I understand these were earlier Y3 designs. The first Y6b was not built until well after the war in 1948, being the ultimate Mallet design built until 1952.
Absolutely fantastic episode of this series. I never knew that these giants were converted from *non-articulated* locomotives... I remember first becoming interested in this engine when it was first promoted in a Lionel catalog about 10 years ago.
The Norfolk and Western Y class (Y-3 and up) had more tractive effort and way more Horsepower; they were very successful and lasted until the very end of steam on the N&W.
As bad as the 3000 Class was, Santa Fe had two Mallets that were even worse, the 1398 Class 4-4-6-2's. These abortions were built for passenger service from 2 Pacifics, by adding new front sections purchased from Baldwin in 1909. The front low-pressure section was severely prone the wheel slip which sucked all the steam from the rear high-pressure cylinders. This was definitely NOT conducive to forward motion and rendering the locomotive virtuously useless. It's likely that these two locomotives spent most of their time on the dead line until 1915 when they were rebuilt back into useful 4-6-2 Pacifics. The only good thing that can be said about them is that there were only two of them.
Even better is what can be said about the Virginian #700 2-8-8-8-4: only one was built. It was split into a decent 2-8-8-0 and a 2-8-2. The four wheel tender engine truck enabled it to coast back down the mountain at 15-20 mph after pushing a train up the grade at 5 mph.
ALCO built 2-10-10-2 for the Virginian in 1918. These had 48 inch inside diameter front cylinders, largest ever on steam. Slow but powerful, VGN class AE. Lasted until 1952.
Your point is a valid one saying that lessons were learned regarding the 2 10 10 2. However, I do love the fact that Lionel has provided us an excellent example showing us how the manufacturer intended for this monumental engine to have performed. The real truth is that sometimes it looks better on paper, or on the drawing board then in real life. This engine is a prime example. I am very happy to see that it has been brought back to life so we can cherish what it was intended to be, but the lesson still stands that it was a failure in real life.
Want to see actual movie footage of a 3000 class? It exists. About 1915, America was into 15-20 minute movie theater serials. The Hazards of Helen was one of those serials. In an episode, The Leap From The Water Tower, you see a 3000 in action. In reality, it is the star of the episode. How this survived is a pure miracle. There is even a pacing scene. This the only known footage of one of these locomotives.
I really love your Dead on Arrival series. It's pretty fun to watch. Here's my suggestion for a next episode of Dead on Arrival: Pennsylvania Railroad S2 6-8-6 S2 class Steam turbine locomotive or PRR S1 6-4-4-6 remake
Love your channel! Actually the ATSF did indeed obtain some NW Y3's during WW2 for use on Raton pass. As soon as the war was over they were sold to the Virginian.
I just knew you were from Bama by your channel name. I worked at the Marshall Space Flight Center lab that did some of the failure investigation on the Challenger Space flight O-ring failure. So how did we get from rockets to railroads? I love Alabama! I've got five grandkids and four great grandkids in Foley. My son recently moved to Maine. Sweet Home Alabama!!!
My Grandfather probably touched these locomotives in one form or another. He started working in the roundhouse at Temple Texas in 1915 as a roust-a-bout and retired in 1965 as the dayshift foreman of that same roundhouse. He knew both steam and diesel very well. I still have a Stilson 24 inch pipe wrench marked on the handle AT&SF RR which apparently went home with him at some point in time. It is in excellent condition. I also have a number of shop towels (mechanics rags) that have a turtle standing speeding along (looks like he is roller skating almost) and they say "Work Safe Wipe out AXY DENT on the Sante Fe".
Andrew... your attention to detail, and thoroughness of research are praiseworthy. You obviously know much more of this subject than can be fairly assessed in just a few videos. I see from your intro that you're an Eagle Scout as well. Now it starts to make sense. I look forward to watching many more of your videos and appreciating their content. Keep it up, Andrew.
