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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!!!
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.
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".
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
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.
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 !!" 😂
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!
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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).
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.
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
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 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.
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.
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.
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
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!
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.
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.
The 5011 Class was longer? That's kind of a shocker to me, even though it's by a foot. That really says to how thin the boiler was. I wish I could see a side-by-side pic of them
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).
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
@@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.) ;-)
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!!
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
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
I'm speaking from memory here - I have a vague feeling one of these engines appears in a silent thriller movie, possibly with Ruth Roland. The engine in the film was billed as 'the world's biggest' hauling an allegedly runaway train - all of ten cars or so. Not too sure how they articulated the boilers - not that easy, I'd have thought, so not surprising they didn't work. How about an article on the Southern Railroad's 'poor man's Mallet', made by taking a 2-8-2 or 2-8-0 and putting the running gear from another 2-8-0 underneath the tender? They worked, but pity the poor boiler - and the tallow pots stoking it!
Was amazed to see the train part of the film twenty years ago on Australian TV on a Sunday afternoon arts documentary on the Australian born stunt man then film producer director who made many railroad stunt type films ; ruclips.net/video/zo1IsTqE5BQ/видео.html
Most articulated locomotives didn't have articulated boilers, although the AT&SF did have some with an accordion- or bellows-like system of metal rings connected by rivets. I don't think they were particularly successful; as far as I know, AT&SF is the only railroad that tried such a system. I'm not aware of this class of 2-10-10-2 having any jointed boilers.
Indeed. The Virginian 2-10-10-2's cylinder chest was so wide, it had to be transported separately and assembled on site at the Virginian, where the road's signals, bridges and tunnels were wide enough to accommodate them. Vgn's 2-10-10-2s had a single boiler, which greatly simplified things, and were built by experienced engineers at Alco ten years after Santa Fe's (1918).
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!
The problem with the boiler isn’t just the small diameter, but the fact it possessed quite an awkward steam circuit. The grate area was also not sufficient for efficient firing, which was a relatively common problem on the early mallets. The superheater was a primitive early design and this coupled with awful internal streamlining. The Jacob-Schuberts firebox design was also a maintenance nightmare. The designers though can’t be blamed too much; these were built at probably the most experimental phase of all American steam locomotive building. Locomotives of this size were completely new and it was learned the hard way that finding the right proportions of big locomotives were a completely different game than the small locomotives of the past decades. Size isn’t the sole component of good steam locomotive design; it’s how you get the most out of the gauge and weight restrictions you have. Looking at Continental locomotive across the Atlantic are the most dramatic examples and you’re inevitably going to come to dead ends in design such as this, along with the tandem compounds and other such things the ATSF were working with.
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.
I don't think you understand that freight doesn't need to go fast. They were built to pull tonnage, without speed or efficiency in mind. Also I don't think you've heard of Uintah 50 and 51, which have pretty small boilers for their length and worked just fine, not to mention they were tank engines. The 3000 class would of actually faired pretty well on the East Coast, fairing well on steep grades like Horshoe Curve. It also doesn't help that you seem to be a Big Boy "Fan," or as most people call them "Foamers." Consider a better name than "Dead On Arrival," as this series seems to be all working locomotives.
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.
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 ?
What is it with all these major railroads producing locomotives so big that they can’t produce enough steam to keep them going? Also, as a suggestion, I reckon the LMS Garratt would make for a good episode.
Garratt's are great, but they depend on their fuel for so much of their weight that when they run low on fuel and water their pulling capacity dropped fast. But to look at -- YEAH, they are very cool. I suspect the little ones worked a lot better than the 4-8-4+4--8-4 Garratt monsters. Want to go see the Welsh Highland railroad.
@@ralphnoyes4366. Their fuel capacity is certainly part of their drawbacks, but an even bigger sticking point of the LMS Garratts is that they were limited to 25mph because they used the same axleboxes as the Fowler 4F (which, mind you, weren’t even good enough for the 4Fs).
