The locomotive tenders that drove themselves - "Steam Tenders"
Вставка
- Опубліковано 24 лис 2024
- In today's video, we take a look at steam tenders, the "solution" to the problem of steam locomotives having to waste energy pulling a box of fuel and water.
Please subscribe for more
This video falls under the fair use act of 1976.
This video is available to use under the appropriate Creative Commons Licence.
Any images used that fall under any Creative Commons Licence belong to their respective owners.
Picture & Information References:
www.gnrsociety...
www.douglas-sel...
www.railwaywon...
www.diagram3d....
www.nrmfriends...
en.wikipedia.o...
Picture of Sturrock and the locomotive fitted with steam tender courtesy of NRM Friends
Ive noticed that the problems with the steam tenders were basically the same ones magnified significantly for the Erie railroad's Triplex, being loss of adhesion overtime and not enough steam for all the cylinders.
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.
@@asteamsavant9994 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?
@@asteamsavant9994 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.
I also have some honourable mentions for this. 3-truck Shays, Heislers, Climaxes and the triplex locomotives on the Erie and Virginian Railways. All these had powered tenders.
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?
Maybe you could do a supplementary video on Starter/Booster tender engines. This seems a more useful addition for starting difficult loads than the full power tender engines.
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.
Railway directors: “How can utilize the weight of tender? By powering it!”
Tank engines: *”I’m I a joke to you?”*
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.
Damn. Never really thought of that. @@bluesynth7958
Some steam locomotives were fitted with steam powered boosters on the first few wheels on the tender. These were for help on starting heavy trains, and for extra power on steep grades. I think N&W 611 has one. Also, I was unaware that the USA's Southern Railway had tenders like what you showed here. I rode on one of the 4500's last year, Ms class 4501. She's preserved and operates at Tennessee Valley Railroad Museum in Chattanooga, Tn. Since you said that this was done on the Ms2's, I'm certain that she didn't have a tender like theses. Edit: to clarify, I rode 4501 herself as they offer cab rides there for both steam and Diesel.
There was a similar concept called a booster engine that was used to help steam locos, particularly high-drivered passenger engines that were prone to slip, to start and for extra power at slow speeds.
Most were mounted on the locomotive's trailing truck, but some were designed to go on the tender.
They were basically miniature steam cylinders coupled to the wheels of the bogey of the truck, and usually had a clutch that disengaged them above a certain speed.
yes. victorian railways (australia) set some n class loco tenders up for boosters though never fitted them.
And nowadays we do a similar thing with diesel-electric, "slug" locomotives (usually older locomotives that have had their generators removed) that are powered by the excess electricity produced by the main locomotive. It's useful where the limiting factor on the train is the friction on the drive wheels and the main engine is operating well within its capacity. The weight lost from removing the generators is usually filled with ballast such as concrete.
Makes sense as the triplexes had the same issues with the powered wheelsets under their tenders: gradual loss of traction as the tender grew lighter due to use of the coal and water during the run and the extra set of cylinders increasing the demand for steam beyond what could be supplied by the locomotive's boiler. Funny how the railroad world essentially had to learn the same lesson twice.
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.
Great video. Just an observation: power tenders were a standard feature on all Shays, Heisler’s and Climax locomotives and were very successful. I guess the key difference is that while the tender wheels were powered, their drivetrain did not require increasing the number of steam cylinders.
Weird! Up until today, I thought that the Triplex locomotives were the only engines in the world with driving wheels underneath the tender. Honestly, to know that these engines were experimented with worldwide shows how much more interest there were in this experiment compared to most others. I may have to model a few of these in time while others are going to take full advantage of how the second River Mite was partially constructed from River Esk's Poultney tender. Mike came from Rex.
Regarding 5:01 and the Southern locomotives. Those were purpose built "Saluda" locomotives, and the only reason Southern didn't bother with expanding upon the design, was it did exactly what they needed it to do, and only what it needed to do. Specifically, the locomotives were used as helper locomotives (think banker) to get trains over the Saluda Grade, the steepest main line grade in the US at the time, with sections that were up to 5% grade. These Saluda locomotives (as they were called by the railroad) only worked the section of track over the grade, and no other place. The railroad found that since these were relegated to Helper locomotives, and thus refilled their tenders with water and coal on a regular basis, as well as only operating over a short 4 or 5 mile section of track, unlike contemporary "triplex" tender driven locomotives, the Saluda locomotives didn't suffer any of the problems the others had due to tender weight becoming less from burning coal and using water. Whatever the case, they didn't 'lose interest'. There was just no reason to go any further with the idea. They'd found a solution for the problem of getting heavy trains over Saluda grade, so why monkey around with it and run the risk that whatever else you come up with isn't going to work?
