITNESS GUIDES Book of TRAIN. Discover the story of railways - from the days of steam to the high - speed, sophisticated trains of today. In association with THE NATIONAL RAILWAY MUSEUM.
What a dreadful production covering a most interesting locomotive. Why you may ask do I consider this to be a dreadful production... Well it was covered far too fast, most of the pictures only appeared for a split second, so quick that it was impossible to see them clearly. Also the voiceover was a constant list of facts making it impossible to take them in properly. The video was only 3 minutes 20 seconds long whereas if it had been more professionally produced it could easily have been twice as long. Having said this I do appreciate the time taken to do the research for a production like this, spoilt in my opinion for the reasons I've already mentioned.
As well as perpetuating false information, you have missed out significant pieces of the story of 10000. The loco was designed to be equivalent of the A1 and the object of the high pressure boiler was to exploit compound expansion (steam expanded twice) to give more efficient working. The engine was intended as a test bed so was closely looked after by the works who built it which is where it lived and why it is recorded as being there for so long. It had a fundamental problem with a sub system which took a long time to diagnose. This system was for reducing steam pressure for use on ancillaries. This failed to work properly leading to problems with the injectors which put water in the boiler. To safely operate, the crews had to run at reduced power and pressure which effected performance. Steaming was further compromised due to air leaking into the casing reducing the ability to pull air thru the fire for combustion, so as a work around, expansion in the cylinders was reduced so more draft could be created via the exhaust to pull more gas and air thru the boiler -> higher fuel consumption/ poor steaming. While this was getting identified and fixed, the performance targets moved to chase the A3 (higher power). It eventually met and surpassed this but then came the A4 and everything changed and time was called on it. There is so much more to this than I and certainly you have said. If interested, go read William Browns book on hush hush, it is very illuminating. When you have done that, remake your video as it is currently incomplete at best.
I did the nescessary research for the video and as it's a short youtube one, I missed out certain details. In the vid, I justified the title (what people wanted to learn about) rather than push information that, while still accurate, is irrelevant to the video. So whilst yes, it accomplished it's target in some ways, it was considered as a fail in the grand scheme of things, hence it's premature withdrawl and only 1 ever being built. It was a test that was not satisfactory enough to warrant looking into further albeit parts of it's design being utilised on later locomotives. Thanks for your comment as it is quite informative!
@@OnlyTheRightTrack hi, thanks for your message. Accuracy matters and I’m afraid that what research you did was not very thorough as you repeat rather tired and wrong points concerning this engine. You were correct that no further hush hushes were built but neglected to mention that the engine did actually meet and surpass its design objectives and also how the exact principles which were behind hush hush were comprehensively showed to produce the highest power to weight ratio and highest efficiency in the world by Chapelon in France. The relevance of this is Gresley consulted with Chapelon on hush hush and without that relationship may not have fitted the kychap exhaust that made the A4 Mallard be able to do its 126mph party trick! You obviously have a flair for gfx and editing and come across very passionately but it is an important and hard skill to master to be able to understand a subject fully and succinctly summarise it which I’m sure you will keep getting better at in the future. Maybe one day you will revisit hush hush and really do it justice. Take care.
@@OnlyTheRightTrack Sorry but I completely disagree that accurate information is "details [that are] irrelevant" to a video. You don't pick a title, and then research only information that justifies that title -- that's backwards, and just pushing your pre-conceived idea. (Indeed, that's literally what the word "prejudice" means.) Instead, you should research the subject, then decide what the story is that best presents what you've learnt, and then title the video.
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 76 | คู่เอก "ผึ้งหลวง vs สมิงดำ"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/9SBshmGQOIM/mqdefault.jpg)
Loving this new channel! Your editing is superb. Can only imagine how much time and effort goes into these
I like your content
Oh hey tug
Thanks very much! too much time if I'm honest haha
I didn’t know you watch these too! I guess that’s why you know the likes of the LNER so well. 🤷🏻♂️
@@OnlyTheRightTrack well don’t were your self out
Another less known fact if I’m correct, The Hush Hush’s corridor tender now is being used by LNER A4 Union of South Africa
Absolutely correct!