@@ralphnoyes4366 That’s an unfounded claim. If you want to know about how successful the larger garratts were, the South African Railways and East African Railways possessed extremely competently designed garratts. Garratts worked extremely well in the conditions they were designed for and were undoubtedly reliable and tough. The mallets and simple articulateds of North America are the exception, not the rule. The rest of the world relied upon the garratt above anything else. The LMS garratts were quite poorly designed and suffered from substandard and outdated Midland Railway component design along with an abhorrent boiler. I think the garratt gets a bad reputation because the well-known British garratts were among the worst of the entire garratt family. There were other standard gauge garratts in the UK, but they were used on industrial lines and are relatively obscure.
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 😉
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!!!
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.
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".
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
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!
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
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
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 !!" 😂
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!
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.
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.
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!
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
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.
They often went above 10 mph, here is footage of 3001 operating ruclips.net/video/zo1IsTqE5BQ/видео.html
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.
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 3000s may have been a failure, but the Lionel Vision Line model is fantastic.
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.
glad this came across my recommended. i've not been able to find anything this detailed on these engines before.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Very interesting. Succinct as well. Thank you.
Id make a 2-10-10-2 meanwhile correcting the flaws of the real ones
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
The Santa Fe did buy three Y-3s from the N&W to handle traffic during WWII.
Love your channel I am a raipfan like you. Greetings from Tunisia, north Africa, we use mainly US locos from the 20'th century.
Thanks for the info
A 2-10-10-2??? Never heard of that before. Seems a little overkill.
Very well done. I really like your videos
6:50
THE WHEEL ARRANGEMENT ISN’T THE PROBLEM
AS YOU SAID, THE BOILER IS THE PROBLEM
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.
great video
Next episode of Dead on Arrival:
LBSCR E2.
i’m still flabbergasted that the 5011 class locomotives were LONGER than the 3000 class
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).
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.
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
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.
Please talk about the triplex locomotive
3:01 LOL
Interestingly, film of a 3000 in operation survives in a Hazards of Helen serial that can be found on RUclips.
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.
As a proponent of boiler positivity, I am appaled by your boiler shaming
Ok just joking nice video
The 3000s have a nice and interesting looking tender
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 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.
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
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.
the whole concept sounds like someone converting their Corolla to a 8cyl in the same way. rather than dropping in a 350??
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!
Cool video
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.
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.
The 5011 Class was longer? That's kind of a shocker to me, even though it's by a foot. That really says to how thin the boiler was.
I wish I could see a side-by-side pic of them
I ❤️ your videos!! That said, I would like to see a video on cab forwards
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.
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
Hey I'm articulated : >
Can you do the SDP40f
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.) ;-)
They REALLY were failiures.
Also sorry for so many comments. Just got a couple of questions and also want to understand some things better.
Lionel is building the 3000 in O-Scale. It is listed in the 2021 Volume 1 catalog. Yes...I have one on order. :-)
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
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.
🇺🇸 hello from Kansas
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
You remind me so much of Cone of Arc! Is that your inspiration? good vid.
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
I'm speaking from memory here - I have a vague feeling one of these engines appears in a silent thriller movie, possibly with Ruth Roland. The engine in the film was billed as 'the world's biggest' hauling an allegedly runaway train - all of ten cars or so. Not too sure how they articulated the boilers - not that easy, I'd have thought, so not surprising they didn't work. How about an article on the Southern Railroad's 'poor man's Mallet', made by taking a 2-8-2 or 2-8-0 and putting the running gear from another 2-8-0 underneath the tender? They worked, but pity the poor boiler - and the tallow pots stoking it!
