These Locomotives Were Failures! | Unsuccessful Engines
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 18 ก.ย. 2024
- We talk about successful trains all the time... but some of them didn't do so well, so here are some locos which were arguably failures, or at the very least had their down sides!
Become a Sam'sTrains engineer here: / @samstrains
Get your Sam'sTrains merch: teespring.com/...
Thanks for watching!
Email: samstrains@outlook.com
Instagram: / samstrainsofficial
Facebook: / samstrains
Twitter: / samstrains
There was a glaring opportunity missed on the railmotor: to incorporate a buffet car... serving bacon and egg breakfasts straight off the shovel!
hahaha darn it - they might still be in use on the mainline today if they'd thought of this!!!
Thanks for watching, Sam :)
They made up for it with the stylish diesel railcars of the 1930s and.the late great Keith Floyd did once demonstrate 'Trout Manifold' .... admittedly using a petrol engined Land Rover!
@@pepwaverley2185
I tried breakfast on Avanti West Coast between London Euston and Manchester when I was on holiday in the UK last month. It was amazing ! Even if it wasn’t cooked on the shovel 🤣. Pity our SNCF here in Frogland (and I work for them!) can’t do something similar on the TGV. They might be fast (320kmh) but the nosh is shite 🙄.
@@TheHoveHeretic we reheated a tin foil wrapped pizza under the bonnet of my Mk2 Vauxhall Cavalier in 1985 when I was a student on a trip from Swansea to London for a Pink Floyd gig. It was delicious !
I enjoyed this review of not so hot steam locos. I was on the first trip on the Llangollen Railway on the restored steam railmotor. I learnt two things. 1) Churchward would not give loco crews seats, this was apparently to stop them going to sleep. 2) Firing the Railmotor. It can only be fired when it is stopped, this is because the fire hole door kept moving with the rest of the boiler on curves! Please do not get me going on Thompson!!!
Thanks so much David - and that's very interesting about the Railmotor, I didn't know these things!
Thanks for watching, Sam :)
@@davidleathart7480 Whatever you have got to say about Thompson it’s most likely been debunked, he was not the bad man so many people over the years have tried to make him out to be, the facts are that he was put in change of a Railway during a time where things were difficult and took the decisions he had to to get things done and in most cases his changes were right and very much needed, then his successor adapted those ideas and made them better.
@@davidstrains4910 I agree that Thompson did do some good things like round top boilers, especially on my beloved Great Eastern. However, why did he turn a powerful 2-8-2 into a not so good 4-6-2 in the midst of wartime when strong pullers were called for?
@@davidleathart7480It’s the P2s your talking about and it’s well documented now that the overall availability of those in 2-8-2 form when the war was on was extremely poor, they may have been a nice engine to look at but they were very unreliable with many problem which during wartime was just not on, they were spending more time in the works than hauling the heavy trains that you claim they were needed for, he also rebuilt them to save them from an early scrapping, there were only 6 of them so they were insignificant in the greater scheme of things, if they were scrapped during the war it wouldn’t have caused any issue at all, it’s actually a myth that the rebuild was not as powerful, it’s well documented that the rebuilds were more than capable of the work that was asked of them, the only thing that was wrong was they had lower adhesion and prone to wheelslip due to losing a set of driving wheels but all Pacific’s wheelslip from time to time, look at bulleids pacifics which wheel slipped a lot of the time but were still capable of the work they were asked to do, the rebuilding of the P2s was one of Thompsons best things because he took a very poor locomotive and turned it into a while quite ugly into a much more reliable locomotive that also never encountered the issues that the P2s constantly had, the P2s while nice can be considered one of Gresleys while very few failures.
@@davidstrains4910 OK Point taken, score draw.
Great vid. Biggest issue for Turbomotive was WWII. There was understandably no ability to improve on 6202; the reverse turbine and cooling of the oil where certainly in need of work. It must be remembered that Princess Anne was a rebuild of Turbomotive.
ww2 also effected the development of hush hush
That's a very good point - thanks for this!!
Thanks for watching, Sam :)
@@RaysRailVideosWWII was also responsible for Bulleid's chain drive as the Carden shafts he originally envisaged for his pacifics were unavailable from across the pond due to the Austrian Corporal's activities.
I'd imagine the reasons he stuck with chain drive after war's end were
(1) chain drive was by then a known quantity, meaning no major redesigns
(2) Attlee's government necessarily discouraged imports, especially from non-sterling economies
(3) Valve actuation was the least of Leader's issues!
I think the Class 28 Co-Bo deserves a mention, if only for it's looks 😊.
11:55
Fun fact: Princess Anne WAS the Turbomotive!
Ahh yes of course - annoyed I missed that haha!
Thanks for watching, Sam :)
And she went on to be involved in the 2nd worst train crash in the UK... Harrow and Wealdstone (1952)
Another (not so) fun fact: Duke of Gloucester was built to replace Princess Anne when she was destroyed in the Harrow & Wealdstone crash.
@@SamsTrains gotta do that youtubers thing of slightly incorrect or absent info to drive engagement 😮😮❤
Nice video Sam, some great information to justify the weaknesses of these engines which clearly made them not as reliable as the majority of the engines of the time. It would be cool to see what locomotive was a failure for each era like era 1, 2 etc. Future video maybe? Anyways, good job on this
Thanks a lot Lewis - yeah that could be fun actually, thanks for that suggestion!
Thanks for watching, Sam :)
The ironic think about the L1 is that something of its type could be a fantastic option for heritage railways. Not too large, but still big and imposing enough to provide a spectacle to visitors, and powerful enough to handle 5 coach trains without issue. It wouldn't have any real detriment running bunker first, and with a max speed of 25 on the majority of heritage lines, the smaller driving wheels wouldn't pose much of a problem.
A further irony is that the OO Gauge model of the loco is - in my experience at least - an excellent runner!
@@stephendavies6949I can certainly vouch for the Hornby L1 model and I have two of them both in the apple green. Both examples are absolutely brilliant performers 😊
I suspect the V1/V3 would be a more likely aspiration, as A1SLT (the fine chaps and chapesses behind 60163 and 2007) have mentioned such a desire, are the team with a proven track record for design, procurement, construction and (not least of all) fundraising.