"Especially in countries like the U.S, which have such a liberal loading gauge." That's certainly one way to put it, but we also have/had a lot of much lighter interurban, commuter/light rail, narrow-gauge, and industrial trackage, and even some of our shortlines have slightly lighter rails than our general system.
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.
literally no-lifing this channel... 33 seconds posted and im already here
Same
I've had this idea of taking a 4 axle diesel electric and stripping of everything from above the frame keeping the frame/fuel tank/traction motors. Then build a tender on top with a "gen set" on the rear to power the tenders axles. It could supplement the steam engine when starting out and on a grade. Dynamic brakes could be vastly improved if all that waste heat was fed into the water in the tender, essentially preheating it.
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.
7:44 "Consider my feelings, when we were both Green, Passengers would keep calling me Mike!"
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
@@TheLazyFusspot_3428 someone on deviantart DID draw james as Gordon's tender
Darn it, you’re turning me into more than a casual train enjoyer!
In a way I think steam tender locomotives could be considered to be the great grandfather of the garrett locomotive. Both are designed for heavy loads with 2 seperate sets of driving wheels. The main difference is in a Garrett all of the driving wheels are attached to a tender.
The triplex locomotives were the most noteworthy examples of locomotives where the tender engine used too much steam.
In the US the later booster engines used on trailing trucks or one of the tender bogies which could be switched on and off was a better system, but even these fell out of favour when locomotives themselves became larger and more powerful. You could do a video on these as I only know of usage in the US but not in other countries.
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.
Where I live in the United States, the Southern Railway did a very similar thing with six of their 2-8-2s and one of their 2-10-2s. Five of the 2-8-2s were rebuilt with drive systems from smaller 2-8-0 locomotives under their tenders, and one had a drive system with a 2-6-0 wheel arrangement. The 2-8-2 locomotives were numbered 4535-4539 and 4561, and the 2-10-2 locomotive featured a 2-6-2 drive system under the tender and was numbered 5046. All seven locomotives were rebuilt later on into conventional steam locomotives, and their tender drives were given back to their original engines.
Another great and informative video, keep up the good work, I was also trying listen to the jus if I’m the background and figured it out at the end, Dr Robotniks mean bean machine “configuration” theme, whether that’s a reference or not, it’s still a good choice of music, at least someone appreciates music of that era!
Now I'm curious how much better a Big Boy would perform if it had a steam tender. I recall the Big Boys rarely operating at their maximum potential, so it could be interesting to see
I've been fascinated and wanting to learn more about these for ages! Thank you!
The Swedish SJ Å-class is a unique turbine steam locomotive that was pushed by its tender. In fact, only the tender had drivewheels
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!
This was a very logical idea which simply didn't pan out. Very interesting, though.
Surely the Chief Mechanical Engineers would have realised, when the concept was proposed, that the two problems of steam supply from a boiler made to power the loco only would be insufficient to power the tender as well, and the gradual lightening of the tender weight would have been apparent, resulting in wheel slip.
Wow, I never thought I’d be hearing music from Robotnik’s Mean Bean Machine in one of your videos. Nicely done!
Grezza,s Idea is not power the tender wheels, but the loco,s trailing truck axle his two Class P1 2-8-2 mineral engines had selectable powered trailing axles . A bit complicated as Grezza did not think outside the box, as he used a two cylinder donkey engine under the footplate.
Powering tenders didn't pan out, but it _was_ an idea well worth trying!
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.
Soviet mining engine OPE1 (which by the way is true diesel-electric locomotive, because it could work from catenary or diesel engine) was using motorised dumpcar.
they're usually called electro-diesels.
And when you make an engine to work with a dedicated steam tender, you basically get a triplex.
I wonder what would happen if it was a fireless pneumatic that was powering the thing. All that is needed is a johnson bar and a throttle, and you could even save braking shoes by throwing the johnson in reverse and pumping air back into the reserve. And for the throttle, just throw it in open and then use the johnson bar to control airflow.
They're almost the predecessor to the duplex and the Garratt.
It would be nice if they rebuilt River Esk as it was It could be quite a tourist interested due to the unique design.
I heard of Tomy/Trackmaster/Plarail and Hornby tenders powering the engine, but never in real life!
Remember your Erie triplex video? The triplex had a powered tender.
I just realized that Shays are a design that successfully used powered tenders, but never knew that powered tenders were tried in conventional engines as well.
Amazing. the Steam tenders look so cool
Here is a question. Why did they go with steam? Why didn't they simply attach some gears on to the rear most powered axle and used a crankshaft to transfer the power to the tender, which could have a gearbox to allow pairing with different engines? Sure, gradual loss of traction due to consumption of fuel is a problem, but one that can be worked with. For instance, using such engines for reinforcing a normal locomotive around steep climbs or for cargo, that gains weight faster than others. Ore trains come to mind.
