To be honest, I saw the AA20 coming a long way away, before I even started the video, but I didn't expect it to make it to the top of the list. That's pretty neat, and it kinda makes me glad there isn't anything even more outlandish in terms of size than the AA20, as far as rigid frames are concerned.
There is actually a 5 inch gauge (1 inch scale) model of the J getting around in Australia, and even in scale it is massive and heavy, a right pain to work on and move around
If you make another of these, I highly suggest number 501 and 502 of the Uintah Valley Railway. Two massive 2-6-6-2 articulated steam engines... on 3 ft narrow gauge
Java of course had 2-6-6-0 and 2-6-6-2 tender locos 2-12-2T, SAR had 2-10-4's and of course meter and Cape gauges had plenty of articulated garratts including worlds largest 4-8-2-2-8-4's. Brazil runs B-B+B-B SD40's on metre gauge as well
11:19, the 9000's were unconventional but successful, the prototype (9000, preserved at the rail giants museum in LA) was actually better at taking curves than people give it credit for, it was tested over sherman hill in 1926 and performed just fine, 9000's continued to run over sherman hill on occasion for the rest of their careers, and 9000 ran under her own steam to come to California were she is today, over cajon pass, again without issue, they were originally delivered with the #3 and #4 driving axels blind, but ALCO's lateral motion devices meant that blind drivers were completely unnecessary for the 9000's, just some fun facts.
People also fail to realize that they removed the third cylinders from the 9000s once they saw how much of a nightmare they were for maintenance. Which solved the biggest issue and continued to run just fine and even introduced roller bearings to make it ride even better and last longer.
For a purely dedicated passenger locomotive, that is still impressive. It had the highest tractive effort of any dedicated passenger steam locomotive built at the time at over 76,000 lbs., and generated over 7,000 Horsepower. Given that Berkshires in the US were primarily heavy freight engines (though they could get up to a good clip of speed), it's actually a rather favorable comparison, given that a dedicated passenger locomotive with much larger drivers (larger drivers reduce effective tractive effort) can pull as much as a heavy freight locomotive can, and generate enough power to get up to over 100 MPH on the regular (most Berkshires topped out at around 80). Could it have pulled more? Possibly, with some design revisions. As it was, however, the S1 is still the most powerful dedicated passenger steam locomotive built.
At 5:40 I've got a question for you Ole Kemosabi...was the Locomotive heavy or heavy, heavy , heavy or just really, really, really, really heavy?? Just wondering 🤔 💭 😕
Interesting the inclusion of Pearsons Dream, AKA E66 from the NZR. I think you have already had several comments around the history of this engine, so no point in reiterating their points. But NZGR did buy engines that were simply too big for the rolling stock they had at the time about 10-12 years after the demise of Pearsons Dream. The 3 Garratt "G" class engines were too big. They broke the rather weak couplings with ease, and they tended to break themselves quite easily too. Mechanical stokers and soft coal didn't seem a good combination as well as the 3 cylinder Gresley gear they were fitted with (the three cylinder configuration was not encouraged by the manufacturer). Eventually they were converted to 6 pacific arrangement locos but still with the gresley gear that caused all sorts of issues
I don’t know if the B&O class N-1 was too big, but it may have been too weird. Better to just make an ordinary 4-8-4; that was a popular wheel arrangement, and pretty successful, too. A lot of (U.S.) preserved steam is of this wheel arrangement; N&W Class-J #611, U.P. FEF-3, AT&SF #3751, Espee’s GS-4, need I go on?
The worlds most efficient and highest horsepower for loco weight was of course the incomparable chapelon 2-d-2. Such a ground breaker and such a shame only one was made, but the SNCF did make the right move with electrification. Also even little NZ has 4 4-8-4's preserved
Not all monsters of a tank engines are bad. The F10 2-12-2T Javanic locos from Indonesia were a massive lot. They had 6 driving axles (12 driving wheels) in which had some of the wheels flangeless. They were designated to run on heavy goods through the steep Parahyangan mountains, to replace the Mallets which are very hard to maintain. Maintenance on the F10s were much more easier however, but was found to have problems on the curvey-tracks of the mountain lines. They were soon relocated to the grounds (also on heavy goods) and was found to be a massive success. 2 are currently preserved.
Victorian Railways H Class, H220(Heavy Harry) that was a 4-8-4 that was to heavy for the bridges on her designated routes. And then came dieselisation and and that was that...
