“Some” 4-6-2 pacific locomotives were used on goods trains is because of the power output and the fact they’re occasionally mixed traffic locomotive On the other side, yes pacific type steam locomotive are built for passenger trains but they struggled on longer, heavier passenger trains in which a 4-8-2 and 4-6-4 took most of the pacific passenger roles
@@nathanchan4653 Strange that they would attempt the K5s when they had a selection of ww1 standard plans to choose from, including articulated locos, that all worked well as far as I know. so all the railroads had these plans on the shelf and probably used locos on the market as well. this left no excuse for real failure.
I agree; that's not an "annoying flaw" on the part of the K-4 Pacifics--it's mismanagement or just improper use, sort of like trying to use 2 or 3 pickup trucks to pull a semitrailer. . .
As a firefighter, I know about the physics of water. To those unaware, inside a fire truck and indeed inside ANY large vehicle designed to hold liquids, there are specially designed bulkheads that divide the tank as a whole into compartments that limit the liquids motion. They generally have a small opening up top that allows water to flow forwards and backwards depending on if you're going uphill or downhill and assists when going on curves.
The British Army had a fleet of 6-wheel Range Rover fire tenders. A significant portion of the fleet was rolled and written off due to driving with the water tank half full
Yep. This is a tried-and-true naval architecture technique for ship tanks and watertight compartments for centuries. The problem is extra bulkheads cost extra money, and sending someone inside a tank to inspect them costs more money too.
Water sloshing was also the main flaw, apart from weight, of the EMD SDP40F/SDFP40 built for Amtrak (which ran fine on the Santa Fe, like their (SD)FP45 siblings, since they had good track).
Just like when a roro ferry gets their car deck flooded. The sudden sloshing on a single undivided compartment can destabilize the entire ship until its unrecoverable. Its the main concern to any car ferry / car carrier ships. Large undivided compartments are dangerous. But this problem rarely persists on large modern car carriers. Excellent ramp seals and very high free board prevents water from entering. Sewol for example kept floating even when she was already on her side. Sadly, the crew didnt bother to start the evacuation early. The ship gave them ample time and warnings.
Personally I think the K4 should be swapped for the T1 in this list, the reason being the "annoying flaw" you mentioned isn't a fault of the locomotives themselves but in the locomotives being used in the absolute worst way you could use a locomotive of that design. First of all, the K4s pacific was exceptionally powerful for a 4-6-2, its the main reason they held on until 1958 despite being a 40 year old design at that point, however they were still 4-6-2s. They had incredible power at speed with long strings of passenger equipment owing mainly to their large boiler and tall drivers giving them good top speed performance, however if you know anything about tall drivers you'll already see the problem. Using a locomotive best suited to high speed passenger running on flat trackage as a freight hauler in the Appalachian mountains isn't just a bad idea, its a monumental misuse of the equipment they had. Pennsy already had locomotives that were specifically meant to fill those roles in the form if the L1s, I1s, M1a/b and even the later J1s and Q2s, the problem wasn't that the K4 had too little power, the problem was she had power for a completely different kind of running and Pennsy simply was not using the locomotives they already had to the best of their strengths. So why the T1? Well because unlike the K4s, the T1 actually _did_ have an annoying and eventually fatal flaw, that being wheel slipping. Due to the extremely high profile of the drivers, and the distribution of the weight over two sets of four wheels instead of one set of eight, it meant the locomotives had a tendency to slip bad when starting a train... Simply put the T1 wasn't heavy enough for the amount of power it put to the rail. PRR engineers were used to the K4s which needed a lot of steam to kick their heavy passenger trains into motion but had very little trouble with slipping due to the incredible weight on the drivers... The T1s needed precisely the opposite, with an extremely gentle hand being required while starting a train due to the low factor of adhesion and extremely high steaming ability of the boiler being a perfect combination to spin out one or sometimes even both sets of drivers. Modifications to the class in the late 40s as well as improved engineer training eventually eliminated this problem. But by the time they had worked the kinks out of the design, this single minor annoyance had turned into a fatal flaw and ultimately sealed the fate of the T1s, with the impressive duplexes all scrapped within the first phase of dieselization due mostly to the bad reputation they had built as slippery and unpredictable locomotives.
