as an Australian it feels great to know that 2 of our locos are in the top 5 Most Powerful steamers (that aren't American) out there, also Belgium, what were you planning with that thing.
Makes sense. Strong locomotives need long stretches of straight lines. Australia is the perfect runner-up when it comes to long straight tracks. Russia gets an honorable mention when you get past the Urals.
The most heavy trains in Belgium were the Steel, Iron ore trains from the Liege (steelmills) to Antwerp (seaport) The coal was mined also mined in and around Liege.
Dear history in the dark , great video , two things that I would like to add about the ad60 Garratts, 6029 is about to run to the blue mountains with 3801. When they were ordered , we had on the nswgr , the d57 and d58 class which matched the garratts in terms of power output but were too heavy for branch lines. And curtains lines , such as the short north to Newcastle , where garratts were used for the big coal trains from fassifern. I’m a bit surprised that the Canadian 2-10-4 or i believe there are known as the seirkirk locomotives didn’t make the list.
The United Kingdom does in fact have a dog in this fight, in the form of Gresley's U1. Even in the post steam era not many things surpassed it in terms of tractive effort!
The list is odd, as for one the first mentionedDRG Class 45 has well over 300 kN tractive effort, not 245 kN. Even the quite numerous Class 44, of which examples still run, clocks in at a nominal 291 kN. So yeah, not sure he got his figures from
Most of the AD60's "branch line service" was coal haulage, my late Grandfather used to drive them from collieries around Lake Macquarie and the Mandalong Valley on occasion when he wasn't driving C36/38 passenger runs or the newer diesels.
Regarding the "most powerful Garratt ever", the NSWGR AD60's are a close second to the Bengal Nagpur Railway class P - double mountain, at 69,655 lbf (309.84 kN).
10:51 "Most powerful locomotives to operate on Australian railways." NSWGR 57 class 4-8-2: You do know we're stronger than the 60 class Garratts? We produce 65,000lbf or 289.1kN which we used to great effect, leading to crews calling us "Lazy Lizzies" as we made heavy workings seem effortless.
Impressive! Though you missed one in the #2 spot. The SAR GL Class Garratt, blowing the NSW Garratt out of the water with 78,650 lbf (349.9 kN)! I do love that a Garratt managed to get on this list, though :).
Um yes, I'm completely speechless! Belgium!? But it would be somehow cool to see the locomotive as a replica. Oh yes, the video was of course great as always and I think almost everyone could learn something!
The Victorian Railways H class, Heavy Harry H 220, may have the others beat on the basis of the 3,600 HP recorded at 50 mph with a dynamometer car on a test run. Pity the other 3 planned H class were not built and the streamlining planned not proceeded with in war time conditions. Written by someone who climbed into the massive firebox and the huge water space of the tender of H 220 as a kid in the newly opened North Williamstown Railway Museum near me. Not that you can do that sort of thing anymore.
From a "What if..." perspective, if VR had continued with their intentions for the construction of minimum four H classes and an additional six S classes... to be named: S304 George Bass, S305 Hamilton Hume, S306 John Batman, S307 John Pascoe Fawkner, S308 Sir Redmond Barry, and S309 William Lonsdale; H220 George Higginbotham, H221 Sir Ferdinand Von Mueller, H222 Peter Lalor, and H223 Alfred Deakin. If you wonder why they're these names? They're the next names in the replacement S class Diesel-Electrics... then swapping over to the H for the "second series".
Is nobody gonna talk about the LNER U1 garratts, it was the most powerful steam locomotive in Great Britain (possibly in Europe). I feel the Brits could have had a chance to be in the list after all.
to be fair, the U1 is a relatively obscure locomotive (similarly to the LMS Garratt that did banking duties on the Lickey incline), Darkness may not have been aware of the class
as an Aussie, I am impressed how powerful some of our locos are. and if your wondering what the AD60s are, they are basically the Beyer-Garratts from the UK and southern Africa, but Aussie as well as like 2x more powerful! I am also a huge fan of the AD60 class. Also, for the next episode of the best train locos series, please include 3801 if you haven't in a prior episode. I havent watched them all yet because there are so many, but if you havent already include 3801 in the next episode.
At 72,940lbs TE, the U1 just gotta be an omission. Is one loco a 'class'? Edit: with 78, 940lbs @75% BP, surprised the SAR Class GL 4-8-2+2-8-4 didn't make the cut. A great example of what happens when a Garratt is designed by people who know what they're doing (Yes, LMS Garratts .... I'm looking at you), the GL class retired in the early 1970s, with over 40 years of the heaviest traffic on the SAR behind 'em .... and even then, only because there wasn't any work left needing steam haulage.
