Another clue to 'Hurricane' not reaching 100mph by at least a half of that was a complete lack of accurate measurement - 'Railway Time' didn't exist in the UK until November 1840; prior to that, it was all local time and best guesses, such that a train could arrive at a station before it had left the previous one...
It is believable that it got to 100Mph... eventually. But it'd have had near zero torque and would never have been able to pull a train to that speed unless giving something like 200 miles of run up on level track. Which, to be fair, the GWR did have... So if you wanted to run a Cardiff to London express that was non-stop, it could possibly do it. Probably hit 100MPH around swindon and having to slow down at Reading before anything dived off the track, and give the terrible brakes a chance to ensure it stopped in Paddington...
I suppose those huge driving wheels would help the locomotive to reach 100mph, after all, that extra weight ought to help it fall into hell a little bit faster!
Justa person you have actually found footage of the quadraplex locomotive? Is there a link to this video? From what I remember the quadraplex was taken apart and the segments where use for another locomotive that used the wheel arrangement 0-6-2+2-6-2 two of these were built and served in germany for the time before supposedly shipped to Poland where they where retired in 1950 ( I think).
"Trains of the thirties were not long enough to justify this." ... no. Trains in Europe in the thirties were not long enough to justify this. Meanwhile, in the Wasatch Mountains, Union Pacific was taking notes... because American freight cars had twice the axles, five or ten times the weight, and there were a lot more of them.
They weren't changed back, the pre heater was blocked off and the existing smaller boiler used conventionally there is a a school of thought that these 9F's were also re classified as 8F due to their lower tractive effort but there seems to be nothing in official records.
Seeing as how the most bizarre built locomotives got a second part, the same should be done for some truly bizarre UNBUILT official concepts and proposals. Some more examples include: ATSF Cab Foward 6-4-4-4 oil-fired steam Monon 4-10-4 New York Central C1a Baltimore & Ohio Besler Type (W-1 motor) Ace 3000 "modern" STEAM British Rail's 1976 tentative design for double-deck suburban model London Roller-coaster underground monorail London Heathrow Airport's Air Rail (not to confuse with Heathrow's current terminal transit system) Wardale 5AT Boston's unbuilt elevated steam system
Not too weird, but how about George Hughes's technical sketches for a truly monolithic 2-10-0, with a boiler so big, the safety valves were on the SIDE of the boiler, not the top. The Lancashire and Yorkshire missed out because of World War 1, if that happened, the UK would have had a 2-10-0 in 1916!
Since it's been a while, thought I'd re-recommend a locomotive for the worst ever list. Or a new potential list. Onward. Onward was a locomotive with polygon shaped wheels. An American 4-2-2 with 118 sided polygon wheels, built in a time where the 4-2-2 was woefully outdated. I supposed Onward could fit on a mad science list. It was an experiment to prove the designer's belief that polygon shaped wheels were better than round ones. Just proved they were not.
In a nutshell: 1: smol shunter. 2: hot air steam powered locomotives. 3: early failed attempt to break the 100 mph barrier. 4: boiler tender. 5: 9:12 BELGIAN QUADRUPLEX LOCOMOTIVE
i do know that in the 1950s the usa made or tried to make a plane powered by a nuke then there was the attemps at vtol also in the 1950s and the rc bombers FULL of bombs made to kamakazi into bunkers and jfk's older brother died in getting one of these off the ground
Belgium never was under Soviet control. Its a country (some debate to this day it never was and will be a country) In the west of Europe beneath the Netherlands and France and just across the North sea from the UK. Enginering wise Belgium was not far behind the UK. After the UK, Belgium was the second country to start the industrial revolution. The independence war of Belgium from the Netherlands was also caused by this ( poor agricultural North versus rich industrial South ) Most people don't know that Belgium was the second country in the world that had running trains! Lots of UK engineers f.e. Cockerill went to Belgium to start victorian style tech companies to evade taxes and patents in the UK.