Worth mentioning, in compound steam arrangements the low pressure cylinders begin to act as a piston brake as speed increases so they're usually only ever going to be relatively slow. This occurs because the large cross sectional area of the second cylinder sets (usually double the volume of the high pressure cylinders) combined with the now very low pressure 'exhaust' steam (it's undergone 2x expansion cycles now) doesn't actually have enough time to exhaust as piston speed therefore train speed increases. Eventually it was found simple expansion for articulateds that wanted normal road speed was the solution. Compounding was still useful but lent itself to specific applications whereas if you wanted normal speed and greater operational flexibility then 'Simple' was the way forward (bit like many things in life really). One could imagine, though I don't actually know, that compound arrangements would be quite resistant to wheel slippage at the upper end of their normal operating range which would be a useful feature. That said, I'm hoping someone will prove me wrong because I don't actually know. I do know Triplexes had a problem with wheel slippage as the tenders became light but this isn't that! LOL
Nice! I’m glad someone did the history of these engines. I really like the tender of these engines. These 10 engines had the same problem as the triplex. They didn’t get enough steam to go over 10 miles per hour.
Not enough firebox grate space. Then, the exhaust from the tender engine was wasted into the air. It should have been piped to the blast pipe in the smokebox to add to the draft. Of course this would have required another flexible joint under the cab along with the steam pipe from one of the second pair of cylinders to the tender engine cylinders. Articulateds had enough trouble from the flexible joint from the rear engine cylinders to the front engine cylinders.
I was thinking a fix could have been to keep the Tenders, but to make these beasts (2-10-10-2) into a Tank Engine Hybrid, where the feed water could get preheated by the tanks along both sides of the boilers... This way they could increase the amount of steam since the thermo-mass of the water would be increased. Of course, this would mean that the engine would take longer "warming up" since those small, short fire tubes had more water to preheat!
In this era, the ATSF mainlines were lightly built, hence the need to keep the boilers relatively narrow. Compare them, for example, to the I1sa 2-10-0 of the Pennsylvania R.R. that first appeared in 1916, locos whose tractive effort exceeded 102,00 pounds, without resorting to articulation. However, PRR mainlines supported up to 75,000 pounds on the driving axles. As a result, most of the 598 I1 class survived until the 1950s, hauling heavy trains and pushing PRR freight trains up grades.
ATSF also had the worse, and least, water sources of all the western roads, especially in the territories where such large locomotives would be needed most (NM, AZ and southern CO). bigger boilers would have meant more water. Lack of sufficient water was a primary driver for Santa Fe to dieselize as quickly as they did.
It’s crazy how these designs are back then they were really in a rush tbh, had they taken their time we might very well still be on steam which is just as efficient as diesel.
Some engineer didn't do their sums right. Terrible job. "..... And Wouldn't Mind Building Any Out Of Lego, But Not The 3000s, Because They SUCKED !!" 😂
One engine to check out with a substantial boiler is the H8 Allegheny. The boiler is so big that you can put the boiler of the Big Boy within that of the H8. The driving wheels are also more hidden away do to the overhang of the boiler and other huge parts that make other engines look small in contrast. The H8 is by far the most impressive engine that I have seen in person. Great video ! Thumbs up 👍
A little more information on the H8: it was designed to have 10% more boiler capacity than the engine could require at 45 mph in use. The boiler on an H8 delivered more steam than a boiler any other American boiler and the engine delivered the highest horse power rating of any steam engine ever tested.
