I know it is no record, but Here in Germany we have some locos with 90,5 Inch Diameter wheels. They are build in the 1930s , not in the 1800s. Look at BR 05, BR 61 and BR 18 201
14:17 "..Largest passenger drivjng wheels ever put on a locomotive.." Sorry, no. The largest coupled wheels ever used were almost certainly the 7ft 7.25in ones (91.25") on the Worsdell designed NER Q1 4-4-0's. Those are also the only locomotives ever built specifically for the competitive racing of scheduled passenger trains. Racing was curtailed, and the two built had 34 year careers running turn and turn about with their slightly smaller wheeled Q class half sisters. The largest wheels ever used in regular public service were 9ft diameter (108") on the broad gauge (7' 0.25") Bristol and Exeter singles (4-2-4T). They lasted a decade and half from 1853/4, and then 4 of the 8 were rebuilt with 8ft 10in wheels for further service. Following an accident the surviving 3 were rebuilt again as 4-2-2 tender locos and lasted into the 1880's. There's a surviving set of wheels outside the UK national railway museum in York, and they are huge. The largest of all time were almost certainly the 10ft (120") drivers fitted to Hurricane, an experimental GWR broad gauge loco of 1838. The loco only lasted until 1839, being broken up and many of the parts recycled, but in that year or so it did 10,000 miles, not too bad for the 1830's. It's also recorded as having run from a standing start at Paddington to pass Taplow in a little over 16minutes. From memory that's about 22miles, which suggests the loco achieved at least 80mph. In 1838.
In picturesque but topographically challenging South Devon, a piston carriage on Mr Brunel's broad gauge line (7'-0¼", it's final demise was in May 1892), on his atmospheric system went considerably faster than the 68mph acheived in service (in the 1840s!!) ..... and did so with a passenger on board. It wasn't meant to, but with no trailing load, by jove, it jolly well did!! The top speed achieved wasn't definitively recorded (I'd imagine the passenger has other things on his mind), but iz reasonably reckoned to have been well over 90mph. The prewar German DR Class 05 4-6-4 employed 2300mm dia drivers (that's 7'-6½" in old money). 05001 survives in Nuremburg Transport Museum
@@TheHoveHeretic The atmospheric railway incident sounds like it would have a wild ride. This was presumably the one occassion when the local rodent population hadn't eaten anything, and the system worked *perfectly*...
To create some 2-10-10-2s out of standard 2-10-2s without doubling or nearly doubling the firebox size just seems like a boneheaded design error. How could the engineering geniuses at work on this plan have missed an obvious necessity such as a bigger firebox for a bigger locomotive? One can only wonder how successful these engines might have been had they been given fireboxes befitting their size.
I am well aware I am far from the first person to have this opinion, but it is a shame the PRR S2 was such a failure because the Lionel model of it is such a beautiful piece of model railroad history. Knowing in real life it was not a pleasent locomotive to operate compared to its model counterpart is sad.
@@Elliottblancher The Brits were able to solve the low speed issue with LMS Turbomotive using nozzles that controlled the amount of steam that entered the turbine instead of a throttle
Dishonorable mentions to the Fontaine locomotive pre-rebuild (the rebuild removed the extra top mounted large wheels), A2/2 (Thompson's most embarrassing failure of a conversion), PRR K5, LNER A2, GWR 111 The Great Bear, SR Merchant Navy pre-rebuild, and LMS 6399 Fury before its conversion to 6170 British Legion.
Id always heard turbines ran full blast, or turned off. I seem to recall UP having such trouble with their gas turbines. The problem with the jointed boiler was that they were high carbon rings, and hot cinders would rupture them.
The leader was such a hideous mess in engineering terms - significantly overweight, and with an offset boiler that needed yet more scrap iron piled in the corridor to stop it listing. Not to mention the valve gear, the dry back firebox... When you look at the project history, it probably would actually have been possible to produce a more conventional 0-4-4-0 kitson meyer along the lines of the original sketches, with a shortened Q1 boiler, conventional valve gear and 'austerity' Q1 style platework to keep it within acceptable weight limits. And then Bulleid went to Ireland and did it all over again with CC1. Though at least that wasn't dangerously overweight.
@@dustin_4501in Bulleid's defence, the chain gear was originally forced on him due to wartime exigencies. He has wanted to use carden shafts, but at that time, only the US had the capacity to produce them and right then, much more important goods needed to cross the atlantic.
