My channel covers the United States Railroads Age of Steam locomotives through the years. You will be introduced to all of the locomotives in detail as well as the 100's of railroad companies themselves during this period of our history. You will "meet" individuals who were key figures in the development of the railroad system and those who were not. Please enjoy my channel and please support where you can on our printshop (link Below) or by subscribing, hitting the like button and turning your notifications on. Thank you very much and welcome!
Fun Fact: One of the Big Emma’s was going to be preserved at the Kentucky Railway Museum as offered by the L&N, but it was dropped and the locomotive was sadly scrapped. The locomotive is question is Louisville & Nashville No. 1962, if it was still around to this day it could’ve been displayed at the Minnesota Transportation Museum in St. Paul, Minnesota.
Two things not well known about the EM-1 design. First, they were the only big 8 drive axle articulated locomotive fitted with a tight tolerance machined articulation joint that permitted horizontal travel but minimized travel in other planes. This was the same type of joint fitted to high speed 4-6-6-4s. This is why the B&O used the EM1 in express and mail train service. The DM&IR Yellowstone were generally limited to 40 mph in service and the Big Boys were limited to 55 mph due to stability issues. The Allegheny also had stability issues at high speeds along with its absurd axle loading. Second, in spite of being the lightest of the big 8 drive axle locomotives, Balwin found the room to add a huge firebox on them and still meet the B&O's requested axle loading and overall length requirements. The EM-1 had more direct heating surface (which determines a boilers capacity to produce steam) than either the Big Boy or DM&IR Yellowstone. The EM-1 had a similar direct heating surface to the H8 Allegheny! All in a package with better axle loading than either the Big Boy, M3/M4 or Allegheny. The EM-1 engineering literally closed the book on big steam design.
The B&O had to double head or have rear pushers because of the severe terrain the B&O had to traverse. The B&O attacked the Allegheny Mountains and mountainous Allegheny Plateau west of the Allegheny Mountains at the worst possible locations due to their desire to connect their home port of Baltimore withe the mineral and industrial wealth of the Pittsburgh region as directly as possible. The Pennsylvania RR to the north and the C&O/N&W to the south attacked the Alleghenies with far easier and shorter grades. The B&O steam locomotive choices were the best for their operating profile and locomotive designs from the PRR/C&O/N&W simply would not have worked with the B&O's severe terrain.
the Alleghenys would have had just as sub-standard factor of adhesion were it not for their enourmous weight. not to mention they had less weight on the drivers from the gigantic trailing truck in relation. w-WHAT PASSENGER TRAIN WAS SO HEAVY THEY NEEDED 7500 HORSEPOWER TO RUN IT?
In my opinion, between the Q1 in its partial streamlined version and the S2 are the most visually pleasing steam locomotives the PRR designed. The design looks strong, powerful and sleek and the streamlining is flush from the top of the cab to the top of coal bunker of the tender. Unlike the freight steam locomotives like the M1, J1, and Q2 where there is a considerable vertical gap from the top of cab roof to the top of the tender. If the PRR bit the bullet and designed a 4-8-4 locomotive it should look more like this vs let’s say a bigger M1 or something. Obviously the T1 are awesome but they are bit too overrated
Rogers Corp and the Virginian Railway had anti-Trust issues after WW2, where the Koppers Company and Eastern Assoc Coal owned/controlled the stock. Eastern mined the coal, Virginian shipped it to Norfolk where Kopper's ships hauled it to coke ovens they owned on the east coast. Pretty good business, eh?
If I where to start a railroad I would name it EASTERN PACIFIC and have a locomotive 4-8-8-4 wheel arrangement and designed like Union Pacific early challengers design with extended pilot deck.
Hi there, I'd like to ask if you could credit me in the description or via a comment for the photo of the CB&Q-looking Duplex seen at 7:03. The photo was one I took of an art piece I found in a Trains Magazine issue from 1976 called "Did we scrap steam too soon?", which contained art of never before seen proposed locomotive designs, such as strange looking Duplexes, and a Lima 4-8-6. I had taken photos of this magazine (the one featured in the video being one of them) to show to my friends (specifically photos of the Duplexes and the 4-8-6), and then one day the images ended up spreading through Discord, Reddit, and Twitter. I had planned to make a scan of the magazine to release (the photos I took were never supposed to be shown, just simple photos I took to show my friends what I had found) while also making a video in conjunction with the release of the magazine PDF talking about my findings, but after consideration I ended up deciding to not release it with the rest of my railroad media collection for privacy reasons. But, yes for context, the photo of the art of there, I had taken myself of said magazine, and just thought I'd ask if you could give me credit for the photo in the description or via a comment, whichever is fine. Hope that's okay with you, if not that's perfectly fine Though, if you do want information on the art itself, like what the context of it is in the magazine, and anything else info-wise contained in it, I'd be happy to talk about it Thank you!
I've hiked the Lost Creek Wilderness section of the Colorado Trail and I often wondered what it was like to see one of these beasties slogging over Kenosha Pass into the South Park valley and the town of Jefferson, Colorado...
FYI, just spoke with the folks at Broadway Limited Imports in Florida and Matt in Operations shared with me that the BLI AC-9 is in design, release date TBD!
Though many Railroads did install low water alarms as well as the fusable plugs for safety, neither was required by Federal law. As others have suggested, I really wonder if the crown sheet simply failed catastrophically due to improper repair rather than a low water issue.
I noted there was a signal tower, or "cabin" in C&O lingo, right on top of the explosion site. I'd bet the Operator, who was probably on the ground watching train go by about crapped his pants when the boiler blew up!
something that you are forgetting it that the really big steam locomotives were far heavier. if you match the weight of a bigboy you have 2 to 3 big diesel locomotives which have double to triple the power output and tractive force