Thanks for the episode, I learned some new facts I didn’t know. I think it’s interesting in the same era Espee and UP also were experimenting with various wheel arrangements of the same type and with similar results. Though, Espee did do conversions of many of their compounds with superheating later on, I think this was a common thread in that era that not many had good solutions. The early compound standard cabs and early cab forwards with the recycled steam were not necessarily known for being fast. The Espee MC-1, 1909 Baldwin products only amassed 85,040 lbs of tractive effort, real progress on the Espee didn’t happen until the AC-4s in 1928 with tractive effort of 116900 lbs. The other doom of failure of early compound design was simply the physical infrastructure. The Espee couldn’t operate the MC-1s (4000/4001) and later classes up to the MC-6s due to lack of turntable and roundhouse facilities large enough to handle the increased boiler and tender length. This was even true on the Big Boys for UP as some locations couldn’t handle the full length and special ramps were used in some cases for the engines to ride the turntables. Thank you very much for sharing your knowledge! Very cool!!! Just an idea, I think one failed locomotive to consider is Pennsylvania’s 1904 4-4-2, French de Glehn. The locomotive was clearly a European design that didn’t really seem to fit into much larger boiler North American steam locomotives of the day. Though, she did have the appeal of a 4-4-0 of the day, her smoke box face looked out of place.
ATSF: "So yeah these were a mistake" VGN: *Smirks and operates their successful version til N&W takes over* (So glad you mentioned the AE Class' existence)
That’s probably to do with the only thing the two classes have in common is the wheel arrangement and both being compounds. The AE class is fundamentally different in conception and design to the 3000s.
Santa Fe post-war had Baldwin draw up plans for a 2- 10-10- 4 articulated steam locomotive but it was died on the drawing board because of diesel ization
If your programming isn't focused the USA, the German Borsig Mallet is one that sparks curiosity. They were so heavy that they grossly exceeded axle load limits and even did track damage under testing. To see some footage would be GOLD.
Fixes for this extinct class: Bigger, taller, and wider boiler and firebox Two stacks if one doesn't work A long-haul tender to carry the water and oil Maybe just maybe, this could've worked with those adjustments but I don't know for sure since there's no actual prototype model that doesn't cost a fortune.
Having designed and built my own L-gauge 4005 Big Boy and currently working on a Challenger, I'm half-tempted to design and build this Santa Fe 2-10-10-2 for fun. It's almost ironic that as much as we wish Lego would make bigger driving wheels, they would look about right for the overall proportionally smaller driving wheels on the Santa Fe.
What about the Victorian Railways V Class 2-8-0s? They were built around 1899 but lasted in service just 27 to 31 odd years. By 1930 they were all scrapped even though the Victorian Goldfields Railway at Maldon is building one with the number 499
This video has just become my most viewed video! Thank you so much for the support for this series, I’m now more motivated than ever to pump out more of these videos once I finish my Forth of July special! Comment down below which bad or unsuccessful locomotive I should review next. Suggestions can be steam, or diesel and electric locomotives as well.
Any one for the BLW Rectifiers,which never got beyond demonstrion stage,and no multiple orders-PRR ! Also there were several New Haven engines,that also were one- offs! Enough food for thought! Thank you for your comments,and on the ATSF engines,they were too early,and really experimental! By the way,the B&O,and Erie,did similar things with the early Mallets too!! Again thank you for your diligence and persistence!!
You made a good point about the size of the boiler. However the principal of compound steam engines (double expansion) for railway locomotives did not work out well at all. For marine use, a double or triple expansion engine did work (US Navy battleships of the mid 1900s for example). My grandfather served part of his apprenticeship at the Santa Fe's Albuquerque shops when the "Prairie Malleys" were rebuilt into two simple engines. He always said the compound (double expansion) was a maintenance nightmare.
How this could be better worked out: Instead of using steam for both sets, it can go to one and the front set is driven by a drive shaft like a shay locomotive only designed to take the stress. Then the rest of the front can be a huge water tank like a garrett locomotive while the back is for coal. While it won't be as efficient as less water in the tank, it does still prove it's strength. That would be my redesign. A bit flawed, but workable
I have always suspected the 2-10-2s were expected to be separated after some experimentation. The Baldwin built front "boiler" only housed a feed water heater and a reheater, it was not pressurized. Yet it was built to boiler standards, and was fairly easily rebuilt to a new locomotive when separated. (The 3010 class).
