The Q2 still stands to this day as one of the strongest locomotives of all time, In order to outperform a Q2 you had to look toward UP's 8500hp GTELs not to mention while some classes had to doublehead across HSC or get helper power, the Q2 just needed itself to stomp over the grade. They were just ahead of their time and crews preferred the more simple J1s and M1s. Nevertheless the Q2 was the most successful of Duplex designs with the T1 coming at a very close 2nd.
All the duplexes were great looking, with or without the streamlining. The fact that not a single one of any class was preserved is mind boggling, especially since they were so heavily promoted and unique among American steam.
@@koiyujo1543 The only surviving duplex I know of is a 4-2-2-0 built by the French Nord railway. I think you might be confusing them with articulated locomotives.
One of my best memories is running an O scale Q2 at a train show as a kid. The same guy was at the Louisville and Columbus train show every year for years. He was a legend.
The duplexes get such a bad rap but we're way better than they were given the chance to prove themselves. Had steam been around well into the 60s I think we would've seen these engines been shown to be a lot better than they get credit for. But such is history and it cannot be changed so easily. Maybe the F1 Trust guys will get their day in the spotlight and show what an amazing engines the Duplexes actually we're and could've been if given the chance. Only time will tell I guess.
5550 has so many chances to shine when she's finished. from taking on Mallard's record to taking a page from UP's book and doing some fast heavy freight.
I'm a Lionel collector/ operator, and my favorite Pennsylvania engine is the Turbine. Pity they couldn't work the bugs out. I think the New York Central had a more conservative approach. Pity that they didn't allow the Niagaras to reach their full potential.
It really feels like in the 30s and 40s Pennsy was throwing everything at the wall, and that's why I love them. Some of the strangest arrangements for duplex locomotives, one of very few steam turbine locomotives, and absolutely fantastic visual design on all of them, they really did have a unique roster, even if more conventional designs and the rise of diesel-electric won out.
The Pennsylvania Railroad Q2 is and is always going to be my number one favorite locomotive ever and I really really wish more than anything that one of the most preserved
I'm pretty sure not preserving at least one of these violated the Geneva convention. I mean the PRR was so proud of their duplexes putting them front and center in their promotional materials, you'd think at least one person would have thought to save one.
You’d think they would have sent at least one to a museum. I don’t blame the various railroad companies for switching to diesel, I just wish they had spent more time preserving steam.
This is gonna sound picky but imo I think the Q1 is one of the most pleasing large steam locomotives the PRR made...I think the streamlined roof design flush with the tender panels. Kinda like the S series locomotives and the T1's... I feel like the large gap from the top of the cab roof to the top of the tender in locomotives like the J1, M1, and Q2 just don't sit right with me. I understand they are freight locomotives vs the style of passenger locomotives but it was just a weird niche design that I could never unsee.
Hey man, love the videos. Your editing style is nice, the graphic design is done very well. The only thing which I didn't like is the song at 5:50 it felt out of place to me. Anyway keep up the good work! Can't wait till another one of your design of videos.
I knew I saw a version of the Q1 that had a bigger trailing truck at some point. Mechanically I think the Q1 is one of the best looking engines there was. Though it would have been nice if they lived up to their mixed freight role and saw one with a full passenger sharknose! That would probably be the first fantasy model I would make whenever I get the time. As always it seems like the biggest issue with those late PRR locos was Pennsy themselves. I imagine in an alternate world where dieselization held off for another 5~10 years the Q2's would have just as much fame as the Big Boys since they really seemed to trade blows in specs. It's a shame that PRR saved so many engines, but none of these amazingly complex Duplexes.
Can you tell the next story of the Pennsylvania Railroad T1 steam locomotives and the T1 Trust for the future locomotive 5550? That will be great while the organization is still working on it.
The Pennsylvania Railroad Q2s were such cool-looking steam locomotives. It's a crying shame that none were preserved, because even if just one were preserved, it would've been a fantastic museum piece on display at a museum or as an operational mainline excursion locomotive.
The Q2's horsepower was the calculated CYLINDER horsepower achieved in an overfired state at the Altoona testing facility. It was NOT an indication of typical "over the road" performance. The PRR Mechanical Engineers were aware of this. The C&O Allegheny's peak of 7498 DRAWBAR HP was achieved at the drawbar at the end of the tender in an over the road test, at everyday operational firing and water usage rates. You CAN NOT compare the two horsepower ratings. The Q2's rating would not be achievable in daily use, while the H8 Allegheny's rating of 7000 drawbar HP was realistic in everyday service. The Allegheny had a MUCH larger boiler than either the Q2 or Big Boy locomotives. In fact, the Big Boys boiler would fit completely INSIDE an Allegheny's boiler.
