Interesting quote that I found from the SREMG article of the locomotive: “Looking back at this project with the benefit of hindsight, it would probably have been a better idea if Bulleid had spent more time in the drawing office, as he had for the Merchant Navy and the Q1 Class designs. As it was, Bulleid was a rare visitor there.”
Did the video not mention a few hundred thousand pounds in development costs for the Leader, let's face it, even if it was that amount, i think the mood in BR was to go with the tried and tested. Electrification had proved to be very reliable for general passenger work. i wonder if it was an early manifestation of the sunken cost polemic?
@@cerseonbrassmann5222 Even a mechanical stoker & an additional door could have solved a lot of problems. It seems like certain elements weren't thought through to their greatest potential which is really sad.
@@cerseonbrassmann5222 2 points of access for all area's on the locomotive should be a minimum in case of an accident. plus having an additional door that could be left open could have helped with the draught.
I'm surprised you didn't mention the Leader's successor, the CC1, built by Bulleid for the Irish State Railway. That version had a few improvements and was designed to burn peat as Ireland had no native sources of coal or oil. However, it ultimately met the same fate as its English counterpart, being deemed more trouble than it was worth compared to just importing new diesels.
When OVSB was going to Ireland the Works Manager at Inchicore phoned his opposite number at Brighton. "What sort of man is this Mr. Bullied ?" Brighton replied "Unconventional and he will probably ask you to put the loco chimney in the tender". Which I guess was the Turf Burner. He probably missed having Sir Nigel to reign in some of his ideas but a brilliant engineer nontheless. One cannot make an omlette without breaking eggs. He just came too late.
@@martinwelsford1353 I'm not so sure about that. For one, most of the sources I've read claim the turf/peat burning was the Irish idea, again to try and compensate for the spiraling cost of importing fuel, especially in light of the growing Cold War tensions; the Winter of 46-47 had already shown the vulnerability of Irish railways to coal shortages, and importing diesel fuel was even more expensive for a railway that was already in dire financial straits. There had been peat-fired engines before, though none had been particularly successful. The remarks about Bullied's character I raise an eyebrow at, though I'm hard pressed to fully doubt them. As for his technical accumin, while I won't fully dispute his innovation, I will say that he was more prone than most CMEs of his time to create "rolling science fairs", engines with so many new and experimental features that they end up being at best difficult and at worst practically useless in revenue service. Need we mention the long list of problems with his Light Pacifics on their first launch? The chain-based valve gear in an oil bath that could stretch and throw the valves out of timing? The all welded boiler that on some occasions had to be replaced after a single run? And don't even get us started on the outer casing that was meant to simplify maintenance, but in the end only made repairs harder on top of its propensity for the locomotive to literally catch fire? Even the Q1s, great as they were for an 0-6-0, they still suffered from poor braking due to their small size and light axle loading.
@@martinwelsford1353 I overheard a comment on the turf burner from 2 older men in the IRRS library about 20 years ago, where one claimed to have modelled it as it was being built or designed. He proudly proclaimed that his model was older than the prototype. It is worth noting that most IRRS members are ex CIE staff.
@@sirrliv And then there's the 4DD. Responsible for people continuing to think that a double-deck train is feasible on the UK loading gauge. Spoiler alert: it isn't.
In Belgium there was a such odd shaped steam engine that was built in 1932. A massive articulated design with twin Franco-Crosti boiler. The fireman was also in the middle, with cabs at both end. It was so powerful that it was cut in half by the germans to make two separate locomotives...
I'd never heard of that Belgium thing, so I googled it and found out about some mad US ideas, like the 48888884 Hexaplex thing, like two bigboys in a tub-of-war. I thought that the proposed double Garet proposed by David Wardale (his book the Red Devil is a must read) was mad enough.
I've seen some square shaped steam locomotives, basically tram engines and vertical boilered engines, as well as the Q1 Class too, but this...this is bizarre yet interesting. As a bonus, this reminded me of a diesel Bulleid built in 1949: BR 11001. This Diesel was unique for it's cab layout similar to a steam engine's since drivers at the time weren't familiar with operating Diesel engines. Sadly, 11001 was only in service for a decade and then scrapped in 1959.
Excellent video! Very interesting locomotive for sure. Reminds me of some of the failed steam turbine locomotives built here in the United States such as the C&O M1 and the Norfolk & Western Jawn Henry. Would love to you cover these two as well in future.
The only way a steam engine could have competed with diesels any longer than they did, would have been if they switched from boilers to steam generators, and liquid fuel. Basically the way some steam cars went near the end of their run. I've put some thought into it myself, it would have made sense to go with multiple steam generators, running just the number needed for a given load, with a relatively small accumulator tank to make up the short time it takes for them to come on as the throttle is opened. The space saved from not running a boiler would allow more fuel and water onboard, as well as a condenser to conserve the water already there. Plus the steam engines themselves could be mounted on the frames, and drive shafts that go to the bogies like geared locomotives had. The higher steam pressures you could safely run would also mean it could be geared for speed and still haul a lot of weight. Though it's easy to say what they could or should have done in hindsight, with the technology they had.