Was amazed to see the train part of the film twenty years ago on Australian TV on a Sunday afternoon arts documentary on the Australian born stunt man then film producer director who made many railroad stunt type films ;
ruclips.net/video/zo1IsTqE5BQ/видео.html
Most articulated locomotives didn't have articulated boilers, although the AT&SF did have some with an accordion- or bellows-like system of metal rings connected by rivets. I don't think they were particularly successful; as far as I know, AT&SF is the only railroad that tried such a system. I'm not aware of this class of 2-10-10-2 having any jointed boilers.
Santa Fe was really steamed. Cheers!
Honestly, i would have liked it if at least one of these's behemoths was preserved
Western states trying to make a 2-10-10-2: “Oh no! It doesn’t work! Aaaaaa!!!”
Virginia man making a 2-10-10-2: “This is _perfection.”_
Indeed. The Virginian 2-10-10-2's cylinder chest was so wide, it had to be transported separately and assembled on site at the Virginian, where the road's signals, bridges and tunnels were wide enough to accommodate them. Vgn's 2-10-10-2s had a single boiler, which greatly simplified things, and were built by experienced engineers at Alco ten years after Santa Fe's (1918).
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.
The problem with the boiler isn’t just the small diameter, but the fact it possessed quite an awkward steam circuit. The grate area was also not sufficient for efficient firing, which was a relatively common problem on the early mallets.
The superheater was a primitive early design and this coupled with awful internal streamlining. The Jacob-Schuberts firebox design was also a maintenance nightmare.
The designers though can’t be blamed too much; these were built at probably the most experimental phase of all American steam locomotive building. Locomotives of this size were completely new and it was learned the hard way that finding the right proportions of big locomotives were a completely different game than the small locomotives of the past decades.
Size isn’t the sole component of good steam locomotive design; it’s how you get the most out of the gauge and weight restrictions you have. Looking at Continental locomotive across the Atlantic are the most dramatic examples and you’re inevitably going to come to dead ends in design such as this, along with the tandem compounds and other such things the ATSF were working with.
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.
I don't think you understand that freight doesn't need to go fast. They were built to pull tonnage, without speed or efficiency in mind. Also I don't think you've heard of Uintah 50 and 51, which have pretty small boilers for their length and worked just fine, not to mention they were tank engines. The 3000 class would of actually faired pretty well on the East Coast, fairing well on steep grades like Horshoe Curve.
It also doesn't help that you seem to be a Big Boy "Fan," or as most people call them "Foamers." Consider a better name than "Dead On Arrival," as this series seems to be all working locomotives.
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.
Cool
I kinda like this engine honestly
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 ?
The Virginian AE/Æ class did better(a shame that it got scrapped)
E2
Yeah those lbscr e2 class
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?
What is it with all these major railroads producing locomotives so big that they can’t produce enough steam to keep them going?
Also, as a suggestion, I reckon the LMS Garratt would make for a good episode.
Garratt's are great, but they depend on their fuel for so much of their weight that when they run low on fuel and water their pulling capacity dropped fast.
But to look at -- YEAH, they are very cool. I suspect the little ones worked a lot better than the 4-8-4+4--8-4 Garratt monsters.
Want to go see the Welsh Highland railroad.
@@ralphnoyes4366.
Their fuel capacity is certainly part of their drawbacks, but an even bigger sticking point of the LMS Garratts is that they were limited to 25mph because they used the same axleboxes as the Fowler 4F (which, mind you, weren’t even good enough for the 4Fs).
@@ralphnoyes4366 That’s an unfounded claim. If you want to know about how successful the larger garratts were, the South African Railways and East African Railways possessed extremely competently designed garratts.
Garratts worked extremely well in the conditions they were designed for and were undoubtedly reliable and tough. The mallets and simple articulateds of North America are the exception, not the rule. The rest of the world relied upon the garratt above anything else.
The LMS garratts were quite poorly designed and suffered from substandard and outdated Midland Railway component design along with an abhorrent boiler. I think the garratt gets a bad reputation because the well-known British garratts were among the worst of the entire garratt family.
There were other standard gauge garratts in the UK, but they were used on industrial lines and are relatively obscure.