@@OnlyTheRightTrackoi mate wheres the tomy edward evolution vid
Well was… 60009 has recently been retired indefinitely…
Thats sad@@overpoweredsteamproduction513
Correct still is.
I remember seeing 60700 at Cambridge in 1950 and being stunned by the size of the cab!
What was 60700 doing in Cambridge, I hear you ask? An early morning stopping service from Kings Cross was used for running-in locos which otherwise exceeded the route availability. It came in at 8.30 a.m., and we would cycle down to the cattle market (long gone!) to spot the "ex" as we called it before hastily returning to the Perse School (then on the corner of Hills Road and Gonville Place).
It was a marine Yarrow water tube (not fire tube) boiler. There were several attempts pre-war at high pressure boilers. The LMS built Fury on a Royal Scot frame. It burst a tube, emptying the firebox and killed a crewman. (I remember seeing that loco rebuilt conventionally as British Legion while in Crewe paint shop in 1959).
There’s a lot to unpick here but the W1 was actually a very successful prototype, and needs to be seen in that context. The water tube boiler was an excellent piece of design and later setups with enlarged receivers and the double Kylchap made the locomotive more than an equal for the A3 Pacific. It never had “steaming issues”- I am not sure where you got that from. I would suggest having a look at William Brown’s book on the W1, costly but an excellent volume and well worth reading for a more accurate interpretation of the locomotives abilities.
I'll be sure to check out the book. The information was gathered from around the internet so it makes sense that some of it is a bit askew (as other sources of info about this locomotive are not very available) I do believe that i mentioned the boiler, but it is also true to say that it was costly and due to it's uniqueness, a drawback in terms of repairs, hence it's removal.
@@OnlyTheRightTrack it’s a good start but an internet search will only get you so far. The NRM has an entire file on the W1 which I found fascinating for my Gresley research towards my book on him. The W1 used to be a bit of a vague also ran in my thoughts but after thorough reading on it I believe it to be crucial to the development of Gresley’s high speed streamlined trains. In particular, the multi functional streamlined front end is a thing of beauty and a masterpiece in design.
@@Britishrailwaystories that is quite fascinating. do you know where I would be able to access such information?
@@OnlyTheRightTrack Britishrailwaystories mentioned a book -- go to your local library and ask them to get it on inter-library loan.
@@OnlyTheRightTrackThere are three good books to check out for more on no.10000. "The Gresley Legacy" by Martin Smith says much about the loco's performance, especially post-rebuilding. Charles Fryer's book "Experiments with Steam" talks more about the design of the streamlining and air passages; and Robert Tufnell's book "Prototype Locomotives" is much more technical and has a lot of figures for dbhp and efficiency and the modifications Gresley made to the high pressure cylinders and blastpioe.
I have read about the W1 'Hush-Hush' and while it's a unique design, it was over costly with the many problems it was facing. Guess a water-tube boiler isn't a good idea to put in a steam engine.
I have read in one picture note in the Flying Scotsman book by Andrew Roden that Gresley hoped it would supersede Flying Scotsman's speed record, but since its failure in performance, it prompted him to base the former's design to create the A4 Pacifics.
This is not correct. When built there was a critical subsystem that stymied the operation of the whole loco. The boiler and engine eventually met their design objectives but it took so long to diagnose that the A3 moved the goal posts on the design req before the A4 changed everybody’s thinking on what future high power steam looked like at the LNER and so gresley stopped development which is a shame as French engineer Chapelon showed that compound operation was the correct way to go for high power and high efficiency. The boiler outlasted the engine being used as a stationary boiler into the 60s with no major repair - so thing that traditional loco boilers couldn’t do. Try find a copy of William browns book on hush hush.
I had train only one
I see why Gordon would be offended when being called a galloping sausage
One thing that is not often considered with the rebuilt hush hush was that although yes the cab was larger than on an A4, that was actually quite disliked by crews!
