EP-2: I need a rebuild Milwaukee Shops Crew: Duuuhhhhh! T.B Kirk: *Saw a bunch of disconnected wires with a written message saying “We don’t know where these go.”*
One thing about the P2s that most people don't realize is that only three of them had the appearance that most people know the P2s by. The other three had A4-esk streamlining.
@@sambrown6426 I checked and it turns out that only 2 (nos. 2001-2002) of the P2s had the Cock O’ The North look (though never got the A4 look) while the other 4 (nos. 2003-2006) did have the A4 look.
A gentleman who introduced me to model railroading, as opposed to toy trains, actually scratch-built all five of the bi-polars in HO scale, each one slightly different, working from the original plans (he worked for GE).
I was thinking about doing the same thing with five of the NJ brass models Milwaukee Road bipolar electrics. I only bought one to start with and I’m glad I did. I modeled number E-2 in the mid-50s paint scheme. I spent a year changing what was a simple collectors item into a working model with can motors, a new drive train, scale piping and additional details like the sandboxes, awnings over the cab windows, correct headlights, etc. After paint and decals I ran flexible cables to finish it. I was so burned out on that model that I never wanted to touch one again as I realized how much modeling capital I spent on it. I made my peace with it and count it as being one of my best models. I understand why Milwaukee Road streamlined and painted the bipolars in U.P. colors but forward-thinking management would have seen the writing on the wall and spent that money to replace rapidly deteriorating track instead. Instead we got a desecrated version of a unique locomotive.
The Franco-Crosti 9Fs were not ruined 9Fs, they were built like that in the first place. When they were found not to be so good, they were then converted.
I mean to be fair they were built that way as a modification to attempt to improve the F9, failed to be better, and were re-rated as 8Fs after having the Crosti gear removed due to their lower power... so they did kinda ruin the 9F
Really if you go "okay, let's modify a new build as an experiment" it's better to build one as the fiddly test bed, then build a small batch as longer term test beds. Like the US aircraft designations, ie. The XB-17 as the eXperimental prototype, the YB-17 as the evaluation series. As such you have 1-3 X designations and 5-10 Y designations, so that the results are not based on one good or bad build.
Fun Fact: the 2-8-2 Cock o' the North, the nickname "Galloping Sausage" is also a *nickname* for Gordon, from the episode Pop Goes The Diesel. Gordon: Duck called me a Galloping Sausage! James: Rusty red scrap Iron! Henry: I'm old square wheels!
How about 5 Bad Trains that were completely fixed? I have some examples, the DRG 61 Class streamlined steam locomotive because some of them #61 002 was used for the new DR 18 201 which is a streamlined 4-6-2 Pacific.
Thank you for saying that the Milwaukee Road's Tacoma shop knew what it was doing with the EP-2s. (I live in Tacoma.) The Milwaukee Road (which warrants its own video, imho) was an odd road, as there were sections that were electrified, intermingled with sections that weren't. Tacoma was part of the electrified section, so they were familiar with how electric locomotives worked. In the Milwaukee shop's defense, they weren't familiar with electric locomotives, as their section wasn't electrified.
Yeah, to expand on the subtitle caption: the Crosti 9Fs were *deliberately built like that.* They weren't built as normal 9Fs and then modded, they had these Crosti boilers all their lives.
Also, the small loading gauge in the UK is at least partly to blame for why they were so bad. Most other Franco-Crosti boilered locomotives had two preheater barrels offset to the sides rather than one directly in the center.
Nicely entertaining video for sure, only nag I have is the slow transition from 4 to 3 sequence. Other than that I found this to be as mentioned entertaining, informative and over all delightful. I suspect that the reason for the slow transition was because it was British rail wanting to really mess with you.
Divided drive for multi cylinder locomotives is not weird, it was used on the majority of successful British four cylinder locos but was however much less common for 3 cylinder designs.
@@TeardropLabs There's not a great need for 3 or 4 cylinder locos if you're not using compounding as 2 will generally do the job and be more accessible for maintenance. All the GWR four-cylinder engines, which for many years were the best in Britain, were divided drive with a similar layout to Thompson A2/2s, which in fact originated from the French de Glehn Atlantics around 1900. The positioning of the outside cylinders wasn't ideal, being in a weak spot on the frames which needed bracing on the GWR engines and caused cracking on the Thompson ones. When combined with a wide firebox it also gave a rather long boiler. The LMS Duchess Pacifics were the best of all and moved the outside cylinders to a better position between the bogie wheels, retaining divided drive by using long connecting rods.