I'd personally replace the PRR S1 with Fowler's Ghost. The least the PRR S1 was a powerful beast and found actual usage. It may have possibly broken Mallard's speed record. Besides, the locomotive looks so darn cool. Fowler's Ghost on the other hand was arguably the first ever fireless steam locomotive. However, unlike the later fireless designs, this thing was EXTREMELY DANGEROUS.
FWIW, mallet articulateds are not well suited to super high speed running. The S1 is rumored to have gone well above 130mph (not confirmed, but circumstantial evidence says it did). Duplexes can do that since both engines are on the same frame.
You should set down the S1 much lower cuz I can assure you that she wasn't a fail cuz she was bad, but was run by the wrong railroad. Union Pacific's route for the 9000's would have been near perfect + the UP had better finances and more chances to preserve it.
????? I thought the largest were put on NYC 999 at 90 something inches or the British sterling singles with 100+ inches? Granted it might be the biggest drives put on Duplex and articulate styled locomotives but 84 isn't the biggest put on a passenger locomotive.
The Deutsche Reichsbahn had a few locomotives, particularly their Class 05 Hudsons, with 2300mm driving wheels. *That's 90.6 inches.* And there are a few engines from other companies that had even bigger driving wheels...
This was a fun video but I think it missed the point that all of these were experimental locomotives with either one or just a few exaamples ever built let alone a whole class with a long service life. I would love to see a video limited to a class of at least 25 locomotives that seved a minimum of 20 years. As it is the Erie Triplex "won",,,,a lot of laughs but hardly a surprise.
Experimentals that cost big money, AND from Railroads that didnt really have the cash to burn. A majority on the list were in fact of pure steam design that should not have failed so miserably.
Not really a criticism. I just think that the idea of a video of choosing the worse class of locomotives that had a significant number and service life would be a nice idea. As much as I love its mean ass looks I would start with the T1. Pennsy put a lot of bucks into an engine that was not only inferior to the diesel but also the K4 that it was meant to replace. But you gotta give it a lot of points as at least looking like it could eat anything EMD threw at it.
Dude, I did the numbers for the m1 turbines, they cost the C&O over 584,000,000 Dollars in today's money Adjusted from the investment of 42,000,000 back in 1947
I AM A PENNSY FAN ,, WHERE DO YOU GET YOUR 50 MPH SPEED LIMIT ON THE PENNSY ... YEAH O.K. SURE .... GG1's WERE LIMITED TO 50 MPH ...... LOL EVERYTHING WEST OF PITTSBURG WAS 70 MPH FOR FREIGHT ... PASSENGER WAS 100 MPH ... AND T1's AND K4's TIME FRAMES WERE ALWAYS SET ABOVE 90 MPH ...
It's well documented... Here's the most obvious source... Wiki ... "Q1's design was able to reduce dynamic argument by 60% compared to the J1 class above 70mph, but it exceeded the railroad's 50mph speed limit for the freight train.[5] You want the other 4 or 5 sources too?
Another very enjoyable clip. Love your stuff!! To my mind, there's a marked difference between concepts which were sound from an engineering perspective, but could never suit railway conditions e.g. sleeve valves and turbines, performance of both of which inherently optimises at a specific speed and on the other side 'triplex' steam suckers, where not even US loading gauge could hope to accommodate a large enough boiler (did anyone try triple expansion and reheating, or were they carted away as soon as they mentioned such ideas?) Under these criteria, Oliver Bulleid's Leader design still makes the cut, even though the offset mass of it's boiler (which some may call "an intersting choice" .... the PW Engineer may have used different adjectives) wasn't even mentioned, but it did spawn 'The Turf Burner' in Ireland, which employed conventional piston valves, had lateral balance ..... and worked a LOT better!! On these grounds, the Soviet AA20 really ought to take pride of place, managing to achieve outright failure of a design which had no need to resort to any inappropriate and/or novel component assembles .... the entire shambles being the result of unmitigated hubris. I do feel the WWII era Australian Standard Garratt, a 3'-6" gauge design, deserved a place on the list. They really were SO bloody awful that one of the workshops ordered to build a batch refused point blank to fit their own works plates. Somehow, one of these machines survives.
Honestly not to be annoying or whatsoever but here it goes. Personally the Southern E2s were complete bulls__t purely for how terribly they performed, and over so toxically overrated by a particular familiar fandom of talking happy little choo choo trains with faces
In my opinion Jawn Henry was not a failure. It costs 800000$ and Baldwin said we must build 100 locos to get a prize of 600000$ , what the N&W want pay. They didn't find other railways WHO buy the locos N&W did not want and N&W did not pay more than 600000$ per loco. That is the real reason.
