5 Otherwise Great Trains With One Annoying Flaw | History in the Dark
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 10 ก.ค. 2024
- Nothing is perfect. Even the most flawless thing can often have its weaknesses, and there's nothing wrong with that. Flaws are what make things unique. Locomotives are no exceptions to this. Even the best locomotives, finely crafted and refined, can have some inherent weakness that just limits them in a small way. Here's five with such issues.
Music Credits:
🐝 The Diseasel -- www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltNrA...
🎵 Cover by Luke Pickman -- / instrumentmaniac
0:00 - Intro
1:05 - PRR K4
3:34 - NER Class V
5:13 - NYC Mohawk L1 and L2
6:48 - BR Class 33
9:44 - GE U30CG
"The Pennsylvania Railroad's K4 4-6-2 "Pacific" (425 built 1914-1928, PRR Altoona, Baldwin) was its premier passenger-hauling steam locomotive from 1914 through the end of steam on the PRR in 1957. Attempts were made to replace the K4s, including the K5 and the T1 duplex locomotive, but neither was very successful. The K4s hauled the vast majority of express passenger trains until they were replaced by diesel locomotives. The K4s were not powerful enough for the heavier trains they often pulled from the mid-1930s onward, so they were often double- or even triple-headed. This was effective, but expensive, and several crews were needed. The PRR did have the extra locomotives, many having been displaced by electrification east of Harrisburg."
"The NER Class V was a class of twenty steam locomotives of the 4-4-2 wheel arrangement. They were designed by Wilson Worsdell for the North Eastern Railway (NER) as express passenger locomotives."
"The New York Central Railroad (NYC) called the 4-8-2 type of steam locomotive the Mohawk type. It was known as the Mountain type on other roads, but the mighty New York Central didn't see the name as fitting on its famous Water Level Route. Instead, it picked the name of one of those rivers its rails followed, the Mohawk River, to name its newest type of locomotive. Despite the more common name, the 4-8-2 was actually suited in many ways more to flatland running than slow mountain slogging, with its 4-wheel leading truck for stability at speed. However, the L1s and L2s were unstable at higher speeds due to the design of their reciprocating gear, making the 4-wheel leading truck simply a better distributor of the locomotives weight; the L1s and L2s were consequently limited to 60 mph (97 km/h), but this issue was resolved for the L3s and L4s."
"The British Rail Class 33, also known as the BRCW Type 3 or Crompton, is a class of Bo-Bo diesel-electric locomotives, ordered in 1957 and built for the Southern Region of British Railways between 1960 and 1962. They were produced as a more powerful Type 3 (1,550 bhp) development of the 1,160 bhp Type 2 Class 26. This was achieved, quite simply, by removing the steam heating boiler and fitting a larger 8 cylinder version of the previous 6 cylinder engine."
"The GE U30CG was a passenger-hauling diesel-electric locomotive built by GE Transportation Systems. It was a passenger variant of GE's U30C design purchased by the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway. ATSF had purchased ten U28CG locomotives in 1966, but while these locomotives were satisfactory operationally, they looked like freight locomotives, not passenger locomotives. Desiring smooth-sided passenger power, the railroad ordered the first cowl units from both GE and GM-EMD. GE produced the U30CG to meet this requirement."
🟢Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @historyinthedark
🟢Patreon - / darknessthecurse
🟣Discord - / discord
🔵Facebook - / history-in-the-dark-10...
🟢Donations - streamlabs.com/edgerabbit/tip
🔴Tiktok - / historyinthedark
🟣Instagram - / historyinthedark
🔵Twitter - / darkthecurse
🟣Merch - / @historyinthedark
🟣Twitch - / edgerabbit
Other channels:
🟢Prehistory in the Dark: / @prehistoryinthedark
🟣Gaming and Fanfic Readings: / @darknessthecurse
🟣History Stuff: / @historyinthedark
👔Merch: streamlabs.com/edgerabbit/merch
---
I WRITE BOOKS! YOU CAN FIND THEM HERE:
📚Abyss: www.amazon.com/Abyss-Books-Pr...