The decision of the divided drive for the A2/2 wasn't just because Thompson just wanted to. The crank axles on the P2s were prone to shearing because they were the same as the ones on the A3s but on a much more powerful engine. By dividing the drive, you can get away with keeping the original axle design by spreading the forces between 2 axles rather than keeping them on 1. Also, the divided drive in itself isn't a particularly rare feature, the LMS Princesses, Coronations, GWR Castles and Kings, and even the later Peppercorn A1s and A2s all have divided drive. The main reason it became a problem for all of Thompsons' Pacifics was the frames were not reinforced enough to compensate for the forces that would be generated by the cylinders being so far apart. This would cause the notorious steam leakages and frame cracking that plagued all of the Thompson Pacifics.
The SD50s prime mover was NOT reliable at all in any way. The SD50 actually was EMDs biggest failure, being what completely ruined their reputation and having GE replace EMDs old title of producing reliable locomtoives
Some railroads manged to fix their engines some of which still run on local trains so if you see one nowadays it'll most likely be at least somewhat reliable but in 80s they were 100% garbage.
I love how here in America we built thousands of great running Mikes and the Brit's Mikes not so much. They should have just bought some USRA light Mikes and been done with it.
also, the UK's demand for 2-8-2s was low. 62 2-8-2s was the entire UK 2-8-2 fleet. 2 P1s, 6 P2s, and 54 GWR 7200 tank engines. A better comparison would be a 2-6-0, 4-6-0, or 2-6-2. Much more of those built in the UK
To discuss the Mikado usage in the UK, or lack there of, take a step back and look at the number of Consolidations there were, and their development into Decapods instead... that being said, the known UK Mikados were the two Gresley designs for the LNER the P1 and P2... then there's Collett's conversion of the 4200 class Consolidation into the 7200 class Mikado Tanks for GWR... those trailing wheels, what were they useful for again? Further to the discussion, Robert Riddles originally planned the Standard 9F as a Mikado, by using modifying the Standard 7P Britannia Pacific, in a similar way to how the LNER P2 and A4 had loose commonality.
@@PiersDJackson The GWR 4200s were Consolidation tanks. The 7200 trailing wheels gave them a larger coal bunker. Which meant the loco could go further on a single load of coal. As for other wheel types 4-6-4? Outside of tank engines, only a single 4-6-4 engine was built, by the LNER. 4-8-4, 4-8-2, 2-8-4? No SG examples built for the UK. A tender engine with 4 trailing wheels? Only the LNER 4-6-4 W1.
While I agree that a podcast is not a verified source, the podcast that the comments have referred you to does work off of verified sources, from various historians to official LNER records
I’m pretty sure the information from that podcast was taken from official LNER records and documents so I actually in effect is a reliable source of information
I just love the ridiculous size contrast between the GIGANTIC Pennsy turbine loco & the relatively tiny GER shed on wheels tram in the opening slideshow! Talk about contrast, it looks like you could stack two of the trams on top of eachother & it STILL wouldn't be as tall as the S2!
I went fishing today. I’m tired. I am fish. Fishstick. Corn. Apple. Trreee…. Cabin…. Solar garments? Help? Cookie. Ewoks. Pizza…. Mommy? I want to go to bed now. THUD! Ow. Stupid turkey. G’nite. Pancakes here I come…..
I find it kinda funny that truck engine manufacturers such as Caterpillar wanted to enter the railroad market. While most of the Caterpillar truck engines were good they always seemed to fail when entering other markets such as boats and generators. Cummins also tried the railroad market with a Cummins Q45 engine featuring a Cummins logo paint job on the locomotive. Once again it did ok and did have a couple of issues but really wasn't impressive. Trucks and trains are two different worlds. Deutz which is a farm tractor and irrigation engine manufacturer tried entering the truck market and that was a huge failure. But that's another story for a different time. I didn't like when Caterpillar bought Progress Rail which at the time owned EMD. In my opinion the EMD 2 strokes were the best, reliable and most easy to maintain prime movers ever made.