Especially firemen.
That is because, on an A4, the cab was just the right length that the fireman could place himself in a spot where he could both reach the coal and yet be close enough to the fire door to shovel it in.
But because of the longer cab on the rebuild hush hush, they could no longer do that. And had to step back and forth between shoveling up the coal from the tender and swinging into the fire.
Hush Hush is probably my favourite of these odd experimental locomotives. It’s got a very nice and unusual appearance and had a lot of unique features. Just a shame it did take off properly. It’s nice that there’s surviving archive footage of Hush Hush and that its tender survives on 60009.
I love how your videos get straight into the point. Other youtubers would make an hour-long documentary about this train, but you managed to fit it all into a short but sweet 3 minutes and 20 seconds. Very nice, keep up the good work!
Unfortunately it’s so short that it misses most of the story and perpetuates historical errors. It’s a bit like getting the right answer without showing your working out and what working out you did show was poorly copied from glancing at someone else’s wrong homework. The only right answer in this video is that 10000 was not good enough (when it was being judged) and the A4 was better (than a properly sorted out 10000 which would have eclipsed the A4)
@@creamwobbly see my other comments in the thread about this video. If you’d like to learn more about hush hush, I’d be happy to have a conversation, but if you’re going to be jumping to disrespectful insults, then you can go have more sex with yourself. Take care.
HONEY THE RIGHT TRACKS UPLOADED AGAIN
Awesome video tons of Trackmasters
“Duck call me a Galloping Sausage!”😡 - Said Gordon
You might also have mentioned that the machinery was not conventional. The engine as built was a 4-cylinder compound, making it far more complicated than just a different type of boiler, and requiring a different driving technique. It was a case of too many new eggs in one basket. The rebuilding not only changed the boiler and the external appearance, it was converted to a conventional 3-cylinder layout as per Gresley's Pacifics.
Hush Hush’s original water tube boiler ended up being a stationary boiler at Faverdale Coach Works, Darlington.
A galloping sausage!
This video makes me wish their was a Hush Hush in preservation
I could honestly see it in the National Railway Museum’s great hall. Image what it would look like next to Mallard and Duchess of Hamilton…
A great pity it wasn't TOOS before the A4 modification, and preserved as a sole example of a very successful, genius engineer.
Another phenomenal video tons 🙌
thanks very much!
@@OnlyTheRightTrack idk HOW “video” auto corrected to “biodegradable” 🤣
1:04 This LNER Gresley W1 Express Steam Locomotive No.10000 Looks Amazing. Happy New Year Mate. X
you too! It is certainly a piece of engineering
It wasn't a train, it was an engine/locomotive.
But apart from that, great. 😊
Subbed.
Tell us more about the accident! Looks really interesting
Quite informative and well researched! (new subscriber, Virginia)
Thanks very much!
Great video had a great time watching thanks for your time and effort kn making this video thanks again
Truly the only "experimental" British steam locomotives that not only worked despite having all sorts of radical design departures but succeeded in every way was the late Oliver VS Bulleid's Merchant Navy Pacifics, his West Country Light Pacifics, and Battle of Britain Light Pacifics in their unrebuilt form. Yeah they had a few quirks but despite everything, they did their job and did it very well.
The editing is spot on, fantastic video!
Great video! Very well made. God bless you.
His name should have been Galloping Sausage.
Happy Birthday to my favourite youtuber! 🎉
Nice work. Although it was actually a 4-6-2-2 not a 4-6-4. The reason being that the trailing wheels were sprung independently from each other rather then sharing a bogie like the guiding wheels.
How does gresley go from designing locomotives like mallard and flying Scotsman to something like this?
If it had had an oil burner, it might have worked. Water tube boilers lack capacity; they're like modern domestic gas boiler systems which generally have no hot tank, hot water delivered "just in time". I think it caught firemen out, as much as anything.
Ha! Never knew it was a marine high-pressure boiler hack!