Sorry Sam, why is the Thompson L1 in here? Highly successful steam locomotive with a significant number built and working to the end of steam on very exacting timetables for suburban services across the ex-LNER system. I cover this at length in my book on Edward Thompson - do have a read please!
Agree re:Edward Thompson's reputation, less so about the riding qualities of the L1 at any sort of speed, where 'cement mixer' is a term seen frequently and accusations of shaking themselves to pieces feature too. Not so much of an issue on goods services and wouldn't be at 25mph, had one or more survived.
I suspect that the rundown and aged LNER fleet at war's end might have had more than a bit to do with the urgent need for a large number of powerful tank engines.
Pity Sir Vincent Raven wasn't listened to ....
@@Britishrailwaystories also, ride quality for the crew is not what makes it a good loco. Staff comfort is nice but it doesn't decide how much, or how well a loco can move stuff.
If that matters so much rocket failed, awful ride quality I've been on the footplate of the replica. Planet failed, every 0-4-0 failed... The class 66... Failed because the cab air conditioning wasn't the best on delivery and the drivers complained? 🤔
Failures like these are a model train enthusiast kryptonite due to the different look they put forth and I can't blame the manufacturers for picking them out to model. I love the look of each and every one you pointed out and this odd look is after all what us collectors, enthusiast, and railfans wants to see. Gret informative video, Jersey Bill
Pretty much yeah
haha absolutely - they do make for awesome models!
Thanks for watching, Sam :)
Sam,in the US,several railroads had experimental Water tube boilers,and high pressure boilers,and they didn't work out too well! Two companies were the B&O,[Col.Emerson],and the NYC,as they were deep into experimental operations in the 1930's! A bit of an excursion into failures of other CME's! Thank you 😇 😊!
Ahh interesting - I'll have to read up on those, thanks!
Thanks for watching, Sam :)
The Germans also experimented with high pressure boilers on a few class 24 mixed traffic and class 44 freight locos. The modest gains in efficiency were not worth the resulting reliability and maintenance headaches.
The biggest black mark on Churchward's record that unfortunately doesn't exist as in a ready to run model is The Great Bear, the GWR's only Pacific locomotive. Which is a shame, as I would like to have one in a model form.
Yeah absolutely - I feel like it's only a matter of time before we get one of those!
Thanks for watching, Sam :)
@@SamsTrains If I remember correctly, Hornby was considering to produce one of those, but as of now there are no signs of it ever hitting the shelves.
My understanding is that TGB was pretty much forced on Churchward by a board more interested in that old upper class sport of willy-waving than the practical day to day necessities of the GWR.
Here's the breakdown
0:01 intro
0:32 GWR railmotor
2:45 GWR county class
4:50 LNER Thompson L1
6:46 LMS turbomotive
9:07 LNER hush hush
11:10 BR standard class 8
13:27 BR class 17
Ah mate; you do know that Harrow & Wealdstone is a railway station that is also the terminus of the London Underground's Bakerloo line.
I read a very interesting book about the various Chief Engineers of the GWR, including Churcward. In that book it was suggested that Churchward was annoyed with the staff on the old Hereford & Shrewsbury Railway concerning their refusal to allow 4-6-0s and 2-6-0s over their metals so to please them (and curse them at the same time) he designed and built the Counties with the same boilers and power and weight as 4-6-0s but on a shorter wheelbase. Something that he knew they would regret having supplied to them. How true this is, I do not know.
They make lovely models though 😍 😊😊
Ahh that's very interesting - I feel like he definitely would have known better wouldn't he? He certainly wasn't building 4-4-0s at that time for areas without such restrictions!
Thanks for watching, Sam :)
If that argument holds true, why on earth were two further batches (bringing the total to 40 rough riders) authorised? GJC could have beaten Collett to the Dukedog concept by three decades!! Could Churchward have been trying to convince the LNWR of the error of their ways by increased PW repairs .... and resultant bills for same?
Wonder if the DeGlehn 'atlantics' ever visited the joint line?
Heljan is the best at producing fail engines accurately, not many manufacturers attempt to replicate the poor running of failed prototypes. 🤣
hahaha they certainly are!!
@@azuma892 You told me recently that you are not stupid yet here you are making a very silly comment here that isn’t even true, what experience of heljan do you have to justify this because I can tell you right now I have a vast collection of their models and not one has caused me any grief.
@@davidstrains4910 Calm down lol. This is only a reference to Sam's horrible Heljan Class 17, maybe Heljan should employ you as their spokesperson. I had a few Heljan models myself and they are honestly fine, why do you like defending Heljan so much?
Especially their Class 17, which I believe Sam has still not tried to fix.
@@azuma892 Hi Azuma, I defend heljan quite a bit because as I have said I haven’t had any issues with any of the models that I have manufactured by them in my collection, not even on ones I have bought second hand, now yes they are not a perfect manufacturer and I certainly don’t act like they are the best in the world with no issues at all, if I get a model from them one day and I have an issue with it I will say what it was but right now it hasn’t happened, I can’t criticise something that hasn’t happened to me, I also have no loyalty to any brand whatsoever and I buy the models that I like, now yes others may show their models to have issues but that still doesn’t give me any reason to criticise them because it hasn’t happened to me, it’s their experience and the likelihood of the issue being experienced by someone else is very low, lets take Sam’s class 17 that you have mentioned for example, Sam’s one is not the best and in his review of it it wasn’t a great model, it did have an issue but it didn’t stop me from buying one because some time after the review Sam did I bought myself a heljan 17 second hand and it’s been a good model for me with no issues at all so when someone talks about that model my overall comments on it are going to be positive, when it comes to Sam he often says to leave in the comments the experiences other people have had with their models if he ha ps one that has had an issue, maybe I could be their spokesperson, I have more than enough experience of their models having a fairly big collection of them and more that I want to get from them, the upcoming 153/155s, a couple of their class 86s just to name a couple.