The NZR E class (a.k.a E 66) had tiny driving wheels because they were reused from withdrawn F class 0-6-0 saddle tanks. I also got the impression that the section on E 66 wasn't well researched. Allow me to add further context. She was built to help the H class 0-4-2 Fell locomotives on the Rimutaka Incline, a 3 mile section of 1 in 15 track across the Rimutaka Ranges between the Hutt Valley and Wairarapa regions. At the time, the workload was reaching the H class' limit, so they needed a big engine to assist. The incline was notable for its use of the Fell centre rail, specialist locomotives and brakevans. The trouble with E 66, at least from the crew's perspective, was the excessive heat in the cab due to the firebox not having a brick arch or backplate. E 66 was unusual because she was New Zealand's only eight-cylinder steam locomotive, as she reused Vauclain Compound cylinders that were meant to be used on N class 2-6-2s, but that project was cancelled after N 27 - the prototype conversion - proved unsuccessful. She didn't last long on the Rimutaka Incline, and was transferred to Wellington around 1912, where she was used as a banker for trains going up the mainline via Johnsonville. She was poorly suited to this job because it involved much higher speeds than what she was designed for, and by 1917 she had been withdrawn from service.
So, it Wasn't nessacarly "to big" but for what they were worth, the PRR-G5s were absolute chonkers. They are also of course the largest (mass-produced) ten-wheelers ever built. On top of that, they were absolutely beautiful.
Might I suggest adding Richard Trevithick's Coalbrookdale locomotive. OK sure it was an 0-4-0 narrow gauge locomotive so small the fireman had to stand on the tender. However it was also the largest locomotive in the world at the time (being that it was the ONLY locomotive in the world at the time). It demonstrated the potential of steam locomotives to surpass horse drawn tramways. Unfortunately it also demonstrated the ability of steam locomotives to hammer the cast iron rail of the day into tiny bits of scrap metal. It had to be retired to become a stationary boiler for the coal mine due to the rail smashing tendencies.
Nz e class Ah yes i rember learning something about this the other day, It was odd to see such an engine for my country but also it makes sense listening to this video that gose alot more into my 1 minute search lol I still think it looks cool
See also The Glasgow and South Western Railway 540 Class 4-6-4T "Baltic" tank engines. Actually those were a lot more successful than any engines on this list, but they only lasted 15 years in service, being scrapped by the LMS in 1935-1937.
Yes, but there were only 6 of them and the LMS disliked small non-standard classes; the London Tilbury and Southend Railway 4-6-4T's (8 built), Furness Railway 4-6-4T's (5 built) and Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway 4-6-4T's (10 built) were all scrapped as well, essentially when they required replacement of major components or ran out of spare boilers.
Hey History In The Dark, did you know that one time a train hit a Ferrari? Well if you haven’t I suppose you should make a video about it because when I first heard about it, I was confused on what Ferrari it was after the hit and what locomotive that hit the Ferrari, also it’s been 7 months, 7 MONTHS SINCE YOU MADE A TRANS VS. VIDEO. But anyway That was my video request I hope you’ll make a video of it
The New Zealand E Class was actually a success. NZ track gauge is only 1 metre (3' 3") and providing high powered locos is a problem. The E Class were superseded by 2-4-4-2 Fairley engines and 2-6-6-2 Garratts. The problem wasn't duplex or the size. The problem was that they weren't perfect and something better became available.
Hi there, one off steam locomotives are a major, I mean MAJOR headache to maintain, with the latter whoever designed her had certainly biten off more that they could 'chew-chew', an ultimate senario where theory and application just dosen't jive
The TGR J Class; yes it was too heavy but saying "it destroyed every line it ran on" is incorrect - it only ran on ONE line, the North East Dundas Tramway which although it was part of the Tasmanian Government Railways network it was 1. on the west coast of Tasmania and completely separate from the rest of the TGR and 2. was 2-foot gauge whilst the TGR was 3 feet six inches ('cape gauge').
A bit odd to include the NZR E class which was just a single experimental locomotive. Its problem was not that it was too big, but that it didn't produce power and efficiency comparable with its size, plus the unusual firebox referred to. It was built for the very steep Rimutaka incline (1 in 13, worked on the Fell system) where more power was definitely needed. It was a Mallet compound and this type of engine worked elsewhere with success (in fact the US Big Boy was a Mallet).
Big boy was of course an articulated, not a mallet but that's irrelevant. E66 wasn't experimental, it was a class unto itself, just a single example. Remember the first Q class was 2 locomotives, Bc was one, Wj was one etc, we're talking NZ. The only thing experimental was the Vanderbilt suspension furnace, and it was a fair swag more powerful than the purpose built H. Btw, the incline was 1:15 with a touch of 1:14 near Siberia. Like all the trials on the incline they all hauled more than the fell H, just were maintenance heavy and less economical.
