Absolutely fantastic episode of this series. I never knew that these giants were converted from *non-articulated* locomotives... I remember first becoming interested in this engine when it was first promoted in a Lionel catalog about 10 years ago.
As bad as the 3000 Class was, Santa Fe had two Mallets that were even worse, the 1398 Class 4-4-6-2's. These abortions were built for passenger service from 2 Pacifics, by adding new front sections purchased from Baldwin in 1909. The front low-pressure section was severely prone the wheel slip which sucked all the steam from the rear high-pressure cylinders. This was definitely NOT conducive to forward motion and rendering the locomotive virtuously useless. It's likely that these two locomotives spent most of their time on the dead line until 1915 when they were rebuilt back into useful 4-6-2 Pacifics. The only good thing that can be said about them is that there were only two of them.
Even better is what can be said about the Virginian #700 2-8-8-8-4: only one was built. It was split into a decent 2-8-8-0 and a 2-8-2. The four wheel tender engine truck enabled it to coast back down the mountain at 15-20 mph after pushing a train up the grade at 5 mph.
I understand these were earlier Y3 designs. The first Y6b was not built until well after the war in 1948, being the ultimate Mallet design built until 1952.
Your point is a valid one saying that lessons were learned regarding the 2 10 10 2. However, I do love the fact that Lionel has provided us an excellent example showing us how the manufacturer intended for this monumental engine to have performed. The real truth is that sometimes it looks better on paper, or on the drawing board then in real life. This engine is a prime example. I am very happy to see that it has been brought back to life so we can cherish what it was intended to be, but the lesson still stands that it was a failure in real life.
ALCO built 2-10-10-2 for the Virginian in 1918. These had 48 inch inside diameter front cylinders, largest ever on steam. Slow but powerful, VGN class AE. Lasted until 1952.
I really love your Dead on Arrival series. It's pretty fun to watch. Here's my suggestion for a next episode of Dead on Arrival: Pennsylvania Railroad S2 6-8-6 S2 class Steam turbine locomotive or PRR S1 6-4-4-6 remake
Nice! I’m glad someone did the history of these engines. I really like the tender of these engines. These 10 engines had the same problem as the triplex. They didn’t get enough steam to go over 10 miles per hour.
Not enough firebox grate space. Then, the exhaust from the tender engine was wasted into the air. It should have been piped to the blast pipe in the smokebox to add to the draft. Of course this would have required another flexible joint under the cab along with the steam pipe from one of the second pair of cylinders to the tender engine cylinders. Articulateds had enough trouble from the flexible joint from the rear engine cylinders to the front engine cylinders.
I was thinking a fix could have been to keep the Tenders, but to make these beasts (2-10-10-2) into a Tank Engine Hybrid, where the feed water could get preheated by the tanks along both sides of the boilers... This way they could increase the amount of steam since the thermo-mass of the water would be increased. Of course, this would mean that the engine would take longer "warming up" since those small, short fire tubes had more water to preheat!
Andrew... your attention to detail, and thoroughness of research are praiseworthy. You obviously know much more of this subject than can be fairly assessed in just a few videos. I see from your intro that you're an Eagle Scout as well. Now it starts to make sense. I look forward to watching many more of your videos and appreciating their content. Keep it up, Andrew.
I just knew you were from Bama by your channel name. I worked at the Marshall Space Flight Center lab that did some of the failure investigation on the Challenger Space flight O-ring failure. So how did we get from rockets to railroads? I love Alabama! I've got five grandkids and four great grandkids in Foley. My son recently moved to Maine. Sweet Home Alabama!!!
This video has just become my most viewed video! Thank you so much for the support for this series, I’m now more motivated than ever to pump out more of these videos once I finish my Forth of July special! Comment down below which bad or unsuccessful locomotive I should review next. Suggestions can be steam, or diesel and electric locomotives as well.
Any one for the BLW Rectifiers,which never got beyond demonstrion stage,and no multiple orders-PRR ! Also there were several New Haven engines,that also were one- offs! Enough food for thought! Thank you for your comments,and on the ATSF engines,they were too early,and really experimental! By the way,the B&O,and Erie,did similar things with the early Mallets too!! Again thank you for your diligence and persistence!!
Want to see actual movie footage of a 3000 class? It exists. About 1915, America was into 15-20 minute movie theater serials. The Hazards of Helen was one of those serials. In an episode, The Leap From The Water Tower, you see a 3000 in action. In reality, it is the star of the episode. How this survived is a pure miracle. There is even a pacing scene. This the only known footage of one of these locomotives.
My Grandfather probably touched these locomotives in one form or another. He started working in the roundhouse at Temple Texas in 1915 as a roust-a-bout and retired in 1965 as the dayshift foreman of that same roundhouse. He knew both steam and diesel very well. I still have a Stilson 24 inch pipe wrench marked on the handle AT&SF RR which apparently went home with him at some point in time. It is in excellent condition. I also have a number of shop towels (mechanics rags) that have a turtle standing speeding along (looks like he is roller skating almost) and they say "Work Safe Wipe out AXY DENT on the Sante Fe".
The Norfolk and Western Y class (Y-3 and up) had more tractive effort and way more Horsepower; they were very successful and lasted until the very end of steam on the N&W.