Oooh missed opportunity to segue nicely from the LMS Turbomotive to the Duke of Gloucester.
The Duke was built to replace the Coronation Class Princess Anne destroyed in the Harrow and Wealdstone disaster, which was the Turbomotive only two months after having been rebuilt into a conventional steam locomotive
Ahh very true - dammit!!
Thanks for watching, Sam :)
I think the turbomotive was just ahead of its time. I don’t think it could be considered a failure just because it was no good in reverse. When have you seen a Princess or Princess Coronation hauling an express tender first?Or on a branchline? (Except maybe in preservation). As for Duke of Gloucester it wasn’t built according to its designers specifications. Mainly due to cost cutting by BR for whom steam was finished post 1955. Rather a similar story with SNCF’s U1 4-6-4 introduced in 1949, though it was well built, steam was finished as far as the SNCF was concerned as they were already pretty advanced in electrification. A strange twist of fate that Duke of Gloucester was built to replace Princess Anne, which was the conventional rebuild of the turbomotive and destroyed after just a few months in service in the Harrow disaster.
Fun video though, thanks.
That's true - and no that's not the complete story, it was a failure because the technology didn't get adopted and she was converted into a conventional loco - that's my argument anyway haha! Thanks for all the extra info,
Thanks for watching, Sam :)
@@SamsTrains always a pleasure mate. I’m off back to my vintage Dublo 3-rail layout. I’ve got a 4MT 2-6-4T which is drawing over 600ma despite a remag with Mr Dodd’s machine, so something is definitely wrong somewhere… Still more a success than Thomson’s L1,probably because it has large driving wheels !
@@SamsTrains thanks for the reply Sam 👍
One North American diesel locomotive failure was easily the EMD BL2. It was an attempt by EMD to make a product to compete with the roadswitchers from ALCO and other manufacturers, while also retaining the stylistic design of a streamlined locomotive. Unfortunately, it wound-up having the downsides of both roadswitchers and streamliners, without any of the positives, and, as a result, only 58 were ever built in total over a 14 month period, along with a BL1 prototype. Amazingly, despite the short production, 7 of them have managed to make it into preservation.
For comparison, the follow-up roadswitcher EMD made, the GP7, sold 2,729 units.
It was definitely a nice looking engine. Another factor that may have killed it was that it was marketed as a branch line loco, hence the BL designation. This was at a time that railroads were losing their shirts on branch lines and were closing them down. Even if technically perfect, it was doomed to fail.
'History in the Dark does some great videos on non-textbook non-successes .... and Darkness's cat is the most shockproof feline I've ever seen.
Hi Sam, my father was a railway man during the period in the North East when the Clayton's were being used and he told me that they were flogged to death on trains that were far too heavy for them, so I imagine that would help account for some of their 'bad reliability'. Never mind inexperienced staff and steam/ soot etc playing havoc with them
The problem with steam turbines is that they have narrow efficiency range, for a ship you can cruise at your optimum speed ( warships having cruise and speed turbines) but on a railway you have speed restrictions which means they have to run at sub optimum speed.
Yes I read about that too - very interesting how they merged ship and train technology... or perhaps failed to!
Thanks for watching, Sam :)
Yeah saw that and thought "Oh god this is the Pennsylvania Railroad's S2 all over again..."
In the case of 6202, the design was optimised for operation at 62mph and the loco was almost exclusively employed on the London-Liverpool express service.
Had it not been for the war, perhaps the turbine blades could have been replaced, but with Stanier's retirement, maybe the experiment was doomed anyway. The surprise was perhaps more why it wasn't rebuilt under LMS auspices.
As designed the GWR Manor was a poor steamer and relative failure (like the British Railways Standard 8), the global disagreements during the early 1940's prevented any remedial work on them. It wasn't until British Railways inherited the locomotives that they were eventually improved, and a further 10 were added to the BR fleet. I guess had the standard 8 had 4+ more years, BR might have fixed that too?!
Have a Google search of the second Isle Of Wight Central Railway railmotor. They hadn't the money to buy a new purpose built one ; They bought a used Midland Railway Clerestory coach, fitted some pull push gear and cut out some driver windows at one end. Then they coupled up a small elderly tank engine to the rear (pushing position) and covered the engine in metal sheets to hide its' identity. Needless to say it failed miserably and engine and coach were separated. They didn't totally give up, they removed the auto gear and clerestory roof and the coach re entered service with a new identity.
You have made a glaring emission - Bulleid's "Leader"! Brilliant idea from one of the most innovative loco engineers the UK had ever produced, but it needed a lot more development to get rid of the flaws, and beaten by dieselisation.
Contrast the failure of the GWR "County" with the outstandingly successful SR "Schools" class 4-4-0 from Maunsell's drawing board, about 20 years later. The Schools was also designed in an era of 4-6-0 dominance, in order to fit on short turntables on some lines (I do wonder if it would have been cheaper just to change the turntables!). Just like the "Counties", the Schools had high axle loading and the P-Way engineers were concerned about hammer blow (especially as the SR track quality wasn't so great!). Nonetheless, the Schools proved extremely successful, with plenty of power and speed for express services and lasted until the end of steam.
Knowing what we know now about turbines, the Turbomotive was doomed to failure. Turbines are very efficient at full load and constant speed, great for a power station - most of our electricity is generated by steam turbines - but when you try to vary the speed the incident angles of steam and blades don't properly match so efficiency is lost, and at part-load efficiency is poor as the steam is not used fully expansively as it is in a piston engine. With a piston steam engine you can vary both speed and load and still use the steam to its maximum efficiency by adjusting the cut-off (the "gear" that varies the position along the stroke that the steam stops being admitted).
Union Pacific had some more success with their steam-turbine-electric locos as the turbines ran constant speed, and power was transmitted through electric drive. However the varying load still caused efficiency loss. Their gas turbine-electrics were moderately successful but only when used on long drags where they could run full power continuously.
The LNER 10,000 "hush-hush" had the distinction of being (I think) the only Hudson (4-6-4) in the UK.
You singled out the Clayton class 17 as a failed diesel, but there were many, many more we could list . . . !
