Awesome! Another episode of Garbage On The Rails! These are awesome and you should keep on doing these! And you should definitely cover the HHP-8s someday for these series. Those were maintenance nightmares for Amtrak.
@@SP4449productionsdon´t you mean SDP40F ? Too bad none survived. May be with modern technology and computer they could have find what went wrong with them.
@@SP4449productions The SDP40Fs never had to go in for maintenance every 12 days. Meanwhile the SDP40Fs were usually pretty reliable when they weren't derailing. I believe that if the SDP40Fs were fitted with HEP, they would have been more successful and wouldn't have derailed as much.
The Triplex, though a failure, was built to overcome a significant grade on the Erie between Lake Erie and the steel industries the Erie was servicing. It was only expected to do a heavy pull for about 15 miles in one direction. All the points you make are true, but not all inclusive. railroad locomotive design engineers were struggling to understand the steam demands of locomotives as they grew in size. The Mikados were an insight, with the small trailing truck allowing for a wider, larger fire box. More firebox = more heat = more steam = more engine horsepower is sustainable for a longer time. The Triplex ignored this learning as stated. The Triplex was never intended to do long mainline runs, so it didn't carry much of a fuel or water load. Part of the slippage issue could have been improved had the Erie adopted putting the engine water in a cistern car behind the fuel carrying tender. Hauling only coal in the tender would have resulted in the weight of the tender remaining heavy enough to counter act some of the wheel slippage.
More specifically, compounding defied all the equations engineers used to use up until the late 20’s, early 30’s, and even then they were just starting to understand how to properly calculate the relationships between steam generation, steam heat, weight, cylinder size, and tractive effort in compounds. They had just come out of en era where superheating simple expansion locos was seen as literally superior to compounding (even if the compounds had a superheater, since it wasn’t until the turn of the 30’s that cylinder oil could withstand more that 400 degree steam, meaning the low pressure cylinders prior to that would still condensate)
Sugestion for someone who wants to build a replica of a Erie/Virginian triplex: Have the 1st and 2nd driving whells powered, and the 3rd set of driving wheels unpowered, and make the tender detachable from the engine.
Although the best idea to make a new triplex is to: 1: concrete blocks in the tender like how N&W used concrete blocks on the forward unit of the Y6B because of the Variable valve plumbing. 2: switch places of the mid section with the high pressure steam to the tender and reverse it so it faces the rear making room in the firebox and make it a triple compound taking after the triple expansion steam engine off a steam ship. 3: enlarge the tender as a massive coal bunker instead of oil since coal is heavier and just have a separate water tender. (and I personally hate oil burners because of the Durango & Silverton just because of only wanting to run them instead of diesels which will prolong the 10year boiler ticket) 4: Auxiliary tenders for water. 5: superheated steam and Geisel stacks
Their fireboxes were so inadequate that it was impossible to keep up a head of steam, the joke on the Erie was that the coolest place on the railroad on a hot day was the cab of the Matt H. Shay!
See the text at the moment I bring up the Virginian railway. They covered mountainous territory, and hauled a heck load of coal like their parent company Norfolk and Western.
It would further make sense why North America never invested in the Garatts and just favored mallet types instead. I don’t know if South America had any articulateds, let alone what types.
@@AndrewTheRocketCityRailfan4014 the had some nice mallets in Brazil and some NG mallets in Argentine. Remember a ride in a freight car on the Trans Andino from Argentine to Chile in 1968 behind a 2-6-6-0 which looked a bit like a D&SL / D&RGW # 200 -209/L 76. Regular passenger service was discontinued during that time due to border tensions.
The new Wooden Railway James I got from Amazon is an articulated steam engine, much like big engines like Gordon and Henry were in the Wooden Railway brand.
Nice presentation... Baldwin had some pretty wacky failures that Alco and Lima didn't seem to duplicate. It's been said that Baldwin were more the quantity over quality locomotive builder, with Alco and others building better quality, less problem prone locomotives (at least steam locomotives, Alco's failures with some of their diesels eventually killed the company).
And you are the next one, who had read the normal stuff about these locos. Okay, the VIRGINIAN 700 was a failure because more powerful than the P1 , with less weight = more slippery. The P1 weight 383t not 583t. The slow speed was not a big problem , because other mallets where not faster at that time. Steam is a problem, and Erie chanced the water pumps on 5014. Build with piston pumps , later turbo pumps. The tender unit had a higher axle load than the loco ones and a different piston valve seting to limit the tractive effort off the tender. I believe it was not perfect, but a way for more powerful locos.
@0:13 the SNCF isn't Communisim, it's Socialism - and that is a highly sucsessful and influencial TGV. And the Chemins de fer de l'Ouest was private enterprise.
@@shaunnesbit1698most steam engines have steam lines that go into the tender tank, off of the injector. Good use for winter time, but kinda useless since in hot weather the sun can heat the tender tank itself. It's just a problem of having an itty bitty firebox.
