The locomotive tenders that drove themselves - "Steam Tenders" 

Yup

3-truck Heislers and other geared engines had powered tenders. There were also the triplex locomotives on both the Erie and Virginian Railways.

Shays also had powered tenders

I think some people missed the joke with this one, dw bro I understood it 🎉

@@CupofIvy What joke?

i was just about to add this lol, isn't this concept just a really convoluted tank engine? lol

@@bluesynth7958 I came here to say the same thing.

I suspect American railway's negative experiences with these steam tenders made them more hesitant to try Garratts, despite these issues being no where near as severe on Garratts.

@@thesteampunksavant9994 You'd be surprised, but nah. The reason Garretts weren't bothered with, is by the time a builder procured licenses to build them in the US (Alco was the company, if memory serves), then any benefit they may have had, was offset by the simple fact that companies here were already producing very powerful Mallet locomotives that could do the same thing Garratts could, if not better. It wasn't until 1927 that the idea was even considered, and then it was only after Alco and Beyer-Garrett proposed the "super Garrett" which was a 2-6-6-2+2-6-6-2 variant. The sheer size of it meant no turntable could turn it, and there was some question as to whether or not even existing US rails could handle it. So there were no buyers for them.

@@KibuFox One of the benefits of a Garratt is that it can be made to run equally well in both directions, obviating the need for a turn table. The main cited reason no American railroad was interested in Garratts was the fear of loss of adhesion as fuel and water was depleted. This would have been made a non issue with the use of an auxiliary water tank as the main source of water which is what was done is South Africa. It was this unfounded fear coupled with the hesitancy to try something new which turned off American companies. A garratt with two three cylinder compound engines if designed properly would have been more efficient and powerful than American Mallets. This was discussed by David Wardale in his book. Where did you learn of this Alco Beyer Super Garratt proposal?

@@thesteampunksavant9994 Just search for "Mallet Garratt". The documentation I've found notes "Of all the deviations from conventional steam locomotive design, the Beyer Garratt articulated locomotive was one of the most successful. In 1927 Beyer Peacock produced this design for a 2-6-6-2 + 2-6-6-2 doubly-articulated quadruplex giant, which would have produced a starting tractive effort of more than 200,000 lbs. It could be called a Mallet-Garratt, as each engine section has its front half pivoted at the rear and sliding at the front in the Mallet manner. It has been suggested that it was offered tongue-in-cheek, but it is hardly likely that Beyer Peacock would have gone to the trouble and expense of getting a patent unless they meant business. Unfortunately there were no buyers and none were ever actually built. Whatever the case, it's not a question of being more efficient or powerful. First and foremost, they weren't nearly as efficient as other locomotives, due to the fact that they still suffered from the same issue which the Triplex locomotives suffered from. IE, as they used fuel, they would lose traction. What's more, they couldn't carry nearly as much coal as a regular US tender would. On average, garratt locomotives carried some 12 to 14 tons of coal and 4000 to 5000 gallons of water. Locomotives like the Y6B, a 2-8-8-2 Mallet type, carried 20 to 25 tons of coal, and some 20,000 gallons of water. Lastly, and most importantly, the most modern Garratt built, the South Australian Railways 400 class, produced 43,520 lbf of tractive effort. The Y6B produced 166,000 lbf of tractive effort. That's a little over three times the tractive effort. Thing is, that Garrett was built in the 1950's. The Y6B's dated from the early 1940's. The average Mallet locomotive, in the US, produced 130 to 180k pounds of tractive effort. So, when looking at a Garrett, which is a locomotive that's going to do maybe 1/3 the power that an existing locomotive design does... I can honestly see why a railroad would just go "Nah, not worth the trouble."

Same issue that the Garratt locomotive and to a lesser degree all tank engines run into. Ultimately the tender relocating weight away from the engine actually has at least as many benefits as drawbacks because it makes the adhesion consistent regardless of fuel status, and since a locomotive is designed to pull things an extra car or two of fuel isn't going to overload anything.

yes. i regard boosters as the successful development of powered tenders. and boosters could be fitted to tenders and be unpowered when not needed. victorian railways (australia) built the tenders for their second set of n class locos so that franklin boosters could be fitted. however, none were ever fitted to them.

Yes, but then they don't really count, as they were purpose built engines, not simply powered tenders.

The Shays, Heislers, and Climaxes powered their tenders with the same pistons as the rest of the loco though...

@@notmuch_23 That still makes for a powered tender.

@@railwaykangaroo6196 Yes, but not in this exact definition.

@@ukaszwalczak1154 The engines still powered the tenders didn't they?

Ironically, the Southern locomotives included in the video, didn't suffer the same issues, and were found to be VERY effective at what they were designed to do. Specifically, these were "Saluda" locomotives, and operated as helpers to get trains over the Saluda grade, a 5% average grade on the Southern Railway, which was (until abandonment in the mid 2000's) the steepest main line grade in the US. Since the Saluda tender drives only ever worked over a short four or five mile stretch of track, and were regularly refueling and rewatering the tenders.

It’s too bad they didn’t think to shut those cylinders off. 🤷

@@Gfysimpletons Funny thing is, the Saluda locomotives could actually do that. They had valves that allowed them to cut off the steam going to the tender drivers.

yes. victorian railways (australia) set some n class loco tenders up for boosters though never fitted them.

