Get Surfshark VPN at surfshark.deals/jago Enter promo code JAGO for 83% off and 3 months extra free! Tank you very much. Ko-Fi: ko-fi.com/jagohazzard Patreon: / jagohazzard
"tank engines like Thomas, don't need tenders. They can go just as well backwards as forwards. But to hear Gordon talk, you would've thought that the fat controller had given him a tender, just to show how important he was."
The longest serving steam locomotives in Britain were the A1\A1X Terrier tank engines with some achieving 90+ years service until retirement. A really useful engine as someone we know might say. 😀
Not to mention Newport on the Isle of Wight which won the 1878 Paris Exhibition Gold medal. (edit: somehow managed to get the wrong date and loco name first time)
@@ianbailey4667 having, at one time, lived in a road named after Fenchurch I have a soft spot for her (it’s definitely the engine as there was a Stepney Close nearby too)
I grew up in the States in a division point on the Union Pacific Railroad. My family was definitely a 'railroading family' with all the male members, including myself, working on the railroad in some capacity for three generations. I only mention that to point out that I don't think I ever saw a tank engine, even in the shunting yard, which we called a switching yard. And it wasn't like I had no opportunity to notice. I lived on one side and my Gran lived on the other just across the street from the yard. Thus, walking across the yard was an almost daily occurrence.
He's my favorite tank engine. Even if he's just a toy. I grew up with the models, so I choose to remember them as "toy trains", as my mom said when I was little.
I was a huge Thomas the Tank Engine fan as a kid (and I did visit Bury and the station at Bolton Road to see a 'full size' Thomas. But I didn't know what a tank engine was in 1990 though, I thought it was just a steam train... That was until this video that is, thanks for the clarity Jago. Now only if ELR can keep the line a heritage railway and not have Northern Rail turn it back into a branch line.
@@johndavies1090 yeah, I only found a couple examples when I looked it up, but it's an interesting design. I wonder if anyone was crazy enough to have both an inverted saddle tank in the front and a normal saddle tank behind the chimney, possibly connected together into one ridiculous tank.
London Transport had some second-hand GWR 57xx pannier tanks that were used to haul engineering trains when the electricity on the sub-surface lines was turned off at night. There was a daytime train that ran to the spoil heap at Croxley. It would run to Watford to take water from an attractive tower which looked as if it had been there since the station was built in the 1920s. Once watered the engine would run round the train and return southwards as access to the siding at Croxley was from the up (towards London) line only. This was the last non-heritage main line steam in the UK; it ended with a spectacular run from the City to Neasden depot via Baker Street in June 1971. Some of the LT panniers were rescued and have run in their LT livery in preservation. One features in the 1970s film of E. Nesbit's "The Railway Children".
Apart from being nicely explained as usual, this illustrates a pretty wide range of historic British tank engines of numerous classes in various locations - the NRM at York naturally features strongly, and several preserved railways and steam centres. Several noteworthy classes shown - the LBSC Terriers, L&Y 2-4-2s, LMS Stanier tanks, and GWR panniers for example.
During the Kuwait war in 1991 there were reports of tank engines being unloaded and stored at the quayside at the supply port. It conjured up an image of rows of Jinties and 5700 class locos in sidings by the water's edge. Lovely picture.
Worst thing I here on Thomas etc railway days is the General Public calling it Thomas The Tank. ( though in fairness the military self propelled killing machines were called Tanks as a means of disguising their purpose )
Thomas the Train's another. He's not a train, he's a train engine, a tank engine to be exact. Say "tank engine" and I see his adorable face. Someone said "Thomas has a very cute face."
Appearances can be deceptive. I always considered the Sydney (NSW) suburban 30 Class tanks to be small, until one day one was coupled to the front of The Flying Scotsman 4472 on its 1988 visit to Australia. The Sydney tank was bigger than the Flying Scotsman! A lot of the 30 Class were converted to tender engines when Sydney electrification made them redundant; they were given the name "30T Class" which caused some confusion. The last 30 Class Tank was withdrawn in February 1973.