How about wrecked locomotives from movies? Before models and CGI, how many real locomotives were wrecked, and did any end up underwater? Buster Keaton's 'The General' for example.
I know they're not as Chunkus as some of your Seppo steamers & a others around the world, but kinda surprised you missed the NSWGR D57 & D58 class locos due to their limited service thanks to their axel loading. I believe Vic Rail also had similar troubles with their largest- class H of 1877 Perhaps there's room for a Too Ker-Chunkus Part2 they might fit into... ;) Thanks for sharing again! en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victorian_Railways_H_class en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_South_Wales_D57_class_locomotive
2 insteresting facts about duplexs and the whole idea. For one, no duplex had flangless wheels. I remember talking to a british train railfan who had worked on steam engines all his life and he told me he heard of our big single weld bois and said they would have worked if we would have made a driver or 2 drivers flangless like they did on there engines. Which shockingly enough a lot of british engines have one or 2 divers that are flangless but could rip the track up as speed demons. the 2nd fact i found out and couldn't help but laugh to death, the C&O had barrowed 2 T1s and used them on fast freight and passengers and fucking fell in love with the concept and said they never wheelslipped when they were being used. Which made the penny boys shocked and upset because as this is pretty much C&O saying "Your boys can't drive for shit." XD
Flangeless drivers are called blind drivers, and a lot of U.S. steam locomotives have them as well. If the locomotive has a long wheel base, a lot of times, especially on railroads with a lot of curves, and narrow gauge railroads, the first and last set of drivers have the flange while drivers between them do not. What blind drivers do is allow the locomotive to negotiate tighter curves than if all wheels have flanges, blind drivers are also thicker than the flanged wheels to allow them to slide back and forth over the rails on curves but not fall off the rails.
I remember reading that the wheel slippage on the T-1's was due to Pennsy engineers being used to driving the K-4 which, at the time, was horribly underpowered for the train length and equipment size being used. Earlier in the K-4's life there were no problems but as time went on they were needed to pull trains that far exceeded what they were designed to, hence the crews manhandling then into working. The T-1 outpaced them so much the crews were not used to the amount of power they had and just treated them like K-4's thus the wheel slip issues reported.
@@Skyfire_The_Goth did not know all that until recently this year (thanks to finding hyce channel) and learning that. my question is this tho, why they didn't do that to the penny big bois and girls as that would have really really helped them out! I believe if they do that with the 5550. it would help her a lot more then normal!!
@@octopus1066 Because the big locomotives of any railroad were built for flat our freight hauling speed so they were used mostly on flat as possible and straight as possible rails.
The big boy was also too big if you talk about just the dimensions, but it seems that BB had less curved track environment to maneuver himself. (Also BB was articulated) Therefore BB was not on the list while S1 is.
My imaginary world built a 10-28-0, 6 of the guiding wheels on the ponytruck and 16 of the driving wheels are blind in order to help this monster turn!
Literally the engines MASSIVE whistle: CHOO CHOO, I'M GONNA BREAK YOUR WINDOWS!!! *All the engine does is pass by and it makes the whole house shake like it were in an earthquake*
If anyone wants to see the AA12 actually underway, heres some footage, assuming youtube doesn't stab me for using a link, that is. Lacks sound though th-cam.com/video/6l68GhXchZw/w-d-xo.html&t Footage of the engine itself begins at around 38 seconds, moving begins around 1 minute 31 seconds, with some good one around 2 minutes in
Like the German officer who asked an American commander to explain 'nuts', I don't understand modern American slang. What on earth is a chungus? (Don't bother, if rude). The NZR loco with Hagen valve gear is interesting - the Saxony State narrow gauge railways had a number of engines similar to this - the idea with it was to allow a long, rigid wheelbase engine with many wheels to 'sort of' articulate or flex so as to round curves. Yes, it did work, but, yes, it was also incredibly complicated. Fortunately someone discovered easier and better ways of achieving the same objective.
PS - the other New Zealand 'big tank', the 2-6-6-2 - was that actually an articulated locomotive? I think that type of locomotive was known as a 'Kitson-Meyer' (It doesn't get mentioned in David Joy's book "Engines That Bend", though others do.) and, as regards this example, was clearly a Vauclain Compound. The Saxon engines I referred to above had Klose valve gear. It seemed to suit Bosnia, where some worked until recently, but wasn't too successful in Saxony. There was also another variety of 'Duplex' - something akin to a Meyer, produced for logging railroads in America, by a firm named Vulcan. I have a feeling not many were built. (Apologies for any errors, I'm working from memory.) Give me a good Beyer Garratt any day........