Thank you for saying the actual facts. The Q2 always gets more credit than it should because many don't realize the Q2's reading is, like you said, cylinder horsepower and not drawbar horsepower.
0:38 actually… it *kinda* was? After the study, between 1944 and 1953 (or 1946 depending on what source you are reading) 40 M1as (Including survivor 6755) were given water circulators, an extra 35 ft in the firebox, and increased the PSI to 270. With a final result of 69,700 tractive effort, the M1B was “born”. it’s interesting to note that when they were nearing retirement, these M1Bs hauled coal/ore drags upwards to 10,000-11,000 tons. Another interesting thing was that in the late 1940s *more* plans were considered for an M1C but was very quickly hushed and cancelled when diesels came around. Oh yeah if you want to know a reason why m1s were 99.8% on freight trains, their heavy rods made the pullmans bump a lot and gave passengers complaints. Bert Pennypacker is a helluva drug kids.
"How much power do you really need?" - To be a proper railway nerd my guess is less than 1000 HP if "get moving" is ment literally as to start the movement. As the old railway proverb says: "Adhesion tells you how much you can pull, power how fast you can pull it."
I remember reading somewhere that Electro Motive realized that most steam locomotives were very poorly designed for the jobs they actually did. Like these locomotives, massive horsepower at the wrong speed.
I’ve actually heard that the wheel slip problem was more operator error than poor design. They could be made to operate without wheel spin but it took very precise throttle control to make that happen. Most just couldn’t find that perfect balance.
If they could've found a way to make the q2 alot cheaper to operate, didn't the 50mph limit, and found a way to fix the water issue then the q2 could've possibly been amazing.
Please give us an Engines of Amtrak on the GG1 :( One of the coolest streamliner electric locos with an iconic livery from Amtrak as well. I feel GG1s are way too underrated, especially in the realm of streamliners
I think duplexes could of been sucessful if more research was put into it, with the t1 trust getting built prehapes we could finally see if the duplex concept could of really been a success
I think the real problem with the Duplexes was PRR not investing in their infrastructure in this time period(which was a contributing factor in the down fall of Penn Central later down the road). They weren't doing the maintenance so these marvels of American ingenuity were just wastes of time. I think the T1 trust will have one amazing locomotive when they complete 5550 and it might inspire someone to make a q2 Mk2 also later down the line but the PRR was one of those text book how not to run a company.
The Q2's tender held over 20,000 gallons of water, and they could completely drain that thing within 2-1/2 hours. Kind of a hindrance for a high speed freight locomotive when you have to stop every 2 hours to take on water. Also the anti-slip mechanism on the drive wheels tended to wear out quickly.
Too bad they didn't have it ready to go when they needed to borrow the C&O's T-1 to make the fabulous J1s. They still would've been wiped out by the late 50s, but the nadir of failure for a great locomotive would've never stuck with 15 years of service.
It’s sad dieselization happened so fast cause these poor engines never really got the chance to prove themselves. Despite what other people might say, the PRR’s duplexes were a success, and were very well made engines, they just came at the wrong time. Hopefully 5550 will put the duplex hate to rest
i remember speaking one time with an old vet of the NYC steam locos, claiming he droved mohawks and hudsons all his carrer as an engineer. They had heard and seen some of the duplexs, but he made sure he told me straight as he was laughing. "Had the dups been on the NYC and not the penny, they would have been 1000 times better since we always went crazy fast on those rivers of steel." and i think he is right. the NYC was all about speed, and the penny just didn't have a lot of places were that "speed" could be used, but the NYC lines did.
Amazing video. Love your history researched based history. The playlist gave me an idea to do over on my channel for a playlist similar but completely different. ❤
The T1 tends to get all the criticism for being slippery, yet no one seems to mention that the Q2 had a lower FoA than the T's, and apparently the anti-wheelslip mechanism didn't work most of the time.
The Q2 was in short, sheer brilliance and should be still operating today, as well as many other steam locomotives. Let’s face it, before today’s locomotives and their technology, they helped build this great nation
@@gamerfan8445The T1s were better than a 4-8-4s though.... just not worth the extra trouble, nor did it actually seem to hurt them much at all outside of the S1/S2/Q1, those were all single locomotives. And they would have dieselized by 1957 anyway.
@@ThePTBRULES not really. speed yeah, the T1 is one the fastest American locomotive. But everything else? No, T1 are behind the Niagara, GS, FEF, J class, heavy mountains, and the greenbrier in term of maintenance, and reliability.