The two Union Pacific steam turbine locomotives, along with the C&O M1 and the Norfolk and Western "Jawn Henry", were all steam turbine-electric locomotives. Basically power plants on wheels, they had high pressure boilers that powered a steam turbine which drove a generator, just like in a power station. The electricity from the generator was then used to power traction motors, just like a diesel electric locomotive.
They had multiple issues. Firstly, the combination of a boiler and steam turbine/generator was much more complex and expensive than a comparable diesel-generator. The only reason they were willing to try it was because coal was much cheaper and more readily available on those railroads than diesel fuel was, they also thought oil reserves would not last longer enough.
They were also very troublesome to operate. Ash and water from the boiler and dust from the coal would get into the traction motors and short them out, ash and soot could also find its way into the compartment where the turbine/generator was, causing issues there. The constant banging and shaking of the locomotive would cause tube leaks in the water tube boilers themselves.
After several publicity runs, Union Pacific returned their steam turbine locomotives just three months later, and dropped the project after two years, even shorter than the ones mentioned in this video. They were too expensive and unreliable to run. The passenger train the three C&O M-1s were supposed to pull was never built; they spent their short careers operating between Clifton Forge and Charlottesville, Virginia. The locomotives were scrapped in 1950, just two years later. The Jawn Henry survived the longest, being used in pusher service for four years before being retired in 1958 and scrapped in 1961.
Steam turbine electric locomotives were way more expensive to build than diesel electric locomotives, way more expensive to maintain, and all had problems with coal dust and water getting into the traction motors, and tube leaks in water tube boiler. None of them lived up to their promise; simply because steam locomotives operate in much harsher and dirtier environments than either steamships or stationary power plants, and so they never saw the efficiency gains that power plants and steamships achieved. Locomotives also don't operate constantly in the full power zone like power plants and steamships, and they were very inefficient at less than full throttle.
The Union Pacific had a little better success with their gas turbine locomotives, mainly because the Bunker C fuel they burned was so cheap, they were still cheaper to operate at less than full throttle. But once the demand for oil as feedstock for plastics started in the 1960s, the rising cost of Bunker C made the gas turbine locomotives too expensive to operate as well, and they were retired.
@@survivingworldsteam Great extra detail! Thanks.
I think Sam is sticking with models of locos he has.
This was an excellent video Sam.
I'd love to seeyou do a video on the history of the APT and HSTs
The steam powered rail car really raised my eyebrows. First off I thought it was either diesel or petrol powered. My next thought was a boiler explosion in such a vehicle would be absolutely disastrous! Great video as always. Here in the good ol’ US of A we too have had our design failures.
Vertical boiler .... would that go pop upwards? I dunno!!
Was the standard 8 a failure as designed? I think you actually explained that it was more of a failure "as built", since it didn't even follow it's diagrams.
The LMS Deeley "Flat Iron". An 0-6-4T express tank loco that was prone to derailing when running in the forward direction. The only loco, in the world, that was always turned to run bunker first.
Kinda interesting that all of these locomotives aren’t so much failures as they are a case of going unconventional but no getting the boost they hoped for
Yeah absolutely - very interesting isn't it?
Thanks for watching, Sam :)
The Turbomotive is just so tragic, as it showed promise, but was hamstrung by it’s flaws hence it was rebuilt, but months after it was rebuilt to a conventional steam engine and named Princess Anne, it was involved in the infamous Harrow and Wealdstone train crash of 1952, the worst rail disaster in UK history. It was damaged beyond repair and was destroyed, it was scrapped soon after… It never got a chance to truly shine…
There's a link between the Turbomotive and the Duke of Gloucester - when Turbomotive was rebuilt into a conventional locomotive, she was renamed to Princess Anne - the locomotive Duke of Gloucester replaced after her scrapping after the Harrow and Wealdstone disaster.
Love this series. A look at more obscure engines which were not a success. I personally agree with all except for the Railmotor. The Railmotors failed because of their success as a small, single car passanger coach which can drive on it's own. I think in that way it was a success until you try to pull more carriages. For that I feel like an Autotrain would have been better. While it had some quirky design features, I think it was great for it's intended purpose. As for some mentions from my side, I think the LBSC E2 definitely deserves it, as well as the GWR County 4-6-0 by Hawksworth. That was a controversial loco as well. I love it for it's slightly unusual looks with the splashers and straight name plates. Both Counties will get new builds eventually so we can observe for ourselves if the rumours were true. As for diesels, the Class 15, 16, 17 and 28 were either mediocre or a total fail. I like the Class 28 for it's boxy appearance and unusual wheel configuration. It was good, except for the fact that the engines were unreliable and the windows would literally shake themselves out of the window frame when the locomotive is shaking a bit. Still, it looks good I think. Please, make a part 2 Sam 👍 really enjoy these
Also I want to point out that the Princess anne was the old lms turbomotive
Yeah absolutely - annoyed I missed that haha!
Thanks for watching, Sam :)
The L1 was built for suburban services, and was excellent for that purpose, with high tractive effort providing great acceleration to medium speed. However, it's job was literally taken away from it by the formation of London Transport and the electrification of services. It was in the attempted re-purposing of these locos that the shortcomings that you describe came up, and they were to be expected.
Across the pond, the Pennsylvania Railroad had its fair share of duds too. The S1 duplex drive steam locomotive was too big for most of the Railroads curves and was restricted to running from Chicago IL to Crestline OH. It was just a prototype however and it led to the development of the smaller T1, but that gained a reputation for wheelslip. When used by the Chesapeake and Ohio railway the engineers, who were used to such large and powerful locomotives had no such problems. They also had the S2 Steam Turbine but it was also mechanically complex, as well as just being too little too late, as dieselization was already happening across the country.
Where there are successes, there are failures too.
Interesting video, Sam 👍
Yeah very true! Glad you liked it,
Thanks for watching, Sam :)
You said that the Churchward counties were an oddity due to them being 4-4-0s, but at the time they were introduced, there were far more 4-4-0 designs than 4-6-0s. 4-6-0s obviously went on to become more ubiquitous on the GWR lol
You could probably have a whole video on early BR Diesel Duds. Every man and his dog were commissioned to build diesels, with little or no experience, and it looks like most of them didn't work.