The Hagen's Patent J class locomotive at 5:11 is from the Tasmanian Government Railways of Australia and not the NZR New Zealand Railways. Different country about 1000 km to the west. Not sure what causes the confusion of Tasmania and New Zealand that I have seen before.
This guy mr.darkness is the s... You lurning about train's fun an interesting an he's got my 4 year old running around the house talking about feed me coal an give me that steam engine an my name is big chungus.... Great video 👍👍👍👍
People only familiar with small tanks engines might be surprised how long lived and successful some large tank engines were. Such as the Indonesian Javanic 2-12-2T tank engines and Mallet Tank engines. Long lived enough for colour film : th-cam.com/video/NAYSwWEvyHg/w-d-xo.html I think the first 2-12--2 built so gave the wheel arrangement the name Javanic from Java.
Duplex locomotives aren't articulated, that's part of the definition. If you built an articulated version you'd have a Mallet (though they're normally compound) or possibly a Meyer or Kitson-Meyer.
This guy is the only person who makes big chungus funny in 2022-2023
He is not
Believe me
Big chungus 🐰🐰🐰🐰🐰🐰🐰🐰🐰🐰🐰🐰🐰🐰🐰🐰🐰
He's a big chunky boy
@@HotBitchInAnUglyBody big chungus
He really doesn’t
"I understand that, but you gotta understand THIS. We're not gonna fit. Too much train"
-Frank Barnes, Unstoppable
" That sidings a good few feet end to end' - will Colson
Amusingly, “N-1” was also the designation of the too-large Soviet Moon-Rocket.
*Correction: Firework rocket
@@F4wk3s Wellllll . . . that depends on whether you consider what it was designed for, versus what id did.
To be honest, I saw the AA20 coming a long way away, before I even started the video, but I didn't expect it to make it to the top of the list. That's pretty neat, and it kinda makes me glad there isn't anything even more outlandish in terms of size than the AA20, as far as rigid frames are concerned.
Yeah. I saw the title card and immediately thought, "The AA20 will be #1."
I swear I read somewhere that despite the AA-20s size, it’s tractive effort was equivalent to a 2-8-4 Berkshire.
There is actually a 5 inch gauge (1 inch scale) model of the J getting around in Australia, and even in scale it is massive and heavy, a right pain to work on and move around
Need to show its image mate
If you make another of these, I highly suggest number 501 and 502 of the Uintah Valley Railway. Two massive 2-6-6-2 articulated steam engines... on 3 ft narrow gauge
*_OH DEAR LORD_*
@@Xalerdane They were thicc
Java of course had 2-6-6-0 and 2-6-6-2 tender locos 2-12-2T, SAR had 2-10-4's and of course meter and Cape gauges had plenty of articulated garratts including worlds largest 4-8-2-2-8-4's. Brazil runs B-B+B-B SD40's on metre gauge as well
In Belgium we had two massive 0-10-0 tank engines, type 98 of the national railway company sncb/nmbs.. and 501 of Nord-Belge.
there were also some 2-12-4t's in Bulgaria
11:19, the 9000's were unconventional but successful, the prototype (9000, preserved at the rail giants museum in LA) was actually better at taking curves than people give it credit for, it was tested over sherman hill in 1926 and performed just fine, 9000's continued to run over sherman hill on occasion for the rest of their careers, and 9000 ran under her own steam to come to California were she is today, over cajon pass, again without issue, they were originally delivered with the #3 and #4 driving axels blind, but ALCO's lateral motion devices meant that blind drivers were completely unnecessary for the 9000's, just some fun facts.
People also fail to realize that they removed the third cylinders from the 9000s once they saw how much of a nightmare they were for maintenance. Which solved the biggest issue and continued to run just fine and even introduced roller bearings to make it ride even better and last longer.
*"BIG CHUNGUS"*
Unlimited power for the S1? Last time I checked, there's a meme about the thing having the power of a Berkshire.
For a purely dedicated passenger locomotive, that is still impressive. It had the highest tractive effort of any dedicated passenger steam locomotive built at the time at over 76,000 lbs., and generated over 7,000 Horsepower. Given that Berkshires in the US were primarily heavy freight engines (though they could get up to a good clip of speed), it's actually a rather favorable comparison, given that a dedicated passenger locomotive with much larger drivers (larger drivers reduce effective tractive effort) can pull as much as a heavy freight locomotive can, and generate enough power to get up to over 100 MPH on the regular (most Berkshires topped out at around 80).