The Q’s are kind of an anomaly to me because I’m never too certain what the PRR was going for. Especially with the Q1, I’m thinking a 4-4-4-6 with the 70 or 72 in drivers would’ve worked better, with the use of roller bearings. And while the Q2 has the highest horsepower output of a steamer, it’s by a measurement at the cylinders. I’ve yet to find any details of its drawbar power like with the S1 and T1’s. I’m sure it would’ve been less than, albeit very close to, the 7,500 HP of an Allegheny
PRR Q series was powerful. Steam turbine locomotives that are the Q series. Too bad we didnt save any duplex or Q series locomotives for preservation. But hey the PRR #5550 getting built. Why not do the same with the Q series of locomotives?
What kills PRR engines for me is the overuse of streamlining and the absolutely abhoring, disastrously, badly proportioned, oversized tenders. Like seriously, they hurt to look at. In my eyes an example of streamlining done right is with the GS-4 and GS-64. Maybe I'm just biased to tough and powerful looking engines, Big Boys, Berks, Alleghenys, etc. But the PRR engines are overdone. At least in my taste. However, speaking of giant streamlined beauties, I'd love a video on the Southern Pacific AC-9s.
Pennsylvania Railroad management seemed to get a lot of really stupid ideas in the 1930s and onwards. The GG1 was not too shabby, but they got that design more or less from the New Haven, and look at what preceded it (class O-1 with the wheel arrangement 2-B-2, the electric equivalent to a 4-4-4) and what followed it (the DD2, supposed to be the successor to the GG1 for hauling freight or mixed traffic over the never-completed Allegheny electrification . . . so they went from the GG1 wheel arrangement of 2-C+C-2 DOWN TO 2-B+B=2!). So it's no surprise they had equally idiotic ideas with their steam locomotives. If the locomotive weighs over 1 million pounds and has a tractive effort around 100,000 pounds, you're not leaving much headroom for getting over a grade. And by the way, it's not horsepower you need for starting a train -- it's tractive effort. That is one of the reason that the M-U'd diesels won . . . although properly designed electrics would have been better (if only they had run with the E44 idea and completed the Allegheny electrification after all . . .). Back to steam, plenty of ideas for improving steam were going around in the rest of the world, and some even got decently wide adoption, like the Bayer-Garratt. If the Pennsylvania Railroad would have adopted that, they could have had good power output, a decent number of driving wheels for improved tractive effort, and decently short wheelbase. But for some reason, railroads in the Americas never considered these, even though they worked fine elsewhere.
the short answer regarding the garratt is not invented here. longer answer, look at the tractive effort of the strongest garratt ever made and the strongest mallet, east african's class 59 vs norfolk and western's Y6B. as far as improving steam goes, the second the EMD FT came along, american steam was on a timer and WW2 only delayed the inevitable.
@@hiawathabeast Agreed about Not Invented Here. Not the first time, and not the last. With regard to tractive effort, remember that the African locomotives other than the more modern South African stuff had a lot lower axle loads than US locomotives, so matching US tractive effort was not possible with Garratt or Mallet designs without going to a LOT more total driving wheels. Likewise, African freight other than South African ore trains was not as heavy as US freight.
Horsepower isn’t as good of a measurement as tractive effort, so no these aren’t really as powerful as a big boy or Allegheny, plus the boosters were rarely used as the increase in steam usage would always be more than the steam generation thus losing pressure. Horsepower is better for acceleration than total power. Plus the locomotive had much less driving wheels than the big boy or cab forwards for example, In reality, the Q2s were just UP Challengers with less adhesion due to the less axles and more axle load on the tracks
@@threepea1151 I'd agree if it weren't for the fact that neither the Qs or the CSAs were freight drag locomotives - the speed at which they created their horsepower thereby remains relevant.
@threepea1151 tractive effort is solely a calculation and provides a given amount to set a train moving. Horsepower, of course, is the ability for the train to keep apace. There's interesting tests done with the unique 10101 Fell diesel mechanical locomotive which provided some very interesting information regarding this. That's of course the big difference between the C&O boosted T1's and H8 Allegheny, both having the same train loadings, and why the Y6's were so successful
That figure is for cylinder horsepower. In terms of power at speed (drawbar horsepower), the Allegheny takes the crown as the most powerful steam locomotive ever built.
@@09JDCTrainMan I kind of had the feeling that I had read that before. I imagine the UP design team were looking for a higher road speed to peak at for their perishable traffic. But either way, that's a whole heap of power for one unit.
The 7,987 HP isn't drawbar HP though, that's cylinder HP, which always has a higher figure than drawbar HP. From what I could gather, the Q2's drawbar horsepower (power at speed) was 6,645 (not sure at what speed though), well below the Allegheny's 7,498 DBHP at 46mph. So, the Q2, while still super impressive, is not the most powerful steam locomotive ever, at least not at speed.