I feel it makes sense no British locos ended up here. First of all our routes have very short distances between major junctions and stations compared to USA and Australia. Secondly our hills simply aren't as big as other places. The steepest grades on UK mainlines are only sustained for 5 miles or less, the famous Lickey incline only being 2 miles. Speed and acceleration has always been a more pressing factor for British rails than sheer slogging tractive effort, especially since even in the age of steam passenger travel made up a large portion of traffic on the lines. Even freight jobs had to perform quick dashes between sidings to clear the main for express passenger trains across a lot of the network, it's just how our railways were run. Edit: except LNER U1 which should be in second place on this list.... I mean if AA-20 is here U1 should be too
I think one of the major factors limiting UK freight loco power was the lack of braked goods rolling stock. Having a loco that could drag a 1000 ton train wasn't much good it you couldn't stop it. Add to that the much smaller loading gauge that restricted having big big cylinders and the UK loco's were always going to be lower powered than their US or Australian contemporaries. That said, as far as efficiency and speed, UK stuff has it hands down. Long live the Duchess!
First , the Belgien quadruplex could pull around 420kN or 92500lbs. The russian Yellowstone P38 449,65kN or 99042lbs. EAR class 59 Garrett 378kN / 83260lbs . And my favorite loco SNCF 160 A 1 , a 2-12-0 6hv pull 360kN /79295lbs.
If you ever make a second one of these, you should definitely include the Soviet P38 locomotive. She was a 2-8-8-4, and had a tractive effort of 91,018 lbs (44913.86 kg) they only ever built 4 of them. From what I've found, she actually worked, unlike the massive AA-20.
The strongest steam locomotive I'm aware of from outside of the USA was a 4-8-2-2-8-4 Garratt built by Beyer Peackock for the Soviets. It had around 90,000 lbs of tractive effort, and I think it was also the largest steam locomotive in Europe at the time.
That one seems to have died a quiet death in the Soviet Union. AFAIK, not other Garratt trod SZD rails. Garratts always seemed better suited to warmer climes!
Along the lines of Garratts, David Wardale was contracted to do his development magic, for the Chinese Government Railways. In an effort to stop doubleheading of QJ class locomotives, he proposed building a Garratt reusing components of two QJ's. It is surmised that a prototype was built, but did not proceed due to government changes, and Wardle moving on. It would have been a 2-10-2+2-10-2, with four cylinders of 25.59" × 31.50" each, with a new build 94" diameter boiler, 132 ft² firebox, at 255psi, and mechanical stoker. The projected output was 126,470 lbf tractive effort and between 4950 Hp and 7150 Hp...
Extreme missed opportunity to not include the NSB Class 49, the largest and strongest steam locomotive in Norway, which had a tractive effort of 468kN.
Doing the rough calculation for the Belgian Quad, I get a high end estimate of 96,935 lb of tractive effort. But that's using the rough estimate formula for starting tractive effort, assuming that she has 8 cylinders that all see boiler pressure, no compounding. If she was a compound, then her tractive effort would be lower, due to the reduced steam pressure.
The NSWGR AD-60 ended up being in service until the early 1970s due to their relatively simple maintenance procedures and reliability which is rather impressive, 6029 is A rather common sight on museum events, she is operational and runs regularly. They are also the most powerful steam locomotive in the southern hemisphere, 7th most powerful in the world.
Two from this list would make the non standard gauge list. Heavy Harry H 220 at 5:25 being to the Victorian Railways standard gauge of 1600 mm broad gauge. The Soviet dud loco AA also to the Russian broad gauge of 1520 mm or so. More broad gauge track in the world than narrow gauge.
@@wezza60 as i said 1600 mm gauge. You do know that is the metric conversion of those archaic units I hope. The 1435 mm gauge is irrelevant since it was never converted. The saga of converting an R class to 1435 mm over many years of costs and problems likely to prevent any more conversions of the gauge convertible ( in theory ) VR locomotives out of the question as would the magnitude of getting H 220 running again
The NSWGR AD60 Garrett at 7:47 . Some film of a double headed pair as late as 1968 hauling heavy bogie hopper coal trains up steep grades : th-cam.com/video/ePpG4tVHSMQ/w-d-xo.html Also the preserved 6029 in a parallel running train "race" a few years ago where you can get a good feel how complicated and well preserved it is : th-cam.com/video/dQ7bz2nzztE/w-d-xo.html Searching for 6029 will show lots more recent running of this locomotive.