I find it interesting that the Southern Railway had tank engines that closely and furtherly fit its short distance passenger runs. Two tank engines, the K class from the South Eastern & Chatham Railway and the L class frrom the London Brighton & South Coast were each designed for express trains. Meanwhile, the London & South Western Railway had _two_ tank engines for heavy shunting and trip freights, the H16 and G16, both of which ended up being the widest steam engines in the country. And then when the Southern Railway happened, the W and Z class tank engines appeared for the same duties
The K, or "River" class had stability issues over poor track, resulting in the Sevenoaks disaster in 1927 and their rebuilding into U class tender engines. Strangely, the L class suffered the same stability issues until they were modified to halve the capacity of the side tanks and have a well tank fitted between the frames; clearly, news didn't travel fast, because it would have solved the K problems. The L class were also rebuilt, into the mediocre N15X class of tender engines, following electrification of the Brighton line. Also, the I3 Atlantic tanks were early examples of superheated engines, running from Brighton to Rugby and back without a water stop - this impressed the LNWR so much, they took up superheating.
@@bingbong7316 the LBSCR had better P-way than the SECR (much of which used round sea pebbles for ballast!), Gresley borrowed a River and put it to work on fast stoppers from King's Cross to Peterborough and found it to be a fine engine, more than capable of 80+mph running without problems. The Billinton L class was mediocre as a tank engine, looked fantastic but the cylinder and valve design was utterly obsolete, it needed pushing down hills rather than being able to coast. A 4-6-0 tender variant was intended by Billinton but WW1 and subsequent electrification of the BML got in the way, but the urgent need for motive power on the LSWR Salisbury-Exeter route caused them to be redeployed there in rebuilt form - unfortunately, Maunsell did nothing to improve the front end! Had they been fitted with the big outside piston valves and cylinders of the Urie *15/16 family... There was of course the later W class, a tank engine variant of the N1 3-cylinder 2-6-0, and a 2-cylinder version thereof (or a tank version of the N-class, or smaller-wheeled K) was successfully employed on the Metropolitan line between Marylebone and Buckinghamshire...
@@bingbong7316 unfortunately, the Met Ks (LNER L2s) were withdrawn immediately after WW2 while their siblings continued for another 15-20 years... why they weren't sold/reallocated to the Southern I cannot comprehend!
@@richardharrold9736 Probably the Southern simply didn't need any more W's. They were just used for short trip freights round London (as on the Met). It would seem that they were not felt sprightly enough for passenger train use by the Met, LNER or SR. BR went for LMS-type 2-6-4 tanks instead on routes like Oxted/Uckfield.
From one massive nerd to another! Thoroughly enjoyed this foray into tank engines! As one who grew up with the Railway books it was nice to see them referred to here... PS have you ever met the Fat Controller? 😁
I arrogantly expected this to be an amusing presentation of what I already knew. Well, it was...until the last couple of minutes. "Well" tanks, "box" tanks, "wing" tanks, "inverted saddle" tanks and "back" tanks. Wow, never heard of them before! I look foward to telling my wife that I'm not such a nerd.
Furthest north GWR-design pannier tanks have reached? Helmsdale, way up the far north of Scotland. In 1958, the Dornoch branch was needing new engines to replace their ancient and clapped-out Highland Railway 0-6-0s. 16xx Class 0-6-0PT 1649, designed for the Welsh valleys, was transferred from Swindon to Inverness Lochgorm shed, and was sent to work on the Dornoch branch. It was so successful that it was soon joined by sister engine 1646. Inverness Lochgorm was also home to a Jinty at one point.
Thomas the Tank Engine, published the year I was born and I had early copies read to me at bedtime. Because of them I always wanted to be an engine driver, but my eyes weren't big enough to fit in the windows.
He came to my country the year I was born, via Shining Time Station. So, Shining Time Station's the reason I know what a tank engine, because Thomas taught me.