I find it sad and unusual that the Class 17 didn’t do so well. Here in the states, G.E. made the center-cab 44- and 70-tonners. There were a few electric center-cab “motors” that operated off overhead wire; at least one is in operation still on the Iowa Electric, I believe. Finally, Alco made the C415; one of the was still in operation serving a coal trans-load facility (rail->barge) though I don’t know if it still does. That being said, it’s hard to succeed when you put rubbish engines in them (the Class 17) to start with. 😢
As an aside, Sam. Have you heard about the wreck/derailment of the Flying Scotsman? It would be really sad if they had to scrap it.
Great video. One which was a bit of a flop in southern England was the double decker. Only two built and could only be used on two routes. Based at sladegreen, was a nightmare for the driver and guard.
I love how you always use that intro music when you're talking about bad trains, in model form or real life.
I think the main takeaway is that _nobody,+ not even *legendary designers/engineers* bat a thousand, and everybody has flops, failures, and shortcomings. It is those though that teach more than the successes.
The Turbomotive, although flawed, was, of all the attempts at a direct drive turbine that was the most successful, and had the longest service life. If WWII had never happened, I'm sure the details would have been worked out and it developed into a larger class.
I love the hornby county. I wish hornby would do a rerun of them in the railroad range again.
The two other candidates that jump to mind straight away are the GT3 and the APT - the former from what I gather was actually a relative success when the prototype was tested but it came at the wrong time with diesels already becoming the new standard for rail, and the latter was simply too advanced for the rail infrastructure at the time to actually support the functions it could achieve, such as the active tilt - which of course is now seen on Pendolino's and further afield with the TGV !
@@Powered_By_Pies both examples you have mentioned were were not failures. It was external things that caused them to fail, the APT for example was a victim of politics, government funding had been cut on the project and the whole project was mishandled by BR, with the government cuts to its funding it forced the development team to rush the train into service when it wasn’t ready plus at the time of the launch it was during one of the harshest winters Britain had seen, it’s often said at least another 6 months of development and the APT would have been ready, the press was also another reason why it failed as journalists were printing anything they wanted to make it look bad, the common one was that the tilting made people unwell but this is not true as most times people who were travelling on the train were drunk or hungover from the free booze they had drunk the night before going on the train.
GT3 again was relatively successful but again it failed due to external circumstances, with gas turbines they are only efficient when ran constantly but the British network doesn’t allow for that so most times it was just not running at a constant to be efficient.
2 good example but they are not failures themselves, it’s external circumstances beyond their control that caused them to fail.
If the Duke of Gloucester had been built as designed it may have been a different story as the build was meddled with and one glaring fact that stood out was the blast pipes were the equivalent of the Dean goods which basically throttled the draughting. There were other matters that hadnt been adhered to either in the design draft but perhaps the worst thing was it was built on the cusp of the modernisation plan in 1955 and its fate was basically already sealed as BR was more interested in dieselisation than continuation of steam traction.
A good and interesting Video as always Sam, However there were far worse Diesel Failures than the Class 17. The class 22 and 23 both only managed 3 years in service whilst the original (warship) class 41 and class 28 only managed
1 year... Although that been said it might not have even been that.
There is many more in-between as well, nearly all of them products of the hastiness of the Beeching's act which saw many diesel designs rushed straight off the design board and into production without much consideration or prototype testing in order to fulfill one of the main priorities which was to replace steam locomotives as fast as possible...
I appreciate your more of a steam person Sam, but you could do quite quite an interesting video on the many diesel failures if you have the models for them!
Thank you, a truly fascinating video and very informative. This is a great series with insights into the history of these locos. I am wondering if the auto coach idea was brought back as an idea in the later diesel DMU. And it had the power to pull other coaches. As a suggestion for a similar series, perhaps the best locomotive in each era. Thanks again.
It's a pleasure Robert - really glad you liked it!
Thanks for watching, Sam :)
Duke of Gloucester replaced Princess Anne which was the rebuild of the Turbo motive!
Morrison-Knudsen was a very short-lived manufacturer in the 90s. Their locomotives were of such a bad design that they aren't even included in many reference books.
Something I just read too. (Possibly incorrect) but apparently the loco Princess Anne that crashed and that Duke of Glouster replaced was the rebuilt turbo motive.
Awesome video. Maybe you should make a video about very successful engines to follow up onto this video. My favourite engines from this video is the Hush Hush and the Steam-Powered Coach.
I personally thought this video was going to be about failed model engines in your collection.
Oh I can not wait for KR models to bring out their Bullied Leader class locomotive. That one was a real big failure is so many ways. From the fire leaping out of the firebox door, the fireman space having only one door and being insanely hot. To the sleeve valve gear being troublesome and the centre of graving being off to one side due to the boiler not being in the centre of the frame.
Yes, I'm afraid that you have to add Bulleid to the list of great engineers, who tried something novel, but turned into a turkey 🤔
@@vectorbrony3473 Not long to go now for the KR Leader, according to some the models are expected to start shipping from China in the coming weeks.
My vote goes to the Leader class too., although I'm an Oliver Bulleid fan. His West Countries, Merchant Navies and Q1s were all excellent locos. I'll not mention the 4DDs. 🙂
@@henrybest4057You forgot 36001's attempted mass murder of crew, brass and attendants by asphyxiation in Crowborough Tunnel.
Back when EMUs were still green and I were knee high to a grasshopper, my father refused point blank to board the 4DDs, preferring the 20min wait for the next 4EPB formed train!!
I also recall the units in badly faded blue in Plumstead Yard, some years later, awaiting their fate.
I thought at first that this was possibly going to be a review of unsuccessful model locos! The Hornby L1 suffers from a front pony truck that is continuosly derailing, and eventually falls off completely! As unsuccessful as it's prototype counterpart!
What is your take on The Great Bear?