I really want u to do the Amtrak HHP-8s, BR Class 28s, LBSCR/Southern E2s, Amtrak SDP40Fs, or all three steam turbines. Because it’s for you to decide.
The Virginian Rail Road had 2-0=10-10-2 locomotives, but were built not recycled. They were also slow due to small drivers and huge coal drag trains. They served a set purpose, pull coal drags east out of Beckley West Virginia. They had the largest low pressure cylinders ever, They served for quite a long time too. ;-) For failed steam locos try the Erie and Virginian Triplex Locomotives.
Typical case of rushed production without sound testing. At the time, all the railroads were out to boast having the biggest, most unique and powerful locomotives in their fleet. When it started costing them money, they slacked of the "make-it-snappy" attitude. But eventually picked it up again. Norfolk and Western Railway 2300 "Jawn Henry" might be an interesting locomotive to cover. It too was a high dollar mistake.
Personally I’d love to attain one of these in ho scale for one of my branch lines. It can’t handle realistically speaking 4-8-4’s without them looking a bit too overpowered but one of these would look great going over the swampy scenery and small bridges over bayous
One of the reasons why the early Steam Locomotives lasted as long as they did was starting in 1940 (before the US officially entered WW2) the US had increased production to not only build up our own Armed Forces (especially US Navy & Maritime Ships!), but to supply Britain and China with equipment (first "Flying Tigers were AVG (American Volunteer Group) flying US made P-40's plus arms and ammo for the Nationalist Chinese Forces, but some did go to the Communist Chinese Forces as well....), this made all US railroads refurbish old engines since productions of new Locomotives was curtailed due to the use of high grade steel, which was needed for the higher pressure of the more modern Steam Locomotives .vs. the pre-WW1 era Locomotives, was being used elsewhere (such as tanks, ships, and even boilers for new War Production Plants!
Man i am.getting krostopher kovacs flashbacks and the other british dude with hsi engine videos, and i like having them running on the background so i think I'll add your channel to the list too
I learned something new: I never heard of the AT&SF 2-10-10-2s before. Amazing locomotives that must have been a huge maintenance headache not to mention too slow. Interesting anyway. It would be nice if one survived in a museum.
The Virginian had monster 2-10-10-2s that had 36” ∅ bore front low pressure compound cylinders. They were limited to ≈15 mph even coasting back downhill after pushing a train upgrade. Such enormous heavy pistons could not be effectively balanced by rotating counterweights. They did, however, have adequate firebox grate area to push at maximum power at 15 mph. You might notice that these pusher/helper/banking (UK) locomotives had tenders no larger than single locomotives half their size. Some even re-used tenders from old locomotives that had been scrapped. As they worked for only a few miles up a mountain grade, then coasted back down to their servicing side tracks, they did not need to carry very much coal and water with them. They were refueled and re-watered while waiting for the next train to push.
I have a brass HO scale 3010 engine I had painted in Santa Fe black. It is a poor puller but sounds great with a sound decoder. Always wanted a 2-10-10-2 but the price never agreed with my budget.
I found this channel a few minutes ago and subscribed write at the end of this video. If it wasn't for my Model H0 rail road being a small road interchanging with C&O, N&W and the Virginian. I love the looks but maybe since it freelanced I can find an excuse for one on the coal mine run.
The ATFS did actually buy another class of compound mallets after the 3000 class, the 8 members of the 1790 class, built as Y-3s for the N&W and sold to the ATSF during WWII.
An old saying in the aviation design world is, "If it doesn't look good it ain't gonna fly well." There is even a book called "Ugly Airplanes" that catalogs ugly performers.