@@HistoryintheDark That makes perfect sense. Lots of robbed railway / industrial equipment during the occupation of western Europe by the Nazi's was transported to the east for the war effort. After the iron curtain fell down in Europe that equipment could not return. For current preservation this was a thin gold lining on the long time of depotism in Europe that scared alot of people around the world. That equipment was often used into the 80's and could survive scrapping. f.e a German Reichsbahn locomotive (Class 52) that was 100% garanteed ( all paperwork and logbooks from that engine from new survived ) used in the holocaust came so into preservation. It was specialy overhauled for a WW2 movie and got its original grey Wehrmacht livery from WW2. The contreversy of that engine and livery exploded imediatly worldwide! Fist fights / legal battles broke out about that engine and she had to be 24/7 guarded. Some people wanted that engine imediatly destroyed and ironicly family of holocaust survivers defended that engine fiercly. So that engine became more then just an engine. Her task is now educating a deep black chapter of history to future generations
Interesting... A UP 4-12-2 but 6 cylinders, not 3. I deeply wonder what it would sound like dragging a freight uphill? Would it be ridge framed like the 4-12-2 or articulated? If so where, one point or more? With only one cylinder per axle, how do you make sure you have the ability to rotate the axle every time after a stop? 12 cylinders would be better. (2 per axel, one on each side.)
@@AnonOmis1000 12 axles powered by 12 cylinders. Ok, but, how do you couple the cylinders to the axles so the driving force from one side to the other is out by a quarter turn? You need two cylinders (one on each side) to be sure the axle can be rotated after stopping from any position of the driving gear. (There are places on a circle where a 'single' driving rod can not move a wheel by its own force alone. This is why there is always two or more cylinders driving the axles.)
Around 1900 steam railmotors -- a passenger coach with a steam bogie at one end -- were popular on British railways for branch-line work. The problem there was that to service the 'locomotive' you had to take away the whole 'train.' Drummond's idea with the C14 was, in effect, to make the steam bogie a separate item so that it could be taken away for servicing while a replacement worked the regular services. Unfortunately the C14s were so light that they lacked the adhesion to pull more than one trailer, so the 'separate loco' flexibility was offset by their inability to handle additional traffic demands. Still, they and their S14 sisters worked successfully for quite a few years on the LSWR, SR and even BR. Plus, they were incredibly cute.
NGL the LSWR C14 class may be not effective when it comes to doing its job but it still looks super adorable and i would’ve loved to see one of them preserved for people to see. And the Belgian Quadruplex locomotive looks really interesting and I would like for one of these to still exist and on static display
Er, since when has a loveable little dock tank been a Mad Science Experiment? Ok, maybe it's a loveable dock tank with a superheater, which it technically doesn't need, but come on.....😉
Ah, I see. But I think it was reasonably successful, right? And thus not a "mad science experiment"?. BTW, is one of the other engines fitted with the Druitt-Halparin system, or is that something different? Certainly it looks a bit too small to be Druitt-Halparin, but stranger things have been seen. (And, yes, Darkness, review the Druitt-Halparin system!)
the belgian locomotive used an Italian patent, because the creators were Attilio Franco and Dr Piero Crosti, two italian citizens. This patent was largely used in Italy during and after WW II, but also in GB, BRD, and Ireland, with few success
You certainly got a few lulus there! The C14's were sometimes known as 'Potato Cans' or 'Rockets' - there was a big vogue for this kind of miniature steam railcar type locomotive in the early 1900's, and very few of them were successful. The biggest problem was lack of power and adhesion to cope with peak traffic demands. According to C Hamilton Ellis, the LSWR patriotically donated several to the MOD during the Great War, and were most unwilling to have them back again afterwards. (If you remember the old Triang 'Nellie' engine, it was based on this, or a slightly larger one.) As for the boiler in the tender, both Tom Thumb and Perseverance utilised a fan to blow air through the firebox - and both failed due to problems with the drive belt breaking or slipping. Hurricane was, well, a flop. Isambard Brunel designed this, and another freak named Ajax, and for once his genius outsmarted itself. Someone made a splendid O scale model of Hurricane about forty years ago, and pointed out that, had Brunel not put those carrying wheels under the boiler, but instead hung it bwteeen the two tenders and put another water tank on the leading truck, it could well have been the 'proto Beyer Garrett' and actually worked quite well. Anyway, if you want two more mad engines, have a look at Oliver Bullied's 'Leader' class and his sole CIE 'turfburner' which was a kind of Leader spin-off.