Worth mentioning, in compound steam arrangements the low pressure cylinders begin to act as a piston brake as speed increases so they're usually only ever going to be relatively slow. This occurs because the large cross sectional area of the second cylinder sets (usually double the volume of the high pressure cylinders) combined with the now very low pressure 'exhaust' steam (it's undergone 2x expansion cycles now) doesn't actually have enough time to exhaust as piston speed therefore train speed increases. Eventually it was found simple expansion for articulateds that wanted normal road speed was the solution. Compounding was still useful but lent itself to specific applications whereas if you wanted normal speed and greater operational flexibility then 'Simple' was the way forward (bit like many things in life really). One could imagine, though I don't actually know, that compound arrangements would be quite resistant to wheel slippage at the upper end of their normal operating range which would be a useful feature. That said, I'm hoping someone will prove me wrong because I don't actually know. I do know Triplexes had a problem with wheel slippage as the tenders became light but this isn't that! LOL
Love your channel! Actually the ATSF did indeed obtain some NW Y3's during WW2 for use on Raton pass. As soon as the war was over they were sold to the Virginian.
One engine to check out with a substantial boiler is the H8 Allegheny. The boiler is so big that you can put the boiler of the Big Boy within that of the H8. The driving wheels are also more hidden away do to the overhang of the boiler and other huge parts that make other engines look small in contrast. The H8 is by far the most impressive engine that I have seen in person. Great video ! Thumbs up 👍
A little more information on the H8: it was designed to have 10% more boiler capacity than the engine could require at 45 mph in use. The boiler on an H8 delivered more steam than a boiler any other American boiler and the engine delivered the highest horse power rating of any steam engine ever tested.
Thanks for the episode, I learned some new facts I didn’t know. I think it’s interesting in the same era Espee and UP also were experimenting with various wheel arrangements of the same type and with similar results. Though, Espee did do conversions of many of their compounds with superheating later on, I think this was a common thread in that era that not many had good solutions. The early compound standard cabs and early cab forwards with the recycled steam were not necessarily known for being fast. The Espee MC-1, 1909 Baldwin products only amassed 85,040 lbs of tractive effort, real progress on the Espee didn’t happen until the AC-4s in 1928 with tractive effort of 116900 lbs. The other doom of failure of early compound design was simply the physical infrastructure. The Espee couldn’t operate the MC-1s (4000/4001) and later classes up to the MC-6s due to lack of turntable and roundhouse facilities large enough to handle the increased boiler and tender length. This was even true on the Big Boys for UP as some locations couldn’t handle the full length and special ramps were used in some cases for the engines to ride the turntables. Thank you very much for sharing your knowledge! Very cool!!! Just an idea, I think one failed locomotive to consider is Pennsylvania’s 1904 4-4-2, French de Glehn. The locomotive was clearly a European design that didn’t really seem to fit into much larger boiler North American steam locomotives of the day. Though, she did have the appeal of a 4-4-0 of the day, her smoke box face looked out of place.
It’s crazy how these designs are back then they were really in a rush tbh, had they taken their time we might very well still be on steam which is just as efficient as diesel.
In this era, the ATSF mainlines were lightly built, hence the need to keep the boilers relatively narrow. Compare them, for example, to the I1sa 2-10-0 of the Pennsylvania R.R. that first appeared in 1916, locos whose tractive effort exceeded 102,00 pounds, without resorting to articulation. However, PRR mainlines supported up to 75,000 pounds on the driving axles. As a result, most of the 598 I1 class survived until the 1950s, hauling heavy trains and pushing PRR freight trains up grades.
ATSF also had the worse, and least, water sources of all the western roads, especially in the territories where such large locomotives would be needed most (NM, AZ and southern CO). bigger boilers would have meant more water. Lack of sufficient water was a primary driver for Santa Fe to dieselize as quickly as they did.
ATSF: "So yeah these were a mistake" VGN: *Smirks and operates their successful version til N&W takes over* (So glad you mentioned the AE Class' existence)
That’s probably to do with the only thing the two classes have in common is the wheel arrangement and both being compounds. The AE class is fundamentally different in conception and design to the 3000s.
Some engineer didn't do their sums right. Terrible job. "..... And Wouldn't Mind Building Any Out Of Lego, But Not The 3000s, Because They SUCKED !!" 😂
You made a good point about the size of the boiler. However the principal of compound steam engines (double expansion) for railway locomotives did not work out well at all. For marine use, a double or triple expansion engine did work (US Navy battleships of the mid 1900s for example). My grandfather served part of his apprenticeship at the Santa Fe's Albuquerque shops when the "Prairie Malleys" were rebuilt into two simple engines. He always said the compound (double expansion) was a maintenance nightmare.
How this could be better worked out: Instead of using steam for both sets, it can go to one and the front set is driven by a drive shaft like a shay locomotive only designed to take the stress. Then the rest of the front can be a huge water tank like a garrett locomotive while the back is for coal. While it won't be as efficient as less water in the tank, it does still prove it's strength. That would be my redesign. A bit flawed, but workable
Fixes for this extinct class: Bigger, taller, and wider boiler and firebox Two stacks if one doesn't work A long-haul tender to carry the water and oil Maybe just maybe, this could've worked with those adjustments but I don't know for sure since there's no actual prototype model that doesn't cost a fortune.
If your programming isn't focused the USA, the German Borsig Mallet is one that sparks curiosity. They were so heavy that they grossly exceeded axle load limits and even did track damage under testing. To see some footage would be GOLD.
Having designed and built my own L-gauge 4005 Big Boy and currently working on a Challenger, I'm half-tempted to design and build this Santa Fe 2-10-10-2 for fun. It's almost ironic that as much as we wish Lego would make bigger driving wheels, they would look about right for the overall proportionally smaller driving wheels on the Santa Fe.
Man i am.getting krostopher kovacs flashbacks and the other british dude with hsi engine videos, and i like having them running on the background so i think I'll add your channel to the list too
What about the Victorian Railways V Class 2-8-0s? They were built around 1899 but lasted in service just 27 to 31 odd years. By 1930 they were all scrapped even though the Victorian Goldfields Railway at Maldon is building one with the number 499
The Virginian Rail Road had 2-0=10-10-2 locomotives, but were built not recycled. They were also slow due to small drivers and huge coal drag trains. They served a set purpose, pull coal drags east out of Beckley West Virginia. They had the largest low pressure cylinders ever, They served for quite a long time too. ;-) For failed steam locos try the Erie and Virginian Triplex Locomotives.