I worked on a lot of them in the 1960s at Bournemouth, thanks for bringing back some great memories, Jago. The Riddle's locos were like a Rolls Royce for seating and shoveling comfort, and the GWR saddle tanks were like a slave Galley for shoveling ! LOL !
as always, a great video delivered in the self deprecating "hazzard" style (and more enjoyable for it too!). I have a small quibble: you mention that shunting involves moving stock and isn't a money maker ... a very small part of shunting was (and is) stock movement. The vast majority of shunting involves organizing freight traffic at large marshalling yards so the right cargo goes to the right destination, and was a very significant revenue earner for the pre-BR big 4 that continues to this day. The LNER made more money on freight, and less on passenger traffic (while the Southern was the obverse ... maybe worth a video?)
4:51 and 4:58: those two locomotives were some of the first loco models made by Matchbox. I'm not really a train nerd, but when i was very little someone in the family gave me a Matchbox train set and some extra trains, which included those two models. It always bothered me they didn't look anything like the trains we have/had in Denmark
If you deal with an American rail fan remember you shunt, we switch. so switch engine and switch yard. Oh and we also have been to HUMP cars in a switch yard (meaning the switcher rolls the cars to the top of a small hill then allowed to free roll through the switches (points) to the line of cars that will make up the next "haul" (Train).
Strictly speaking, a line of wagons (cars) that make up a train is a "rake". The train is the whole thing with the loco (er - loco?) and brake van (caboose) attached. :)
Puffing Billy (NA class) is a 2’6” guage tank engine. I love the look of the pannier tank engines, first time I saw them was in 1950s videos. I hope to come to the UK in 2024 and see them for myself.
Jago (really Norman) another great video I am ALWAYS amazed at the little quip at the end of your videos regarding Paterson, I was waiting and thinking, what could old NORMAN say this time, but as usual you came up with something regarding water and tanks. Very good Jago.
I do like your RU-vid channel called “Jago Hazzard”. I’ve always been so fascinated in your videos since I started watching your videos and subscribed to your videos. Keep up the good work Jago.
Not watched it yet, but really hoping Jago is in my beloved home town of Ramsbottom. That definitely looks like a platform I have spent many hours on...
Is there a reason why larger locomotives, Pacifics for example, didn't have some kind of integral tank to allow for either more coal in the tender and/or smaller tenders?
@@pf32900 Capacity is one reason, safety another. The big express tank types had to have their tanks high on the footplate, which could lead to problems with stability if the water started sloshing in a part empty tank. Indeed the SECR/SR K or 'River' class had to be rebuilt as mogul tender engines after the Sevenoaks disaster for that reason - they were known as the 'Rolling Rivers'. Above a certain boiler diameter tanks became impractical anyway - an A3, Princess or Royal Scot boiler was close to the loading gauge limits. And the amount of machinery in between the frames debarred well tanks. Express engines needed much more water than coal - they had water scoops, to replenish the tender tanks from track troughs while on the move, but could carry sufficient coal for a London - Edinburgh or Glasgow run.
@@pf32900 And the associated weight. Express engines and particularly boilers tended to be sized up to give the maximum allowable axle loading. Carrying more water on the engine part would have made it too heavy or compromised the power.
@@johndavies1090 Except on the Southern Railway, which did not use water troughs - so they had larger tender tanks instead. Incidentally, the “modern” class A1, Tornado, has a reduced amount of coal capacity (something like 7.5 tons cf 9 tons on the originals) on the tender, to allow for more water.
6:58 I’m guessing that Dougal used to work at Provan Gas Works in Glasgow. I moved to Glasgow back in 2020, and I have noticed all the disused railway relics that were once part of the branch line to to works.