Well in my honest opinion, I don’t have any positive to say about the quadruplex because of how hideous it looks. But even though it’s a little bit successful and more unsuccessful, but that doesn’t mean that I love it. And I would love to see 5 More of the Best Trains ever part 7 with the Nickel Plate Road S2 2-8-4 Berkshires!
8:27 Holy moley!!!! 1931 - Engineers in conference with Franco Crosti: "You absolutely CANNOT make an engine of this size with this ridiculous wheel arrangement!! Are you daft?? Franco Crosti himself: Oh no?? Hold my beer.... **proceeds to build this engine and finally completes it in 1932**
If you’re reading the comments then If there is any locomotive that you need help research just let me know and I will assist with finding the details :)
I Could HAVE SWORN I heard "Alice in Chains" in the background. Played it back harmonica and slide guitar and your powerful introduction. All splendid the same! Great work Darkness
We can laugh and sneer with hindsight but these guys were pushing the new technology to see what worked and what didn't, so occasionally somethings turned out to be lemons but they still learnt useful info.
Has anyone ever made an engine powered by THE COILS OF NIKOLI TESLA! Like broadcasting high voltage or something. If not I claim dibs even though I have no expertise in electricity, or trains.
Going 100mph in a modern diesel locomotive would feel pretty sketchy on the types of track I'm used to so I can't exactly see how that crappy Hurricane would manage it. That would be downright terrifying which is why it must be a lie.
5:48 But wait, there's more... Suppose the locomotive had a full head of steam, going downhill (a very, very steep one) with the wind of a "Hurricane" pushing it??? So, maybe, sure, I suppose it could hit one hundred... in the designer's dreams... I'd like to know how the high-pressure steam got from the boiler (in the center) to the power axle. What kind of articulation did the steam pipe(s) have?
The GWR Hurricane was actually one of two three piece locomotives, that is a locomotive that had separate driving chassis, boiler and tender. The Second was called Thunderer, and differed as an 0-4-0 driven design with two 6' driving axles, that were gear driven with a 10:27 multiplication gearing to reduce cylinder speed.... again not a great result from 1839, buf they did actually move.
1914 in the USA: some sort of train employee, hey guys i got plans to build a quadruplex another train employee: uhh remember when the triplexes failed? well we are not building a quadruplex cuz that would destroy the world 1932 in belgium: belgium train employee: hey Mr. mad science guy, i heard that 18 years ago someone in the USA was planning to build a quadruplex like a 2-8-8-8-8-2, but it was never built, so why don't we make our own quadruplex? mad science guy: oh yes.. we can build a quadruplex, to show off the USA meanwhile in the USA.... the same employee: i have no idea why we can't build a quadruplex... belgian mad science guy: HEY GUYS!! have a look at our new quadruplex! every single train employee: OHH MYY GOOOOOOODDDDD!!!!!!!! RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If I was an steam locomotive dinger I would try and make a steam locomotive that's combining some experimental features like steam turbines compounding fire brike fire box Articulateshon super heaters and more unless it would be to complicated so I would make it simple
The GWR were always the showest of the British companies - something that they resented to the end, hence their frankly laughable claims that their ancient comedy kettles magically ran faster than any of their later, testable, locos could. They built great engines, and had a lovely line - but any claims that they were the fastest at any time is simply laughable.
The Hurricane is definatelly pre-GOOCH, probably one of Isambard Kingdom Brunels wierd inventions, he was a firm devotee of Isaac Watts ideas on LOW STEAM BOILER PRESSURES. I wonder if this is the locomotive of his which running LIGHT... attained such a velocity that when one of his friends asked him what would happen if they met a train coming the other way..."well sir" said the great man, "I beieve our great velocity would cause us to ride over the oncoming train" One assumes and hopes he was joking after all this was in the 1840's :)
@gotellyamum technically... 3 C14s did survive into BR hands. The 3 C14s (all rebuilt from 2-2-0T C14s into 0-4-0T S14s by BR times) lasted until April of 1959 when the final one was withdrawn from departmental stock. As for the other C14s and the two similar S14s, all sold into war usage or industrial usage.