Altoona shops. UP'S Big Boy #4000 was 6200 dhb according to UP's dynamometer car, N&W's A was slightly higher at 6300 dhb. Likelihood is Q2 still had the highest dhb
@@muir8009 I keep hearing that the N&W A's 6,300 DBHP figure is a fluke and really produced around 5,300-5,400 DBHP. At this point, I'm not sure which figure to believe. Also, I still think the Allegheny is the king of DBHP when it comes to steam locomotives.
@@09JDCTrainMan Class A was 5400 HP drawbar max. Their boilers were not in the same league as bigger locomotives such as the Allegheny and Yellowstones. The 6300 figure was a result of a malfunctioning dynamometer car. This is all documented by the N&W Historical Society.
Horsepower isn’t as good of a measurement as tractive effort, so no these aren’t really as powerful as a big boy or Allegheny, plus the boosters were rarely used as the increase in steam usage would always be more than the steam generation thus losing pressure. Horsepower is better for acceleration than total power. Plus the locomotive had much less driving wheels than the big boy or cab forwards for example, In reality, the Q2s were just UP Challengers with less adhesion due to the less axles and more axle load on the tracks
Horsepower and tractive effort are directly related. Locomotive horsepower output is simply the tractive effort (the pull of a locomotive) at a certain speed. If you know one, you can calculate the other. It is the same for any type of locomotive. For example, if you measure 37,500 lbs of pull at the rear of the locomotive at 40mph, then the locomotive is developing 4000 HP at 40 mph. This is the same regardless of the type of locomotive.
The Q2 still stands to this day as one of the strongest locomotives of all time, In order to outperform a Q2 you had to look toward UP's 8500hp GTELs not to mention while some classes had to doublehead across HSC or get helper power, the Q2 just needed itself to stomp over the grade. They were just ahead of their time and crews preferred the more simple J1s and M1s. Nevertheless the Q2 was the most successful of Duplex designs with the T1 coming at a very close 2nd.
Ya gonna do that Indian train derailment,just wanna know
The Q2 Duplexes were in the same horsepower league as the Union Pacific Railroad's 2nd generation Oil Turbines~
@@ambercollins777 he’s not gonna do it if you ask.
That is, if you don't look at electric locomotives
@@mikeblatzheim2797 good point lol
Man the Q1 was such a handsome locomotive. If only prr had built a conventional 4-8-4 with that styling.
Or the s1, t1 (they're all gorgeous locomotives and to this day I'm still salty the s1 was scrapped since it was meant to be preserved)
All the duplexes were great looking, with or without the streamlining. The fact that not a single one of any class was preserved is mind boggling, especially since they were so heavily promoted and unique among American steam.
@@drosera88 actually a few still survive I believe but barely but none of these here I believe
@@koiyujo1543 The only surviving duplex I know of is a 4-2-2-0 built by the French Nord railway. I think you might be confusing them with articulated locomotives.
I really love the q2,I know putting them on excursion passenger train would have been difficult but I wouldn't mind seeing one in a museum
I was just hoping that a Q documentary would exist and Lowe and behold you’ve posted this 5 minutes ago
What are the odds
@@Adder6112one in one.
Gotta say I really appreciate the effort you put into these documentaries. The editing is very good, and the writing is well done.
The Q2 was the most powerful rigid frame steam locomotive ever, and it holds the place as my personal favorite steam locomotive of all time
"Q2: Strongest steam locomotive ever tested"
Tractive effort numbers: *doubt*
One of my best memories is running an O scale Q2 at a train show as a kid.
The same guy was at the Louisville and Columbus train show every year for years. He was a legend.
The duplexes get such a bad rap but we're way better than they were given the chance to prove themselves. Had steam been around well into the 60s I think we would've seen these engines been shown to be a lot better than they get credit for. But such is history and it cannot be changed so easily. Maybe the F1 Trust guys will get their day in the spotlight and show what an amazing engines the Duplexes actually we're and could've been if given the chance. Only time will tell I guess.
5550 has so many chances to shine when she's finished. from taking on Mallard's record to taking a page from UP's book and doing some fast heavy freight.
I'm a Lionel collector/ operator, and my favorite Pennsylvania engine is the Turbine. Pity they couldn't work the bugs out. I think the New York Central had a more conservative approach. Pity that they didn't allow the Niagaras to reach their full potential.
It really feels like in the 30s and 40s Pennsy was throwing everything at the wall, and that's why I love them. Some of the strangest arrangements for duplex locomotives, one of very few steam turbine locomotives, and absolutely fantastic visual design on all of them, they really did have a unique roster, even if more conventional designs and the rise of diesel-electric won out.