It depends what you mean by “Failed”. There have long been trials as development proceeds, sometimes with some publicity, sometimes not. Sometimes they acquire a bad press, but even then they will have led to results that could be interpreted appropriately as the market developed. This pattern of thought is applicable to all forms of traction as they develop over the years.
Technically I wouldn't call it a failure I would just call it not meeting the Expectations that were set. it did work so in a sense the experiment was successful but it just didn't produce the results they were hoping for. a successful failure you could say.
That Hush Hush Locomotive is a Chonker of the Railway
"Duck called me a Galloping Sausage!" Spluttered Gordon.
Not an enterprising engine gresley was expecting
haha that's a good one lol.
I've often wondered what would happen if the 'Hush-Hush' locomotive was given another chance at an upgrade that with the most improvements. And come to think of it, if it *could* be done, would it have made it into a W1X or a W2? I'll have to consult this with engineering experts, same for other locomotives.
From what I heard, the W1 prototype worked fine, just wasn't bringing enough performance to justify the costly modifications.
(Steamed poorly as per what was expected of it but apparently still worked as fine as the A1 Pacifics)
All correct, however after all, a key reason for it being built was to outperform the existing locomotives, aka, the aformentioned A1s
@@OnlyTheRightTrack initially, its purpose was not to outperform the a1 but to match them but with better economy. A serious problem with a sub system hampered initial operation and ate into testing time as it took a long time to diagnose. Meanwhile, the A3s came out so the goal posts moved for hush hush. It did eventually surpass these but the A4s came along at that is what the future looked like so no more dev on hush hush 😢. Such a shame, as Gresley’s initial ideas were right and proven completely by Chapelon later with his extraordinary 240P, 141P and 242A1 which was the best steam locomotive ever made.
Great video ! Loving your editing but I think it could be a bit slowed down (especially at the end where we have the channel overlay while you are still speaking, its a bit disturbing)
Awesome channel nevertheless (I hope you'll make longer videos on these subjects in the future, those are really interesting)
My favorite LNER Locomotive, besides the Decapod
Nice facts thanks tons 🎉
Hush hush is Britain’s PRR T1
It was a magnificent looking loco for it's time.
Well , time to write a fanfic where Aeg Thomas is an experimental engine
For the record, I actually tolerate All Engines Go , I wouldn't say I straight up love it , but for what it is, it's fine
An interesting and informative video about a locomotive I knew very little about and wanted to know more ever since I saw something about it in a model railway magazine...but by crikey, that was a quick commentary! If you could slow the narration down just a smidge it would make your uploads a lot more enjoyable!
In BR service, the longer frame was subject to cracking and its non-standard build was a reason for an early withdrawal.
I wonder why Gresley didn’t simply make either a proper 4-6-4 based on a A3 or A4. He should have kept the cab the same size but used a larger firebox. I mean, the A1 was inspired by the Pennsylvania Railroad K4s Pacific, so maybe he could have made an upgraded version based on a New York Central Hudson. I know that the 2-8-2s had problems derailing due to their long wheelbases, so a 4-8-2 probably would’ve had similar issues, but a conventional 4-6-4 could have been successful. Hudsons have more power at speed than a Pacific, so it could’ve been the perfect LNER passenger engine.
"I wonder why Gresley didn’t simply make either a proper 4-6-4 based on a A3 or A4."
You have it backwards. Nobody sets out to make a locomotive with a specific wheel arrangement. The wheel arrangement is governed by the characteristics of the locomotive and its intended use. The W1 was a 4-6-4 because it needed to be, to support the firebox that it needed. The A3s and A4s didn't need bigger fireboxes, so there was no reason to build a 4-6-4 version of them.
@@beeble2003Although actually the loco in both original and rebuilt forms wasn't a 4-6-4 but a 4-6-2-2 because the two trailing axles weren't in a single bogie. Not that anyone uses the 2-2 designation
@@beeble2003Not quite: the steam drum was required to be 30ft long and the frames of a standard 4-6-2 would have left no space on the footplate for the crew. So the additional pony truck became necessary with lengthened frames. The rearmost water drums dictated the length of the firebox.