A Soviet hexaplex ? Of course because as the Germans could tell you (41-44) Soviet rails and rail beds were quality stuff definitely capable of supporting something like that . (Or else the infrastructure would all be sent to the gulags )
@@philvanderlaan5942 the wheel arrangement of an 2-2-0 had bit been seen much for seventy years, but everything else was up to date or ahead of it's time on the locomotives. Even the outside valve gear was new and rare for British locomotives Just a few years later a groundbreaking US rail motor innovation used a 2-2-0 or 0-2-2 wheel arrangement for the power truck. That was the pioneering McKeen railmotor used on the Union Pacific and many other lines. Gas or petrol powered though. One running preserved. In Colorado or Utah?
Can anyone validate the claim of my first water treatment company that a steam locomotive engineer developed water treatment by putting his lunch of steamed potatoes into the boiler and forgot about them until the steam drum inspection?
This clip is extremely showy, loud and, somehow, so 'Murican! That does not, however, detract from the history (and the hiccups) of the railway revolution being told here. Failed experiments are the guardrails of successful development in any field. The narration here is rather arrogant - superciliously ridiculing the various failed experiments is very easy in light of all the knowledge now available about the now-extinct stem technology.
Another clue to 'Hurricane' not reaching 100mph by at least a half of that was a complete lack of accurate measurement - 'Railway Time' didn't exist in the UK until November 1840; prior to that, it was all local time and best guesses, such that a train could arrive at a station before it had left the previous one...
It is believable that it got to 100Mph... eventually. But it'd have had near zero torque and would never have been able to pull a train to that speed unless giving something like 200 miles of run up on level track. Which, to be fair, the GWR did have... So if you wanted to run a Cardiff to London express that was non-stop, it could possibly do it. Probably hit 100MPH around swindon and having to slow down at Reading before anything dived off the track, and give the terrible brakes a chance to ensure it stopped in Paddington...
I can believe the Hurricane MAYBE reached 100 mph on a downhill with zero carriages.
I suppose those huge driving wheels would help the locomotive to reach 100mph, after all, that extra weight ought to help it fall into hell a little bit faster!
What's hurricane are you talking about The one from Thomas the tank engine or it's real life equivalent
I like the Belgian Quadruplex now, it has a very handsome looking design
I seen a video the other day of it setting in a field
I want it as a model
It looks like a WWII German armored train
Justa person you have actually found footage of the quadraplex locomotive? Is there a link to this video? From what I remember the quadraplex was taken apart and the segments where use for another locomotive that used the wheel arrangement 0-6-2+2-6-2 two of these were built and served in germany for the time before supposedly shipped to Poland where they where retired in 1950 ( I think).
"Trains of the thirties were not long enough to justify this." ... no. Trains in Europe in the thirties were not long enough to justify this. Meanwhile, in the Wasatch Mountains, Union Pacific was taking notes... because American freight cars had twice the axles, five or ten times the weight, and there were a lot more of them.
For anyone curious, the Belgian quadraplex’s wheel arrangement under the AAR translates to a C-2+2-B-2+B-2+2-C.
What's the AAR
the russian would be 0-3-1+1-2-1-2-1+1-3-0
The Hurricane DID reach 100mph, well. it's driving wheel did, the rest of the locomotive was standing still and the wheel was just spinning at 100
Wheelslip
@@derrosen2769 no, trn brnut
@@Combes_ i mean It wasnt capable of even moving
@@derrosen2769 yea, train burnout
that sounds so funny omfg hhhff
Dockside use sometimes had ridiculously sharp curves, so a short wheelbase was an advantage.
They did give 10 BR Standard 9Fs Franco Crosti boilers. It didn't work and were changed back.
Nicknamed the "Frankly Crusty" by crews, as they were appalling at fire raising and rotted the steam pipes.
They weren't changed back, the pre heater was blocked off and the existing smaller boiler used conventionally there is a a school of thought that these 9F's were also re classified as 8F due to their lower tractive effort but there seems to be nothing in official records.
Seeing as how the most bizarre built locomotives got a second part, the same should be done for some truly bizarre UNBUILT official concepts and proposals.
Some more examples include:
ATSF Cab Foward 6-4-4-4 oil-fired steam
Monon 4-10-4
New York Central C1a
Baltimore & Ohio Besler Type (W-1 motor)
Ace 3000 "modern" STEAM
British Rail's 1976 tentative design for double-deck suburban model
London Roller-coaster underground monorail
London Heathrow Airport's Air Rail (not to confuse with Heathrow's current terminal transit system)
Wardale 5AT
Boston's unbuilt elevated steam system
Not too weird, but how about George Hughes's technical sketches for a truly monolithic 2-10-0, with a boiler so big, the safety valves were on the SIDE of the boiler, not the top. The Lancashire and Yorkshire missed out because of World War 1, if that happened, the UK would have had a 2-10-0 in 1916!