Personally I’d love to attain one of these in ho scale for one of my branch lines. It can’t handle realistically speaking 4-8-4’s without them looking a bit too overpowered but one of these would look great going over the swampy scenery and small bridges over bayous
Santa Fe post-war had Baldwin draw up plans for a 2- 10-10- 4 articulated steam locomotive but it was died on the drawing board because of diesel ization
I found this channel a few minutes ago and subscribed write at the end of this video. If it wasn't for my Model H0 rail road being a small road interchanging with C&O, N&W and the Virginian. I love the looks but maybe since it freelanced I can find an excuse for one on the coal mine run.
I learned something new: I never heard of the AT&SF 2-10-10-2s before. Amazing locomotives that must have been a huge maintenance headache not to mention too slow. Interesting anyway. It would be nice if one survived in a museum.
The Virginian had monster 2-10-10-2s that had 36” ∅ bore front low pressure compound cylinders. They were limited to ≈15 mph even coasting back downhill after pushing a train upgrade. Such enormous heavy pistons could not be effectively balanced by rotating counterweights. They did, however, have adequate firebox grate area to push at maximum power at 15 mph. You might notice that these pusher/helper/banking (UK) locomotives had tenders no larger than single locomotives half their size. Some even re-used tenders from old locomotives that had been scrapped. As they worked for only a few miles up a mountain grade, then coasted back down to their servicing side tracks, they did not need to carry very much coal and water with them. They were refueled and re-watered while waiting for the next train to push.
I have a brass HO scale 3010 engine I had painted in Santa Fe black. It is a poor puller but sounds great with a sound decoder. Always wanted a 2-10-10-2 but the price never agreed with my budget.
An old saying in the aviation design world is, "If it doesn't look good it ain't gonna fly well." There is even a book called "Ugly Airplanes" that catalogs ugly performers.
Question, I grew up in Western PA, Pittsburgh area. And there were many styles of Locomotive and diesel being used in the 79 through to the mid 80's. Could you give us A run down on what types and use they served ?
I have always suspected the 2-10-2s were expected to be separated after some experimentation. The Baldwin built front "boiler" only housed a feed water heater and a reheater, it was not pressurized. Yet it was built to boiler standards, and was fairly easily rebuilt to a new locomotive when separated. (The 3010 class).
I really want u to do the Amtrak HHP-8s, BR Class 28s, LBSCR/Southern E2s, Amtrak SDP40Fs, or all three steam turbines. Because it’s for you to decide.
Typical case of rushed production without sound testing. At the time, all the railroads were out to boast having the biggest, most unique and powerful locomotives in their fleet. When it started costing them money, they slacked of the "make-it-snappy" attitude. But eventually picked it up again. Norfolk and Western Railway 2300 "Jawn Henry" might be an interesting locomotive to cover. It too was a high dollar mistake.
A MUCH larger fire grate and higher boiler pressure (300 psi super heated) and oil burning COULD have helped the 3000 class, but the 2-10-4 Madame Queen was what the Santa Fe NEEDED in a steam engine. It just took about 25 years of engineering to develop. Sadly WWII came along and effectively stopped steam engine development. Too much material, too much labor to erect, too much to maintain, too much capital cost, just too much compared to the bargain of four diseasels (sic) which were equal to a good 4-8-4 steam engine (4000 HP).
@@richieosborn2639 Different set of engineering challenges. Very generally speaking, US engines needed to pull longer trains, over longer distances, over lower quality roadbed, thus, more driving wheels to spread the load- larger single engines to reduce crewing requirements (not to mention operational complication). On the other hand, there were some specific challenges that railways in Britain faced that limited the practical size of their locomotives. The upper end of UK Beyer-Garratt's ran up against several of these issues. But you are absolutely right - size is not always the answer. (But don't tell I.K. Brunel that.) ;-)
The ATFS did actually buy another class of compound mallets after the 3000 class, the 8 members of the 1790 class, built as Y-3s for the N&W and sold to the ATSF during WWII.
One of the reasons why the early Steam Locomotives lasted as long as they did was starting in 1940 (before the US officially entered WW2) the US had increased production to not only build up our own Armed Forces (especially US Navy & Maritime Ships!), but to supply Britain and China with equipment (first "Flying Tigers were AVG (American Volunteer Group) flying US made P-40's plus arms and ammo for the Nationalist Chinese Forces, but some did go to the Communist Chinese Forces as well....), this made all US railroads refurbish old engines since productions of new Locomotives was curtailed due to the use of high grade steel, which was needed for the higher pressure of the more modern Steam Locomotives .vs. the pre-WW1 era Locomotives, was being used elsewhere (such as tanks, ships, and even boilers for new War Production Plants!
These are articulated locomotives. The front engine unit where the front frame and cylinders are located is hinged to the rear frame(which is the only think the boiler is attached to) so that the frames can bend around curves. The front engine unit will slide out from under the boiler, which will follow the front frame through curves.
I think you are being way to harsh on the E2 class of tank engine Yes the long wheel base and small bunker was a major problem but they were still able to do their jobs in area's that they were able to work in and if it was not for the E2 I doubt we would have Thomas the Tank Engine as we know him today :P As for the Monstrosity of the 3000 class...What did they expect combining two boilers into one from smaller locomotives Honestly a properly sized boiler is needed period and if your going to come up with such an ambitious design as a 2-10-10-2 then for the love of god make sure its got a big enough boiler
This was a really great video. Very informative. There are two engine that come to mind, that might be good candidates for future episodes, although you may have already covered them. Erie's 2-8-8-8-2 Triplex and Union Pacific's 4-12-2.
except that the UP 4-12-2 were not "Bad" engines and for late 20 era steam, they were pure monsters, 120 car consists at 50MPH, sounds like a solid state to be in for a fast freight loco of the time. and if they were actually "bad" locos then the UP wouldn't have made 100 ish of them and used them up to the end of the steam era, 30 years of use is not an insignificant service life.