Back in the first half of the 20th Century, Fairbanks Morse also decided to get into "playing with trains", and started building their own diesel locomotives. (I think this has been covered on this channel before.) Fairbanks Morse made industrial and marine diesels (I believe the Navy was using them up until the Seawolf-class of nuclear submarines). While the opposed-piston diesels worked well in the ocean, apparently they had overheating issues when used in locomotives.
Deutz also tried to put their engines in buses, with fair results. The Provincial that worked in a hinterland of Portsmouth, Gosport and Fareham, took out the Gardner engines of their Guy Arabs and replaced them with Deutz's, with pretty good results (all be it with slight overheating problems!).
They probably used E-2 the least and donated it as a loss/writeoff due to how terribly that one was rebuilt. I'd bet that it could be properly repaired today. But what'd the point be, there is no where to run most of these electric locomotives (GG1, E-2, P5a 4700, S2 113, and many others) as the modern electrified network is very diffrent from back then, you'd need to rebuild the infastructre to supply the power.
@@srajfnly2 At least, the problems that crews had with the P2s were either eliminated or at the very least lessened to a degree that they had actual availability on the network once all of them were rebuilt.
The A2/2 wasn’t a bad rebuild by all accounts even though they had their own unique problem’s They was however objectively awful at what they was originally rebuilt to do, as P2’s they handled their original work north of the border with ease, as the A2/2’s they simply couldn’t on the Edinburgh-Aberdeen line, the line which they had originally been built for. But they was useful elsewhere on the system.
Does reading 2100 count ? Hear me out about this, 2100 got a oil conversion that absolutely ruined her performance during the 2006 Tacoma Sightseer Excursion
Honestly I’m not sure I mean yeah the converted her incorrectly but I’m not sure if it counts as a rebuild I’m just glad 2100 is getting restored and is in better hands
@@ethansherry1758 no, we've had superheaters in steam locomotives since the 1st half of the last century. I think you might have meant feed water heaters, which have been tried many times but never really caught on.
@@neiloflongbeck5705 again my bad thought a better idea might have been to compound the locomotive to extract the most power from the steam since super heating was already used
BR was a company that last for nearly 50 years and when they were formed from 4 different companies they had less than 10 years to try to fix/ update the entire country before the government essentially said "NO MORE STEAM TRACTION" leaving BR with PRETTY much no money. To come up with replacement traction that's why it appears in all your worst lists also expecting them to cheaply maintain the national network minus all of the areas that were deemed non-standard gauge this includes industrial only railways sorry for such a long rant it pains me as a Brit to have to defend a company that I think did a terrible job but ultimately it was the government meddling in an area that in my opinion it should have left to those who knew better except for the fact that we needed to move away from steam traction it's the speed that removed the way that was the issue. Speedy change is not necessarily best change this can be said for pretty much any time a major change is implemented
Hmm... That Milwaukee EP-2 could be a contender for the title "american crocodile"... exept for the bad rebuild and the different kind of power transfer from engine to wheels
What kinda wear and tear did the actual exhaust gasses do to the tubes on the Franco-crossley engines? I can only imagine that they didn't last to very long. Steam is corrosive as hell,and then mix in coal smoke? I bet the maintenance costs tripled at least! English coal was notoriously high in sulfur content.
Oh, the exhaust gases ripped the tubes to absolute shreds! That was basically the major fault, to be fair. All the other faults just added insult to injury. Oh, and they were APPALLING fire raisers. They had to be the first to have the fires set, and yet they were on late turns to get anything out of them. This fault weirdly persisted (to a lesser extent) in the rebuilds.
I see A2/2, I must defend. By technicality, the engines were better performance-wise and were said to be as powerful Pacifics as they were Mikados. Their old forms, while running very well when in service, were almost out of service for half the time they existed. Visually, yeah they were a downgrade, but performance wise, they weren't terrible.
I agree with you, but didn't they slip a bit? Thanks to all that power going through six coupled wheels instead of eight? I know that they were damned by some drivers for not being very sure footed. But, yes, you're right, in Mikado form, frame cracks were an oppucational hazard that in A2/2 form happened a lot less (but more than A4's and A3's!). Their particular glory was handling the East Coast Main Line leg of trains like Colchester-Glasgow and Great Yarmouth-Newcastle. Brought into Peterborough by a B1 or B17, change of engine for an A2/2.