Since it's been a while, thought I'd re-recommend a locomotive for the worst ever list. Or a new potential list. Onward.
Onward was a locomotive with polygon shaped wheels. An American 4-2-2 with 118 sided polygon wheels, built in a time where the 4-2-2 was woefully outdated.
I supposed Onward could fit on a mad science list. It was an experiment to prove the designer's belief that polygon shaped wheels were better than round ones. Just proved they were not.
Wait, what the fuck?? I have to look this one up...
Oh, that is SO going on the list someday...
@@PowerTrain611 Wait what the F### U Sed the F Word?
@@zingxiu6123 people can say fuck ya know.
Holy crap. I looked it up and it was real. I apologize for not believing you. Omg that is so bonkers it boggles the mind.
In a nutshell:
1: smol shunter.
2: hot air steam powered locomotives.
3: early failed attempt to break the 100 mph barrier.
4: boiler tender.
5: 9:12
BELGIAN
QUADRUPLEX
LOCOMOTIVE
The most interesting designs are always the experimental ones. Be it aircraft, ships, tanks etc.
i do know that in the 1950s the usa made or tried to make a plane powered by a nuke then there was the attemps at vtol also in the 1950s and the rc bombers FULL of bombs made to kamakazi into bunkers and jfk's older brother died in getting one of these off the ground
That GWR thing... I mean I could see the drivers spinning at the equivalent of 100mph maybe.
Same. Big wheels were the solution of the day to get high speeds. But they lost tractive effort so quickly like that.
I can now be proud of being Belgian, because ... QUADRUPLEEEEEEEX
All they had to do was send the Belgian Quadraplex to the USA, they would’ve wore it out
Belgium never was under Soviet control.
Its a country (some debate to this day it never was and will be a country) In the west of Europe beneath the Netherlands and France and just across the North sea from the UK.
Enginering wise Belgium was not far behind the UK.
After the UK, Belgium was the second country to start the industrial revolution.
The independence war of Belgium from the Netherlands was also caused by this ( poor agricultural North versus rich industrial South )
Most people don't know that Belgium was the second country in the world that had running trains!
Lots of UK engineers f.e. Cockerill went to Belgium to start victorian style tech companies to evade taxes and patents in the UK.
I never said it was. The two smaller models fell into German hands. Then the Soviets after East Germany became a thing.
@@HistoryintheDark That makes perfect sense.
Lots of robbed railway / industrial equipment during the occupation of western Europe by the Nazi's was transported to the east for the war effort.
After the iron curtain fell down in Europe that equipment could not return.
For current preservation this was a thin gold lining on the long time of depotism in Europe that scared alot of people around the world.
That equipment was often used into the 80's and could survive scrapping.
f.e a German Reichsbahn locomotive (Class 52) that was 100% garanteed ( all paperwork and logbooks from that engine from new survived ) used in the holocaust came so into preservation.
It was specialy overhauled for a WW2 movie and got its original grey Wehrmacht livery from WW2.
The contreversy of that engine and livery exploded imediatly worldwide!
Fist fights / legal battles broke out about that engine and she had to be 24/7 guarded.
Some people wanted that engine imediatly destroyed and ironicly family of holocaust survivers defended that engine fiercly.
So that engine became more then just an engine. Her task is now educating a deep black chapter of history to future generations
I believe the Hurricane could achieve 100 mph, without any wagons behind. Anything beyond the tender and it’s not going anywhere fast.
I kinda wish someone would make like a x-2-2-2-2-2-2-x essentially a x-12-x but with a cylinder to each axel, just so you can say a hexaplex exists.
Interesting... A UP 4-12-2 but 6 cylinders, not 3. I deeply wonder what it would sound like dragging a freight uphill? Would it be ridge framed like the 4-12-2 or articulated? If so where, one point or more? With only one cylinder per axle, how do you make sure you have the ability to rotate the axle every time after a stop? 12 cylinders would be better. (2 per axel, one on each side.)
@@thomasboese3793 12 cylinders is what I meant.