If you stop to think, their legacy would die off if we stop talking about them and presenting them in these video's. Because very few pick up books any more. The same can be said about WWII era warships. Lots of channels on those too. Same reasoning.
I know it is no record, but Here in Germany we have some locos with 90,5 Inch Diameter wheels. They are build in the 1930s , not in the 1800s. Look at BR 05, BR 61 and BR 18 201
7 feet diameter wheels were on Hudson’s and Atlantics 4-4-2 that’s not too bad especially if the tracks were reinforced
14:17 "..Largest passenger drivjng wheels ever put on a locomotive.."
Sorry, no.
The largest coupled wheels ever used were almost certainly the 7ft 7.25in ones (91.25") on the Worsdell designed NER Q1 4-4-0's. Those are also the only locomotives ever built specifically for the competitive racing of scheduled passenger trains. Racing was curtailed, and the two built had 34 year careers running turn and turn about with their slightly smaller wheeled Q class half sisters.
The largest wheels ever used in regular public service were 9ft diameter (108") on the broad gauge (7' 0.25") Bristol and Exeter singles (4-2-4T). They lasted a decade and half from 1853/4, and then 4 of the 8 were rebuilt with 8ft 10in wheels for further service. Following an accident the surviving 3 were rebuilt again as 4-2-2 tender locos and lasted into the 1880's. There's a surviving set of wheels outside the UK national railway museum in York, and they are huge.
The largest of all time were almost certainly the 10ft (120") drivers fitted to Hurricane, an experimental GWR broad gauge loco of 1838. The loco only lasted until 1839, being broken up and many of the parts recycled, but in that year or so it did 10,000 miles, not too bad for the 1830's. It's also recorded as having run from a standing start at Paddington to pass Taplow in a little over 16minutes. From memory that's about 22miles, which suggests the loco achieved at least 80mph. In 1838.
That one was subject for question.
In picturesque but topographically challenging South Devon, a piston carriage on Mr Brunel's broad gauge line (7'-0¼", it's final demise was in May 1892), on his atmospheric system went considerably faster than the 68mph acheived in service (in the 1840s!!) ..... and did so with a passenger on board. It wasn't meant to, but with no trailing load, by jove, it jolly well did!! The top speed achieved wasn't definitively recorded (I'd imagine the passenger has other things on his mind), but iz reasonably reckoned to have been well over 90mph.
The prewar German DR Class 05 4-6-4 employed 2300mm dia drivers (that's 7'-6½" in old money). 05001 survives in Nuremburg Transport Museum
@@TheHoveHeretic The atmospheric railway incident sounds like it would have a wild ride. This was presumably the one occassion when the local rodent population hadn't eaten anything, and the system worked *perfectly*...
To create some 2-10-10-2s out of standard 2-10-2s without doubling or nearly doubling the firebox size just seems like a boneheaded design error. How could the engineering geniuses at work on this plan have missed an obvious necessity such as a bigger firebox for a bigger locomotive? One can only wonder how successful these engines might have been had they been given fireboxes befitting their size.
This will always trouble me
I am well aware I am far from the first person to have this opinion, but it is a shame the PRR S2 was such a failure because the Lionel model of it is such a beautiful piece of model railroad history. Knowing in real life it was not a pleasent locomotive to operate compared to its model counterpart is sad.
Yeah, I just dont understand why they didnt articulate the design.. I think it would have changed the fortunes of the project altogether.
The S2 could have worked if there was more studies into making steam turbines efficient at low speeds
Also use stronger alloy frames with a more sturdy, reliable, standard 4-8-4 wheel arrangement.
@@Elliottblancher The Brits were able to solve the low speed issue with LMS Turbomotive using nozzles that controlled the amount of steam that entered the turbine instead of a throttle
Dishonorable mentions to the Fontaine locomotive pre-rebuild (the rebuild removed the extra top mounted large wheels), A2/2 (Thompson's most embarrassing failure of a conversion), PRR K5, LNER A2, GWR 111 The Great Bear, SR Merchant Navy pre-rebuild, and LMS 6399 Fury before its conversion to 6170 British Legion.
Id always heard turbines ran full blast, or turned off. I seem to recall UP having such trouble with their gas turbines.
The problem with the jointed boiler was that they were high carbon rings, and hot cinders would rupture them.
The leader was such a hideous mess in engineering terms - significantly overweight, and with an offset boiler that needed yet more scrap iron piled in the corridor to stop it listing. Not to mention the valve gear, the dry back firebox... When you look at the project history, it probably would actually have been possible to produce a more conventional 0-4-4-0 kitson meyer along the lines of the original sketches, with a shortened Q1 boiler, conventional valve gear and 'austerity' Q1 style platework to keep it within acceptable weight limits.