I'd like to see more Chinese engines in your channel. There are some good examples. China designed a freight locomotive based on soviet FD engine and AV engine. The interesting thing is... it has more tractive power than AA20. Both engines has 20t axis load, one is 4-12-4 and 208t in engine weight, another is 2-10-2 and 134t in engine weight. AA20 is designed to have 320kN tractive effort, which it has never reached in actual use. While Qianjin has a 340kN tractive effort, although being a small engine comparing to American monster locomotives. It's designed to have 2980 horsepower, brought by well-designed firebox capable to chewing down almost any kind of coal better than lignite and peat, and sometimes may exceed the designed power output when running in good conditions. One of the commonly used tricks back in Mao era, was that the mechanical stoker can be turned off, switching to manual mode will save extra steam energy used to run the locomotive itself, therefore making the engine consume less coal or generate more power. I'm sure it deserves having a seat among most powerful non-American steam locomotives. And although desgined as a feright locomotive, with only 1.5m wheel diameter, Qianjin has a maximum speed of 85km/h, capable to be put in passenger service. And it was widely used in passenger service until 1990s. I guess it should be one the best cost efficient locomotive types. And I heard that Qianjin is the most fuel efficient one among mass-produced locomotives. There was a plan to further improve its power and efficiency, by introducing the same technology used on South Africa 25NC. And there was actually one engine (QJ-8001) made in this way. But such modification would hurt the cost efficiency, with limited improvements in the already good enough combustion efficiency and power output, and will not improve the tractive effort which is already near the physical ceiling of friction force brought by weight. And it's already 1987, only one years till the last of this type rolling down the assembly line in China, making way for the time of diesels and electrics, so the plan is shelved forever. There were 4714 Qianjin locomotives manufactured from 1956 to 1988 in total, including early prototypes and altered types and exportations.
@HistoryintheDark So as there are other suggestions in the comment area on which else can be on the list... Do you like another video to include 5 more non-American steam engines?
In germany, the number on a locomotive is read as if it's two most of the time (does that make any sense?) so say "010" is zero ten, "2322" is twenty-three twenty-two, "7235" is seventy-two thirty-five, et cetera
If they are playing nice, they will say "seven two (pause) three five". If they are joking at the expense of a foreigner, it will be "two-and-seventy five-and-thirty".
It's funny how a Traxx or a Taurus how cazy strong for their 4 axial. I know they are these recent two decades electrik locomotives, but still they basically the uper limit without giving much more axial load.
Since Canada Isn't part of the USA I'll add my nomination here. The Canadian Pacific K1a 4-8-4 Northerns 3100 & 3101 built by CPR's Angus shops in 1928. By all accounts they were well designed locomotives and their performance was great the only downside they had was their large weight restricting their route availability. The tractive effort on these two engines was 60800 lbs, BUT they were equipped with booster trucks that gave an additional 12000 lbs of force for a total of 72800 lbs. I think they would have fit in nicely but that's just my opinion. On a side note both engines made it into preservation.
Agree, Canada is in 'Nth America' which makes them American but definitely not part of the USA, although most "USA'ns" do not seem to think of anyone being American unless they are from the USA.
Fortunately we have a fully functioning Beyer Garrett in NSW 6029. And they were used extensively until the 1970s. And they are said to be the most powerful locomotive in the Southern Hemisphere.
Great as allways but...some inexact.: the number 5 most tractive effort giant outside the USA was not german, whas spanish. The 2-10-2 Santa Fe built in Barcelona by La Maquinista Terrestre y Marítima (1941) had 55000lbs tractive effort. The whole serie had 22 locomotives. One of this (the Renfe's 151f-3101) is preserved in the Museu del Ferrocarril in Vilanova i la Geltrú (Catalonia, Spain)
I was looking for someone else to comment this, if he ever does a second one, hopefully she will be on it. The p38 had 99,018 lbs of tractive effort. (44913.86 kg) Making her quite the stronk girl.
DRG Class 45 had a tractive effort of over 300+ kN, not sure where you got 245 kN from. The more numerous Class 44, of which some still run, boasts 291 kN. Heck the std. WW2 Class 52 Kriegslokomotiv had a tractive effort of 230 kN.
i would like say that YES 4 AD60 class locomotives exist. but only 3 are under proper preservation as 6042 is sitting in a field rotting away and the museum that owns it is on the other side of the state. google it im not joking
Well, we were one of the leading countries in developing railroads during the age of steam (our railroads were already in decline as Diesel's came out) and we have some of the longest routes and largest hills in the world, so it makes sense most of the big ones would be ours.
Great video, however there is another Australian loco that drops into this top 5 and might mean the poor old German giant drops off. The NSWGR D57 class. These 228 ton 3 cylinder 4.8.2 locomotives are rated as having a tractive effort of between 56000 and 62000 lbs (apparently some had 200 psi boilers and some had 220 psi boilers but I can't find that confirmed anywhere). There is 1 remaining in static preservation. However like Heavy Harry H220, it's axle load would very much limit any operational use so a return to service is very unlikely.