The Pennsylvania Railroad Q2 is and is always going to be my number one favorite locomotive ever and I really really wish more than anything that one of the most preserved
Now that’s an ‘’absolute unit’’ right there
I'm pretty sure not preserving at least one of these violated the Geneva convention. I mean the PRR was so proud of their duplexes putting them front and center in their promotional materials, you'd think at least one person would have thought to save one.
You’d think they would have sent at least one to a museum. I don’t blame the various railroad companies for switching to diesel, I just wish they had spent more time preserving steam.
They actually tried to save the S1 6100, but financial hardships led to them scrapping it.
Gotta love sound of medicine in the background
This is gonna sound picky but imo I think the Q1 is one of the most pleasing large steam locomotives the PRR made...I think the streamlined roof design flush with the tender panels. Kinda like the S series locomotives and the T1's...
I feel like the large gap from the top of the cab roof to the top of the tender in locomotives like the J1, M1, and Q2 just don't sit right with me. I understand they are freight locomotives vs the style of passenger locomotives but it was just a weird niche design that I could never unsee.
yep it just has a nice flow and balance, even though it proved to be a bad choice the reversed cylinders made it look extra clean.
Q class is still one of my favorite lost locos.
Imagine what could have been if they had more time to mature.
Hey man, love the videos. Your editing style is nice, the graphic design is done very well. The only thing which I didn't like is the song at 5:50 it felt out of place to me. Anyway keep up the good work! Can't wait till another one of your design of videos.
I knew I saw a version of the Q1 that had a bigger trailing truck at some point.
Mechanically I think the Q1 is one of the best looking engines there was. Though it would have been nice if they lived up to their mixed freight role and saw one with a full passenger sharknose!
That would probably be the first fantasy model I would make whenever I get the time.
As always it seems like the biggest issue with those late PRR locos was Pennsy themselves. I imagine in an alternate world where dieselization held off for another 5~10 years the Q2's would have just as much fame as the Big Boys since they really seemed to trade blows in specs. It's a shame that PRR saved so many engines, but none of these amazingly complex Duplexes.
Can you tell the next story of the Pennsylvania Railroad T1 steam locomotives and the T1 Trust for the future locomotive 5550? That will be great while the organization is still working on it.
Good to see my Q2 model being used 😊
7987 horsepower dang that makes them one of the few big steam engines to rival the union pacific big boys
The Pennsylvania Railroad Q2s were such cool-looking steam locomotives. It's a crying shame that none were preserved, because even if just one were preserved, it would've been a fantastic museum piece on display at a museum or as an operational mainline excursion locomotive.
Q1 looks beautiful kind alike a rocket at the front in a way but very handsome and wonderful
I love duplexes, I'd love to see some more get built. Especially with the modern steam stuff developed since the '60s.
See t1 trust
@@TailsFan369no2 You think I'm not aware?
Invest in Northerns and Articulateds or Draw 25. That's the Pennsy in a nutshell.
"If you think that bigger's better, then you're making a mistake." I guess the Pennsylvania Railroad just to find that out the hard way, didn't they?
The Q2's horsepower was the calculated CYLINDER horsepower achieved in an overfired state at the Altoona testing facility. It was NOT an indication of typical "over the road" performance. The PRR Mechanical Engineers were aware of this. The C&O Allegheny's peak of 7498 DRAWBAR HP was achieved at the drawbar at the end of the tender in an over the road test, at everyday operational firing and water usage rates. You CAN NOT compare the two horsepower ratings. The Q2's rating would not be achievable in daily use, while the H8 Allegheny's rating of 7000 drawbar HP was realistic in everyday service. The Allegheny had a MUCH larger boiler than either the Q2 or Big Boy locomotives. In fact, the Big Boys boiler would fit completely INSIDE an Allegheny's boiler.
Thank you for saying the actual facts. The Q2 always gets more credit than it should because many don't realize the Q2's reading is, like you said, cylinder horsepower and not drawbar horsepower.
@@09JDCTrainMan You are welcome!
0:38 actually… it *kinda* was?
After the study, between 1944 and 1953 (or 1946 depending on what source you are reading) 40 M1as (Including survivor 6755) were given water circulators, an extra 35 ft in the firebox, and increased the PSI to 270. With a final result of 69,700 tractive effort, the M1B was “born”.
it’s interesting to note that when they were nearing retirement, these M1Bs hauled coal/ore drags upwards to 10,000-11,000 tons.
Another interesting thing was that in the late 1940s *more* plans were considered for an M1C but was very quickly hushed and cancelled when diesels came around.