"According to Cecil J. Allen, "The Great Bear was one of the very few locomotive types that Swindon has produced, and in particular among the Churchward designs, to which the word 'failure' could be applied." Authorities differ as to Churchward's attitude to his locomotive. According to Le Fleming, "his dislike of 'The Bear' was well known",] but Nock said that he had "a deep affection for the engine", although he came to regard it as "a white elephant" rather than a "Great Bear".] He was disappointed to hear of The Great Bear's destruction, and, upon hearing of Nigel Gresley's plans to construct a Pacific for the Great Northern Railway, is said to have replied: "What did that young man want to build it for? We could have sold him ours!""
Railmotors, but not steam ones were and to a small extent quite successful. Here in the antipodes the Victorian Railways had EMC petrol-electrics which when converted to diesel electrics by fitting Detroit Diesel engines ventured far and wide across the state. Two have been preserved and run enthusiast trips at the ripe old age of knocking on 90 years.
One can only surmise that if the drawings had been followed and the correct parts had been used, the Duke of Gloucester locomotive may well have been a success rather than the failure it turned out to be, as evidenced when it was restored.
Hi Sam, It is really odd with the Clayton that BR got it so wrong. Especially as similar engines had been built and ran successfully in both Europe and the USA.
Hi Sam, there's no reason why someone shouldn't do a Great Bear, after all, they did the Turbomotive, which was another 'one-off' and I'm sure that among the many GWR devotees there'd be a lot of takers for the UK's first Pacific loco. I haven't read any biographies of Churchward (incidentally, Sam, it's pronounced Churchwood not Church Ward !) but I think it is indicative of his foresight in that he was obviously aware of what developments were happening on the continent in France and Germany and maybe wanted to keep up. The first 3 Baden IVf pacifics came out in 1907, with prototypes of one of the most iconic German pacifics, the Bavarian S3/6 following in 1908. He obviously recognised that the GWR mainlines would be ideal for pacific locos, with excellent permanent way for fast running from London to Bristol, Taunton, Exeter and Plymouth, a legacy of broad-gauge days. So I think his biggest mistake was in not producing an initial batch of 3 locos to fully trial the concept !!!! I think the other thing that you didn't mention about Churchward in your previous video was that he pioneered the concept of standardisation on the GWR, with different loco classes having interchangeable parts and boilers. Stanier was a Swindon boy so he was able to transfer much GWR innovation to the LMS when he was appointed CME, much to the irritation of Derby and Crewe.
Turbomotive was obviously rebuilt as a conventional Princess class loco but it was this loco 46202 (now named Princess Anne) that was involved in the Harrow and Wealdstone crash in October 1952 and scrapped soon after....
I only knew L1s on suburban services around Liverpool Street and Stratford (often on the Low Level platforms).
I don't know why we were so retarded, if the so-called 'Grouping' had been 'Nationalisation'' we'd have been a lot better off. But you know.. too many cigars, too many brandies and too many buffoons has always been a lethal combination...
Cheers,
Phil
Oh, you meant 'in model form'. Thank goodness for that!!
it is said that hush hush boiler is still in existance at darlington, for info on this loco and a very good in depth look at it you want to read a book by Bill Brown all about this loco its development and history.
Wasn't the Hush-Hush also known as a "Galloping sausage?"
Ahh very interesting - I'd love to know whether that's true!
Thanks for watching, Sam :)
Yep!
Maunsell (Schools)and Gresley (D49) must have must have laughed their socks off when considering the GWR 4-4-0's , especially the Dukedog. I think the BR 8P was the result of bad building as opposed to bad design.
Decent video here Sam, bit odd to have the turbomotive here, from what I have read it was relatively successful more than a failure, sure there was some shortcomings but as I say it was successful more than a failure, nice seeing the heljan again, really nice model from them that one, had mine for quite a few years now and it’s been a fantastic model for me.
Agree. A.j.Powell (Stanier Pacifics at work, p. 37) states: No 6202 was fully capable of taking her place alongside the Princesses, and even had the edge on them, while not being unduly perturbed by load limits laid down for the special timings of the 17.25 from Liverpool. One could hardly ask more of an experimental machine’.
Thanks a lot David - yeah the performance wasn't so much a failure, but it had it's downsides, and the design was never used again!
Thanks for watching, Sam :)
I wonder if the auto-coach would have been more successful with an 0-6-0 instead? That, and some sort of wall separating the crew compartment from the riding public; not only to keep out the dirt, but the noise as well. 😊
That Thompson L1 looks cute 🙂Probably it doesn't look "strange" to me because I am used to german locomotive designs and this one looks a bit like Prussian T18 / DRG 78. Maybe Thompson's inspiration?
There are plenty more failures, but they haven’t been made in model form yet…. Fowlers ghost, the great bear, the Padgett locomotive… and more besides!
Decapod, for example?
Fowler's Ghost was a truly terrifying machine and a surprisingly serious design lapse by an otherwise well regarded engineer. Imagine if that boiler had failed in a crowded underground station?
The class 17s wouldn't have been so bad had they been built with the engines and electrical systems Clayton recommended, but BR insisted on the Paxman engine and GEC electrics. Also speaking to the DTG who owns the survivor they are not hard to see the ends and to shunt with , that is a fallacy, they are actually easier to shunt with than a class 08 bonnet end first. Right at the end of their lives they were rebuilt with cast iron engine crank cases and the reliability improved to equal class 20s, but it was too little too late, the writing was on the wall. BTW some of the new crank cases got scrapped before they ever got used!
The Turbomotive wasnt a bad engine,just that it wasnt really given a chance to develop....I agree Turbines would be great for steam locomotives if give a proper chance(Several interesting experiments were conducted in America too!)
The Class 8 was a failure but It reddemed itself to ultimately become a succes!
They are building a County 4-4-0 replica at the Didcot Railway Centre so hopefully improvements can and will be made.
"You cannae change the Laws of Physics" Montgomery Scott.
Can't see the replica going mainline and at 25mph, the ride shouldn't be an issue. For my part, I'd still have gone for an Aberdare ahead of a County any day of the week!