@@robertwilloughby8050 to be fair all pacifics slip due to 6 massive drive wheels, although these shouldn’t have slipped as much as an A3, A1, or A4 would, sinc their drivers are smaller.
The A2/2 wasn’t a bad rebuild by all accounts even though they had their own unique problem’s They was objectively awful at what they was originally rebuilt to do, as P2’s they handled their original work north of the border with ease, the A2/2’s they simply couldn’t. But they was useful elsewhere on the system.
@@mikesanders5433 not true Mike. They objectively and by the primary evidence did the work of the P2s better by way of better mileages and availability. The supposed “couldn’t do the work of the P2s” is I am afraid a lie from the secondary source material that has built up over the years. Thane of Fife from rebuilding outstripped the remaining P2s in mileages by double and availability by 20-25% more. Ignoring the primary evidence is how these locomotives gained a poor reputation.
I’ll never understand why Thompson's decision to make the A2, Although I think the A2 is a decent locomotive but I prefer the A1 tornado (60163) and The A3 Flying Scotsman And I definitely put the A4 on my top 5 favorite locomotives in the UK
You just gut the E2 and rebuilt them using the old running gear and modern electric motors. The main problem of the E2 and GG1 being far out on the list of restoration is their mercury transformers. Those require hazmat operation to remove and the cost higher than the rebuild.
Wait u have a son?!!! But also that does make sense you give awesome dad / best big brother vibes keep up the good work on the videos I love them and congratulations on being a dad I guess ( I don’t know how old he is but ummm I’m sure he love your videos to) your doing amazing don’t let anyone tell u otherwise also bug chungus is forever in my vocabulary
Honestly I think if Thomson’s a2/2s resembled his other rebuilds and had smoke deflectors then they would be that bad In my open Great Northern looked good in its final A1/1 form
In it’s very final form, yeah. Great Northern was a looker. Fresh from the works, however? Honestly one of the worst looking British Pacifics ever constructed.
There was the yellow diesel switcher on the McCloud River RR that they tried converting R/C then it sat for the rest of it's life because it didn't work right
Consider the following; the LNER was the poorest of the Big Four; that meant during the inter-war years they had keep using essentially life-expired Victorian-era locomotives, because there was no money to replace them with new locomotives; and then comes the War, where the level of War Materiel that needs transporting means that those worn out engines are retained, and by necessity, are driven into the ground. Thompson had little option BUT to rebuild locomotives that were completely shagged out; he did get to build a 'first run' of ten of his excellent B1 4-6-0's during the war (in about 1942/43), but the Ministry of Supply prevented him from building any more- in part because of skulduggery on the part of the Southern Railway's CME (and former assistant to Gresley) Oliver Bullied, who designed and built the "Merchant Navy" express passenger locomotives in 1941, claiming (some would say fraudulently) that they were actually mixed-traffic locomotives.
@@HistoryintheDark It's a traditional Scottish epithet, given to the Head of Clan Gordon; it's most commonly associated with Alexander Gordon, the 4th Duke of Gordon; who was a Napoleonic era British General.
Scrapped? The PR43Cs still live on today in g scale at the g scale New River Gorge National Park and Preserve in Fayetteville West Virginia not far from Ansted where my uncle Greg lives: #4000-#4011, #4300, & #130-#141.
How could you say the sd50s were good it appeared on your worst trains ever list and other RU-vidrs even EMD fans will say it's bad the sd50s were doomed since there rushed production and the only way you could make it better is scrap it or rebuild it into a sd40 serious
Ah, heck. I got my EMD units mixed up. Thanks for pointing that out. The 50's WERE crap at first, though, they were much better by the time those rebuilds were performed. I'll correct that.
EP-2 is probably the Ugliest locomotive ever built, that would be such an awful thing to see in person, especially when MILW had the Hiawatha's running on their line.
Tell that to the crews that had to either drive or maintain the P2s before they were rebuilt, if they were on any other of the big four with the kinds of problems they had, they would have been scraped without a second thought.