Oh yeah if you want to know a reason why m1s were 99.8% on freight trains, their heavy rods made the pullmans bump a lot and gave passengers complaints.
Bert Pennypacker is a helluva drug kids.
"How much power do you really need?" - To be a proper railway nerd my guess is less than 1000 HP if "get moving" is ment literally as to start the movement. As the old railway proverb says: "Adhesion tells you how much you can pull, power how fast you can pull it."
Too of my favorite UA-camrs ❤
I remember reading somewhere that Electro Motive realized that most steam locomotives were very poorly designed for the jobs they actually did. Like these locomotives, massive horsepower at the wrong speed.
At least we can take consolation in knowing that a T1 will soon turn a wheel again.
I’ve actually heard that the wheel slip problem was more operator error than poor design. They could be made to operate without wheel spin but it took very precise throttle control to make that happen. Most just couldn’t find that perfect balance.
3:42 Remark; in UIC classification of locomotive axle arrangements the Q2 is a 2'BC2' 😉
If they could've found a way to make the q2 alot cheaper to operate, didn't the 50mph limit, and found a way to fix the water issue then the q2 could've possibly been amazing.
bro your documentaries are fire 💪🔥
The class S1 of 1939 was the biggest and most streamlined passenger steam locomotive ever built in America! 😊
Please give us an Engines of Amtrak on the GG1 :(
One of the coolest streamliner electric locos with an iconic livery from Amtrak as well. I feel GG1s are way too underrated, especially in the realm of streamliners
Great documentary!
I LOVE YOUR VIDEOS!!!!
This is pretty neat
Awesome video. Always enjoy your videos
The PRR G Series locos are underrated in my opinion.
I think duplexes could of been sucessful if more research was put into it, with the t1 trust getting built prehapes we could finally see if the duplex concept could of really been a success
5:34 in other words, it's me in the summer
I really like the Q2 class
I do hope you plan to cover the PRR T1 the next time you look at the pennsy engines.
very cool video 10/10
I think the real problem with the Duplexes was PRR not investing in their infrastructure in this time period(which was a contributing factor in the down fall of Penn Central later down the road). They weren't doing the maintenance so these marvels of American ingenuity were just wastes of time. I think the T1 trust will have one amazing locomotive when they complete 5550 and it might inspire someone to make a q2 Mk2 also later down the line but the PRR was one of those text book how not to run a company.
The Q2's tender held over 20,000 gallons of water, and they could completely drain that thing within 2-1/2 hours. Kind of a hindrance for a high speed freight locomotive when you have to stop every 2 hours to take on water. Also the anti-slip mechanism on the drive wheels tended to wear out quickly.
The Q2 burned a whopping 16,600 gallons of water an hour when working hard! VERY inefficient.
Too bad they didn't have it ready to go when they needed to borrow the C&O's T-1 to make the fabulous J1s. They still would've been wiped out by the late 50s, but the nadir of failure for a great locomotive would've never stuck with 15 years of service.
Given the 50mph speed limit, the Pennsy would've been better off building Challenger-like locomotives since hammerblow gets worse with speed
It’s sad dieselization happened so fast cause these poor engines never really got the chance to prove themselves. Despite what other people might say, the PRR’s duplexes were a success, and were very well made engines, they just came at the wrong time. Hopefully 5550 will put the duplex hate to rest
i remember speaking one time with an old vet of the NYC steam locos, claiming he droved mohawks and hudsons all his carrer as an engineer. They had heard and seen some of the duplexs, but he made sure he told me straight as he was laughing. "Had the dups been on the NYC and not the penny, they would have been 1000 times better since we always went crazy fast on those rivers of steel." and i think he is right. the NYC was all about speed, and the penny just didn't have a lot of places were that "speed" could be used, but the NYC lines did.
Never thought I’d see old footage of a steam train dyno
It should be noted that the t1 duplex is being revived a new build numbered 5550.
Amazing video. Love your history researched based history. The playlist gave me an idea to do over on my channel for a playlist similar but completely different. ❤
Love your vids
This is really nice
If money allowed I would resurrect the Q2 for the marvels they are! Join with 5550? 2 amazing steam giants!
The T1 tends to get all the criticism for being slippery, yet no one seems to mention that the Q2 had a lower FoA than the T's, and apparently the anti-wheelslip mechanism didn't work most of the time.
Welcome back to a UA-cam channel about Amtrak. That never seems to actually talk about Amtrak.
Good God, just shy of 8,000 horsepower....
The Q2 was in short, sheer brilliance and should be still operating today, as well as many other steam locomotives. Let’s face it, before today’s locomotives and their technology, they helped build this great nation
This made me think of something, why did the PRR never develop a 4-8-4?