@@AnonOmis1000 12 axles powered by 12 cylinders. Ok, but, how do you couple the cylinders to the axles so the driving force from one side to the other is out by a quarter turn? You need two cylinders (one on each side) to be sure the axle can be rotated after stopping from any position of the driving gear.
(There are places on a circle where a 'single' driving rod can not move a wheel by its own force alone. This is why there is always two or more cylinders driving the axles.)
Quandruplex is a thing....i can rest easy now
You gotta wonder why the issues with the LSWR C4 were not thought of earlier in the development process, and maybe stopped it's development at all.
Around 1900 steam railmotors -- a passenger coach with a steam bogie at one end -- were popular on British railways for branch-line work. The problem there was that to service the 'locomotive' you had to take away the whole 'train.' Drummond's idea with the C14 was, in effect, to make the steam bogie a separate item so that it could be taken away for servicing while a replacement worked the regular services. Unfortunately the C14s were so light that they lacked the adhesion to pull more than one trailer, so the 'separate loco' flexibility was offset by their inability to handle additional traffic demands. Still, they and their S14 sisters worked successfully for quite a few years on the LSWR, SR and even BR. Plus, they were incredibly cute.
NGL the LSWR C14 class may be not effective when it comes to doing its job but it still looks super adorable and i would’ve loved to see one of them preserved for people to see. And the Belgian Quadruplex locomotive looks really interesting and I would like for one of these to still exist and on static display
Er, since when has a loveable little dock tank been a Mad Science Experiment? Ok, maybe it's a loveable dock tank with a superheater, which it technically doesn't need, but come on.....😉
@gotellyamum introduced to do single carriage duties like a railmotor but be more flexible.
Ah, I see. But I think it was reasonably successful, right? And thus not a "mad science experiment"?. BTW, is one of the other engines fitted with the Druitt-Halparin system, or is that something different? Certainly it looks a bit too small to be Druitt-Halparin, but stranger things have been seen. (And, yes, Darkness, review the Druitt-Halparin system!)
The costi locomotive is a monster beast 🦾🚂
the belgian locomotive used an Italian patent, because the creators were Attilio Franco and Dr Piero Crosti, two italian citizens. This patent was largely used in Italy during and after WW II, but also in GB, BRD, and Ireland, with few success
I see the quadraplex is in here nice :)
You certainly got a few lulus there! The C14's were sometimes known as 'Potato Cans' or 'Rockets' - there was a big vogue for this kind of miniature steam railcar type locomotive in the early 1900's, and very few of them were successful. The biggest problem was lack of power and adhesion to cope with peak traffic demands.
According to C Hamilton Ellis, the LSWR patriotically donated several to the MOD during the Great War, and were most unwilling to have them back again afterwards. (If you remember the old Triang 'Nellie' engine, it was based on this, or a slightly larger one.)
As for the boiler in the tender, both Tom Thumb and Perseverance utilised a fan to blow air through the firebox - and both failed due to problems with the drive belt breaking or slipping.
Hurricane was, well, a flop. Isambard Brunel designed this, and another freak named Ajax, and for once his genius outsmarted itself. Someone made a splendid O scale model of Hurricane about forty years ago, and pointed out that, had Brunel not put those carrying wheels under the boiler, but instead hung it bwteeen the two tenders and put another water tank on the leading truck, it could well have been the 'proto Beyer Garrett' and actually worked quite well.
Anyway, if you want two more mad engines, have a look at Oliver Bullied's 'Leader' class and his sole CIE 'turfburner' which was a kind of Leader spin-off.
The Turf Burner, aka Leader Mk 2 was very successful having ironed out many of the problems that any genuine prototype will doubtless have.
You need to check out Union Pacific Coal Turbine 8080.
One great idea on paper, not so much in steel.
The two GE steam turbines for the UP didn't last as long as the 8080 did.
Well in my honest opinion, I don’t have any positive to say about the quadruplex because of how hideous it looks. But even though it’s a little bit successful and more unsuccessful, but that doesn’t mean that I love it.
And I would love to see 5 More of the Best Trains ever part 7 with the Nickel Plate Road S2 2-8-4 Berkshires!
I can think of a couple kdeas for future videos. Like the "Hairy Mary" and the GNSR Cochran rail motors.
