I saw this locomotive. It is actually amazing exhibit. The size is spectacular. I think the interesting story that is rarely talked about it how they got this massive locomotive through the Philadelphia streets and into the franklin museum, needing to knock down a wall to fit it through.
I'd love to see a comparison of the Baldwin 60000 with the SP & UP SP-Type 4-10-2's. How were the SP & UP versions successful while the Baldwin failed?
I am not an expert by any means but I have researched the SP and UP Overlands pretty considerably so I can make a guess. The two railroads that had proved their desire for and willingness to build large rigid frame non-duplex locomotives already had the exact locomotives they were looking for, buying a separate but similar class would be foolish especially considering the SP deemed theirs too good to scrap and too maintenance heavy/niche to replicate while the UP deemed theirs not big enough and went ahead with ordering the 9000s. If any other railroad wanted 4-10-2s they may have gotten 60000 or an engine like her but the two that wanted them already had decent ones. Sorry for the essay but I find these engines super fascinating!
Three cylinder two stage mono block compounds have the potential to be better than the compound engines that were installed on Mallets. The engines on mallets are effectively two cylinder compounds and the separation of the cylinders results in an efficiency loss. Three cylinder two stage compounds can have a greater volume of expansion to cylinder volume ratio. To my knowledge the 60,000 was the only American loco with a 3 cylinder compound which is a shame because if it succeeded it could have led to further developments.
I think you are right, but i know only 1 really good 3 cylinder compound : SNCF 242 A 1. There are many mistakes made i on compounds, especially 3 cylinder compounds. Examble Volume Ratio 1:2 like the 60000, better is 1:2.5 or higher.
@@martinanschutz7410 Yes. Porta concluded that compounds are better in the long run but they were scarcely used because designing a good one is much more difficult than designing a good simple expansion engine.
I could not find the blueprints for the 60000 for the video.. But I believe in this case it was part of the compounding process for the inside cylinders of the design. Did the Pennsy loco's have boosters on them?
ONE REASON THE PENNSY WAS NOT IMPRESSED WAS IT WAS THE SAME HP AS THE 2-10-0 I1's DECAPOD (( HIPPO)) WITH 22,000 LBS LESS IN TRACTIVE EFFORT THAN THE HIPPO HAD
Word to the wise and I truly mean no offense, turn your gain down next time you record. Your narrative was recorded too hot, making it a little distorted.
Too heavy, too complicated. I have been on its footplate in the Franklin, surrounded by kids on a school trip. I remember thinking that it would have been better to preserve a proven, typical loco with a history of real service.
The other reason it's a good choice (aside from availability as surplus to requirements) is that it's still got all the original fireplate equipment fitted, something few other surviving locomotives of the era still have.
I saw this locomotive.
It is actually amazing exhibit.
The size is spectacular. I think the interesting story that is rarely talked about it how they got this massive locomotive through the Philadelphia streets and into the franklin museum, needing to knock down a wall to fit it through.
I thought the museum was still being constructed.. and they brought the loco in through a unfinished wall section??
@@TheRailroadCrossing-SteamPoweryou are correct. But still interesting
It would be interesting to see the design books of locos that never got manufactured.
I've seen the British LM&S documentary on casting these 3 cylinder engines with the frame. Complex. Probably hard to service.
That was one of the gripes that I read on this loco.. You are correct!
I'd love to see a comparison of the Baldwin 60000 with the SP & UP SP-Type 4-10-2's. How were the SP & UP versions successful while the Baldwin failed?
I am not an expert by any means but I have researched the SP and UP Overlands pretty considerably so I can make a guess. The two railroads that had proved their desire for and willingness to build large rigid frame non-duplex locomotives already had the exact locomotives they were looking for, buying a separate but similar class would be foolish especially considering the SP deemed theirs too good to scrap and too maintenance heavy/niche to replicate while the UP deemed theirs not big enough and went ahead with ordering the 9000s. If any other railroad wanted 4-10-2s they may have gotten 60000 or an engine like her but the two that wanted them already had decent ones. Sorry for the essay but I find these engines super fascinating!
Three cylinder two stage mono block compounds have the potential to be better than the compound engines that were installed on Mallets. The engines on mallets are effectively two cylinder compounds and the separation of the cylinders results in an efficiency loss. Three cylinder two stage compounds can have a greater volume of expansion to cylinder volume ratio. To my knowledge the 60,000 was the only American loco with a 3 cylinder compound which is a shame because if it succeeded it could have led to further developments.
I think you are right, but i know only 1 really good 3 cylinder compound : SNCF 242 A 1. There are many mistakes made i
on compounds, especially 3 cylinder compounds. Examble Volume Ratio 1:2 like the 60000, better is 1:2.5 or higher.
@@martinanschutz7410 Yes. Porta concluded that compounds are better in the long run but they were scarcely used because designing a good one is much more difficult than designing a good simple expansion engine.
What are those giant pipes on either side of 60000's firebox?
I've seen them on some Pennsy locos and I'm still trying to figure out what it is
I could not find the blueprints for the 60000 for the video.. But I believe in this case it was part of the compounding process for the inside cylinders of the design. Did the Pennsy loco's have boosters on them?
@@TheRailroadCrossing-SteamPower not that in aware of
Great job on the research and presentation! Thanks for the hard work!
Thanks for watching!
ONE REASON THE PENNSY WAS NOT IMPRESSED WAS IT WAS
THE SAME HP AS THE 2-10-0 I1's DECAPOD (( HIPPO))
WITH 22,000 LBS LESS IN TRACTIVE EFFORT THAN THE HIPPO HAD
Hippo or the Texas? Because The Q2 wasn't really out performing Texas below 50 mph.
Someone NEEDS to buy Baldwin 60000 and RESTORE it. AND I *DON’T* mean cosmetically.
This engine was jinxed by a radical design that was a little bit too different for the potential customers.
Agreed.. However if allowed to continue.. Those locomotives built in the 1940's with water tube boilers might not have failed.
Does it still exist somewhere?
Franklin Institute in Philly
Word to the wise and I truly mean no offense, turn your gain down next time you record. Your narrative was recorded too hot, making it a little distorted.
i think they are faster cause of the power
Though 70mph on that driver diameter was not uncommon by that time frame.
@@TheRailroadCrossing-SteamPower i think big boy has 80mph than blw 60000
@@TheRailroadCrossing-SteamPower the challenger (UP 3985) has the same speed as BLW 60000
@@aalcomtive yeah, there are several reports that indicate Big Boy was capable of/had eclipsed 80 mph
Too heavy, too complicated. I have been on its footplate in the Franklin, surrounded by kids on a school trip. I remember thinking that it would have been better to preserve a proven, typical loco with a history of real service.
I agree.
But it is a piece of history in itself. Sometimes we learn more from failure then we do success.
Interesting thought.. I cant say as I disagree.. Better choices to be sure
The 60000 did make history. She's the half sister of the UP 9000.
The other reason it's a good choice (aside from availability as surplus to requirements) is that it's still got all the original fireplate equipment fitted, something few other surviving locomotives of the era still have.