What if they built a 2-4-4-4-2 in stead of 2-8-8-8-2, they might of fit all the wheels under the boiler but it would be significantly weaker so I don’t know
It would have exceeded the maximum axle loading by a considerable degree. But otherwise, the locomotive's rated tractive effort would have remained the same.
I have an idea for the next DOA/GOTR episode, British Rail's Class 21s. They are the locomotive equivalent of the DC-10. Edit: The 29s are related to them. Kinda.
Someone explain to me how this is a failure, but the Belgium Quadroplex wasn't. Mind you the quadruplex was slower, fewer in number, more steam hungry, and lasted shorter than the triplexes
FINALLY. You turned you mic up enough so I can actually here you talk in the videos
American locos never fail to amaze me. Gigantic , powerful and wacky.
We get it. “Fail”
Strangely they used standard gauge 1435 mm they should use Russiaan broad gauge 1520 mm or Indian broad gauge 1676 mm
Soviet experiments were as bad, if not worst.
I have walked so that later articulated locomotives could run!
Nah, you and the ASTF 3000s *crawled, stumbled and tripped* so that other articulateds could run
@@Combes_ HEY! show some respect! he tried his best!
@@LongIslandRailfanner I guess, but they're still failures when all's said and done (I ill admit they ARE intriguing)
nice video! also love the outro music, bf1 so good
Awesome! Another episode of Garbage On The Rails! These are awesome and you should keep on doing these! And you should definitely cover the HHP-8s someday for these series. Those were maintenance nightmares for Amtrak.
Have you heard of amtraks sdf40
@@SP4449productionsdon´t you mean SDP40F ?
Too bad none survived. May be with modern technology and computer they could have find what went wrong with them.
@@SP4449productions The SDP40Fs never had to go in for maintenance every 12 days. Meanwhile the SDP40Fs were usually pretty reliable when they weren't derailing. I believe that if the SDP40Fs were fitted with HEP, they would have been more successful and wouldn't have derailed as much.
Go Big Or Go Home will always amaze me as well as these two locomotives
The Triplex, though a failure, was built to overcome a significant grade on the Erie between Lake Erie and the steel industries the Erie was servicing. It was only expected to do a heavy pull for about 15 miles in one direction. All the points you make are true, but not all inclusive. railroad locomotive design engineers were struggling to understand the steam demands of locomotives as they grew in size. The Mikados were an insight, with the small trailing truck allowing for a wider, larger fire box. More firebox = more heat = more steam = more engine horsepower is sustainable for a longer time. The Triplex ignored this learning as stated. The Triplex was never intended to do long mainline runs, so it didn't carry much of a fuel or water load. Part of the slippage issue could have been improved had the Erie adopted putting the engine water in a cistern car behind the fuel carrying tender. Hauling only coal in the tender would have resulted in the weight of the tender remaining heavy enough to counter act some of the wheel slippage.
More specifically, compounding defied all the equations engineers used to use up until the late 20’s, early 30’s, and even then they were just starting to understand how to properly calculate the relationships between steam generation, steam heat, weight, cylinder size, and tractive effort in compounds. They had just come out of en era where superheating simple expansion locos was seen as literally superior to compounding (even if the compounds had a superheater, since it wasn’t until the turn of the 30’s that cylinder oil could withstand more that 400 degree steam, meaning the low pressure cylinders prior to that would still condensate)
Sugestion for someone who wants to build a replica of a Erie/Virginian triplex:
Have the 1st and 2nd driving whells powered, and the 3rd set of driving wheels unpowered, and make the tender detachable from the engine.
I remember the end of Steam on the N&W, i miss seeing them they felt alive unlike Diesel locos
Although the best idea to make a new triplex is to:
1: concrete blocks in the tender like how N&W used concrete blocks on the forward unit of the Y6B because of the Variable valve plumbing.
2: switch places of the mid section with the high pressure steam to the tender and reverse it so it faces the rear making room in the firebox and make it a triple compound taking after the triple expansion steam engine off a steam ship.
3: enlarge the tender as a massive coal bunker instead of oil since coal is heavier and just have a separate water tender. (and I personally hate oil burners because of the Durango & Silverton just because of only wanting to run them instead of diesels which will prolong the 10year boiler ticket)
4: Auxiliary tenders for water.
5: superheated steam and Geisel stacks
I want to see the Fontaine locomotives next
Great video,👍, ❤ , thank you
I will say that the triplexes were very unique steam locomotives but my goodness did these engines have so many problems that plagued them
Their fireboxes were so inadequate that it was impossible to keep up a head of steam, the joke on the Erie was that the coolest place on the railroad on a hot day was the cab of the Matt H. Shay!
Bro got the best Chanel
Why does the Virginian always have huge locomotives?
They got 2-10-10-2s, 2-8-8-8-4s, 2-6-6-6s, and also that 2-8-8-0 they got off the triplex
See the text at the moment I bring up the Virginian railway. They covered mountainous territory, and hauled a heck load of coal like their parent company Norfolk and Western.