Because they think the duplex’s will be better. And they shot them self in the foot.
@@gamerfan8445The T1s were better than a 4-8-4s though.... just not worth the extra trouble, nor did it actually seem to hurt them much at all outside of the S1/S2/Q1, those were all single locomotives. And they would have dieselized by 1957 anyway.
@@ThePTBRULES not really. speed yeah, the T1 is one the fastest American locomotive. But everything else? No, T1 are behind the Niagara, GS, FEF, J class, heavy mountains, and the greenbrier in term of maintenance, and reliability.
@@gamerfan8445 They were notorious for wheelslip
@@Sleeper____1472 that shouldn’t even be bring up. Because many locomotives wheel slip
Aww yeah pennsy video
The Q’s are kind of an anomaly to me because I’m never too certain what the PRR was going for. Especially with the Q1, I’m thinking a 4-4-4-6 with the 70 or 72 in drivers would’ve worked better, with the use of roller bearings. And while the Q2 has the highest horsepower output of a steamer, it’s by a measurement at the cylinders. I’ve yet to find any details of its drawbar power like with the S1 and T1’s. I’m sure it would’ve been less than, albeit very close to, the 7,500 HP of an Allegheny
Not a bad nickname for Pennsylvanians
Nice video man!
I hope there will be a rebuild of the prr q1 and q2 class steam locomotives in the future
PRR Q series was powerful. Steam turbine locomotives that are the Q series. Too bad we didnt save any duplex or Q series locomotives for preservation. But hey the PRR #5550 getting built. Why not do the same with the Q series of locomotives?
I wouldn't, there are other more popular locomotives to build first, even if the Pennsylvania is my favorite railroad besides the BLE.
👏👏👏👏👏👏
No Northerns for the PRR.
POWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Nobody gave me a godly video warning 🤔🔥
cool
Eh, during the 1920s and 1930s the PRR wasted a great deal of money double and triple heading K4s on freight and passenger trains
what type of artwork is that in the thumbnail?
Could you do a video on the PRR K4 4-6-2? Its my one favourite American classes
What kills PRR engines for me is the overuse of streamlining and the absolutely abhoring, disastrously, badly proportioned, oversized tenders.
Like seriously, they hurt to look at. In my eyes an example of streamlining done right is with the GS-4 and GS-64. Maybe I'm just biased to tough and powerful looking engines, Big Boys, Berks, Alleghenys, etc. But the PRR engines are overdone.
At least in my taste.
However, speaking of giant streamlined beauties, I'd love a video on the Southern Pacific AC-9s.
Where do you get this art-deco style thumbnails from? They look amazing!
I make them myself using Adobe Illustrator and Photoshop, glad you like them!
Hmmmmm now we have engines of Pennsylvania railroad? :)
damn. Beat me to it
When is engines of New York central coming back?
1 Question:Why does the Pennsylvania Railroad not make Northerns?
Pennsylvania Railroad management seemed to get a lot of really stupid ideas in the 1930s and onwards. The GG1 was not too shabby, but they got that design more or less from the New Haven, and look at what preceded it (class O-1 with the wheel arrangement 2-B-2, the electric equivalent to a 4-4-4) and what followed it (the DD2, supposed to be the successor to the GG1 for hauling freight or mixed traffic over the never-completed Allegheny electrification . . . so they went from the GG1 wheel arrangement of 2-C+C-2 DOWN TO 2-B+B=2!). So it's no surprise they had equally idiotic ideas with their steam locomotives. If the locomotive weighs over 1 million pounds and has a tractive effort around 100,000 pounds, you're not leaving much headroom for getting over a grade. And by the way, it's not horsepower you need for starting a train -- it's tractive effort. That is one of the reason that the M-U'd diesels won . . . although properly designed electrics would have been better (if only they had run with the E44 idea and completed the Allegheny electrification after all . . .). Back to steam, plenty of ideas for improving steam were going around in the rest of the world, and some even got decently wide adoption, like the Bayer-Garratt. If the Pennsylvania Railroad would have adopted that, they could have had good power output, a decent number of driving wheels for improved tractive effort, and decently short wheelbase. But for some reason, railroads in the Americas never considered these, even though they worked fine elsewhere.
the short answer regarding the garratt is not invented here. longer answer, look at the tractive effort of the strongest garratt ever made and the strongest mallet, east african's class 59 vs norfolk and western's Y6B.
as far as improving steam goes, the second the EMD FT came along, american steam was on a timer and WW2 only delayed the inevitable.
@@hiawathabeast Agreed about Not Invented Here. Not the first time, and not the last.