G'day ,mate good try but a few locos that you haven't got on your list # 2 should be the South African GL Garratts [8] of 1929. 4-8-2 +2-8-4 with 89,140 lbs [@ 85% b.p.,the South Africans rated everything at 75% for some unknown reason but that still rates @ 78,500 lbs ] 3. Would be the East African Garratts class 59 4-8-2 +2-8-4 @ 83,300 lbs tractive effort designed by Bulmer C.M.E. of E.A.R. [formerley C.M.E. of Canadian Pacific [4. Would be his 2-10-4 Selkirks .].
I hate to break it to you, but in my research the big Belgian put out about 94,000 pounds TE, based on German Wikipedia and a few French sources from the time, though it should be stated that the reason it’s that low is because she maxed out the dynamometer car. So who knows how powerful she actually was. But my money is on the confirmed sources from the time, even if they’re false, better safe than sorry.
O i don't know About that big chungus is um his bizzy in b.f.n.a an i don't thank they could handle tha big chungus putting a bunch of f.u.b.a.r down on there rails 😆😆 Great video 👍👍👍
Not being mean but there no gerrits here because most of us can see a flop when we see one ...but we've made a lot of own flops so not pointing fingers just saying,....an 4,14,4 um jenny crank thats all i can say😶 great video 👍👍👍
The Belgians needed such a BIG CHUNGUS locomotive for all their steeply graded lines over the huge mountains that Belgium is so famous for... 😂😂😂
Maybe the cross.over the bordets to netherlands at times
In fact it was meant for freight on alps. It was designed by italians
I thought they would need it for their Belgium chocolate trains
@@federicoghisafi3384that makes sense.
Oh no, we made that thing cus we could.
as an Australian it feels great to know that 2 of our locos are in the top 5 Most Powerful steamers (that aren't American) out there, also Belgium, what were you planning with that thing.
Makes sense. Strong locomotives need long stretches of straight lines. Australia is the perfect runner-up when it comes to long straight tracks. Russia gets an honorable mention when you get past the Urals.
@@megladon6 thinking about it... yea we do have flat plains here soo I don't see why we shouldn't have big engines.
We were erunk when designing it alright
The most heavy trains in Belgium were the Steel, Iron ore trains from the Liege (steelmills) to Antwerp (seaport)
The coal was mined also mined in and around Liege.
He missed out the NSWGR D57, though - so it's actually 3 of 5, not 2 of 5
Dear history in the dark , great video , two things that I would like to add about the ad60 Garratts, 6029 is about to run to the blue mountains with 3801. When they were ordered , we had on the nswgr , the d57 and d58 class which matched the garratts in terms of power output but were too heavy for branch lines. And curtains lines , such as the short north to Newcastle , where garratts were used for the big coal trains from fassifern. I’m a bit surprised that the Canadian 2-10-4 or i believe there are known as the seirkirk locomotives didn’t make the list.
The United Kingdom does in fact have a dog in this fight, in the form of Gresley's U1. Even in the post steam era not many things surpassed it in terms of tractive effort!
Good to see the AD60 getting the respect it deserves.
I think LNER U1 should have taken the place of the AA-20 cause the U1 has a tractive effort of 72,940 lbf so 1000 lbf more than that Soviet AA-20
Really!
@@bussesandtrains1218 yeah
The list is odd, as for one the first mentionedDRG Class 45 has well over 300 kN tractive effort, not 245 kN. Even the quite numerous Class 44, of which examples still run, clocks in at a nominal 291 kN. So yeah, not sure he got his figures from
Most of the AD60's "branch line service" was coal haulage, my late Grandfather used to drive them from collieries around Lake Macquarie and the Mandalong Valley on occasion when he wasn't driving C36/38 passenger runs or the newer diesels.
Regarding the "most powerful Garratt ever", the NSWGR AD60's are a close second to the Bengal Nagpur Railway class P - double mountain, at 69,655 lbf (309.84 kN).
10:51 "Most powerful locomotives to operate on Australian railways."
NSWGR 57 class 4-8-2: You do know we're stronger than the 60 class Garratts? We produce 65,000lbf or 289.1kN which we used to great effect, leading to crews calling us "Lazy Lizzies" as we made heavy workings seem effortless.
Impressive! Though you missed one in the #2 spot. The SAR GL Class Garratt, blowing the NSW Garratt out of the water with 78,650 lbf (349.9 kN)! I do love that a Garratt managed to get on this list, though :).
The East African Railways 59 class 4-8-2 + 2-8-4 Garratt was even more powerful, with a tractive effort of 83,350 lbf
dont forget 59 class from Kenya. South African GMAM' are also stronger than the AD 60
All 59 class garratts were modified with Giesl ejector and gained another 3-4 % more power @@shaunbrierley5864
And a gl is on a 3foot 6 inch line, very impressive for that gauge
@@shaunbrierley5864 but it was oil fired i think where the gl was coal fired
Idk if Canada counts as not us but the Canadian Pacific Selkirks had a tractive effort of around 75,771
Um yes, I'm completely speechless! Belgium!? But it would be somehow cool to see the locomotive as a replica. Oh yes, the video was of course great as always and I think almost everyone could learn something!