Could it have pulled more? Possibly, with some design revisions. As it was, however, the S1 is still the most powerful dedicated passenger steam locomotive built.
At 5:40 I've got a question for you Ole Kemosabi...was the Locomotive heavy or heavy, heavy , heavy or just really, really, really, really heavy?? Just wondering 🤔 💭 😕
Darkness: there's only so much big you can make a tank engine
Bulgarian State Class 46: Did someone hear a thing? Cause i didn't
Indonesian long lived Javanic 2-12--2T tank engines too :
th-cam.com/video/NAYSwWEvyHg/w-d-xo.html
Interesting the inclusion of Pearsons Dream, AKA E66 from the NZR. I think you have already had several comments around the history of this engine, so no point in reiterating their points.
But NZGR did buy engines that were simply too big for the rolling stock they had at the time about 10-12 years after the demise of Pearsons Dream. The 3 Garratt "G" class engines were too big. They broke the rather weak couplings with ease, and they tended to break themselves quite easily too. Mechanical stokers and soft coal didn't seem a good combination as well as the 3 cylinder Gresley gear they were fitted with (the three cylinder configuration was not encouraged by the manufacturer). Eventually they were converted to 6 pacific arrangement locos but still with the gresley gear that caused all sorts of issues
I don’t know if the B&O class N-1 was too big, but it may have been too weird. Better to just make an ordinary 4-8-4; that was a popular wheel arrangement, and pretty successful, too. A lot of (U.S.) preserved steam is of this wheel arrangement; N&W Class-J #611, U.P. FEF-3, AT&SF #3751, Espee’s GS-4, need I go on?
The worlds most efficient and highest horsepower for loco weight was of course the incomparable chapelon 2-d-2. Such a ground breaker and such a shame only one was made, but the SNCF did make the right move with electrification.
Also even little NZ has 4 4-8-4's preserved
E class: dude why am i here?
CC50: idk how I DIDNT fit in.
Not all monsters of a tank engines are bad. The F10 2-12-2T Javanic locos from Indonesia were a massive lot. They had 6 driving axles (12 driving wheels) in which had some of the wheels flangeless.
They were designated to run on heavy goods through the steep Parahyangan mountains, to replace the Mallets which are very hard to maintain. Maintenance on the F10s were much more easier however, but was found to have problems on the curvey-tracks of the mountain lines. They were soon relocated to the grounds (also on heavy goods) and was found to be a massive success.
2 are currently preserved.
If i had teachers like the guy i would still be in school right now..👍👍👍
Victorian Railways H Class, H220(Heavy Harry) that was a 4-8-4 that was to heavy for the bridges on her designated routes. And then came dieselisation and and that was that...
The NZR E class (a.k.a E 66) had tiny driving wheels because they were reused from withdrawn F class 0-6-0 saddle tanks. I also got the impression that the section on E 66 wasn't well researched. Allow me to add further context.
She was built to help the H class 0-4-2 Fell locomotives on the Rimutaka Incline, a 3 mile section of 1 in 15 track across the Rimutaka Ranges between the Hutt Valley and Wairarapa regions. At the time, the workload was reaching the H class' limit, so they needed a big engine to assist. The incline was notable for its use of the Fell centre rail, specialist locomotives and brakevans.
The trouble with E 66, at least from the crew's perspective, was the excessive heat in the cab due to the firebox not having a brick arch or backplate. E 66 was unusual because she was New Zealand's only eight-cylinder steam locomotive, as she reused Vauclain Compound cylinders that were meant to be used on N class 2-6-2s, but that project was cancelled after N 27 - the prototype conversion - proved unsuccessful.
She didn't last long on the Rimutaka Incline, and was transferred to Wellington around 1912, where she was used as a banker for trains going up the mainline via Johnsonville. She was poorly suited to this job because it involved much higher speeds than what she was designed for, and by 1917 she had been withdrawn from service.
The NZR E class was not only a duplex, its cylinders were Vauclain compounds.
6:21 "Once again I invite you to bear witness to this UNYIELDING POWER!"
The red s1 scared me
I can’t believe it! A list of five locomotives that didn’t work, and NONE of them had ANYTHING to do with British Rail!
9:20
Shrek: Do you think maybe Stalin's compensating for something?
As a Pennsylvania Railroad Fan, the S1 may not have good performance, but has good aesthetic
So, it Wasn't nessacarly "to big" but for what they were worth, the PRR-G5s were absolute chonkers. They are also of course the largest (mass-produced) ten-wheelers ever built. On top of that, they were absolutely beautiful.