📚Pryde: www.amazon.com/gp/product/B08...
📚Abyss on Audible: www.amazon.com/hz/audible/mlp...
#trains #railfan #top5
As a firefighter, I know about the physics of water. To those unaware, inside a fire truck and indeed inside ANY large vehicle designed to hold liquids, there are specially designed bulkheads that divide the tank as a whole into compartments that limit the liquids motion. They generally have a small opening up top that allows water to flow forwards and backwards depending on if you're going uphill or downhill and assists when going on curves.
The British Army had a fleet of 6-wheel Range Rover fire tenders. A significant portion of the fleet was rolled and written off due to driving with the water tank half full
Yep. This is a tried-and-true naval architecture technique for ship tanks and watertight compartments for centuries. The problem is extra bulkheads cost extra money, and sending someone inside a tank to inspect them costs more money too.
Water sloshing was also the main flaw, apart from weight, of the EMD SDP40F/SDFP40 built for Amtrak (which ran fine on the Santa Fe, like their (SD)FP45 siblings, since they had good track).
Just like when a roro ferry gets their car deck flooded. The sudden sloshing on a single undivided compartment can destabilize the entire ship until its unrecoverable.
Its the main concern to any car ferry / car carrier ships. Large undivided compartments are dangerous. But this problem rarely persists on large modern car carriers. Excellent ramp seals and very high free board prevents water from entering. Sewol for example kept floating even when she was already on her side. Sadly, the crew didnt bother to start the evacuation early. The ship gave them ample time and warnings.
A bit hard to criticise a Pacific built to haul passenger trains when they're put on heavy freight duties. That's not a fault, it's mismanagement
They also struggled with longer passenger trains as well, but check out Pennsy power by Al Staufer for why PRR didn’t order larger passenger steam
“Some” 4-6-2 pacific locomotives were used on goods trains is because of the power output and the fact they’re occasionally mixed traffic locomotive
On the other side, yes pacific type steam locomotive are built for passenger trains but they struggled on longer, heavier passenger trains in which a 4-8-2 and 4-6-4 took most of the pacific passenger roles
@@nathanchan4653 Strange that they would attempt the K5s when they had a selection of ww1 standard plans to choose from, including articulated locos, that all worked well as far as I know. so all the railroads had these plans on the shelf and probably used locos on the market as well. this left no excuse for real failure.
I agree; that's not an "annoying flaw" on the part of the K-4 Pacifics--it's mismanagement or just improper use, sort of like trying to use 2 or 3 pickup trucks to pull a semitrailer. . .
@@nathanchan4653 Yes, the Pacific was a good passenger or fast freight locomotive for small or midsize trains. . .
Honorable mention: all locomotives of the Midland Railway and their axleboxes.
4:45 - 5:01 now that is a villain right there.
Thomas: Nope *Starts running away*
Personally I think the K4 should be swapped for the T1 in this list, the reason being the "annoying flaw" you mentioned isn't a fault of the locomotives themselves but in the locomotives being used in the absolute worst way you could use a locomotive of that design.
First of all, the K4s pacific was exceptionally powerful for a 4-6-2, its the main reason they held on until 1958 despite being a 40 year old design at that point, however they were still 4-6-2s. They had incredible power at speed with long strings of passenger equipment owing mainly to their large boiler and tall drivers giving them good top speed performance, however if you know anything about tall drivers you'll already see the problem.
Using a locomotive best suited to high speed passenger running on flat trackage as a freight hauler in the Appalachian mountains isn't just a bad idea, its a monumental misuse of the equipment they had. Pennsy already had locomotives that were specifically meant to fill those roles in the form if the L1s, I1s, M1a/b and even the later J1s and Q2s, the problem wasn't that the K4 had too little power, the problem was she had power for a completely different kind of running and Pennsy simply was not using the locomotives they already had to the best of their strengths.
So why the T1?
Well because unlike the K4s, the T1 actually _did_ have an annoying and eventually fatal flaw, that being wheel slipping.