@@danielwilcox6058 The only “bad” of the 4-12-2s was that they could be worked only on rather broad curves, though they could be eased around sharper locomotive service area tracks at dead slow speeds. Russian Railways had 4-14-4s so that powerful locomotives could operate on lightly constructed tracks. They had a relatively low axle loading.
Large locomotives that lacked adequate steaming capacity seems to be a recurring event in the design of new locomotives between 1900 and the advent of Lima's Super Power designs of the late 1920's. It must have been a hard lesson to learn and retain. A few railroads found the problem of under steaming acceptable within the service window of their engines. C&O with their H7 class is one example, using those engines in drag service where they were seldom expected to exceed 15 mph.
As a Lego train builder I can say that any 10 drive wheel configuration is nearly impossible for use on Lego track as the wheel base is too long and won't traverse the turns. Currently, I just finished a UP Challenger design 4-6-6-4
There have been a good many locomotives who were sidelined and failed due to poor boiler designs. These intrigue me because of the articulated boilers - keeping them steam tight must have been a bit tricky. If you want another dud, the British London & North Western Railway had a batch of locomotives whose designer (Webb, I think) promised they would take the Scottish expresses over Shap unaided. They couldn't. His engine crews promptly christened them 'Bill Baileys' after the dud hero of a music hall song.
The whole point of articulateds is to keep from having to pay two locomotive crews to run two locomotives. MUing* was tried with steam locomotives but it was…impossible. Electric locomotives were MUed from early on, so when diesel-electric locomotives came on the scene they were equipped for MUing. Five or more electric or diesel-electric locomotives could be MUed without losing the control signals. * Multiple Unit
Since someone commented about the ATSF 1790 class from WW2, how about the N&W K3 class? The "Water Buffalos" were originally to be 4-8-4s, but became troublesome from Appalachia, to the Potomac, and the Continetal Divide, only to find home and use in Ohio, for the Wheeling & Lake Erie... Then the Nickel Plate!
I love these videos, but I would actually build (or draw in my case) these engines BECAUSE they are bad and because there's a story to it. They also usually have unique looks that distinguish them.
I just found this channel and definitely enjoyed the video. The 2-10-10-2s impressed me in childhood ("bigger numbers are cooler") -- but it sounds as though they were similar to those Erie 2-8-8-8-2 triplexes. Have you done the latter? And how about the BL-2? What other early diesels were major flops? GP-15?
i just love how even from a glance you can tell its just 2 locomotives joined together
A case of having a locomotive that barely worked in real life but works well as a model
Hard for it to not work well as a model considering models don't have to actually do anything but look good
Designers: This is going to work! 😀
Builders: *Unsure*🤨
Santa Fe: We hate this! 😠
What Engineers thought must be unprintable 😉
Absolutely fantastic episode of this series. I never knew that these giants were converted from *non-articulated* locomotives... I remember first becoming interested in this engine when it was first promoted in a Lionel catalog about 10 years ago.
I didn't even know these types existed in the 1910s
As bad as the 3000 Class was, Santa Fe had two Mallets that were even worse, the 1398 Class 4-4-6-2's. These abortions were built for passenger service from 2 Pacifics, by adding new front sections purchased from Baldwin in 1909. The front low-pressure section was severely prone the wheel slip which sucked all the steam from the rear high-pressure cylinders. This was definitely NOT conducive to forward motion and rendering the locomotive virtuously useless. It's likely that these two locomotives spent most of their time on the dead line until 1915 when they were rebuilt back into useful 4-6-2 Pacifics. The only good thing that can be said about them is that there were only two of them.
Even better is what can be said about the Virginian #700 2-8-8-8-4: only one was built. It was split into a decent 2-8-8-0 and a 2-8-2. The four wheel tender engine truck enabled it to coast back down the mountain at 15-20 mph after pushing a train up the grade at 5 mph.
Santa Fe operated articulateds during WW2 in the form of borrowed Norfolk and Western 2-8-8-2 Y6Bs. Used mostly on Raton Pass, steepest on the SFe.
I understand these were earlier Y3 designs. The first Y6b was not built until well after the war in 1948, being the ultimate Mallet design built until 1952.
Please leave your captions on longer. The rule of thumb is to leave them up long enough to read it twice at normal reading speed.
Your point is a valid one saying that lessons were learned regarding the 2 10 10 2. However, I do love the fact that Lionel has provided us an excellent example showing us how the manufacturer intended for this monumental engine to have performed. The real truth is that sometimes it looks better on paper, or on the drawing board then in real life. This engine is a prime example. I am very happy to see that it has been brought back to life so we can cherish what it was intended to be, but the lesson still stands that it was a failure in real life.
ALCO built 2-10-10-2 for the Virginian in 1918. These had 48 inch inside diameter front cylinders, largest ever on steam. Slow but powerful, VGN class AE. Lasted until 1952.
I really love your Dead on Arrival series. It's pretty fun to watch. Here's my suggestion for a next episode of Dead on Arrival: Pennsylvania Railroad S2 6-8-6 S2 class Steam turbine locomotive or PRR S1 6-4-4-6 remake
Please no anything but the steam turbines.
the s1 video is by far one of the worst videos i have seen on youtube
Nice! I’m glad someone did the history of these engines. I really like the tender of these engines. These 10 engines had the same problem as the triplex. They didn’t get enough steam to go over 10 miles per hour.