Might I suggest adding Richard Trevithick's Coalbrookdale locomotive. OK sure it was an 0-4-0 narrow gauge locomotive so small the fireman had to stand on the tender. However it was also the largest locomotive in the world at the time (being that it was the ONLY locomotive in the world at the time). It demonstrated the potential of steam locomotives to surpass horse drawn tramways. Unfortunately it also demonstrated the ability of steam locomotives to hammer the cast iron rail of the day into tiny bits of scrap metal. It had to be retired to become a stationary boiler for the coal mine due to the rail smashing tendencies.
So it would have been, the largest, smallest, heaviest, longest, shortest, most powerful, least powerful, tallest and shortest all at once
A 4-14-4 locomotive. That's insane!
Something I never noticed before about the S1 is the unique front-end throttle linkage. Look at that angle! How weird!
The PRR 6100 kinda reminds me of Thanos: it prefers ballance, as half of her overall weight was on her driving wheels, and the rest was on her bogies.
Fun fact: The 5600 looks was actually inspired by GWR’s king George after it visited America for fair of the iron horse
Nz e class
Ah yes i rember learning something about this the other day,
It was odd to see such an engine for my country but also it makes sense listening to this video that gose alot more into my 1 minute search lol
I still think it looks cool
How did DD52 from PNKA didnt get in?
With a wheel arrangement of 4-14-4 I'm willing to bet the AA20 had trouble turning on a table.
See also The Glasgow and South Western Railway 540 Class 4-6-4T "Baltic" tank engines. Actually those were a lot more successful than any engines on this list, but they only lasted 15 years in service, being scrapped by the LMS in 1935-1937.
Yes, but there were only 6 of them and the LMS disliked small non-standard classes; the London Tilbury and Southend Railway 4-6-4T's (8 built), Furness Railway 4-6-4T's (5 built) and Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway 4-6-4T's (10 built) were all scrapped as well, essentially when they required replacement of major components or ran out of spare boilers.
6:23 POWAHH
Idea: A game in which you can design trains like these.
British Rail: 📒 🖋 🔥
Hey History In The Dark, did you know that one time a train hit a Ferrari? Well if you haven’t I suppose you should make a video about it because when I first heard about it, I was confused on what Ferrari it was after the hit and what locomotive that hit the Ferrari, also it’s been 7 months, 7 MONTHS SINCE YOU MADE A TRANS VS. VIDEO. But anyway That was my video request I hope you’ll make a video of it
PRR S1: fee to do fun mutton ticket
Up 4014: hello my name is casoh
Interesting rumor about the j class, apparently the locos frame still exists at the former location of the Zeehan rail yard
The New Zealand E Class was actually a success. NZ track gauge is only 1 metre (3' 3") and providing high powered locos is a problem. The E Class were superseded by 2-4-4-2 Fairley engines and 2-6-6-2 Garratts. The problem wasn't duplex or the size. The problem was that they weren't perfect and something better became available.
NZ Gauge was and is ! 3ft6in...So called Cape Gauge...NOT Metric! ( Actually 1.067 Metre!).
Get your facts straight.!!!
@@astridvallati4762 So does that change the essential point that I made?
...is that some Advance Wars music behind #1?
Hi there, one off steam locomotives are a major, I mean MAJOR headache to maintain, with the latter whoever designed her had certainly biten off more that they could 'chew-chew', an ultimate senario where theory and application just dosen't jive
New Zealand Railways made very good locos. E66 was one of the few that weren’t good.
... It would appear i need to find an O scale of the AA 20. Hopefully it doesn't bend my tracks apart.
The TGR J Class; yes it was too heavy but saying "it destroyed every line it ran on" is incorrect - it only ran on ONE line, the North East Dundas Tramway which although it was part of the Tasmanian Government Railways network it was 1. on the west coast of Tasmania and completely separate from the rest of the TGR and 2. was 2-foot gauge whilst the TGR was 3 feet six inches ('cape gauge').
"No one understands our case, you don't know how we suffer" moaned the engines. "Rubbish!" snapped Darkness "You're too fat! You need exercise!"
A bit odd to include the NZR E class which was just a single experimental locomotive. Its problem was not that it was too big, but that it didn't produce power and efficiency comparable with its size, plus the unusual firebox referred to. It was built for the very steep Rimutaka incline (1 in 13, worked on the Fell system) where more power was definitely needed. It was a Mallet compound and this type of engine worked elsewhere with success (in fact the US Big Boy was a Mallet).
Big boy was of course an articulated, not a mallet but that's irrelevant.