The Victorian Railways H class, Heavy Harry H 220, may have the others beat on the basis of the 3,600 HP recorded at 50 mph with a dynamometer car on a test run.
Pity the other 3 planned H class were not built and the streamlining planned not proceeded with in war time conditions.
Written by someone who climbed into the massive firebox and the huge water space of the tender of H 220 as a kid in the newly opened North Williamstown Railway Museum near me.
Not that you can do that sort of thing anymore.
From a "What if..." perspective, if VR had continued with their intentions for the construction of minimum four H classes and an additional six S classes... to be named:
S304 George Bass, S305 Hamilton Hume, S306 John Batman, S307 John Pascoe Fawkner, S308 Sir Redmond Barry, and S309 William Lonsdale;
H220 George Higginbotham, H221 Sir Ferdinand Von Mueller, H222 Peter Lalor, and H223 Alfred Deakin.
If you wonder why they're these names? They're the next names in the replacement S class Diesel-Electrics... then swapping over to the H for the "second series".
Sad the beautiful VR S class pacifics were all scrapped before the preservation era, Luckily H220 survived.
Is nobody gonna talk about the LNER U1 garratts, it was the most powerful steam locomotive in Great Britain (possibly in Europe). I feel the Brits could have had a chance to be in the list after all.
72,940lbs of tractive effort, should be ahead of that ghastly AA-20
Agreed
to be fair, the U1 is a relatively obscure locomotive (similarly to the LMS Garratt that did banking duties on the Lickey incline), Darkness may not have been aware of the class
@@MercenaryPen I am pretty sure he has mentioned both the classes of Garratts in his previous videos.
@@MercenaryPenso? I'd not heard of the Class 45 before today 9r the AD60. As he's covered the U1 before, your defence is laughable.
as an Aussie, I am impressed how powerful some of our locos are. and if your wondering what the AD60s are, they are basically the Beyer-Garratts from the UK and southern Africa, but Aussie as well as like 2x more powerful! I am also a huge fan of the AD60 class. Also, for the next episode of the best train locos series, please include 3801 if you haven't in a prior episode. I havent watched them all yet because there are so many, but if you havent already include 3801 in the next episode.
At 72,940lbs TE, the U1 just gotta be an omission. Is one loco a 'class'?
Edit: with 78, 940lbs @75% BP, surprised the SAR Class GL 4-8-2+2-8-4 didn't make the cut. A great example of what happens when a Garratt is designed by people who know what they're doing (Yes, LMS Garratts .... I'm looking at you), the GL class retired in the early 1970s, with over 40 years of the heaviest traffic on the SAR behind 'em .... and even then, only because there wasn't any work left needing steam haulage.
I feel it makes sense no British locos ended up here. First of all our routes have very short distances between major junctions and stations compared to USA and Australia. Secondly our hills simply aren't as big as other places. The steepest grades on UK mainlines are only sustained for 5 miles or less, the famous Lickey incline only being 2 miles. Speed and acceleration has always been a more pressing factor for British rails than sheer slogging tractive effort, especially since even in the age of steam passenger travel made up a large portion of traffic on the lines. Even freight jobs had to perform quick dashes between sidings to clear the main for express passenger trains across a lot of the network, it's just how our railways were run.
Edit: except LNER U1 which should be in second place on this list.... I mean if AA-20 is here U1 should be too
I think one of the major factors limiting UK freight loco power was the lack of braked goods rolling stock.
Having a loco that could drag a 1000 ton train wasn't much good it you couldn't stop it. Add to that the much smaller loading gauge that restricted having big big cylinders and the UK loco's were always going to be lower powered than their US or Australian contemporaries. That said, as far as efficiency and speed, UK stuff has it hands down.
Long live the Duchess!
First , the Belgien quadruplex could pull around 420kN or 92500lbs.
The russian Yellowstone P38 449,65kN or 99042lbs.
EAR class 59 Garrett 378kN / 83260lbs .
And my favorite loco SNCF 160 A 1 , a 2-12-0 6hv pull 360kN /79295lbs.
where is the SNCF 241s?
I remember seeing the 45 class when I was 6 it was my favorite locomotive
If you ever make a second one of these, you should definitely include the Soviet P38 locomotive. She was a 2-8-8-4, and had a tractive effort of 91,018 lbs (44913.86 kg) they only ever built 4 of them. From what I've found, she actually worked, unlike the massive AA-20.
The China Railways QJ class should be on here too
Oh hey H220 "Heavy Harry" again
The strongest steam locomotive I'm aware of from outside of the USA was a 4-8-2-2-8-4 Garratt built by Beyer Peackock for the Soviets. It had around 90,000 lbs of tractive effort, and I think it was also the largest steam locomotive in Europe at the time.