Due to the extremely high profile of the drivers, and the distribution of the weight over two sets of four wheels instead of one set of eight, it meant the locomotives had a tendency to slip bad when starting a train... Simply put the T1 wasn't heavy enough for the amount of power it put to the rail.
PRR engineers were used to the K4s which needed a lot of steam to kick their heavy passenger trains into motion but had very little trouble with slipping due to the incredible weight on the drivers... The T1s needed precisely the opposite, with an extremely gentle hand being required while starting a train due to the low factor of adhesion and extremely high steaming ability of the boiler being a perfect combination to spin out one or sometimes even both sets of drivers.
Modifications to the class in the late 40s as well as improved engineer training eventually eliminated this problem. But by the time they had worked the kinks out of the design, this single minor annoyance had turned into a fatal flaw and ultimately sealed the fate of the T1s, with the impressive duplexes all scrapped within the first phase of dieselization due mostly to the bad reputation they had built as slippery and unpredictable locomotives.
Uh oh br is back
I don't think it ever left. It just stays lurking off screen... Waiting...
Yep I see the Uni-cycle lion or the more iconic Two way Arrow logo
@@BNSF_SoCal_Productions the Uncycling Ferret, please. Later replace by the Ferret and Dartboard.
Speaking as someone who knew the British Rail Class 33 in service, I have to say, with the greatest respect, whoever you got your information from, you need to get your money back from. The BR Class 33 was one of the best locomotives ever produced. Popular with traincrew and passengers alike. They could easily out-perform a Class 37, which on paper was stronger, had 6 powered axles (not 4), a heavier weight and a higher top speed. In multiple, a pair was superb, and in triples, they were truly phenomenal. Very versatile on passenger and freight. The 33/0 standard design was great. The 33/1 push pull design was used on high speed passenger duty for decades. The 33/2 Hastings Gauge loco showed that you could even put them in a narrower body, perfectly fine. Of all the thousands of locos I have had across the globe, none of the Class 33 I have enjoyed has ever failed. Not even once. As for saying the ETH (HEP in North American speak) was not need, what on earth ! The lines they covered were electric heating long before to the introduction of the Class 33.
4:45 I really like that voice for the NER Class V locomotive. Coal, coal, more coal! O.M.GOODNESS!
Love NYC 3001. Her location is Elkhart, In. There is a big push to get her running again. My grandpa took me to the museum when I was little. Taking my kids there to see her. Hope my grandchildren will get a chance to take a train ride in the future.
I've been to see her a few times and they've done a lovely job cosmetically. Her cab is still in rough shape with a lot of missing parts though.
So The Dieseasel is now British Rail's theme right?
I hope so
Yep. He joked about it months ago
Did you mean "Diseasel"?
It does seem to be
4:45 FEAST MODE ACTIVATED! HASHTAG HUNGRY! FEED ME MORE DOT COME!
The class 33 never had steam boilers. There was/is an issue however with them, and in fact all locomotives built by BRCW (classes 26, 27 and 33).
That's rust, and lots of it.
The cab roof is made of glasfiber reinforced resin. The connection to the steel body above the window line always started leaking over time and water could enter.
You wouldn't see the water as it dripped down behind the sound deadening cladding inside the cab, but would pool on the floor behind the instrument panel, and cause the underside of the cab front to rot, in severe cases including structural members.
Most BRCW locomotives still in existence had their cab fronts rebuilt or is needing a rebuild.
The GCR class V reminds me of one of my favorite steam locomotives: the NS 3900’s. These were very coal hungry to the point that firemen started calling them executioners. This problem was also present with the very similar 6300’s, but without the rest of the problems.
NER not GCR. Interesting to hear of Dutch locomotives.
The U30 hood units were very good locomotives on coal trains and other heavy freight. Burlington Northern used a lot of them on those Powder River Basin coal trains out of Wyoming. BN replaced them with new General Electric C30-7s - basically a reworked and improved U30.
Keep this addicting content rolling!
4:43 THE ONLY THING THEY FEAR IS: NER CLASS V
Picture that in Thomas with a Demonic voice.
Thanks!