Point of order: Loading Gauge is the space that the train fits into ; of which Britain has a relatively-restricted one. You might be referring to the Track Gauge, the distance between a pair of running rails. Note that the Loading and Track gauges are not necessarily an indication of the weight of the rails used either 😵‍💫

​@@SportyMabambaAnd neither has to do with maximum allowable weight of a locomotive or car. I also believe Garrets experienced similar adhesion loss, albeit reduced somewhat by also having the boiler sitting on some of the drivers.

@@SportyMabamba Yeah, I messed up there. For some reason I got loading gauge and loading capacity mixed up, with loading capacity actually being the measure of how much weight the rails could take, but I checked, and you're correct. So thanks for that, now I know better. That being said, U.S. rails typically weigh 120-140 Pounds per yard, compared to the 81-121 used by most of Europe for example, which is a large part of why our freight trains are so insanely long and heavy compared to most of the world.

The Bessemer and Lake Erie used 150 lb rail. It should be kept in mind that heavier rail and trains needs maintenance.

@@SportyMabamba , i think what sambrown means is us locos can be higher, wider, longer and apply more weight on main lines on every axle. thats how they can have monsters like big boys on the main lines.

wao

Sounds like my LEGO steam locomotives. I found gearing a motor into the locomotive's drive wheels a daunting task, so I just put one or two of their single piece powered boggies under the tender, meaning the locomotive is 100% dead weight, lol!

I guess Mike was built from Rex's tender

Some Thomas fans have retconned Mike as being Rex’s former Poultney steam tender.

Imagine James a steam tender for Gordon and Henry on goods work uphill. I mean, he was literally the butt of their jokes whenever he messed up.

You heard it right, Mike is a literal ass

​@@LazyOldFusspot_3428 someone on deviantart DID draw james as Gordon's tender

Had similar ideas myself using battery or fuel cell power for use on heritage railways where cost and availability of coal is proving increasingly problematic. SVR are currently converting an 08 shunter to fuel cell power.

Same

There were some locomotives fitted with boosters in the UK, the ones I know of some 4-4-2s & 2-8-2s on the LNER.

australia had them on victorian railways x class and one of the n class. they were considered successful.

they're usually called electro-diesels.

constantly powered tenders didn't pan out for steam. these and the triplexes failed but geared engines and tender boosters worked. Triple-bogie geared locomotives would place a third bogie under their tender. and booster engines work under the trailing truck or fitted to the tender leading bogie. let's not forget modern diesel slugs whose sole job is to improve traction where adhesion is the limiting factor. those slugs tend to carry extra fuel after all.

It was playing throughout but you don’t get much of a chance to hear it as he talks so much lol, but I too also noticed it, I’ve noticed quite a lot of videos have sonic music on, or at least video game music.

@@omnicity43 ahh, nice! I’ll listen out for more! 😄🦔🦊

boosters and geared locos are the successful development of this concept.

Or rather River Esk 🤦🏻‍♂️

​@@ProspectstudiosCoUkBFD the steam tender chassis was reused as the basis for the first River Mite, so you were right!

@@gwendroid haha oh yeah I guess so. River mite 1 was tender drive also. That’s where I got mixed up

any geared loco could have a third and fourth powered bogie.

electric drives hate being around heat and ash. both found with steam engines.

@@JaneDoe-dg1gv I never considered this! Thanks for your input.

@@thetman0068 The booster unit was a successful implementation of a powered tender when it was added to the first bogie of a tender. that was done if there wasn't space between the locomotive's trailing truck for one.

It's not exactly a steam tender, it's an engine with powered tender.

@@ukaszwalczak1154 bro thats the same thing.

@@Mark_The_Railfan I worded it wrong. Most of the powered tender locos weren't fully built for it, River Esk did afterall get a normal tender, and it didn't affect the engine that much, with a Triplex you'd have issues cuz the powered tender is an integral part of the design.

The trains are very heavy when fully loaded and the line has steep and varied gradients. Plus at the time of the steam tender, the line was used for freight; transporting granite from a quarry at Beckfoot to a crushing plant at Murthwaite .

Maybe you could do that to all other unpowered wheels and maybe sell it to a coal hauler, ACE 3000 style

@@Combes_ yeah but electric drives hate being around steam. heat and ash kill motors. that was the main fault in steam turboelectric locos

@@JaneDoe-dg1gv true, but that was 80~ years ago, I'm sure techology has changed to make these more reliable

@@Combes_ more reliable, yes. UP still has issues with electrical equipment around their steam fleet. with ac motors now the issues are cropping up with electrical faults in the control equipment. It could be done but that stuff would basically have to be a sealed box with probably pneumatic or mechanical controls.

@@JaneDoe-dg1gv maybe, but it'd still make up for it through being stronger and being able to have dynamic braking

“Configuration” from DR Robotniks Mean Bean Machine!

@@omnicity43 thank you so much!

Forneys. They were literally tank engines with half a tender-

Look, m8, how do i put this, not every railway video has to include a US thing that's slightly similar but not really.

@ThomasRengel: If you’re that keen to talk about US Boosters then make your own channel 😂

Edward: you guys are so stupid