@@TheHoveHeretic Either way, it’ll make for vintage trains on heritage railways.
Sam, GWR were pioneers, so not afraid to fail when locomotives were being developed. Every failure was a lesson, but maybe I am biased. The same I am sure must be said of the rest. too. Cheers.
A very interesting & entertaining video. I liked your typically forensic & scientific approach: "This is my opinion & here's the evidence to back it up."
One could argue that the Turbomotive was a tragic failure, as it ended its days as collateral damage in the Harrow & Wealdstone crash, by then having been rebuilt as Princess Anne, which you mentioned in your commentary. And ironically/as you say, The Wretched Duke was built to replace it.
Ironically, my L1 is one of my best runners!
Still love the Hush Hush in its original format, regardless of its questionable performance.
IMO, the biggest failure of all in your video was the class 17. Let us not forget, BR decided to adopt it as its "Standard" Type 1 diesel, regardless of the fact it was basically untested.
Thanks very much Stephen - yeah true, it was a literal failure on that day I suppose! Yeah the L1 is a super runner isn't it? haha!
Thanks for watching, Sam :)
Awesome video Sam
Cheers Brian!
@SamsTrains you're welcome Sam
Yeah a club member had a class 17 like yours and had issues. I do suggest maybe you could have a look at a N gauge version by EFE rail. I got one few years ago and its a good runner.
I respectfully disagree with those that say the Turbomotive was a good locomotive, just not utilized well or fully developed. All steam turbine powered locomotives had a similar problem -- besides the issue mentioned about the smaller reverse turbine, they were not very fuel efficient at anything less than full throttle. Both stationary steam plants and steamships tend to operate at full speed once they get underway; but steam locomotives operate at varying throttle settings depending on the condition of the track, and when stopping and starting at stations. And at less than full throttle, they consumed a lot of steam, which meant they required more fuel to maintain pressure, and so their economy was poor. (Gas turbine locomotives also suffered from high fuel consumption at anything less than full speed for the same reason.)
Turbomotive was also not the only steam turbine locomotive to suffer blade failure. The other problem with using steam turbines on a locomotive is that locomotives are regularly subjected to being banged around, either by having their train push or pull on them as they slow down or speed up, or by the track conditions themselves. Turbine blades are just not as strong as pistons and piston rods and could not take the shocks that locomotives endured. On the other hand, steam turbines on steamships have much of the shocks absorbed by the screw and reduction gear, and stationary plants do not suffer from shocks at all unless some catastrophic failure of the turbine/generator occurs, or the plant is tripped offline.
Both steam turbines and high-pressure boilers were efforts to bring the efficiencies they brought to steamships and steam power plants to locomotives. But locomotives operate in much harsher and dirty conditions, and all efforts to do so failed. They were also more complicated, and required repair skills not commonly found in a locomotive repair shop, so when they did fail, they spent a lot of time in the back of the shop waiting for someone to take time to repair them.
I loved the L1s as yhey wrre a good looking loco.
I do believe they had issues and om sure they could have been addressed but we need to remember but BR in 1955 had decided steam had to go.
Thompson gets a bad rap due to his fifferences with Gresley but I also believe he took over as CME during a very difficult time of austerity.
This B1 was a great sucess with 410 built plus his steel sided coaching stock.
Tbf, you could make the argument (despite how lovely they were) that the P2s were not successes because they couldn’t maintain their performance and needed constant service.
Yeah true actually - that was one of the contenders... but I thought these were worse!
Thanks for watching, Sam :)
It wouldn't be a Sam's Trains video with you roasting Heljian at least once. XD
hahahaha... I've got problems...
Thanks for watching, Sam :)
I disagree on the steam railmotor being a failure, on the contrary in fact, it paved the way for diesel railcars, then DMUs and ultimately EMUs that are still in use today.
Hello Sam @ 4:13 - I've got 2 of them 'Cornish Riviera Limited' Carriages as well!!! @ 7:04 I've got the Turbomotive - A nice Loco @ 9:28 - I've got the Hush Hush - but doesn't like my curves - what about yours??? @ 11:54 Yep another one which I have got - a Nice Loco 😉🚂🚂🚂
Tip of iceberg and scratch come to mind, all the books I've read on the LNWR and LMS locomotive engineers shows that there were a lot of lemons (Sorry Ernest Lemon for using your name in vane)
Cue the LNWR Claughtons .... 130 beautiful but ultimately unsuccessful express passenger locos, mostly doomed by the Stanier era scrap and build policy, locos rebuilt with larger boilers having no better survival chances than the original small boiler edition. Only one survived into BR days, but was withdrawn before it's allocated number (46004) could be applied
It was probably the best of the railmotor, but yes, I know what you mean. The L&Y tried to keep their engines separate from the coaches and that was ok, but yeah...
If the L1 had better brakes, it totally would've been great on freight and coal trains.
If it had larger drivers, It might've been a better passengerr locomotive, though I'm not sure how much pulling power it would lose.
Frankly
The L1 was given the short end of the stick by Thompson, while other designs thrived (Ex. The A2/3, which was a success, with one managing to bank a 9F'S Cement train up Stoke Bank and them handling trains other mixed traffic engines could not) from the issues you pointed out, I like Thompson engines, but the L1 is the odd one out
@@m90sanimations56 Going by what I have heard the L1 was a victim of the constraints that come with wartime, at the time of them being built the LNER were having to work with what they had available to them, they couldn’t make any new parts due to having no foundry capacity as that had been handed over to make things for the war effort.
I do think that the Thompson L1s had potentional, I believe that they could be pretty good As goods engines on Branchlines
11:58 also fun fact the Princess class the class 8 was due to replace was the turbomotive that ylu talked about
Would it be a bit unfair to say that the Class 23 "Baby Deltic" was seen as a failure too?
There was only 10 of them produced, I gather the maintenance costs were high and because it was shunned, only given routes like King's Cross to Cambridge (for instance), it was withdrawn quickly. The only example left of that ten (D5901) was left at Derby RTC and then cut up for scrap and YET, a "new build" is being created from a Class 37 which had a Deltic engine fitted inside it!