4:45 - 5:01 ok this is the closest darkness the curse has gotten to Meat canyon levels
Excellent
What if you did 5 most annoyingly average trains ever? (Also I suggest renaming it to 5 of the okayest trains ever.)
He did that before (aside from the renaming). Though I would be in favor of a second part.
Luckily for the U30CG’s the EMD FP45s were already around and thus ultimately had the Santa Fe’s top priority passenger trains once the U-boats were pulled from passenger service. It was better having the FP45’s taking over everything than to hand it back over the worn out F-units.
1:05 I have a vintage belt buckle with K4 5475 on it. I know it's a K4 because it has PENNSYLVANIA on the tender, and the Pennsy-style number plate on the smokebox says 5475 on it. I looked up her road number, and it came up as a K4.
Easiest way I’ve found to tell it’s a Pennsylvania Railroad Locomotive is there’s typically a Keystone on it, usually the Smokebox. If there’s a Keystone it’s a Pennsy!
My arms went numb 😆😆😆 man u a nut... good stuff
To be fair to the 33s, early ETH tended to be problematic on most diesels anyway
The class 33 did not have steam heating, among other things, because it was designed for use on the Southern region where they would pull passenger services during the busier summer season and freight in the winter. Add to this, at a later stage, when they were used for Weymouth &c. trains, they were pulling/pushing electric stock. It's class 27, Type 2, siblings were steam heated...and ran 6 cylinder engines. The space gained by dropping the steam heating allowed fitment of a larger 8 cylinder block but much of the rest of the unit was the same - including a steam through-pipe.
We need part 6 of 5 more of the best trains ever!
I hope the Nickel Plate Road S2 2-8-4 Berkshire are in this episode!
I have a minitrix n scale Santa Fe u30cg model and it runs great
Their was another locomotive before the u30cg . called the u28cg, these engine were like the u30cg without the full with body.it just looked like a stranded u28c freight engine . 10 where order in 1966.but sadly santa fe didn't like them . they were number 350-359.
At 11:34 onwards, the second unit in the train is a U28CG. The early use of what became ’Super Fleet’ livery was a dead giveaway.
I died laughing at the Class V’s issue XDDD
I'm glad you mentioned the influence of the K4 on Gresley's design of the A1.
Whenever I think about NER steam locomotive designs of Sir Vincent Raven, I think of high fuel consumption. The A2 class (LNER designation) also had to deal with it, and that might be one of the reasons why Gresley's Pacific design was preferred over Raven's.
I guess high coal consumption wasn't as much of a priority in the NER, at least if there were ample coal mines in northeast England and Scotland.
Yeah The NER went from York up to atleast newcastle. And had ALL the track inbetween that had ALOT of coal mines.
My town on the durham coast line was once a major industry town with tons of steel mills along with a shipyard and used to get NER 0-8-0 T2 ravens that ran till end of steam.
The Great Western also served a huge coalfield yet made economy in coal consumption a priority.
@@mikebrown3772 I guess their idea was: "Better not use up all our merchandise!"
I think the u30CG's are neat, I have a friend working on a S scale shell for one that'll go on an American flyer u33c chassis.
AlCo had plans for a passenger variant of the C636 but never got an order, it would've had the front of a AlCo PA.
When I saw the title I thought of the LNWR and the accident in Buxton (England) on 11th November 1921.
Nothing much wrong with the engines, just that the safety valves stuck closed sometimes. The crews said that they kept getting steam gauges that were faulty. Sometimes they complained that the indication would go off the scale and that the gauge would start going around a second time.
The problem was not the gauges however. Sooner or later, something had to give... 💥😵
The K4s never had a good replacement. I’ve heard this for many years but I often wondered why they order 100 more K4s instead of 100 M1s. Also, I’ve never heard that the K4s were used much in freight service. Interesting.
Now I just hope the PRR J1 isn’t the locomotives that being covered by the otherwise.
It might be a K4
@@kawaiikindcake1023 I don’t think so.
Never mind You right
@@gamerfan8445 remember to check the description. One can see the locos listed there before the video is live.
@@godzillahomer oh thanks.
ACL R-1 maybe could’ve gone on this list. Part 2 maybe?