Nichols Boiler: Who are you?
Camelback: I’m you, but better
8:27 Holy moley!!!!
1931 - Engineers in conference with Franco Crosti:
"You absolutely CANNOT make an engine of this size with this ridiculous wheel arrangement!!
Are you daft??
Franco Crosti himself:
Oh no?? Hold my beer....
**proceeds to build this engine and finally completes it in 1932**
how powerful is it.
Franco-Crosti: UNSPEAKBLY POWERFUL!
😱an actual quadraplex
If you’re reading the comments then If there is any locomotive that you need help research just let me know and I will assist with finding the details :)
The last locomotive reminded me of a Saxon 1m or 99 161 under the Deutsche Reichsbahn 🤔
that quadraplex is effectively the class 13 of duplex locomotives
The Belgian big chungus
yessssssssssssssssssssssssss
Seems that the C14 were built more as a novelty then anything else
9:12 now I’m a little motivated.
I Could HAVE SWORN I heard "Alice in Chains" in the background. Played it back harmonica and slide guitar and your powerful introduction. All splendid the same! Great work Darkness
6:15
"Nutty" Nichols
VR Trooper Pun Intended
We can laugh and sneer with hindsight but these guys were pushing the new technology to see what worked and what didn't, so occasionally somethings turned out to be lemons but they still learnt useful info.
Has anyone ever made an engine powered by THE COILS OF NIKOLI TESLA! Like broadcasting high voltage or something. If not I claim dibs even though I have no expertise in electricity, or trains.
tesla tanks / base defence coils are a thing in the command and conquer games universe. Tesla trains must be easy 😉
Do what Tesla did, dream big and build bigger! Remember he got all of his designs from his dreams... Go for it. What do you have to lose?
have any of these videos covered the Rio Turbio 750mm gauge 2-10-2s? 76 tonne sluggers capable of pulling 3000 tonnes of train
You can never have "too much power"
The Beyer Garratt in NZ failed because (among other reasons) it pulled coupler drawbars being too powerful.
Going 100mph in a modern diesel locomotive would feel pretty sketchy on the types of track I'm used to so I can't exactly see how that crappy Hurricane would manage it. That would be downright terrifying which is why it must be a lie.
I can’t wait for the Paget locomotive.
5:48 But wait, there's more...
Suppose the locomotive had a full head of steam, going downhill (a very, very steep one) with the wind of a "Hurricane" pushing it???
So, maybe, sure, I suppose it could hit one hundred... in the designer's dreams...
I'd like to know how the high-pressure steam got from the boiler (in the center) to the power axle. What kind of articulation did the steam pipe(s) have?
see, this guy knows how to do bedding music.
theres a subtle, almost inaudible industrial metal track playing...
makes all the difference.
You ought to cover the "Galloping Goose".
"Yeah whatever Dib. You said you saw Bigfoot in your garage."
"He was using the belt sander"
QUADPLEX ...... WHAT 9:11
I have to ask whether the Swiss electrically powered steam locomotives count as mad science projects
I’ve noticed that there really were no mad science experiments done with diesels or electrics
The GWR Hurricane was actually one of two three piece locomotives, that is a locomotive that had separate driving chassis, boiler and tender. The Second was called Thunderer, and differed as an 0-4-0 driven design with two 6' driving axles, that were gear driven with a 10:27 multiplication gearing to reduce cylinder speed.... again not a great result from 1839, buf they did actually move.
What about the aa20
We dont talk about aa20
**derailing noises coming from the yard**
@@NBRailfan you heard nothing
*instrumental from We don’t talk about Bruno plays *
@@mistermadmachine6311 that was what i was thinking lol
1914 in the USA:
some sort of train employee, hey guys i got plans to build a quadruplex
another train employee: uhh remember when the triplexes failed? well we are not building a quadruplex cuz that would destroy the world
1932 in belgium:
belgium train employee: hey Mr. mad science guy, i heard that 18 years ago someone in the USA was planning to build a quadruplex like a 2-8-8-8-8-2, but it was never built, so why don't we make our own quadruplex?
mad science guy: oh yes.. we can build a quadruplex, to show off the USA
meanwhile in the USA....
the same employee: i have no idea why we can't build a quadruplex...
belgian mad science guy: HEY GUYS!! have a look at our new quadruplex!
every single train employee: OHH MYY GOOOOOOODDDDD!!!!!!!! RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If I was an steam locomotive dinger I would try and make a steam locomotive that's combining some experimental features like steam turbines compounding fire brike fire box
Articulateshon super heaters and more unless it would be to complicated so I would make it simple
God I am so glad I found out about the Franco-Crosti locomotive through you XD
Next up top 10 reasons why I hate adding British railway engines lol
The first one is FUCKING ADORABLE!,!!!