@@polbecca OK, but still the point stands: it was a 4-6-4 because the hardware required was too big to fit on a 4-6-2, not because Sir Nigel woke up one morning and thought "I've never built a 4-6-4 before -- let's do it!"
Wow.
Great content mate! Just need to slow the pace down a bit. That's just my opinion.
But great work.
Thanks for the tip
YESSS!!! Another video ❤❤❤❤
Someone shloud build a replica of this engine! (even though it will use a regular working boiler, i want it to look like as it did in 1929)
I realise the boiler didn’t meet performance expectations but was it simpler (or trickier) to manufacture than a fire tube boiler?
I'm fairly sure it was not very easy to manufacture (as a completely new novel design) and maintaning it was not simple either I think as there was only one and it was, once again a unique design, hence that being, i assume, a key factor in it's replacement with a conventional one.
@@OnlyTheRightTrack
Yes, a one-off is always a nuisance to maintain but looking at the number of curved tubes, I’m guessing it was fundamentally more complicated to weld up and inspect than a conventional cylindrical boiler with ~50 straight tubes running through it? If so, more complicated, no real performance gains and compound cylinders to deal with.
Simpler fire box, I imagine tho.
If the experiment yielded information it was a success. The continuous modifications indicate the experimental nature of the engine.
This might sound dumb to ask, why did this engine got a steaming issues or lacking in power? I mean, that marine boiler can propelled the much larger ships through ocean just fine so how come it didn’t work? Shouldn’t more PSI means more power? I don’t know much about how steam boiler works so I’m kinda wondering.
I wish this engine was included into RWS. It can be made into character with similar character arc to Henry.
I'm not that much of a locomotive enthusiast to tell you why, but here is an exerpt from the LNER Encyclopedia: *"nevertheless steaming was relatively poor during test runs, and in spite of a number of modifications initially to the exhaust, boiler performance never reached the standards of an equivalent firetube boiler"*
The question is how much steam you can deliver at a particular pressure. If the boiler can't make enough steam, it's not going to work well. Note that Gresley didn't just take a boiler from a ship and put it on the locomotive. Rather, he designed a new boiler, using marine design principles -- specifically, it was a water-tube boiler, so it ran tubes of water through a barrel of hot gases, whereas locomotive boilers were normally a fire-tube design, with tubes of hot gases running through a barrel of water. The fact that water tube boilers were successfully used on ships doesn't guarantee that they'll work well in locomotives -- especially after being miniaturized for that application.
Marine boilers don't work for locomotives
Galloping Sausage!!
Prefer more stats. HP? Tractive effort? Comparison to standard models? Thx.
The shape reminds me of Spencer from Thomas the tank engine
Well, it’s all rather “Hush Hush”
Galloping Sausage
Theres a game on roblox called Blue Train with freinds they added this as a side mission Ive done it and tried to drive it it keeps derailing 👁👄👁
Galoping sausage
brainwave
Your tons of trackmasters, arent you?
sure am
I see at 1:15 that the route from London to Edinburgh is a direct straight line. The rest of this "presentation" is similarly dubious in content.
It feels as if the purpose [with overly rapid narration] is to ridicule Sir Nigel Gresley and the whole of the Doncaster engineering work's staff, or am I wrong?
10000 was a 4-6-2-2, not a 4-6-4.
After so long!
I have a Hardback DORLING KINDERSLEY DK EYEWITNESS GUIDES Book of TRAIN.
Discover the story of railways - from the days of steam to the high - speed, sophisticated trains of today.
In association with THE NATIONAL RAILWAY MUSEUM.
It’s not a train, it’s a Locomotive. A locomotive pulls and a train is pulled. This is not nit picking, it’s simply using the correct noun.
Very interesting and informative video but please slow down a bit.