And then Bulleid went to Ireland and did it all over again with CC1. Though at least that wasn't dangerously overweight.
To make things worst Bulleid brought back the chain-driven valve gear, modify form although.
@@dustin_4501in Bulleid's defence, the chain gear was originally forced on him due to wartime exigencies. He has wanted to use carden shafts, but at that time, only the US had the capacity to produce them and right then, much more important goods needed to cross the atlantic.
I'd personally replace the PRR S1 with Fowler's Ghost. The least the PRR S1 was a powerful beast and found actual usage. It may have possibly broken Mallard's speed record. Besides, the locomotive looks so darn cool.
Fowler's Ghost on the other hand was arguably the first ever fireless steam locomotive. However, unlike the later fireless designs, this thing was EXTREMELY DANGEROUS.
FWIW, mallet articulateds are not well suited to super high speed running. The S1 is rumored to have gone well above 130mph (not confirmed, but circumstantial evidence says it did). Duplexes can do that since both engines are on the same frame.
You should set down the S1 much lower cuz I can assure you that she wasn't a fail cuz she was bad, but was run by the wrong railroad. Union Pacific's route for the 9000's would have been near perfect + the UP had better finances and more chances to preserve it.
Watch Andrew Rail a' Bammers for the Santa Fe 2-10-10-2 3000 class.
Please loose the robo voice.
fo real
Yes, yes and yes
Some sound a little more EVP like to me at least.
Like the Ghosts of Railroading past !
I’ve been in that pothole once and thankfully got out of it and started talking more naturally as I got better over time
Robo voice is kewl!
I think the N&W 2300 was longer than the M1.
man your videos just keep getting better
Why thank ya!
????? I thought the largest were put on NYC 999 at 90 something inches or the British sterling singles with 100+ inches? Granted it might be the biggest drives put on Duplex and articulate styled locomotives but 84 isn't the biggest put on a passenger locomotive.
Could be... That one I wasnt too sure of when I came across it.
to be honest b&o george h emerson should have been rebuilt into a 4-8-4 with a normal firebox but hey thats just me
Yeah I wondered why they didnt make something of it rather than just let it sit. Get something for the money.
Wich of the fails do you still like none the less?
7:06 - They called it the WHAT?!😂😂😂
No 999 had 86 inch drivers and hers are the largest
Well okay then..there we have it :)
The Deutsche Reichsbahn had a few locomotives, particularly their Class 05 Hudsons, with 2300mm driving wheels.
*That's 90.6 inches.*
And there are a few engines from other companies that had even bigger driving wheels...
Too bad for the Q-1 4-10-4. It’s an interesting and great looking design. It would probably be better if it weren’t for the extra backwards pistons
I'm kinda surprised you included the Santa fe 2-6-6-2, and the 2-10-10-2, but didn't also include their equally horrible 4-4-6-2.
I thought the other 2 were worse. Most of the list in fact could have been Santa Fe and the PRR
@@TheRailroadCrossing-SteamPower fair enough lol
I still want a 2-10-10-2 in HO scale
Cool loco, just not executed correctly
Yeah I'm glad you included the Q-1s on your list. It's not really because of mechanical issues. It's just I thought the Q-1s looked ugly.
Yep, Leader was certainly a dud, just like Fowler’s Ghost, The Great Bear, and Fury.
Personally I would have put the 2662 locomotives higher, simply because they were described as “mechanical abortions”
5:03 such a beautiful line.
Yeah.. I thought that was cute! But not higher because it was the Santa Fe's first failure.. The 2nd one was inexcusable on their part.. Why it got #5
The Lord answered to my prayers , the LB&SCR E2 did not show up in this one.
The s1 and s2 could’ve been used effectively if they gave it a second chance
Could you please do a video about the wreck of the old 97?
Fabulous! Commentary over the top great😂😂😂
Glad you enjoyed it
Then there is the infamous LBSCR E2 0-6-0t. Seeing that and the S1 being the worst functional engines made me into a USRA fanboy.
Fowler's Ghost, LMS 6399 Fury (before it became British Legion), and C&O M-1 Steam Turbine were worse functioning than the S1.
I had no idea.
This was a fun video but I think it missed the point that all of these were experimental locomotives with either one or just a few exaamples ever built let alone a whole class with a long service life. I would love to see a video limited to a class of at least 25 locomotives that seved a minimum of 20 years. As it is the Erie Triplex "won",,,,a lot of laughs but hardly a surprise.