Lady from Thomas and the Magic Railroad being based on a real-life engine is sick
BARE WITNESS TO THIS *UNSPEAKABLE POWER*
When you were hyping up #1 and showing the image of it, I thought it was a weird Garratt steam locomotive
10:19 that’s actually 37 miles per hour
The GWR were always the showest of the British companies - something that they resented to the end, hence their frankly laughable claims that their ancient comedy kettles magically ran faster than any of their later, testable, locos could. They built great engines, and had a lovely line - but any claims that they were the fastest at any time is simply laughable.
Brunel really was an ambitious man.
This video turned form normal to boss mode real quick
The Hurricane is definatelly pre-GOOCH, probably one of Isambard Kingdom Brunels wierd inventions, he was a firm devotee of Isaac Watts ideas on LOW STEAM BOILER PRESSURES. I wonder if this is the locomotive of his which running LIGHT... attained such a velocity that when one of his friends asked him what would happen if they met a train coming the other way..."well sir" said the great man, "I beieve our great velocity would cause us to ride over the oncoming train" One assumes and hopes he was joking after all this was in the 1840's :)
No BR?
@gotellyamum technically...
3 C14s did survive into BR hands.
The 3 C14s (all rebuilt from 2-2-0T C14s into 0-4-0T S14s by BR times) lasted until April of 1959 when the final one was withdrawn from departmental stock.
As for the other C14s and the two similar S14s, all sold into war usage or industrial usage.
@@godzillahomer all converted to 0-4-0T locos by 1921. Then provided light duties until 1959.
Inspired the Triang Nellie types.
@@johnd8892 my thoughts are that in 1907 the 2-2-0 design was about 70 years out of date.
A Soviet hexaplex ? Of course because as the Germans could tell you (41-44) Soviet rails and rail beds were quality stuff definitely capable of supporting something like that . (Or else the infrastructure would all be sent to the gulags )
@@philvanderlaan5942 the wheel arrangement of an 2-2-0 had bit been seen much for seventy years, but everything else was up to date or ahead of it's time on the locomotives. Even the outside valve gear was new and rare for British locomotives
Just a few years later a groundbreaking US rail motor innovation used a 2-2-0 or 0-2-2 wheel arrangement for the power truck. That was the pioneering McKeen railmotor used on the Union Pacific and many other lines. Gas or petrol powered though. One running preserved. In Colorado or Utah?
THATS INSANE!!!!!
5:07 Another interesting thing, how would something that long turn? Articulated locomotives did not exist in that era.
Would the huracan be considered a garrote
Thomas! (#5 is clearly Thomas the Tank engine)
8:56 REPLICA TIME
why don't we name the quadruplex "TRAINZILLA"
9:12
Nothing ventured , nothing gained .
9:12 Ok Who Photoshoped this
8:31 oh no
U N S P E A K A B L E P O W E R
Big Boy meets BIG BELGIUM MAN
It wasn't a quad it was a biduplex.
Holy shit Belgium...
Bro built a quadruplex 💀
9:12 quadrplex steam locomotive!!! (:
Heat the steam? Surely you meant heat the water which then vaporised to steam. Maybe you also referred to superheated steam.
Oh what can’t they do…
Can anyone validate the claim of my first water treatment company that a steam locomotive engineer developed water treatment by putting his lunch of steamed potatoes into the boiler and forgot about them until the steam drum inspection?
So screwed up Garrett
Belgium Belgium Belgium Belgium
This clip is extremely showy, loud and, somehow, so 'Murican! That does not, however, detract from the history (and the hiccups) of the railway revolution being told here. Failed experiments are the guardrails of successful development in any field.
The narration here is rather arrogant - superciliously ridiculing the various failed experiments is very easy in light of all the knowledge now available about the now-extinct stem technology.
No these are not trains, they are locomotives.
First!