With the possibility of Hybrid power generation and the electric Traction motors integrated into a Steam Locomotive bogies, pilot and Trailing wheels as well.
BRAKES - LIMITED TRAIN LENGTH !
The limit in British Freight train length (in the steam era) was dictated by the braking ability. It should be remembered that a large proportion of British wagons had NO TRAIN BRAKES, only a handbrake for parking. So the Locomotive was the ONLY part of the train with brakes along with a Guards van at the rear. And heavy locomotives could NOT brake themselves very well, which therefore also seriously limited the safe maximum speed to often just 30mph. Even when Vacuum brakes were added (to certain wagon types) the limit was still restricted by the number of vacuum brake hose connections between wagons, as there was always a small amount of leakage. So 40/45 wagons was still the limit.
The Westinghouse air brake was marginally better, (50-55 wagons) so some railways such as the North Eastern used this brake. Different brakes on different companies of course raised problems with passenger carriages needing to be "dual braked" for through journeys such as Kings Cross to Edinburgh !!!
Indeed I worked in 1989 the last part fitted (part braked) freight between Exeter & Bristol which was limited even then to 30mph. After which no unbraked wagons were allowed south west of Bristol or Westbury !!!
They could just build very big tank engines instead of tender engines
So Mike was made from Rex's experimental powered tender?
The 15” gauge River Eske was not a great success in part because some fitter left half a pair of trousers in one cylinder. This was not found till it was rebuilt.
A classical example of situation called "a soulution in search of a problem", or as Germans used to say "warum einfach wenn's auch kompliziert geht"... ("Einfach" being either a more powerful loco or a helpin one whenever needed - on steeper gradients and such.)
Amazing video well done man
So, like the inverse of a tank engine?
Another issue, to consider is stopping. Pulling more vehicles and weight is one thing, but you still need to stop. More in the UK than elsewhere, when you do not have continuous brakes a heavier train will take longer to stop.
Do I win a prize for recognising the ‘Dr Robotic’s Mean Bean Machine’ theme at the end?! 😆
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! 😄🦔🦊
Talk about driving from the rear end also i guess we now know where hornby got the idea from
The text of this video might be mixing up force and power a couple of times. Power is force multiplied by speed, and on a steam locomotive, limited by the boiler. So higher force with the same power might be desirable in helper engines pushing trains uphill that don't go very fast, which means a lot of force is needed but not so much power. The limit of the force is the number of wheels multiplied by the weight force on each of the wheels (and the adhesion coefficient). More wheels, more weight means less wheelslip and more force, but also more complexity and greater strain on the track.
I’m a simple man. I see River Mite, I click the link! 😂👍
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
Can you make a video on the crazy steam diesel or electric hybrid thing
You can't get a quart out of a pint pot.
Everything is relative. The US Big Boys and SAR Garrats probably utilised the concept in the best way but in many cases, apart from labour, it was probably cheaper to double head the train.
This is done in some countries with diesel power but you then have to think of the strength of the drawbars on the stock and the length of train that a section can safely accommodate.
Then along came the booster set, which did more or less the same as the steam tender but only when starting off.
boosters and geared locos are the successful development of this concept.
These experiments are like precursors to 'slugs' utilized with Diesel Electric locomotives in North America. Like slugs, I could see these being useful with a high horsepower locomotive that is lacking in adhesive weight. They are commonly paired with turbocharged 4 axle locomotives like you would find in high speed intermodal or passenger service. Locomotives that have more power than they can affectively utilize.
I wonder if an electric drive system fitted to a tender on a steam loco, with a steam generator fitted to said loco, would have helped with efficiency.
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.
Maybe we should bring these back?
Would be a sight to see.
Very interesting ; ; I thank you.
Was it shay or climax locomotives that had the wheels on the tender driven?
any geared loco could have a third and fourth powered bogie.
I definitely thought they would be more like a slug than used on a road locomotive. Interesting!
I thought tender-driven locomotives were only a thing with toys and model trains. This is quite a surprise to me.
4:05 new headcanon unlocked
It's like steam's version of today's slugs.
Now I wonder if some of those problems could've been solved by building these locomotives a different way. For example by powering the tender via a driveshaft that connects it to the last powered axle of the locomotive
Why hasn't anyone yet thought of battery ⚡🔋driven tenders yet?or a battery brake tender? Seems like a
no brainer. Electric torque, regen to help braking and range, an interesting progression in rail preservation that should help reduce wear and tear, water and fuel consumption. 🤷
PS. Hey from Ireland, 🇮🇪👋 Train of thought have you taken a look at the Drumm Battery EMU loco that ran before the DART?
too many problems in this pattern. The main is lack of control for tender engine, usually just steam valve and no cutoff/revers control at all. 2nd - changing tender weight as water and coal used with loss of traction.