Experimentals that cost big money, AND from Railroads that didnt really have the cash to burn. A majority on the list were in fact of pure steam design that should not have failed so miserably.
Not really a criticism. I just think that the idea of a video of choosing the worse class of locomotives that had a significant number and service life would be a nice idea. As much as I love its mean ass looks I would start with the T1. Pennsy put a lot of bucks into an engine that was not only inferior to the diesel but also the K4 that it was meant to replace. But you gotta give it a lot of points as at least looking like it could eat anything EMD threw at it.
Dude, I did the numbers for the m1 turbines, they cost the C&O over 584,000,000 Dollars in today's money
Adjusted from the investment of 42,000,000 back in 1947
No, no they spent something like 584K per loco which worked out to 42m in todays dollars.
@@TheRailroadCrossing-SteamPower I'm talking about the total investment adjusted for inflation
I AM A PENNSY FAN ,, WHERE DO YOU GET YOUR 50 MPH SPEED LIMIT ON THE PENNSY ...
YEAH O.K. SURE ....
GG1's WERE LIMITED TO 50 MPH ...... LOL
EVERYTHING WEST OF PITTSBURG WAS 70 MPH FOR FREIGHT ...
PASSENGER WAS 100 MPH ...
AND T1's AND K4's TIME FRAMES WERE ALWAYS SET ABOVE 90 MPH ...
It's well documented... Here's the most obvious source... Wiki ... "Q1's design was able to reduce dynamic argument by 60% compared to the J1 class above 70mph, but it exceeded the railroad's 50mph speed limit for the freight train.[5] You want the other 4 or 5 sources too?
РЖД АА20 Паровоз
The "tri-plex"may have ranked worse in your category but I consider it's design really something nice and impressive to see!
thank you, i really enjoyed the video
Thank you too!
Another very enjoyable clip. Love your stuff!!
To my mind, there's a marked difference between concepts which were sound from an engineering perspective, but could never suit railway conditions e.g. sleeve valves and turbines, performance of both of which inherently optimises at a specific speed and on the other side 'triplex' steam suckers, where not even US loading gauge could hope to accommodate a large enough boiler (did anyone try triple expansion and reheating, or were they carted away as soon as they mentioned such ideas?)
Under these criteria, Oliver Bulleid's Leader design still makes the cut, even though the offset mass of it's boiler (which some may call "an intersting choice" .... the PW Engineer may have used different adjectives) wasn't even mentioned, but it did spawn 'The Turf Burner' in Ireland, which employed conventional piston valves, had lateral balance ..... and worked a LOT better!!
On these grounds, the Soviet AA20 really ought to take pride of place, managing to achieve outright failure of a design which had no need to resort to any inappropriate and/or novel component assembles .... the entire shambles being the result of unmitigated hubris.
I do feel the WWII era Australian Standard Garratt, a 3'-6" gauge design, deserved a place on the list. They really were SO bloody awful that one of the workshops ordered to build a batch refused point blank to fit their own works plates. Somehow, one of these machines survives.
Thank you very much!
Honestly not to be annoying or whatsoever but here it goes.
Personally the Southern E2s were complete bulls__t purely for how terribly they performed, and over so toxically overrated by a particular familiar fandom of talking happy little choo choo trains with faces
Haha..that's funny! It was considered but didnt make the cut.
I love these tep ten lists i hope to see more thanks for all your hard work this is my favorite youtube channel for trains
Thank you so very much!
Thanks!
Thank you very much Eric! Just to clarify... Is that the Southern Railway accident? Im asking off the top of my head.
@@TheRailroadCrossing-SteamPower Yes. The Southern Railway accident.
You got it! See ya tomorrow!
Thx, expected the Jawn Henry on the list. It was relegated to pusher like a lot of these.
Any time
In my opinion Jawn Henry was not a failure. It costs 800000$ and Baldwin said we must build 100 locos to get a prize of 600000$ , what the N&W want pay. They didn't find other railways WHO buy the locos N&W did not want and N&W did not pay more than 600000$ per loco. That is the real reason.
@martinanschutz7410 everything I've read talks about the various technical problems with it, not the cost.
B&M T1 could been in the list too.
mmm... not quite egregious enough in my book.
After they were sold to the atsf and sp (I think some were also from the B&A) they were great
@@Mcnibbus B&A never got T1 and the T1 only work because they were modify in the ATSF and SP hands.
I like that he talks about the locomotives that thousands of people have already talked about
If you stop to think, their legacy would die off if we stop talking about them and presenting them in these video's. Because very few pick up books any more. The same can be said about WWII era warships. Lots of channels on those too. Same reasoning.