Not enough firebox grate space. Then, the exhaust from the tender engine was wasted into the air. It should have been piped to the blast pipe in the smokebox to add to the draft. Of course this would have required another flexible joint under the cab along with the steam pipe from one of the second pair of cylinders to the tender engine cylinders. Articulateds had enough trouble from the flexible joint from the rear engine cylinders to the front engine cylinders.
I was thinking a fix could have been to keep the Tenders, but to make these beasts (2-10-10-2) into a Tank Engine Hybrid, where the feed water could get preheated by the tanks along both sides of the boilers... This way they could increase the amount of steam since the thermo-mass of the water would be increased.
Of course, this would mean that the engine would take longer "warming up" since those small, short fire tubes had more water to preheat!
Andrew... your attention to detail, and thoroughness of research are praiseworthy. You obviously know much more of this subject than can be fairly assessed in just a few videos. I see from your intro that you're an Eagle Scout as well. Now it starts to make sense. I look forward to watching many more of your videos and appreciating their content. Keep it up, Andrew.
I just knew you were from Bama by your channel name. I worked at the Marshall Space Flight Center lab that did some of the failure investigation on the Challenger Space flight O-ring failure. So how did we get from rockets to railroads? I love Alabama! I've got five grandkids and four great grandkids in Foley. My son recently moved to Maine. Sweet Home Alabama!!!
This video has just become my most viewed video! Thank you so much for the support for this series, I’m now more motivated than ever to pump out more of these videos once I finish my Forth of July special!
Comment down below which bad or unsuccessful locomotive I should review next. Suggestions can be steam, or diesel and electric locomotives as well.
Baltimore and Ohio class N-1 or LNER Thompson Class A2/2
Boston & Maine 2-8-4 berkshires
Lbscr e2 and make a rant of all engines go
Any one for the BLW Rectifiers,which never got beyond demonstrion stage,and no multiple orders-PRR ! Also there were several New Haven engines,that also were one- offs! Enough food for thought! Thank you for your comments,and on the ATSF engines,they were too early,and really experimental! By the way,the B&O,and Erie,did similar things with the early Mallets too!! Again thank you for your diligence and persistence!!
@@roberthuron9160 OK
Want to see actual movie footage of a 3000 class?
It exists. About 1915, America was into 15-20 minute movie theater serials.
The Hazards of Helen was one of those serials. In an episode, The Leap From The Water Tower, you see a 3000 in action. In reality, it is the star of the episode. How this survived is a pure miracle. There is even a pacing scene. This the only known footage of one of these locomotives.
You beat me to it - I'ver seen the same film.
My Grandfather probably touched these locomotives in one form or another. He started working in the roundhouse at Temple Texas in 1915 as a roust-a-bout and retired in 1965 as the dayshift foreman of that same roundhouse. He knew both steam and diesel very well. I still have a Stilson 24 inch pipe wrench marked on the handle AT&SF RR which apparently went home with him at some point in time. It is in excellent condition. I also have a number of shop towels (mechanics rags) that have a turtle standing speeding along (looks like he is roller skating almost) and they say "Work Safe Wipe out AXY DENT on the Sante Fe".
3:58 - Big Boy fan aye? Me too. 4003 is one of my favourites. Made a Big Boy music video a while ago in case ya interested.
The Norfolk and Western Y class (Y-3 and up) had more tractive effort and way more Horsepower; they were very successful and lasted until the very end of steam on the N&W.
Worth mentioning, in compound steam arrangements the low pressure cylinders begin to act as a piston brake as speed increases so they're usually only ever going to be relatively slow.
This occurs because the large cross sectional area of the second cylinder sets (usually double the volume of the high pressure cylinders) combined with the now very low pressure 'exhaust' steam (it's undergone 2x expansion cycles now) doesn't actually have enough time to exhaust as piston speed therefore train speed increases.
Eventually it was found simple expansion for articulateds that wanted normal road speed was the solution.
Compounding was still useful but lent itself to specific applications whereas if you wanted normal speed and greater operational flexibility then 'Simple' was the way forward (bit like many things in life really).
One could imagine, though I don't actually know, that compound arrangements would be quite resistant to wheel slippage at the upper end of their normal operating range which would be a useful feature. That said, I'm hoping someone will prove me wrong because I don't actually know.
I do know Triplexes had a problem with wheel slippage as the tenders became light but this isn't that! LOL
Love your channel! Actually the ATSF did indeed obtain some NW Y3's during WW2 for use on Raton pass. As soon as the war was over they were sold to the Virginian.
Thank you!
One engine to check out with a substantial boiler is the H8 Allegheny. The boiler is so big that you can put the boiler of the Big Boy within that of the H8. The driving wheels are also more hidden away do to the overhang of the boiler and other huge parts that make other engines look small in contrast. The H8 is by far the most impressive engine that I have seen in person. Great video ! Thumbs up 👍
A little more information on the H8: it was designed to have 10% more boiler capacity than the engine could require at 45 mph in use. The boiler on an H8 delivered more steam than a boiler any other American boiler and the engine delivered the highest horse power rating of any steam engine ever tested.
@@cdjhyoung The UP Big Boys never had a chance!
Thanks for the episode, I learned some new facts I didn’t know.
I think it’s interesting in the same era Espee and UP also were experimenting with various wheel arrangements of the same type and with similar results. Though, Espee did do conversions of many of their compounds with superheating later on, I think this was a common thread in that era that not many had good solutions. The early compound standard cabs and early cab forwards with the recycled steam were not necessarily known for being fast. The Espee MC-1, 1909 Baldwin products only amassed 85,040 lbs of tractive effort, real progress on the Espee didn’t happen until the AC-4s in 1928 with tractive effort of 116900 lbs.