That one seems to have died a quiet death in the Soviet Union. AFAIK, not other Garratt trod SZD rails. Garratts always seemed better suited to warmer climes!
Along the lines of Garratts, David Wardale was contracted to do his development magic, for the Chinese Government Railways. In an effort to stop doubleheading of QJ class locomotives, he proposed building a Garratt reusing components of two QJ's. It is surmised that a prototype was built, but did not proceed due to government changes, and Wardle moving on.
It would have been a 2-10-2+2-10-2, with four cylinders of 25.59" × 31.50" each, with a new build 94" diameter boiler, 132 ft² firebox, at 255psi, and mechanical stoker.
The projected output was 126,470 lbf tractive effort and between 4950 Hp and 7150 Hp...
Extreme missed opportunity to not include the NSB Class 49, the largest and strongest steam locomotive in Norway, which had a tractive effort of 468kN.
Doing the rough calculation for the Belgian Quad, I get a high end estimate of 96,935 lb of tractive effort. But that's using the rough estimate formula for starting tractive effort, assuming that she has 8 cylinders that all see boiler pressure, no compounding. If she was a compound, then her tractive effort would be lower, due to the reduced steam pressure.
Huh. I woulda thought that Bertha would have snuck into #5. Guess not lol.
When the AD60s popped up, I had to refrain from going "Aussie Aussie Aussie!"
DRG!!! DRG!!! DRG!!! Class 45!!! Thank you SO MUCH Darkness for including my country!^^❤🎉😊
An a quadruplex.....they just dent get enough hugs when it was still the little engine that could. great video 👍👍👍👍
Where the USSR P28 Yellowstone? They can easily be on here.
You should take a look at the NSW D57 class, which was surprisingly more powerful than the AD60s
you said useful in regards to a train! you're transformation into the fat controller is complete
As already mentioned, the LNER U1 should have been on the list; en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LNER_Class_U1
14:19 What...Just...WHAT?!?
I can't, I just can't comprehend the fact that kind of locomotive exsists.
"Why belgium, why?"
"Because why not?"
Refuses to elaborate.
Concerning the USSR AA20, if anything the boiler was UNDERPOWERED
At 85% Cutoff . AA20 could produce atleast 88355 lbs of tractive effort (at full power)
yeah. AA20 was pretty much underpowered
@@BarometricQuad I guess the best comparison is the UP 9000 class, which had around 96,000lbs of tractive effort.
The NSWGR AD-60 ended up being in service until the early 1970s due to their relatively simple maintenance procedures and reliability which is rather impressive, 6029 is A rather common sight on museum events, she is operational and runs regularly. They are also the most powerful steam locomotive in the southern hemisphere, 7th most powerful in the world.
New video gets uploaded
*glances at clock* 12:10 at night
Me: yeah i got time
Top 5 most powerful non standard gauge steam locomotives please.
Two from this list would make the non standard gauge list.
Heavy Harry H 220 at 5:25 being to the Victorian Railways standard gauge of 1600 mm broad gauge.
The Soviet dud loco AA also to the Russian broad gauge of 1520 mm or so.
More broad gauge track in the world than narrow gauge.
Heavy Harry ran on 5'3" gauge, and was constructed to be converted to Standard Gauge if required.
@@wezza60 as i said 1600 mm gauge. You do know that is the metric conversion of those archaic units I hope.
The 1435 mm gauge is irrelevant since it was never converted. The saga of converting an R class to 1435 mm over many years of costs and problems likely to prevent any more conversions of the gauge convertible ( in theory ) VR locomotives out of the question as would the magnitude of getting H 220 running again
The NSWGR AD60 Garrett at 7:47 .
Some film of a double headed pair as late as 1968 hauling heavy bogie hopper coal trains up steep grades :
th-cam.com/video/ePpG4tVHSMQ/w-d-xo.html
Also the preserved 6029 in a parallel running train "race" a few years ago where you can get a good feel how complicated and well preserved it is :
th-cam.com/video/dQ7bz2nzztE/w-d-xo.html
Searching for 6029 will show lots more recent running of this locomotive.
What if you rate the top 5 steam locomotives (any country) by power-to-weight ratio?
If you did that, I think the winner would be the SNCF Chapelon 4-8-0s ,39.1hp per ton of engine weight.
I'd like to see more Chinese engines in your channel. There are some good examples.
China designed a freight locomotive based on soviet FD engine and AV engine.
The interesting thing is... it has more tractive power than AA20.
Both engines has 20t axis load, one is 4-12-4 and 208t in engine weight, another is 2-10-2 and 134t in engine weight. AA20 is designed to have 320kN tractive effort, which it has never reached in actual use. While Qianjin has a 340kN tractive effort, although being a small engine comparing to American monster locomotives.