In some cases it is unevitable, so very specific designs existed up to NSWGR class 60 which is effectively 2 tenders and boiler part hung between them has no wheels at all.
--- \\ TENDER DRIVERS // ---
Upgrade current locomotive power at the cost of coal efficiency. Costs 4 money to upgrade, per units.
STRENGTH:
+3 train length
OR
+3 track gradient
WEAKNESS:
+2 maintenance
+4 steam usage
OTHERS:
-2 crew satisfaction
So given they had 2 regulators, why didn't they just instruct the engineers of the time to use that second handle to "get the damn thing going" and then don't bother using it while at speed? It would be just like any other loco costing but for a longer time then...?
It gets rid of the drawback of not needing to burn extra coal exepr for that first mile while starting and has the advantages of having the extra power to get going quickly or having an easier time on a grade if needed.
you forgot about the Trplex engine, from the ERIE railroad
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.
Can you do a video about the Matt H. Shay ?
Got ro love the American Triplex locomotives. Lol
What's the song used in the background?
It sorta sounds like a Sonic cd song
“Configuration” from DR Robotniks Mean Bean Machine!
@@omnicity43 thank you so much!
My custom LEGO steam locomotives are both tender powered. It seemed easier as I could just use one or two of the single piece powered boggies under the tender instead of having to figure out gearing a motor placed in the locomotive's boiler down into the drive wheels. Does mean the locomotives are just very pretty pieces of dead weight though, lol!
You forgot about the Erie and the Virginian they had steam tenders that were kinda of a success
Many steam locomotives have a tender behind.
What on earth did the Ravenglass and Eskdale need the extra power for? With the best will in the world, they’re miniature steam engines pulling passengers over an 11km route lmao
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 .
Leave those tenders to the model trains
I wonder if instead of using steam and pistons you could use electric motors powered by a steam dynamo on a "modern" steam locomotive. It wouldn't be as powerful, but you could probably make it so that it could at least pull the weight of the tender.
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
The late Mike Sharmon built a model of one of Sturrock's steam engines with a powered tender in 4mm scale.
Here's the only video I know of on YT of Mikes railway with the double drive loco at the end. Mike's layout is now in the USA. ua-cam.com/video/pquYCNKQy70/v-deo.htmlsi=3WbRIuXSIeM98knW
Going to cover booster trucks too ToT?
2:20 why is Batman here
And just where does the tenders power come from? The locomotives boiler.
isn't this a bit like 'perpetual motion' - 'we can't shift the coal and water without powering the tender, hang-on, now we've powered the tender we need more water and coal' ?
You call the GN tender powered locomotives 0-6-0, though wouldn't they be 0-6-6-0 in Whyte notation?
Any advantage was cancelled out by the complexity. Simple, any questions?
Can you talk about the 2zagal locomotive from mongolia? Please
Flying scotsman: well I need that
Gordon4 James5 Henry3 : that is stupid tender engines do not go backwards shunt or dance this is so stupid
Thomas,percy, duck well like scotty said I need that to join the secret tender club
Edward: you guys are so stupid
I would love to see this as a model in oo gauge
Easy solution
CORRIDOR TANK ENGINE
[Locomotive allwheeldrive]
7:13 bro just described PSR
Virginian Triplex? 2-8-8-8-4. That had a set of powered drivers under the tender.
That just sounds like a tank engine with extra steps.
Forneys. They were literally tank engines with half a tender-
If these engines were put into the railway series, would the tender have a face on it’s ass or would it be controlled minimally by the engine?
So this is recent. I note you DON'T cover "Boosters" which came to be used on a number of American locomotives. (Yes, the usual Brit prejudice against US practices.) On tenders this would show up as an inside piston used to give extra power in starting; other locomotives were built with this "auxilliary" booster on a trailing truck. Maine Central's 4-6-2 #470 from 1924 currently undergoing restoration has one of these trailing truck booster engines.
What you describe in this video comes across as a series of articulated simples; I note NONE of them are true Mallet compounds. (UP's "Big Boy" is an articulated simple; WM 1309 is a true Mallet Compound.) Oh, Bayer-Garratts suffered from the same loss of tractive effort from fuel and water consumption.
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 😂
So this is where playrail and trackmaster got it from
So it's basically a huge booster motor.
I thought tender-driven locomotives were only a thing with toys and model trains. This is quite a surprise to me.
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 🎉
@@Rurika_Ryuusenji What joke?
So the solution is a smaller, less well made engine. yeah, that makes sense.
:)