The other doom of failure of early compound design was simply the physical infrastructure. The Espee couldn’t operate the MC-1s (4000/4001) and later classes up to the MC-6s due to lack of turntable and roundhouse facilities large enough to handle the increased boiler and tender length. This was even true on the Big Boys for UP as some locations couldn’t handle the full length and special ramps were used in some cases for the engines to ride the turntables.
Thank you very much for sharing your knowledge! Very cool!!!
Just an idea, I think one failed locomotive to consider is Pennsylvania’s 1904 4-4-2, French de Glehn. The locomotive was clearly a European design that didn’t really seem to fit into much larger boiler North American steam locomotives of the day. Though, she did have the appeal of a 4-4-0 of the day, her smoke box face looked out of place.
It’s crazy how these designs are back then they were really in a rush tbh, had they taken their time we might very well still be on steam which is just as efficient as diesel.
In this era, the ATSF mainlines were lightly built, hence the need to keep the boilers relatively narrow. Compare them, for example, to the I1sa 2-10-0 of the Pennsylvania R.R. that first appeared in 1916, locos whose tractive effort exceeded 102,00 pounds, without resorting to articulation. However, PRR mainlines supported up to 75,000 pounds on the driving axles. As a result, most of the 598 I1 class survived until the 1950s, hauling heavy trains and pushing PRR freight trains up grades.
ATSF also had the worse, and least, water sources of all the western roads, especially in the territories where such large locomotives would be needed most (NM, AZ and southern CO). bigger boilers would have meant more water. Lack of sufficient water was a primary driver for Santa Fe to dieselize as quickly as they did.
The PRR had 155#/yard rail rolled for main lines. Today 132#/yd is considered normal main line rail.
The LB&SCR E2 was in service for fifty years. It had limitations in some types of service, but can hardly be described as a failure.
Hhm true, but as a bad quallity locomotive, that's a new story
ATSF: "So yeah these were a mistake"
VGN: *Smirks and operates their successful version til N&W takes over* (So glad you mentioned the AE Class' existence)
Virginia man is truly the king of the rails.
That’s probably to do with the only thing the two classes have in common is the wheel arrangement and both being compounds. The AE class is fundamentally different in conception and design to the 3000s.
Some engineer didn't do their sums right. Terrible job.
"..... And Wouldn't Mind Building Any Out Of Lego, But Not The 3000s, Because They SUCKED !!" 😂
glad this came across my recommended. i've not been able to find anything this detailed on these engines before.
Love your channel I am a raipfan like you. Greetings from Tunisia, north Africa, we use mainly US locos from the 20'th century.
You made a good point about the size of the boiler. However the principal of compound steam engines (double expansion) for railway locomotives did not work out well at all. For marine use, a double or triple expansion engine did work (US Navy battleships of the mid 1900s for example). My grandfather served part of his apprenticeship at the Santa Fe's Albuquerque shops when the "Prairie Malleys" were rebuilt into two simple engines. He always said the compound (double expansion) was a maintenance nightmare.
How this could be better worked out:
Instead of using steam for both sets, it can go to one and the front set is driven by a drive shaft like a shay locomotive only designed to take the stress.
Then the rest of the front can be a huge water tank like a garrett locomotive while the back is for coal.
While it won't be as efficient as less water in the tank, it does still prove it's strength. That would be my redesign. A bit flawed, but workable
3:01
ATSF 3000 class 2-10-10-2: slow and steady wins the race.
LBSCR E2: **laughs** are you serious?
Keep in mind, the E2 class can move at 60-70 mph.
I’m calling bullshit on that
cap, 50 mph
E2s just look like they could struggle to go 35 with the wind at its back
@@TheMNrailfan227 not really
@@lopwr1212 doubt it
Fixes for this extinct class:
Bigger, taller, and wider boiler and firebox
Two stacks if one doesn't work
A long-haul tender to carry the water and oil
Maybe just maybe, this could've worked with those adjustments but I don't know for sure since there's no actual prototype model that doesn't cost a fortune.
If your programming isn't focused the USA, the German Borsig Mallet is one that sparks curiosity. They were so heavy that they grossly exceeded axle load limits and even did track damage under testing.
To see some footage would be GOLD.
The Santa Fe did buy three Y-3s from the N&W to handle traffic during WWII.
Very interesting. Succinct as well. Thank you.
Having designed and built my own L-gauge 4005 Big Boy and currently working on a Challenger, I'm half-tempted to design and build this Santa Fe 2-10-10-2 for fun. It's almost ironic that as much as we wish Lego would make bigger driving wheels, they would look about right for the overall proportionally smaller driving wheels on the Santa Fe.
Very well done. I really like your videos
Please talk about the triplex locomotive
The 3000s may have been a failure, but the Lionel Vision Line model is fantastic.
Next episode of Dead on Arrival:
LBSCR E2.
They often went above 10 mph, here is footage of 3001 operating ua-cam.com/video/zo1IsTqE5BQ/v-deo.html
Man i am.getting krostopher kovacs flashbacks and the other british dude with hsi engine videos, and i like having them running on the background so i think I'll add your channel to the list too
What about the Victorian Railways V Class 2-8-0s? They were built around 1899 but lasted in service just 27 to 31 odd years. By 1930 they were all scrapped even though the Victorian Goldfields Railway at Maldon is building one with the number 499
As a proponent of boiler positivity, I am appaled by your boiler shaming
Ok just joking nice video
I ❤️ your videos!! That said, I would like to see a video on cab forwards
The Virginian Rail Road had 2-0=10-10-2 locomotives, but were built not recycled. They were also slow due to small drivers and huge coal drag trains. They served a set purpose, pull coal drags east out of Beckley West Virginia. They had the largest low pressure cylinders ever, They served for quite a long time too. ;-)
For failed steam locos try the Erie and Virginian Triplex Locomotives.