Personally, I like the look of it, but it's not a class that was very successful
Here in the US, most of our whiffs are diesel locomotives, though concerning steam, the so-called "Triplex" locomotives were beyond trash in terms of performance. Packing 3 sets of driving wheels (8 per set), they struggled to get past 15KPH and required an absurd degree of maintenance, two major points against them considering that they were either expected to be "helper" units attached to the back of heavy drag freights traversing the Alleghenies or leading heavy coal trains through the Blue Ridge Mountains. Ordinary "Mallet" types (such as the 2-6-6-2s operated by the Norfolk & Western or Baltimore & Ohio) proved far better for the terrain.
In terms of diesels, the ALCO RS-2 had problems with its prime mover (engine), discovered too late by most companies that liked its predecessor and ordered a whole bunch. This killed ALCO, which was never able to recover and collapsed in the late 1960s in spite of being in a decent position otherwise to make the jump from steam to diesel. Nobody trusted them even as they tried to fix the issues at play, and only the RS-11 saw meaningful numbers ordered. There's a reason ALCO diesels are few and are seen as national treasures among American railfans.
EMD would repeat the mistake with the SD50. Numerous railroads would order them in bulk after being offered discounts (having been deeply impressed by the SD40-2 and expecting a repeat), only for the prime movers to push too much power for their frames and the locomotives themselves, resulting in frequent breakdowns. EMD recovered (sort of), but General Electric overshot them a few years later with their Dash-8 series and have dominated the locomotive market here since. Norfolk Southern would try to rebuild their fleet of SD50s only for them to become even _more_ hilariously unreliable, seeing every last one of the "PR43Cs" scrapped only a few years after the last were built.
Think you missed an opertunity here. Greseley did some gawd awful designs. Sadly things like the P1s and the V4s are not available in RTR form, but I know you have a couple of P2s, they were terrible, looked great, but had to long a wheel base which meant their frames were constantly cracking, streamlining that only got in the way of maintaince crew. A weirdly cast three in one cylinder block that meant even a small repair needed a complete tear down and rebuild of the entire front end. The consumed 50% more coal than an A4 making them uneconomic, their front pony track was prone to derailing, the cews said the visibilty forward from the cab was so bad it was dangerous and they had a massive hammer blow that wrecked the track work,
The funny thing is, the model of hush hush is a failure too! I'm busy at the moment, so I'll watch the rest soon, but great video as always sam!
haha yeah the original one I tried was - the replacement runs better though isn't perfect!
Thanks for watching, Sam :)
Was the GWR steam motor car a failure or the others, direct maybe yes, but indirect I don't think so, the idea was revolutionary, and often new design attempts don't really work as first expected, but still the idea became a guideline for what we have now, it's an essential part in evolution and new ideas and technologies available.
Even with most older diesel locos, a lot of people think that the diesel engine drives the loco direct, but often they dive a generator, who puts the energie from the diesel to electric, so the drive engines them selfs are electric.(there are variations of diesel/hydraulic, etc., but the main bunch is diesel/electric)
But these electric motors were synchrone (DC) engines, who are vulnerable to fast wear and thereby labour intensive in maintenance, also they needed resistors to accelerate, that was not cheap, and a loco that sits in maintenance, is only a cost and a los to the rail company.
Only by the development of electronics, and the French where the first to implement this successful on the TGV development, that it became possible to use the much stronger asynchrone (AC) motors, les maintenance intensive, more power etc…
It all about the evolution of technologie and needs that things can be done, that was not possible before.
In 1900 there where already electric cars, but they where clumsy and unpractical, but only by environmental needs the gained a boost again, and the technologie of electronics made development of a proper electric car possible…
Hey Sam, how are you doing? Also, do you plan on reviewing an accurascale pannier when they come out?
I'm great thanks Jack how are you? Yes I'll definitely do that :D
Thanks for watching, Sam :)
I’d argue for The Duke that it was an excellently designed locomotive, but the builders at Swindon royally screwed over the engine during construction.
Crewe
@@TheHoveHeretic mb, from what I knew was that the swindon people gave The Duke the wrong chimney
I'm not an expert in British locos, but it's no surprise to me that he class 17 was a major failure. Two small powertrains in what appears to be a branch line engine made the engineer in me cringe. They could have just bought German V100s with one 1100 (later 1350 HP) engine. The layout was asymmetric, but the long end was still shorter than each hood on the class 17. Introduced in 1958, they were still in service over 50 years later.
I enjoyed this video so much I think a second part would be perfect! And 16:11 the Fell, I was waiting for that loco to show up and it did not, hope it will come up in the next part.
Thank you so much! Well if you can find more failures for me I won't say no!!
Thanks for watching, Sam :)
Gess Sam with all the different type of locomotives you have . What is your favourite loco you like to run when you just want to have some me time and play trains ????
You missed the single biggest flop on Britains railways, steam or diesel; the Class 21! Famous for setting fire to themselves, gassing the driver and generally being a bit naff. So bad were they that rebuilds began less than 3 years after introduction.
I think Turbomotive and Hush Hush were just ahead of their times and maybe ahead of the technology back then. At least designers were being inventive and pushing the boundaries and trying............I think you missed one of the best failures O V S Bulleid and his "Leader" locomotive! Two 0-6-0's joined by a diesel like body but steam powered, they even build was it three bodies but only one I think actually moved under its own steam.
I don’t know if it’s just me but I like buying models that are well known to run like absolute garbage but nothing gives me more satisfaction is when after some experimenting and modifying they run reliably. I call it character
Did You Know Sam, That Duke Of Gloucester Replaces Princess Anne AKA Turbermotive?
Hi sam if they knew that the loco in railcar was too small instead of building more of the same design .they could of built just one tested it then build the next one with a bigger loco and extened the passenger part by trail and error they could of built something decent and worked .and with gwr county class they could built these with longer chassis so the two driving wheels could of been a bit farther away from each other then reduce the weight on the wheels to reduce the hammering on rails it may of improved it running
Awesome video today Sam very interesting
Great video Sam, I never liked that hush hush !