It's designed to have 2980 horsepower, brought by well-designed firebox capable to chewing down almost any kind of coal better than lignite and peat, and sometimes may exceed the designed power output when running in good conditions. One of the commonly used tricks back in Mao era, was that the mechanical stoker can be turned off, switching to manual mode will save extra steam energy used to run the locomotive itself, therefore making the engine consume less coal or generate more power.
I'm sure it deserves having a seat among most powerful non-American steam locomotives.
And although desgined as a feright locomotive, with only 1.5m wheel diameter, Qianjin has a maximum speed of 85km/h, capable to be put in passenger service. And it was widely used in passenger service until 1990s.
I guess it should be one the best cost efficient locomotive types. And I heard that Qianjin is the most fuel efficient one among mass-produced locomotives.
There was a plan to further improve its power and efficiency, by introducing the same technology used on South Africa 25NC. And there was actually one engine (QJ-8001) made in this way. But such modification would hurt the cost efficiency, with limited improvements in the already good enough combustion efficiency and power output, and will not improve the tractive effort which is already near the physical ceiling of friction force brought by weight. And it's already 1987, only one years till the last of this type rolling down the assembly line in China, making way for the time of diesels and electrics, so the plan is shelved forever.
There were 4714 Qianjin locomotives manufactured from 1956 to 1988 in total, including early prototypes and altered types and exportations.
@HistoryintheDark So as there are other suggestions in the comment area on which else can be on the list... Do you like another video to include 5 more non-American steam engines?
In germany, the number on a locomotive is read as if it's two most of the time (does that make any sense?) so say "010" is zero ten, "2322" is twenty-three twenty-two, "7235" is seventy-two thirty-five, et cetera
If they are playing nice, they will say "seven two (pause) three five". If they are joking at the expense of a foreigner, it will be "two-and-seventy five-and-thirty".
It's funny how a Traxx or a Taurus how cazy strong for their 4 axial. I know they are these recent two decades electrik locomotives, but still they basically the uper limit without giving much more axial load.
Can u make a vid of the longest steam engines
class 45 One of the few locomotives that I have seen live at the Eisenbahn Treffen in Bavaria,👍🏻🚂
there was also the 242 A1 at 265kn
3680kW @80kph!👍
And the 240P, improved by André Chapelon : 269kN
What about then Bulgarian 2-12-4? Wiki says that their tractive effort was around 85.000 lbf
Since Canada Isn't part of the USA I'll add my nomination here. The Canadian Pacific K1a 4-8-4 Northerns 3100 & 3101 built by CPR's Angus shops in 1928. By all accounts they were well designed locomotives and their performance was great the only downside they had was their large weight restricting their route availability. The tractive effort on these two engines was 60800 lbs, BUT they were equipped with booster trucks that gave an additional 12000 lbs of force for a total of 72800 lbs. I think they would have fit in nicely but that's just my opinion. On a side note both engines made it into preservation.
Agree, Canada is in 'Nth America' which makes them American but definitely not part of the USA, although most "USA'ns" do not seem to think of anyone being American unless they are from the USA.
It still surprises me that the AA20 was not converted into a stationary steam boiler for heating train cars and buildings in Moscow.
As for the why of that Belgian Big Chungus: Things like that happen when you enjoy their amazing beer too much...
how about a 5 most powerful uk steam locos next
Fortunately we have a fully functioning Beyer Garrett in NSW 6029. And they were used extensively until the 1970s.
And they are said to be the most powerful locomotive in the Southern Hemisphere.
The 9F is better looking than anything that makes the list. Well, I at least think so. 😊❤😊
Nah I beg to differ heavy Harry has better smoke deflectors and is more intimidating in power over all
The reason why Belgium locos were powerful because it all not runs by coal but waffles
1:51 both engines BR 9F and Australia garrat 10:24 are more strong from Union pacific 2-8-0
One does have to consider the limitations and constraints of loading guages and permanent way.
Where tf is the LNER U1
Interesting to see the AA20 here. Somewhat obscure yet having her own spotlight.
If AA20 had taller driving wheels like the union pacific 9000 class it would have less tracktive effort
nice to see garrets come up again
I dunno how relevant it is to any video but I just learned about the P&R 1187. A 0-4-0 camel back.
a part of me wants a compilation of every time Darkness says "big chungus"
You completely missed the Canadian Pacific Selkirk locomotives, which had
78,000 lbf (350 kN) traction. Should be #2 on your list……
Great as allways but...some inexact.: the number 5 most tractive effort giant outside the USA was not german, whas spanish. The 2-10-2 Santa Fe built in Barcelona by La Maquinista Terrestre y Marítima (1941) had 55000lbs tractive effort. The whole serie had 22 locomotives. One of this (the Renfe's 151f-3101) is preserved in the Museu del Ferrocarril in Vilanova i la Geltrú (Catalonia, Spain)
As a Belgian i don't usually say this but, i'm proud to be Belgian
me too
Me too
I honestly don't know if the Soviet P38 Yellowstones are more powerful then the AA20?