6:50
THE WHEEL ARRANGEMENT ISN’T THE PROBLEM
AS YOU SAID, THE BOILER IS THE PROBLEM
Personally I’d love to attain one of these in ho scale for one of my branch lines. It can’t handle realistically speaking 4-8-4’s without them looking a bit too overpowered but one of these would look great going over the swampy scenery and small bridges over bayous
They REALLY were failiures.
Also sorry for so many comments. Just got a couple of questions and also want to understand some things better.
I was always thinking that this was one powerful loco.That was very interesting Andrew thanks..
'Power' is tractive effort (pounds) times speed. At ten mph, these locos were not that powerful.
You remind me so much of Cone of Arc! Is that your inspiration? good vid.
Id make a 2-10-10-2 meanwhile correcting the flaws of the real ones
Santa Fe post-war had Baldwin draw up plans for a 2- 10-10- 4 articulated steam locomotive but it was died on the drawing board because of diesel ization
Dang! I'd only just seen photoshops of such a thing.
Thanks for the info
I found this channel a few minutes ago and subscribed write at the end of this video. If it wasn't for my Model H0 rail road being a small road interchanging with C&O, N&W and the Virginian. I love the looks but maybe since it freelanced I can find an excuse for one on the coal mine run.
I learned something new: I never heard of the AT&SF 2-10-10-2s before. Amazing locomotives that must have been a huge maintenance headache not to mention too slow. Interesting anyway. It would be nice if one survived in a museum.
The Virginian had monster 2-10-10-2s that had 36” ∅ bore front low pressure compound cylinders. They were limited to ≈15 mph even coasting back downhill after pushing a train upgrade. Such enormous heavy pistons could not be effectively balanced by rotating counterweights. They did, however, have adequate firebox grate area to push at maximum power at 15 mph.
You might notice that these pusher/helper/banking (UK) locomotives had tenders no larger than single locomotives half their size. Some even re-used tenders from old locomotives that had been scrapped. As they worked for only a few miles up a mountain grade, then coasted back down to their servicing side tracks, they did not need to carry very much coal and water with them. They were refueled and re-watered while waiting for the next train to push.
@@algrayson8965 Very interesting. Thanks for the info.
i’m still flabbergasted that the 5011 class locomotives were LONGER than the 3000 class
I have a brass HO scale 3010 engine I had painted in Santa Fe black. It is a poor puller but sounds great with a sound decoder. Always wanted a 2-10-10-2 but the price never agreed with my budget.
The 3000s have a nice and interesting looking tender
An old saying in the aviation design world is, "If it doesn't look good it ain't gonna fly well." There is even a book called "Ugly Airplanes" that catalogs ugly performers.
Cool video
How did the The Santa Fe 2-10-10-2s handle a curved set of tracks with that long wheel base and all of the wheels in between?
Question, I grew up in Western PA, Pittsburgh area. And there were many styles of Locomotive and diesel being used in the 79 through to the mid 80's.
Could you give us A run down on what types and use they served ?
A 2-10-10-2??? Never heard of that before. Seems a little overkill.
I have always suspected the 2-10-2s were expected to be separated after some experimentation. The Baldwin built front "boiler" only housed a feed water heater and a reheater, it was not pressurized. Yet it was built to boiler standards, and was fairly easily rebuilt to a new locomotive when separated. (The 3010 class).
I really want u to do the Amtrak HHP-8s, BR Class 28s, LBSCR/Southern E2s, Amtrak SDP40Fs, or all three steam turbines. Because it’s for you to decide.
I have a model.of the BR CLASS 28 unsurprisingly it was Hornby Dublo worst selling model like it's big brother.
Interestingly, film of a 3000 in operation survives in a Hazards of Helen serial that can be found on UA-cam.
🇺🇸 hello from Kansas
Typical case of rushed production without sound testing. At the time, all the railroads were out to boast having the biggest, most unique and powerful locomotives in their fleet. When it started costing them money, they slacked of the "make-it-snappy" attitude. But eventually picked it up again.
Norfolk and Western Railway 2300 "Jawn Henry" might be an interesting locomotive to cover. It too was a high dollar mistake.
I’ve used this mic before but it’s not very good. Though I just readjust it’s settings which will be displayed in a test video
Oh, no. I was referring to the locomotive being rushed without sound testing. Not your microphone. The sound was good on my end. Just as your video.
A MUCH larger fire grate and higher boiler pressure (300 psi super heated) and oil burning COULD have helped the 3000 class, but the 2-10-4 Madame Queen was what the Santa Fe NEEDED in a steam engine. It just took about 25 years of engineering to develop. Sadly WWII came along and effectively stopped steam engine development. Too much material, too much labor to erect, too much to maintain, too much capital cost, just too much compared to the bargain of four diseasels (sic) which were equal to a good 4-8-4 steam engine (4000 HP).
Some of UP's 4000 were built during WWII, I believe.
Santa Fe was really steamed. Cheers!
America might’ve had heavier locomotives than Great Britain, but bigger isn’t always better.
This class of locos is an example of that.
Yeah i mean they build lner P2 and other large locomotive in great Britain
@@maozilla9149 at least they didn’t get carried away with wheel configurations.
@@richieosborn2639 ok
@@richieosborn2639 Different set of engineering challenges. Very generally speaking, US engines needed to pull longer trains, over longer distances, over lower quality roadbed, thus, more driving wheels to spread the load- larger single engines to reduce crewing requirements (not to mention operational complication).
On the other hand, there were some specific challenges that railways in Britain faced that limited the practical size of their locomotives.
The upper end of UK Beyer-Garratt's ran up against several of these issues.