I was on the Bury Line behind the Flying Scotsman last year I must admit of all the types of locomotive the little tank engine is one of my favourites. The A4's and Coronation Class look magnificent but your more likely to see a Jinty or J72
Well, well, well (As Mr Beattie said when describing his three new tank engines in 1863) what a splendid episode. Not only did you manage to describe the concept in simple yet not patronising terms, you also managed to get a fabulous Rev Awdry pun at the very end 🤓 I don’t know why, but the older I’ve got, the more I seem to really love tank engines. Admittedly, one of my favourite engines full stop is the Webb Coal Tank (thanks for including it BTW!) as is the Standard 4MT 2-6-4 (thanks for mentioning my line the LTS as well!) but it is the sheer variety in type, shape, size and configuration that appeals, plus the fact there is nothing better than watching a plucky little industrial tank engine thrashing the hell out of a hill pulling a big load 😎 I remember talking to one of the directors of the Swanage Railway who, as luck would have it, was sat adjacent to us on the Wessex Belle dining train (you really must, it’s wonderful!) and he summed it up for me: “Don’t get me wrong, I love having the Pacific’s here and they are beautiful. But it’s much more fun to listen to the old M7 really pushing herself at 25 up the hill.” 😍 Lovely to see a picture of the original Welsh Pony. Had the fortune to see the new incarnation when visiting the fam in Wales and my goodness, it was emotional. Funny how these things that are essentially just a load of lumps of metal stuck together can stir emotions that, frankly, are far more affectionate that at least half the humans I have had the (mis) fortune of meeting 🤔 Ho hum, cheers old fruit! Absolutely loved the footage. So good, I ended up watching it all through again 😎👍🍀🍻
How dare you suggest that Thomas the Tank Engine is fictional. You’ll be telling us that there’s no Santa Claus next and that the Tooth Fairy doesn’t exist. 😂🤣😂. Seriously though keep up the good work, I love your style.
I live for nerdy stuff like this, tanks very much, Jago. Especially if it concerns the railways. ;) 4:24 This engine (Lancashire and Yorkshire Class 21 'Pug' No.19, built in 1910) is a fairly recent return-ee to steam, as her gleaming condition indicates. Another example of this class (L&Y No. 68, LMS No. 11218 & BR No. 51218; built 1901 and withdrawn September 1964) survives as a static exhibit at Oxenhope on the Keighley and Worth Valley Railway, though there are considerations about returning this example to working order too.
Excellent - detailed, clear, lucid, accurate, and beautifuly illustrated. A number of British companies, from Brighton to Glasgow, had some really massive 'Baltic' type tanks for express passenger work in the late 1900s - being very few in numbers, they mostly vanished fairly soon after the 1923 grouping. Confusingly, in Germany a tank engine is a 'tenderlok', while a tender locomotive is a 'schlepptenderlok' (or 'dragging tender engine'!) They and other European lines had some massive tanks for hilly country work, and plenty of small, quaint ones for shunting and bimmelbahn (rural local lines) work. The American railroads weren't so keen on tank engines, save for fast, light suburban short distance work or yard work. Many of theirs had panniers or saddles, because US steam engines were usually built around the boiler (the light frames kept the moving parts in the right places, and the boiler was the backbone, the opposite to European practice) and the tanks were simply hung from it. GWR Pannier tanks were introduced when Swindon adopted the angular Belpair firebox - fitting a saddle tank over it and keeping it watertight was not an easy task, and panniers were a simple solution. Just loved every second of it
Sadly, the Baltic tanks seem to have been pretty uniformly unsuccessful wherever you went. Lancashire and Yorkshire, Furness, London Tilbury and Southend, Glasgow and South Western, all ate coal voraciously and oscillated at speed if they ever got there. The LBSC ones were about the best but still not great and even when rebuilt as 4-6-0s were mainly confined to secondary duties. In WW2 they were sent to the GWR mainly for goods trains. Probably poor valve events are the common feature to all of these. Likewise Deeley's 0-6-4 tanks for the Midland which were tried on the Tilbury line but weren't as quick as the LTS 4-4-2s. W.A. Tuplin explained this by concluding that they were "probably the most port-strangled steam engines of the 20th century" - narrow steam passages with sharp bends giving large pressure drop.
I liked that radio show that was on in the early 2000's I think the morning pirates did it. Anyway it was Thomas the Tanked engine. In my country tanked is a colloquial term for being very drunk. And it was the antics of a very drunk tank engine.
Side tanks which are part of the hull of a ship are usually also called wing tanks. Never knew why too. Maybe they were expecting the ship to fly when the tanks were getting empty.