Will do
It's a locomotive, not a train, as it says in the title!! Ever heard of Thomas the Tank Train? Thought not!
Had to switch this off. Pictures cut short, gabble gabble gabble. Fascinating subject ruined.
What a dreadful production covering a most interesting locomotive. Why you may ask do I consider this to be a dreadful production... Well it was covered far too fast, most of the pictures only appeared for a split second, so quick that it was impossible to see them clearly. Also the voiceover was a constant list of facts making it impossible to take them in properly. The video was only 3 minutes 20 seconds long whereas if it had been more professionally produced it could easily have been twice as long. Having said this I do appreciate the time taken to do the research for a production like this, spoilt in my opinion for the reasons I've already mentioned.
Very little actual analysis just pictures and effects.
Are you paid by the word? The more words you can cram into a minute, the more you make? Adios in less than two minutes. Bye!
You sound indian, are you?
Why condense sentences together so that it sounds as if you don't take a breath? This american style presentation spoils an otherwise excellent film!
As well as perpetuating false information, you have missed out significant pieces of the story of 10000. The loco was designed to be equivalent of the A1 and the object of the high pressure boiler was to exploit compound expansion (steam expanded twice) to give more efficient working. The engine was intended as a test bed so was closely looked after by the works who built it which is where it lived and why it is recorded as being there for so long. It had a fundamental problem with a sub system which took a long time to diagnose. This system was for reducing steam pressure for use on ancillaries. This failed to work properly leading to problems with the injectors which put water in the boiler. To safely operate, the crews had to run at reduced power and pressure which effected performance. Steaming was further compromised due to air leaking into the casing reducing the ability to pull air thru the fire for combustion, so as a work around, expansion in the cylinders was reduced so more draft could be created via the exhaust to pull more gas and air thru the boiler -> higher fuel consumption/ poor steaming. While this was getting identified and fixed, the performance targets moved to chase the A3 (higher power). It eventually met and surpassed this but then came the A4 and everything changed and time was called on it. There is so much more to this than I and certainly you have said. If interested, go read William Browns book on hush hush, it is very illuminating. When you have done that, remake your video as it is currently incomplete at best.
I did the nescessary research for the video and as it's a short youtube one, I missed out certain details. In the vid, I justified the title (what people wanted to learn about) rather than push information that, while still accurate, is irrelevant to the video. So whilst yes, it accomplished it's target in some ways, it was considered as a fail in the grand scheme of things, hence it's premature withdrawl and only 1 ever being built. It was a test that was not satisfactory enough to warrant looking into further albeit parts of it's design being utilised on later locomotives. Thanks for your comment as it is quite informative!
@@OnlyTheRightTrack hi, thanks for your message. Accuracy matters and I’m afraid that what research you did was not very thorough as you repeat rather tired and wrong points concerning this engine. You were correct that no further hush hushes were built but neglected to mention that the engine did actually meet and surpass its design objectives and also how the exact principles which were behind hush hush were comprehensively showed to produce the highest power to weight ratio and highest efficiency in the world by Chapelon in France. The relevance of this is Gresley consulted with Chapelon on hush hush and without that relationship may not have fitted the kychap exhaust that made the A4 Mallard be able to do its 126mph party trick! You obviously have a flair for gfx and editing and come across very passionately but it is an important and hard skill to master to be able to understand a subject fully and succinctly summarise it which I’m sure you will keep getting better at in the future. Maybe one day you will revisit hush hush and really do it justice. Take care.
I think what Only the Right Track means is "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing" Have to agree!
@@OnlyTheRightTrack Sorry but I completely disagree that accurate information is "details [that are] irrelevant" to a video. You don't pick a title, and then research only information that justifies that title -- that's backwards, and just pushing your pre-conceived idea. (Indeed, that's literally what the word "prejudice" means.) Instead, you should research the subject, then decide what the story is that best presents what you've learnt, and then title the video.
If this comment is a reply to my previous one, I think you have got the wrong end of the stick, as I agree with you what you are saying!