E66 wasn't experimental, it was a class unto itself, just a single example. Remember the first Q class was 2 locomotives, Bc was one, Wj was one etc, we're talking NZ. The only thing experimental was the Vanderbilt suspension furnace, and it was a fair swag more powerful than the purpose built H. Btw, the incline was 1:15 with a touch of 1:14 near Siberia. Like all the trials on the incline they all hauled more than the fell H, just were maintenance heavy and less economical.
In Thailand
JNR C58s (2-6-2) was too big for us so their duty is shunting lol
On the weekend, I had people over to my place and I said "i am your hoOoOoOoOST..." and one person said "you sound like that guy darkness the curse.
How about wrecked locomotives from movies? Before models and CGI, how many real locomotives were wrecked, and did any end up underwater? Buster Keaton's 'The General' for example.
I know they're not as Chunkus as some of your Seppo steamers & a others around the world, but kinda surprised you missed the NSWGR D57 & D58 class locos due to their limited service thanks to their axel loading.
I believe Vic Rail also had similar troubles with their largest- class H of 1877
Perhaps there's room for a Too Ker-Chunkus Part2 they might fit into... ;)
Thanks for sharing again!
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victorian_Railways_H_class
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_South_Wales_D57_class_locomotive
2 insteresting facts about duplexs and the whole idea.
For one, no duplex had flangless wheels. I remember talking to a british train railfan who had worked on steam engines all his life and he told me he heard of our big single weld bois and said they would have worked if we would have made a driver or 2 drivers flangless like they did on there engines. Which shockingly enough a lot of british engines have one or 2 divers that are flangless but could rip the track up as speed demons.
the 2nd fact i found out and couldn't help but laugh to death, the C&O had barrowed 2 T1s and used them on fast freight and passengers and fucking fell in love with the concept and said they never wheelslipped when they were being used. Which made the penny boys shocked and upset because as this is pretty much C&O saying "Your boys can't drive for shit." XD
Flangeless drivers are called blind drivers, and a lot of U.S. steam locomotives have them as well. If the locomotive has a long wheel base, a lot of times, especially on railroads with a lot of curves, and narrow gauge railroads, the first and last set of drivers have the flange while drivers between them do not. What blind drivers do is allow the locomotive to negotiate tighter curves than if all wheels have flanges, blind drivers are also thicker than the flanged wheels to allow them to slide back and forth over the rails on curves but not fall off the rails.
I remember reading that the wheel slippage on the T-1's was due to Pennsy engineers being used to driving the K-4 which, at the time, was horribly underpowered for the train length and equipment size being used. Earlier in the K-4's life there were no problems but as time went on they were needed to pull trains that far exceeded what they were designed to, hence the crews manhandling then into working. The T-1 outpaced them so much the crews were not used to the amount of power they had and just treated them like K-4's thus the wheel slip issues reported.
@@Skyfire_The_Goth did not know all that until recently this year (thanks to finding hyce channel) and learning that. my question is this tho, why they didn't do that to the penny big bois and girls as that would have really really helped them out! I believe if they do that with the 5550. it would help her a lot more then normal!!
@@octopus1066 Because the big locomotives of any railroad were built for flat our freight hauling speed so they were used mostly on flat as possible and straight as possible rails.
Does anybody know what the longest steam locomotive ever made is?
Dutch East Indies state railways once designed a 2-12-2T locomotive thinking it can go through mountainous curves.
6:22-6:26 MY FAVORITE PART 😍 🤩
Do you know what he said cause I couldn’t understand
11:16, Haha, engineered. That's a good pun.
The big boy was also too big if you talk about just the dimensions, but it seems that BB had less curved track environment to maneuver himself. (Also BB was articulated) Therefore BB was not on the list while S1 is.
The N1 was certainly a pretty machine.
I don’t know why I was expecting to see the triplex steam engine
What went through the creators mind during the production of these engines- *bigger is better*
The S-1 is THICCCCCC
The AA20 The Rail Straightener
Railroad help I’m dummy thick and the clap of my frames keeps destroying the rails
aa-20, every american diesel turbine (engine+booster+aux somehow), triplex, 2-10-10-2, prr s-1
the pennsylvania railroad class s1 looks like a breitspurbahn
I can't imagine what would happen if the AA-20 was preserved
They’d put it on static display-no way they’re running it.
maybe we can get the LNER class U1 on a future list
Name every railway that has a “a” class. then I’m done with railroads I swear- (joke but still name one)
Goofy ahh locomotive, on the first one is a perfect example of Ohio
My imaginary world built a 10-28-0, 6 of the guiding wheels on the ponytruck and 16 of the driving wheels are blind in order to help this monster turn!