The Southern Z class was actually used to bank trains up the gradient from Exeter St Davids to Exeter Central. Hence the tiny tanks as they didn’t go very far. There is a picture on one in BR days outside of Exeter for a trial but the caption incorrectly states the location as Bournemouth
In Dutch those engines are called 'tenderlocomotief', because it is a combination of the two. It is a bit confusing though, since it doesn't have a tender :P
Well I consider myself a partial railway nerd. And I'm so glad I stumbled across you all those months ago. Or wait. Has it been more than a year? I've lost track. Oh dear. Unintentional railway pun. LOL
Where did you get your information about these engines? Where did you loco-late it all? And it must have taken you a fair amount of time to "coal-late" it all together And what inspired you to make this film? What was your loco-motivation? Is this going to make you an es/steamed filmmaker?
Informative as usual. They were very popular all over Europe, but in North America, with longer distances being common, they didn't catch on as much, even for shunting...or as we say in the USA and Canada, "Switching" (we also refer to a "set of points" as a "railroad switch", so make of that what you will)
Thomas. You mention his basis and I associate tank engine with him and his franchise almost completely. The basis of any tank engine in TTTE's deeply associated with the franchise for me. The Little Engine That Could's my only other association, other than TTTE and the basis of any tank engine there.
i love the opening where you say "explain railway terminology for the benefit of people who arent nerds like me". Then you have me, who is a massive railway nerd who didnt learn anything new but the videos are still entertaining to watch so i do anyway. (sometimes i do learn things, but thats usually related to UK specific stuff that doesnt apply to where i live on the other side of the planet)
Did the engines used for shunting have improved bumpers, or brakes? If you are doing a lot of manouvering... would you need better precision at stopping... or repeatedly butting against rolling stock
Thats funny, you call a usual locomotive tender engine, but in german its the opposite, a tank engine is called Tenderlokomotive, coz the tender is amalgated into the engine
2:09 They did this in 2000 to make the title not so lengthy. It's more convenient for brief conversations. Furthermore Thomas is still referred to his full title even with this slight modification to the title.
Yes!! Learned a new 🏴word👌🏻, today: shunting. Though I have been familiar with the need/job/task of shunting🚂🚃🚃 (aka switching in 🇺🇲) . I never knew the particular term for it. In 🇳🇱 it's called 'rangeren' maybe derived from 🇫🇷? for re-arranging your trains?!
This is nothing to do with the topic on hand, but I come over hopelessly nostalgic whenever I see blue and white railway carriages. I bet they've got that weird scratchy grey moquette on the seats as well. Sigh.
Now to me they are an unwelcome reminder of the Miserable Seventies. I quite like the previous dark red and cream though, sort of Heartbeat/Miss Marple if you see what I mean.
Thank you Jago for the mention of the LT&SR. I first rode on the footplate of a LT&SR Tilbury Tank at the age of nine from Shoeburyness to Southend Central. I'm now 81 and still remember it to this day
Tank you Jago ! l'm sure l'm not the first to say this...doh! l had the books way back when, early 70's, featuring Thomas, Gordon, The Fat Controller, Percy ... Loved 'em !
I see 80151. I helped cleaning the rust out of her tanks many weekends at the Stour Valley Railway. Its difficult to get in the tanks at over 6' tall. M
The advantage of a tank engine is that the weight of the water and fuel aids adhesion, but an equivalent tender engine will have a lighter axle loading (e.g. Ivatt 2MT Mogul vs Prairie tank), so are actually better for light railways, at the expense of poorer adhesion. Also, the reason the GWR went for panniers was they started out with saddle tanks but Churchward wanted Belpaire fireboxes on everything.
@@bryansmith1920 no, that is the point I am making. If you have two otherwise identical designs (such as with the LMS/BR 2MTs), the tank engine will have better adhesion than the tender engine because the weight of the water is bearing directly on the driving wheels instead of the undriven wheels of the tender. The trade-off is that the tank engine is heavier overall and has a higher axle loading compared to its tender sibling...
Other disadvantages of tank engines are that the tanks limit the size of boiler that can be fitted, and that the amount of adhesive force will vary as the water is used up. There were also some high-speed derailments caused by unstable running caused by water sloshing about in the tanks when they were half-full (or half-empty, take your pick). In general a tank engine can go at the same speed in neither direction, but an ogherwise similar tender engine facing the right way can go faster.