I was looking for someone else to comment this, if he ever does a second one, hopefully she will be on it. The p38 had 99,018 lbs of tractive effort. (44913.86 kg) Making her quite the stronk girl.
I wonder if the AA20 would work with today's technology?
And oh yeah my boi the Franco-Crosti quadruplex
Can you talk about the DSB Litra E.
someone tell me what this list would be like if usefulness was accounted for
DRG Class 45 had a tractive effort of over 300+ kN, not sure where you got 245 kN from. The more numerous Class 44, of which some still run, boasts 291 kN. Heck the std. WW2 Class 52 Kriegslokomotiv had a tractive effort of 230 kN.
Wikipedia lists 420 kN for the Class 45.
you forgot Alsace Lorrain G16 and SNCF 160A six cylinder compound
I think 45 010 shloud be restored to operating condition. What do ya'l think?
The AA20 is basically the same tractive effort as the S-2.
That Belgian Quadruplex could have been the absolute Banker for any long train that needed go uphill.
Technically the Garratts are UK engines - Beyer Peacock's works was in Openshaw, Manchester, UK.
None of the loco's done by Andre Chapelon?
i would like say that YES 4 AD60 class locomotives exist. but only 3 are under proper preservation as 6042 is sitting in a field rotting away and the museum that owns it is on the other side of the state. google it im not joking
Well, we were one of the leading countries in developing railroads during the age of steam (our railroads were already in decline as Diesel's came out) and we have some of the longest routes and largest hills in the world, so it makes sense most of the big ones would be ours.
I’m pretty sure pounds of force is not the same pounds of tractive effort
No British engines on the list? Remind me again where Beyer Peacock had their Factory building Garatts for export to Australia.
Manchester rings a bell. And not Manchester in the USA. 😂
drink 5 belgian trappist triple ales, and you'll understand ;) we're out there, and we love it LOL
The waffles have risen.
All hail Belgium.
Australia, hold my beer!
Where are the BIG Garratts? Built for South Africa and the British LNER U1?
Great video, however there is another Australian loco that drops into this top 5 and might mean the poor old German giant drops off.
The NSWGR D57 class. These 228 ton 3 cylinder 4.8.2 locomotives are rated as having a tractive effort of between 56000 and 62000 lbs (apparently some had 200 psi boilers and some had 220 psi boilers but I can't find that confirmed anywhere).
There is 1 remaining in static preservation. However like Heavy Harry H220, it's axle load would very much limit any operational use so a return to service is very unlikely.
That's at Valley Heights Rail Museum, isn't it?
wtf where is bdz class 46 with its 381kN?
When 5 came up, I was thinking I wonder how much our Harry has, and Harry was next 😅
Why are you referring to Heavy Harry as a female while the name is masculine?
4-14-4 I go forward I go backwards I do not do curves.
Hey now are you considering the selkirks cp rail as american?
G'day ,mate good try but a few locos that you haven't got on your list # 2 should be the South African GL Garratts [8] of 1929. 4-8-2 +2-8-4 with 89,140 lbs [@ 85% b.p.,the South Africans rated everything at 75% for some unknown reason but that still rates @ 78,500 lbs ] 3. Would be the East African Garratts class 59 4-8-2 +2-8-4 @ 83,300 lbs tractive effort designed by Bulmer C.M.E. of E.A.R. [formerley C.M.E. of Canadian Pacific [4. Would be his 2-10-4 Selkirks .].
I hate to break it to you, but in my research the big Belgian put out about 94,000 pounds TE, based on German Wikipedia and a few French sources from the time, though it should be stated that the reason it’s that low is because she maxed out the dynamometer car. So who knows how powerful she actually was. But my money is on the confirmed sources from the time, even if they’re false, better safe than sorry.
BIG CHUNGUS !!!!
Garratt my beloved ❤
O i don't know About that big chungus is um his bizzy in b.f.n.a an i don't thank they could handle tha big chungus putting a bunch of f.u.b.a.r down on there rails 😆😆 Great video 👍👍👍
No Garret for the UK? I thought that would be more powerful than a 9f
Most garets was built for low axel loads. So even if they typically had more driving axels, the pressure on them was much lower.
Do the most powerful British steam engines
Not being mean but there no gerrits here because most of us can see a flop when we see one ...but we've made a lot of own flops so not pointing fingers just saying,....an 4,14,4 um jenny crank thats all i can say😶 great video 👍👍👍