Literally the engines MASSIVE whistle: CHOO CHOO, I'M GONNA BREAK YOUR WINDOWS!!!
*All the engine does is pass by and it makes the whole house shake like it were in an earthquake*
If anyone wants to see the AA12 actually underway, heres some footage, assuming youtube doesn't stab me for using a link, that is. Lacks sound though
th-cam.com/video/6l68GhXchZw/w-d-xo.html&t
Footage of the engine itself begins at around 38 seconds, moving begins around 1 minute 31 seconds, with some good one around 2 minutes in
The Soviet union has made many other things that really only made records
The S-1, talk about steampunk styling! 😍🥰😎
I do have a soft for the girl, but....I prefer the Q2!
You know I usually nickname the big boy big chungus for funny stuff but OK then
10 SECONDS IS ALL I CULD STAND.
I think It would be better if you said “Why this content remains!!!!, Too big for it’s own good” but that’s just me.
Imagine a large steam train called bigius chungusius who’s weight is 69x10^420^1738+69420
U N Y E I L D I N G
P O W E R !!!!!!!
This video is fucking great
The J class could have been improved by removing the tank and adding a water tender.
Like the German officer who asked an American commander to explain 'nuts', I don't understand modern American slang. What on earth is a chungus? (Don't bother, if rude). The NZR loco with Hagen valve gear is interesting - the Saxony State narrow gauge railways had a number of engines similar to this - the idea with it was to allow a long, rigid wheelbase engine with many wheels to 'sort of' articulate or flex so as to round curves. Yes, it did work, but, yes, it was also incredibly complicated. Fortunately someone discovered easier and better ways of achieving the same objective.
PS - the other New Zealand 'big tank', the 2-6-6-2 - was that actually an articulated locomotive? I think that type of locomotive was known as a 'Kitson-Meyer' (It doesn't get mentioned in David Joy's book "Engines That Bend", though others do.) and, as regards this example, was clearly a Vauclain Compound. The Saxon engines I referred to above had Klose valve gear. It seemed to suit Bosnia, where some worked until recently, but wasn't too successful in Saxony. There was also another variety of 'Duplex' - something akin to a Meyer, produced for logging railroads in America, by a firm named Vulcan. I have a feeling not many were built. (Apologies for any errors, I'm working from memory.) Give me a good Beyer Garratt any day........
The Hagen's Patent J class locomotive at 5:11 is from the Tasmanian Government Railways of Australia and not the NZR New Zealand Railways.
Different country about 1000 km to the west. Not sure what causes the confusion of Tasmania and New Zealand that I have seen before.
@@johnd8892 1000 km? Over 1500 km between Tasmania and New Zealand's South Island.
The NZR loco had Vauclain compound cylinders. Hagen's Patent was in Tasmania.
the AA20 has to be the biggggggest chungus out there
That's what she said. -----Giggity.
This guy mr.darkness is the s... You lurning about train's fun an interesting an he's got my 4 year old running around the house talking about feed me coal an give me that steam engine an my name is big chungus.... Great video 👍👍👍👍
The thumbnail should have said "too much Chugus"
Darkness loves saying ‘131 dash 232’
6:23 Thanks for destroying my ears
BBIIIIG CHONGUS!!!!!
UUUUUNYILDING POOOOWEEEER!!!!!!!!!!!! 💖 🥰 😸
People only familiar with small tanks engines might be surprised how long lived and successful some large tank engines were.
Such as the Indonesian Javanic 2-12-2T tank engines and Mallet Tank engines. Long lived enough for colour film :
th-cam.com/video/NAYSwWEvyHg/w-d-xo.html
I think the first 2-12--2 built so gave the wheel arrangement the name Javanic from Java.
Aa-20
The BIIGEST CHONGES OF EM ALL
But where is that Belgian quadruplex? Too much size, too much weight.
haven't watched yet. predicting the AA20 is gonna be on there
B I G C H U G G E R S
BEEEEG CHUNGUSS
Why can't duplexes just be articulated?
Duplex locomotives aren't articulated, that's part of the definition. If you built an articulated version you'd have a Mallet (though they're normally compound) or possibly a Meyer or Kitson-Meyer.
*sighs in European* THE N1's WEREN'T THE FIRST DUPLEXES!!! Francis Webb has done them for the LNWR during the 1880's!
6:35
I gotta agree with you on that one
Big Chungus still lives
Hey Darkness, what’s your favorite railroad?