But you are absolutely right - size is not always the answer. (But don't tell I.K. Brunel that.) ;-)
I guarantee you will have a field day with the E2 in this series
The ATFS did actually buy another class of compound mallets after the 3000 class, the 8 members of the 1790 class, built as Y-3s for the N&W and sold to the ATSF during WWII.
One of the reasons why the early Steam Locomotives lasted as long as they did was starting in 1940 (before the US officially entered WW2) the US had increased production to not only build up our own Armed Forces (especially US Navy & Maritime Ships!), but to supply Britain and China with equipment (first "Flying Tigers were AVG (American Volunteer Group) flying US made P-40's plus arms and ammo for the Nationalist Chinese Forces, but some did go to the Communist Chinese Forces as well....), this made all US railroads refurbish old engines since productions of new Locomotives was curtailed due to the use of high grade steel, which was needed for the higher pressure of the more modern Steam Locomotives .vs. the pre-WW1 era Locomotives, was being used elsewhere (such as tanks, ships, and even boilers for new War Production Plants!
The B&O had the N-1 4-4-4-4 "George H. Emerson" failure. The first duplex in America. It spent more time in the shops than on the road.
great video
At 122ft long it needs to bend somehow or it will NEVER get around corners!!!!
These are articulated locomotives. The front engine unit where the front frame and cylinders are located is hinged to the rear frame(which is the only think the boiler is attached to) so that the frames can bend around curves. The front engine unit will slide out from under the boiler, which will follow the front frame through curves.
The Virginian AE/Æ class did better(a shame that it got scrapped)
This is a great video, I like it.
I got a possible suggestion if you are looking for suggestions, maybe the Norfolk & Western’s Class K3 4-8-2’s?
What was their problem(s)? Thank you.
Very interesting! Which episode is about the Russian locomotive with Andreev written in Cyrillic on the front?
Santa Fe certainly needs more attention
3:01 LOL
I kinda like this engine honestly
I think you are being way to harsh on the E2 class of tank engine Yes the long wheel base and small bunker was a major problem but they were still able to do their jobs in area's that they were able to work in and if it was not for the E2 I doubt we would have Thomas the Tank Engine as we know him today :P
As for the Monstrosity of the 3000 class...What did they expect combining two boilers into one from smaller locomotives Honestly a properly sized boiler is needed period and if your going to come up with such an ambitious design as a 2-10-10-2 then for the love of god make sure its got a big enough boiler
This was a really great video. Very informative. There are two engine that come to mind, that might be good candidates for future episodes, although you may have already covered them. Erie's 2-8-8-8-2 Triplex and Union Pacific's 4-12-2.
except that the UP 4-12-2 were not "Bad" engines and for late 20 era steam, they were pure monsters, 120 car consists at 50MPH, sounds like a solid state to be in for a fast freight loco of the time. and if they were actually "bad" locos then the UP wouldn't have made 100 ish of them and used them up to the end of the steam era, 30 years of use is not an insignificant service life.
@@danielwilcox6058 The only “bad” of the 4-12-2s was that they could be worked only on rather broad curves, though they could be eased around sharper locomotive service area tracks at dead slow speeds.
Russian Railways had 4-14-4s so that powerful locomotives could operate on lightly constructed tracks. They had a relatively low axle loading.
You are a handsome lad and your enthusiasm is charming.
Lionel is building the 3000 in O-Scale. It is listed in the 2021 Volume 1 catalog. Yes...I have one on order. :-)
Large locomotives that lacked adequate steaming capacity seems to be a recurring event in the design of new locomotives between 1900 and the advent of Lima's Super Power designs of the late 1920's. It must have been a hard lesson to learn and retain. A few railroads found the problem of under steaming acceptable within the service window of their engines. C&O with their H7 class is one example, using those engines in drag service where they were seldom expected to exceed 15 mph.
Much more better? Good Lord!
As a Lego train builder I can say that any 10 drive wheel configuration is nearly impossible for use on Lego track as the wheel base is too long and won't traverse the turns. Currently, I just finished a UP Challenger design 4-6-6-4
There have been a good many locomotives who were sidelined and failed due to poor boiler designs. These intrigue me because of the articulated boilers - keeping them steam tight must have been a bit tricky. If you want another dud, the British London & North Western Railway had a batch of locomotives whose designer (Webb, I think) promised they would take the Scottish expresses over Shap unaided. They couldn't. His engine crews promptly christened them 'Bill Baileys' after the dud hero of a music hall song.
Hey I'm articulated : >
The whole point of articulateds is to keep from having to pay two locomotive crews to run two locomotives. MUing* was tried with steam locomotives but it was…impossible.
Electric locomotives were MUed from early on, so when diesel-electric locomotives came on the scene they were equipped for MUing. Five or more electric or diesel-electric locomotives could be MUed without losing the control signals.
* Multiple Unit
What song did you use for the first 2 chapters
Since someone commented about the ATSF 1790 class from WW2, how about the N&W K3 class? The "Water Buffalos" were originally to be 4-8-4s, but became troublesome from Appalachia, to the Potomac, and the Continetal Divide, only to find home and use in Ohio, for the Wheeling & Lake Erie... Then the Nickel Plate!
K3 had the driving wheels cranked to the third axle instead of the second pair.
I love these videos, but I would actually build (or draw in my case) these engines BECAUSE they are bad and because there's a story to it. They also usually have unique looks that distinguish them.
Good video mate, very interesting.
I just found this channel and definitely enjoyed the video. The 2-10-10-2s impressed me in childhood ("bigger numbers are cooler") -- but it sounds as though they were similar to those Erie 2-8-8-8-2 triplexes.
Have you done the latter? And how about the BL-2?
What other early diesels were major flops? GP-15?