5:00 me at the buffet 😂
I operated both the U28CG and the U30CG out of Denver from August 1978 to October 1981. These both were miserable machines to run. They had that foot log throttle, KC109 controller with 16 notches. I never could get back into the engine room to check anything because the oil was a couple of inches deep on the deck. The Santa Feces wouldn't spend the money needed to maintain them right, Route of the Super Cheap.
9:34 i spent almost a entire day on that engine once as my dad was needed by the p-way as southerem (their diesel mechanical shunter) was not up for moving the 2 shark wagons (ballets waggons) fully filled from groombridge to high rocks and the digger and my dad was the only one available to drive r.j. Mitchel or as it’s otherwise known as “63”
7:53, nice😏
Santa Fe U30CG and the SDP40F had the same problem and were good units under the right circumstances.
Oh cmon, the 33 has an issue, oh well, its a pretty little diesel, one of my favorites.
Yeah. Likely the lack of steam heating. Didn't let them pull steam heated passenger stock in the winter.
@@godzillahomer Correct. Also high shed costs (That BR never got to grips with, they just couldn't find out why the 33's were so expensive on shed), and if something did go wrong (which was admittedly rather rare) it was nearly always electrical. But they were otherwise excellent engines with fantastic availability at times.
@@robertwilloughby8050
They're so good... That they're still in use: 3 of them and all with West Coast Railways.
Wait one of these derail pulling a passenger train. Wait never mind wrong locomotives
@@godzillahomer that's an easy one to solve. They were paired with a Class 24 which had a steam heating boiler. The 33s had a true steam pipe IIRC.
Could you do a video on trains in war? Like ww2 and ww1
All great locomotives are bound to have a flaw, just look at Stephensons Rocket…
please do Boston and Maine 3666
11:17 no no no no no no no! as a Illinoisan the correct pronunciation Chile cohte (cothe pronounced like coffee but instead of the f's it its t&h
3:35 - You sure that's V isn't a Roman Numeral 5?
Well, all their other classes use actual letters so it would be super annoying if this one was any different.
All the North Eastern Railway later used letters and not Roman Numerals. Wikipedia summarises them :
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:North_Eastern_Railway_locomotives
The later LNER went for a different letter series
No one of the numerous NER letter classes.
@@HistoryintheDark Ohhh~!! Okay. So there's my own lack of education showing.
Next up. Top 10 reasons why I hate talking about British railway
Lol
The V Class' problem could have been solved by fine coal and an automatic stoker lol🤣🤣🤣
But the British (and European as well as Asian and African, as far as I know) railroads never adopted automatic coal stokers...
@@krismangila1594 Yes this is true, this is why we never saw a Wasatch (AKA Big Boy) adopted for british use.
Or 2 firemen. Wasn't hard getting the coal when litterally every station has a yard that connects to a coal mine.
@@krismangila1594 Why not We could have benefited from using them
I stumbled across this channel and found the history compelling, so compelling that I can even forgive the introduction that sounds like a Los Angeles late night UHF channel monster movie marathon introduction, but one thing that sets my OCD to "Run 8" is calling a locomotive a train. A locomotive is not a "Train." It is part of a train; a train is a railroad car or a series of railroad cars moved as a unit by a locomotive or by integral motors. The Erie triplex 2-8-8-8-2 is not the worst train in America, it's the worst locomotive in America. The worst TRAIN in America is NJ Transit's train 2606 which failed to run 20 times in 2019 stranding thousands of passengers, it just didn't show up.
You could consider a list of airplanes that were plenty capable in their own right, but either never stood a chance or were never given the opportunity to truly show their struts.
Examples include Fokker D.VIII, YF-23, North American XB-70, F-107 Ultra Sabre, Me 262, Myasishchev M-50, He 112, La-15, Yak-23, Fiat CR 42, DH 103 de Havilland Hornet, Douglas B-23 Dragon, HP 52 Hampden, and Vickers Wellesley.
I mean steam locomotives are gonna have wheel slippage, sure they can be solve but it will happen regardless what it is.
Isn't that K4 Hank's Class from TTTE?