Speaking as someone who knew the British Rail Class 33 in service, I have to say, with the greatest respect, whoever you got your information from, you need to get your money back from. The BR Class 33 was one of the best locomotives ever produced. Popular with traincrew and passengers alike. They could easily out-perform a Class 37, which on paper was stronger, had 6 powered axles (not 4), a heavier weight and a higher top speed. In multiple, a pair was superb, and in triples, they were truly phenomenal. Very versatile on passenger and freight. The 33/0 standard design was great. The 33/1 push pull design was used on high speed passenger duty for decades. The 33/2 Hastings Gauge loco showed that you could even put them in a narrower body, perfectly fine. Of all the thousands of locos I have had across the globe, none of the Class 33 I have enjoyed has ever failed. Not even once. As for saying the ETH (HEP in North American speak) was not need, what on earth ! The lines they covered were electric heating long before to the introduction of the Class 33.
Love NYC 3001. Her location is Elkhart, In. There is a big push to get her running again. My grandpa took me to the museum when I was little. Taking my kids there to see her. Hope my grandchildren will get a chance to take a train ride in the future.
The GCR class V reminds me of one of my favorite steam locomotives: the NS 3900’s. These were very coal hungry to the point that firemen started calling them executioners. This problem was also present with the very similar 6300’s, but without the rest of the problems.
The class 33 never had steam boilers. There was/is an issue however with them, and in fact all locomotives built by BRCW (classes 26, 27 and 33). That's rust, and lots of it. The cab roof is made of glasfiber reinforced resin. The connection to the steel body above the window line always started leaking over time and water could enter. You wouldn't see the water as it dripped down behind the sound deadening cladding inside the cab, but would pool on the floor behind the instrument panel, and cause the underside of the cab front to rot, in severe cases including structural members. Most BRCW locomotives still in existence had their cab fronts rebuilt or is needing a rebuild.
The U30 hood units were very good locomotives on coal trains and other heavy freight. Burlington Northern used a lot of them on those Powder River Basin coal trains out of Wyoming. BN replaced them with new General Electric C30-7s - basically a reworked and improved U30.
1:05 I have a vintage belt buckle with K4 5475 on it. I know it's a K4 because it has PENNSYLVANIA on the tender, and the Pennsy-style number plate on the smokebox says 5475 on it. I looked up her road number, and it came up as a K4.
Easiest way I’ve found to tell it’s a Pennsylvania Railroad Locomotive is there’s typically a Keystone on it, usually the Smokebox. If there’s a Keystone it’s a Pennsy!
The class 33 did not have steam heating, among other things, because it was designed for use on the Southern region where they would pull passenger services during the busier summer season and freight in the winter. Add to this, at a later stage, when they were used for Weymouth &c. trains, they were pulling/pushing electric stock. It's class 27, Type 2, siblings were steam heated...and ran 6 cylinder engines. The space gained by dropping the steam heating allowed fitment of a larger 8 cylinder block but much of the rest of the unit was the same - including a steam through-pipe.
Their was another locomotive before the u30cg . called the u28cg, these engine were like the u30cg without the full with body.it just looked like a stranded u28c freight engine . 10 where order in 1966.but sadly santa fe didn't like them . they were number 350-359.
Luckily for the U30CG’s the EMD FP45s were already around and thus ultimately had the Santa Fe’s top priority passenger trains once the U-boats were pulled from passenger service. It was better having the FP45’s taking over everything than to hand it back over the worn out F-units.
Whenever I think about NER steam locomotive designs of Sir Vincent Raven, I think of high fuel consumption. The A2 class (LNER designation) also had to deal with it, and that might be one of the reasons why Gresley's Pacific design was preferred over Raven's. I guess high coal consumption wasn't as much of a priority in the NER, at least if there were ample coal mines in northeast England and Scotland.
Yeah The NER went from York up to atleast newcastle. And had ALL the track inbetween that had ALOT of coal mines. My town on the durham coast line was once a major industry town with tons of steel mills along with a shipyard and used to get NER 0-8-0 T2 ravens that ran till end of steam.
I think the u30CG's are neat, I have a friend working on a S scale shell for one that'll go on an American flyer u33c chassis. AlCo had plans for a passenger variant of the C636 but never got an order, it would've had the front of a AlCo PA.
The K4s never had a good replacement. I’ve heard this for many years but I often wondered why they order 100 more K4s instead of 100 M1s. Also, I’ve never heard that the K4s were used much in freight service. Interesting.