With regard to tractive effort, remember that the African locomotives other than the more modern South African stuff had a lot lower axle loads than US locomotives, so matching US tractive effort was not possible with Garratt or Mallet designs without going to a LOT more total driving wheels. Likewise, African freight other than South African ore trains was not as heavy as US freight.
Where does the big boy fall into?
Fall into where? PRR was using something completely different for a different railroad. Not sure what relevance a big boy is?
So, Q series, you say your powerful, well then.
I assign you to haul 154 tanker cars full of nuke oil!!!!
I´m always wondering how do you make these thumbnails. :) Wish to know.
I use Adobe Illustrator and sometimes Photoshop to make my thumbnails. I find some reference images of a train and draw it out in Illustrator.
@@AmtrakGuy365Alright, thanks for the tip. Gonna try this out.
Hey can you help me please and thank you I have a question for you
Hi.
I'm curious as to the speed at which the horsepower was developed?
Or is the figure for cylinder horsepower?
Horsepower isn’t as good of a measurement as tractive effort, so no these aren’t really as powerful as a big boy or Allegheny, plus the boosters were rarely used as the increase in steam usage would always be more than the steam generation thus losing pressure. Horsepower is better for acceleration than total power. Plus the locomotive had much less driving wheels than the big boy or cab forwards for example,
In reality, the Q2s were just UP Challengers with less adhesion due to the less axles and more axle load on the tracks
@@threepea1151 I'd agree if it weren't for the fact that neither the Qs or the CSAs were freight drag locomotives - the speed at which they created their horsepower thereby remains relevant.
@threepea1151 tractive effort is solely a calculation and provides a given amount to set a train moving. Horsepower, of course, is the ability for the train to keep apace. There's interesting tests done with the unique 10101 Fell diesel mechanical locomotive which provided some very interesting information regarding this. That's of course the big difference between the C&O boosted T1's and H8 Allegheny, both having the same train loadings, and why the Y6's were so successful
That figure is for cylinder horsepower. In terms of power at speed (drawbar horsepower), the Allegheny takes the crown as the most powerful steam locomotive ever built.
@@09JDCTrainMan I kind of had the feeling that I had read that before. I imagine the UP design team were looking for a higher road speed to peak at for their perishable traffic. But either way, that's a whole heap of power for one unit.
:)
The 7,987 HP isn't drawbar HP though, that's cylinder HP, which always has a higher figure than drawbar HP. From what I could gather, the Q2's drawbar horsepower (power at speed) was 6,645 (not sure at what speed though), well below the Allegheny's 7,498 DBHP at 46mph. So, the Q2, while still super impressive, is not the most powerful steam locomotive ever, at least not at speed.
Altoona shops. UP'S Big Boy #4000 was 6200 dhb according to UP's dynamometer car, N&W's A was slightly higher at 6300 dhb. Likelihood is Q2 still had the highest dhb
@@muir8009 I keep hearing that the N&W A's 6,300 DBHP figure is a fluke and really produced around 5,300-5,400 DBHP. At this point, I'm not sure which figure to believe. Also, I still think the Allegheny is the king of DBHP when it comes to steam locomotives.
@@09JDCTrainMan Class A was 5400 HP drawbar max. Their boilers were not in the same league as bigger locomotives such as the Allegheny and Yellowstones. The 6300 figure was a result of a malfunctioning dynamometer car. This is all documented by the N&W Historical Society.
@@muir8009 N&W Class A was 5400 max. The 6300 was due to a malfunctioning dynamometer car. This is well documented by the N&W Historical Society.
@@markantony3875 That was what I come to learn sometime after posting my reply after thorough research.
Too brief with the captions.
Horsepower isn’t as good of a measurement as tractive effort, so no these aren’t really as powerful as a big boy or Allegheny, plus the boosters were rarely used as the increase in steam usage would always be more than the steam generation thus losing pressure. Horsepower is better for acceleration than total power. Plus the locomotive had much less driving wheels than the big boy or cab forwards for example,
In reality, the Q2s were just UP Challengers with less adhesion due to the less axles and more axle load on the tracks
Horsepower and tractive effort are directly related. Locomotive horsepower output is simply the tractive effort (the pull of a locomotive) at a certain speed. If you know one, you can calculate the other. It is the same for any type of locomotive. For example, if you measure 37,500 lbs of pull at the rear of the locomotive at 40mph, then the locomotive is developing 4000 HP at 40 mph. This is the same regardless of the type of locomotive.
twelfth
Can you please make a video about pennsylvania railroad gg1
I don't remember this video at all
So they tried be Union Pacific but failed
Producing gas turbines???