@@richieosborn2639 Different set of engineering challenges. Very generally speaking, US engines needed to pull longer trains, over longer distances, over lower quality roadbed, thus, more driving wheels to spread the load- larger single engines to reduce crewing requirements (not to mention operational complication). On the other hand, there were some specific challenges that railways in Britain faced that limited the practical size of their locomotives. The upper end of UK Beyer-Garratt's ran up against several of these issues. But you are absolutely right - size is not always the answer. (But don't tell I.K. Brunel that.) ;-)
A MUCH larger fire grate and higher boiler pressure (300 psi super heated) and oil burning COULD have helped the 3000 class, but the 2-10-4 Madame Queen was what the Santa Fe NEEDED in a steam engine. It just took about 25 years of engineering to develop. Sadly WWII came along and effectively stopped steam engine development. Too much material, too much labor to erect, too much to maintain, too much capital cost, just too much compared to the bargain of four diseasels (sic) which were equal to a good 4-8-4 steam engine (4000 HP).
The 5011 Class was longer? That's kind of a shocker to me, even though it's by a foot. That really says to how thin the boiler was. I wish I could see a side-by-side pic of them
I think you are being way to harsh on the E2 class of tank engine Yes the long wheel base and small bunker was a major problem but they were still able to do their jobs in area's that they were able to work in and if it was not for the E2 I doubt we would have Thomas the Tank Engine as we know him today :P As for the Monstrosity of the 3000 class...What did they expect combining two boilers into one from smaller locomotives Honestly a properly sized boiler is needed period and if your going to come up with such an ambitious design as a 2-10-10-2 then for the love of god make sure its got a big enough boiler
I'm speaking from memory here - I have a vague feeling one of these engines appears in a silent thriller movie, possibly with Ruth Roland. The engine in the film was billed as 'the world's biggest' hauling an allegedly runaway train - all of ten cars or so. Not too sure how they articulated the boilers - not that easy, I'd have thought, so not surprising they didn't work. How about an article on the Southern Railroad's 'poor man's Mallet', made by taking a 2-8-2 or 2-8-0 and putting the running gear from another 2-8-0 underneath the tender? They worked, but pity the poor boiler - and the tallow pots stoking it!
Was amazed to see the train part of the film twenty years ago on Australian TV on a Sunday afternoon arts documentary on the Australian born stunt man then film producer director who made many railroad stunt type films ; ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-zo1IsTqE5BQ.html
Most articulated locomotives didn't have articulated boilers, although the AT&SF did have some with an accordion- or bellows-like system of metal rings connected by rivets. I don't think they were particularly successful; as far as I know, AT&SF is the only railroad that tried such a system. I'm not aware of this class of 2-10-10-2 having any jointed boilers.
I have made a rather disturbing discovery about this type of mallet... I made a TTTE O.C out of this engine named Clause and didn't think about it until tonight, when I stopped to think... And then it hit me. If the front half had a face, and the rear half did as well... I kinda feel sorry for the rear engine though. Edit: can you also pin this? If you don't then that's fine. I can see why.
As a Lego train builder I can say that any 10 drive wheel configuration is nearly impossible for use on Lego track as the wheel base is too long and won't traverse the turns. Currently, I just finished a UP Challenger design 4-6-6-4
These are articulated locomotives. The front engine unit where the front frame and cylinders are located is hinged to the rear frame(which is the only think the boiler is attached to) so that the frames can bend around curves. The front engine unit will slide out from under the boiler, which will follow the front frame through curves.
Indeed. The Virginian 2-10-10-2's cylinder chest was so wide, it had to be transported separately and assembled on site at the Virginian, where the road's signals, bridges and tunnels were wide enough to accommodate them. Vgn's 2-10-10-2s had a single boiler, which greatly simplified things, and were built by experienced engineers at Alco ten years after Santa Fe's (1918).
I don't think you understand that freight doesn't need to go fast. They were built to pull tonnage, without speed or efficiency in mind. Also I don't think you've heard of Uintah 50 and 51, which have pretty small boilers for their length and worked just fine, not to mention they were tank engines. The 3000 class would of actually faired pretty well on the East Coast, fairing well on steep grades like Horshoe Curve. It also doesn't help that you seem to be a Big Boy "Fan," or as most people call them "Foamers." Consider a better name than "Dead On Arrival," as this series seems to be all working locomotives.