The amtrack class 33 is the best thing amtrack has made
Think of the locomotive as a waterbed it slouches back and forth until the tipping point
Imagine the coal bill on the NLR V class today. Yikes!
The Santa Fe segment. The curve is pronounced Who-l-a-han (Houlihan). The town is pronounced Chill-a-cothy (Chillicothe). I live within a 40 minute drive of both places and photograph trains near there.
Ah a North Eastern Railway engine.
Now yeah thing may be coal hungry but as someone who lives in an area where the NER served there was ALOT and i mean ALOT Of colliery's around because thats north of england for ya. Meaning getting coal isn't hard.
what was wrong with the pensy K-4?
maybe its a similar pensy engine
but they eventully had to age and some lasted longer than 45 years in pensy service it would be a problem.
@@vaclavmacgregor2464 makes sense i havnt watched yet
I thought the M1 was supposed to be a more powerful successor to the K4.
"Chill i COTH ee"
Do I spy the North Eastern Railway V and V 09 Class?
Doom Music is always funny
It exist and it WILL ALWAYS EXIST!!! Mwuhahahah.
Maybe the pensey might have been able to make the K4s into a freight locomotive if they changed their wheel arrangement. The LMS in the UK actually did that with their 4-6-0 black fives and turned them into 2-8-0s known as the 8f. If the pensey turned the K4s into 2-8-2s maybe that would have helped. But I dunno. Feel free to call me and idiot who knows nothing about engineering in the replys.
K4 1117 was probably modified a bit. Google it.
Another "K" on Class 33's windshield and I'll be done with British Rail.
Why you say u30cg is similer to sdp40f?
It should be p30ch
y u no 4-8-4, pennsy
Because 2-10-4 or 4-4-4-4!!! XD
If they did have a 4-8-4, it would be labeled a T2 though funnily enough.
@@catapultking8861 4-4-4-4 have problem, 2-10-4 too slow for passenger service. Just use a Class J :p
The Pennsy’s J class was the 2-10-4, if you’re referring to the N&W J Class, I have several issues with that one as well.
@@catapultking8861 yeah I meant N&W Class J. A 4-8-4 which actually pulled heavy loads through mountains
The J Class had a few issues, some of which are extremely off putting in my opinion, However, I think the Pennsy did fine honestly, the original pair of T1 Prototypes had no performance issues, just the later ones. Also, was sorta too late for the Pennsys Steam Traction Days anyways, the General Motors EMD E8 units were rolling out the same time as the T1’s, there wasn’t a Chance.
I know this comment isn't about trains but I just have to do a PSA. DO NOT eat the mini packs of flam-n hot Cheetos and drink Dr.Pepper afterwards, you will feel the equivalent of eating a pound of suger free gummy bears.
The Vs had very little to do with the GNR 4-4-2s. They were inspired by American practice. Nive to see a North eastern type on here though.
My Fafrete would be The V Even tho they want a lot of coal If i had a railway i would get The V
11:16
You mispronounced “Chillicothe”.
You got the Chilli right, but Cothe is pronounced Kaa-Thee.
Chainsaw
'British Rail' shall lead thee to rest.
Okay, so. Judging by the comments, you messed up with regards to both the K4s and the Class 33. So... I think I'm going to skip this one. Hate to say it, but it looks like it needs a do-over.
The k4 did Thier best
The Duplex is so overrated. Of all the new steam locomotives to build, why not a NYC Hudson? They're some of the most iconic steam locomotives ever built, and were the poster children of Lionel!
who cares if the Pa could not build good locomotives, a good 4 8 4 could have been brought. So could have a good 4 6 6 4 been brought. No the PRR had management problems even in the diesel era the prr needed 4 sd 40 to move trains from new york to chicage due to grades and the NMCY got the same job done with 2 gp 40's
It's pronounced CHILLA-CAWTH-EE
the NCY had No choice but to scarp Steam Locomotives, the NYC was spending Money on new yards new track new rails new ties new signal Systems new diesel locomotives rebuil;ding the rail road
Loved the subject… need a different voice over.