When I saw the title I thought of the LNWR and the accident in Buxton (England) on 11th November 1921. Nothing much wrong with the engines, just that the safety valves stuck closed sometimes. The crews said that they kept getting steam gauges that were faulty. Sometimes they complained that the indication would go off the scale and that the gauge would start going around a second time. The problem was not the gauges however. Sooner or later, something had to give... 💥😵
I operated both the U28CG and the U30CG out of Denver from August 1978 to October 1981. These both were miserable machines to run. They had that foot log throttle, KC109 controller with 16 notches. I never could get back into the engine room to check anything because the oil was a couple of inches deep on the deck. The Santa Feces wouldn't spend the money needed to maintain them right, Route of the Super Cheap.
@@godzillahomer Correct. Also high shed costs (That BR never got to grips with, they just couldn't find out why the 33's were so expensive on shed), and if something did go wrong (which was admittedly rather rare) it was nearly always electrical. But they were otherwise excellent engines with fantastic availability at times.
All the North Eastern Railway later used letters and not Roman Numerals. Wikipedia summarises them : en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:North_Eastern_Railway_locomotives The later LNER went for a different letter series
The J Class had a few issues, some of which are extremely off putting in my opinion, However, I think the Pennsy did fine honestly, the original pair of T1 Prototypes had no performance issues, just the later ones. Also, was sorta too late for the Pennsys Steam Traction Days anyways, the General Motors EMD E8 units were rolling out the same time as the T1’s, there wasn’t a Chance.
9:34 i spent almost a entire day on that engine once as my dad was needed by the p-way as southerem (their diesel mechanical shunter) was not up for moving the 2 shark wagons (ballets waggons) fully filled from groombridge to high rocks and the digger and my dad was the only one available to drive r.j. Mitchel or as it’s otherwise known as “63”
I stumbled across this channel and found the history compelling, so compelling that I can even forgive the introduction that sounds like a Los Angeles late night UHF channel monster movie marathon introduction, but one thing that sets my OCD to "Run 8" is calling a locomotive a train. A locomotive is not a "Train." It is part of a train; a train is a railroad car or a series of railroad cars moved as a unit by a locomotive or by integral motors. The Erie triplex 2-8-8-8-2 is not the worst train in America, it's the worst locomotive in America. The worst TRAIN in America is NJ Transit's train 2606 which failed to run 20 times in 2019 stranding thousands of passengers, it just didn't show up.
You could consider a list of airplanes that were plenty capable in their own right, but either never stood a chance or were never given the opportunity to truly show their struts. Examples include Fokker D.VIII, YF-23, North American XB-70, F-107 Ultra Sabre, Me 262, Myasishchev M-50, He 112, La-15, Yak-23, Fiat CR 42, DH 103 de Havilland Hornet, Douglas B-23 Dragon, HP 52 Hampden, and Vickers Wellesley.
Ah a North Eastern Railway engine. Now yeah thing may be coal hungry but as someone who lives in an area where the NER served there was ALOT and i mean ALOT Of colliery's around because thats north of england for ya. Meaning getting coal isn't hard.
The Santa Fe segment. The curve is pronounced Who-l-a-han (Houlihan). The town is pronounced Chill-a-cothy (Chillicothe). I live within a 40 minute drive of both places and photograph trains near there.
I know this comment isn't about trains but I just have to do a PSA. DO NOT eat the mini packs of flam-n hot Cheetos and drink Dr.Pepper afterwards, you will feel the equivalent of eating a pound of suger free gummy bears.
Maybe the pensey might have been able to make the K4s into a freight locomotive if they changed their wheel arrangement. The LMS in the UK actually did that with their 4-6-0 black fives and turned them into 2-8-0s known as the 8f. If the pensey turned the K4s into 2-8-2s maybe that would have helped. But I dunno. Feel free to call me and idiot who knows nothing about engineering in the replys.
Okay, so. Judging by the comments, you messed up with regards to both the K4s and the Class 33. So... I think I'm going to skip this one. Hate to say it, but it looks like it needs a do-over.
The Duplex is so overrated. Of all the new steam locomotives to build, why not a NYC Hudson? They're some of the most iconic steam locomotives ever built, and were the poster children of Lionel!
who cares if the Pa could not build good locomotives, a good 4 8 4 could have been brought. So could have a good 4 6 6 4 been brought. No the PRR had management problems even in the diesel era the prr needed 4 sd 40 to move trains from new york to chicage due to grades and the NMCY got the same job done with 2 gp 40's
the NCY had No choice but to scarp Steam Locomotives, the NYC was spending Money on new yards new track new rails new ties new signal Systems new diesel locomotives rebuil;ding the rail road