@@AndrewTheRocketCityRailfan4014 yes, it’s like the UP of the East-ish
@@AndrewTheRocketCityRailfan4014 N&W was not the parent company of the Virginian. They merged in 1959.
Because they would run 100 Battleship Gondola trains weighting 16000 short tons.
The third drive trains had a problem traction was decreasing when the watertank got empty, same problem with Garrats and any tank engines
.
It would further make sense why North America never invested in the Garatts and just favored mallet types instead. I don’t know if South America had any articulateds, let alone what types.
@@AndrewTheRocketCityRailfan4014 the had some nice mallets in Brazil and some NG mallets in Argentine. Remember a ride in a freight car on the Trans Andino from Argentine to Chile in 1968
behind a 2-6-6-0 which looked a bit like a D&SL / D&RGW # 200 -209/L 76. Regular passenger service was discontinued during that time due to border tensions.
The new Wooden Railway James I got from Amazon is an articulated steam engine, much like big engines like Gordon and Henry were in the Wooden Railway brand.
Nice presentation... Baldwin had some pretty wacky failures that Alco and Lima didn't seem to duplicate. It's been said that Baldwin were more the quantity over quality locomotive builder, with Alco and others building better quality, less problem prone locomotives (at least steam locomotives, Alco's failures with some of their diesels eventually killed the company).
Interesting Story. And you used the german navy march ''Frei Weg'' as background-music😊
According to the UA-cam library it’s actually US marine band song
And you are the next one, who had read the normal stuff about these locos.
Okay, the VIRGINIAN 700 was a failure because more powerful than the P1 , with less weight = more slippery.
The P1 weight 383t not 583t.
The slow speed was not a big problem , because other mallets where not faster at that time.
Steam is a problem, and Erie chanced the water pumps on 5014.
Build with piston pumps , later turbo pumps.
The tender unit had a higher axle load than the loco ones and a different piston valve seting to limit the tractive effort off the tender.
I believe it was not perfect, but a way for more powerful locos.
It's too bad that none are left! It would be neat to see a real one on display. I wouldn't mind being a model of one though.
Hey! We do not take the name "Triplex" in vane in this household!
Besides the triplex there where plans for quadruplex and quintuplex locomotives which were never built
Ironically, Belgium actually made a quadruplex locomotive
Suggestion
Garbage on the rails British Railways Pacers BR Classes 140, 141, 142, 143 and 144 because it’s a bus body on a motorised wagon chassis
Suggestion: PRR Q1
@0:13 the SNCF isn't Communisim, it's Socialism - and that is a highly sucsessful and influencial TGV. And the Chemins de fer de l'Ouest was private enterprise.
It was just a train meme not a serious pic
filling it up with preheated water would have made a big improvement
Yeah, but widespread use and equipping of feedwater heaters didn’t happen until the 1920s.
@@AndrewTheRocketCityRailfan4014 I am talking about using a stationary boiler or some other means to fill the tender
@@shaunnesbit1698most steam engines have steam lines that go into the tender tank, off of the injector. Good use for winter time, but kinda useless since in hot weather the sun can heat the tender tank itself. It's just a problem of having an itty bitty firebox.
What if they built a 2-4-4-4-2 in stead of 2-8-8-8-2, they might of fit all the wheels under the boiler but it would be significantly weaker so I don’t know
Probably would make it make powerful from the locomotive thanks to the extra cylinders under it
It would have exceeded the maximum axle loading by a considerable degree. But otherwise, the locomotive's rated tractive effort would have remained the same.
there would have been no point since a 2-6-6-2 would have had just as much traction effort and less complexity.
@@paulmenkens5997 2-6-6-2 would be a four cylinder locomotive, though - thus less tractive effort.
I have an idea for the next DOA/GOTR episode, British Rail's Class 21s. They are the locomotive equivalent of the DC-10.
Edit: The 29s are related to them. Kinda.
0:11
Obscenely based
I thought the largest ever loco was a 2-8-8-8-2. Obviously I was misled
Man, they are so slow that my walking speed can beat these hunks of junk.
Someone explain to me how this is a failure, but the Belgium Quadroplex wasn't. Mind you the quadruplex was slower, fewer in number, more steam hungry, and lasted shorter than the triplexes
How to fix them. Extend the boiler and add a tender.
Did they try a little Bull Frog Snot? ;)
That’s gross, but a funny joke
It works on model trains. :)@@AndrewTheRocketCityRailfan4014
The XA must be the slowest train in the world
Definitely the slowest articulated locomotive I know of
they could have just modified a coal car, and a tank car for oil/water.
Yeah, but that would only give them more fuel to use but not solve the issues and just drive up operating costs
@@AndrewTheRocketCityRailfan4014 it was just an idea.
What the hell is a triplex
1. Mind any children present
2. It says it in the video
(2-10-10-10-10-10-2+3D)