I have wondered about the failure to build a steam generator electric drive locomotive for decades. I have never found information that explained why it was never done. Does anybody have a guess?
@@MattTCfarm i think it was down to diesel electric engines just where better. Pull more and at higher speeds. Freight trains you see today are not much better than the ones first brought in. More efficient and more powerful yeah. Same tech though.
Here in the US there were "cab forward" steam locomotives used on the Southern Pacific from 1944 to 1956 when they were replaced with diesel. While still being steam driven they used fuel oil to fire the boiler. It was the Southern Pacific 4294 class.
A fascinating concept. But the desire to retain coal fired boilers was possibly the greatest drawback. Had Bullied dared to go a step further, an oil fired boiler might just have worked, saving the fireman from being roasted.
With an oil-fired boiler it could have avoided needing a fireman's cab entirely, perhaps could have had the fireman in the same cab as the driver - or just have one of the cabs be the fireman's station, driver being in whichever is at the front for the direction they're going. I've thought about the idea of "modern" steam locomotives (something that would have no compelling reason to be built) that could have the function f the fireman entirely automated, even if coal-fired by using an auto-stoker. But on the other hand, I suspect ability to run on coal rather than oil was the main advantage of steam locomotives over diesel, if you're going to burn oil a diesel is simpler and cheaper to maintain, easier to operate, doesn't need water, and more fuel efficient than an oil-burning steam locomotive.
The country was completely bankrupt after the war. The was no question whatsoever of producing anything that would run on oil - either internal or external combustion. This was especially so, since we were sitting on huge reserves of coal.
Boiler management can now be automated. Even the steam turbines of Union Pacific made their boilers automated. Even better when it is oil fired. Make the AI operate the boiler with thousands of sensors. Even better, make the boiler and controller as a single package for easy swapping.
@@kimpatz2189 This would be trivial to do with modern technology, and a lot of boilers are so automated. Likewise internal combustion and turbine engines (including the gasoline engines in cars) are highly automated in this manner. But there really isn't a compelling reason to build a steam locomotive with such, as diesels are still going to be simpler, easier to maintain, and more efficient. The only possible advantage I could see would be that steam engines can run on coal, which is cheaper than diesel fuel or oil - going against your oil-fired suggestion. But emissions would prevent a coal-fired steam locomotive being used in regular service in any developed country, coal can only be burned in large power plants that have sophisticated emissions controls that would be impractical or impossible to implement on a smaller scale (and if they were would negate any cost savings). As for your mention of Union Pacific, I don't believe they ever operated steam turbine locomotives - a few experimental ones were built but none by Union Pacific. You're probably thinking of their gas turbine electric locomotives, which were successful because they were able to run on then otherwise useless (later methods for refining it were developed) heavy fuel oil, but were quite inefficient. These replaced the steam Big Boy locomotives, showing that if running on fuel oil even a gas turbine is more cost-effective than steam.
@@quillmaurer6563 UP did actually have a stab in '38 with a steam turbine, but unlike the Stanier pacific or the PRR S2 the UP example used a steam turbine to run a generator and traction motors
Interesting fact: this was meant to replace engines on branch lines, those engines were M7 tank engines, fairly small, this thing was almost triple the size and much heavier
"It looks like one of those London Underground battery locos full to the brim with steroids, jacked up, and mounted on bricks. It's hideous!" -Chris Eden Green
The steam loco shown at the start is a 2-8-0 WD Austerity. There was one based at Thornton (Fife) and as a child I used to watch it shunt coal wagons at Dysart on the main LNER line. I remember often saw famous locos like Mallard, Silver Fox and Union of South Africa whizz bye but I was much more impressed by the WD, with it's unusual clanking sound. It was a rare and impressive sight - I was mesmerised by it.
The Leader was chain driven which was offset,which I believe caused axle fractures also the chains were prone to breaking.It may have enjoyed more success as an oil fired steam turbine,however it was a brave attempt to give steam one last chance.
Just scrolling through the comments and for general information Leader was intended to be oil fired. British railways in the thirties had dabbled with oil firing, generally at the behest of the government. Mine labour issues prewar had driven home the fact of dependence on coal. The LNER boards' interest in the Reichsbahn VT for their own east coast route being along this line of thinking. A substantial factor in Gresleys A4 streamlining was to effect coal savings. Bulleid used this premise, hence a very small firemans cab, and centrally located. It appears that the oil firing intention was always there throughout leaders production, never having actually changed to coal firing. Where this change came about was the passing of Southern into British Railways: and the learning of some fairly long winded production of some locomotives of interesting engineering. British Railways now having to foot the bills, they rather expectedly were quite keen on having something to show in a not unreasonable amount of time. And the thing with the oil firing was that even if fitted to the locos, you still needed somewhere to fill up: a bothersome aspect that bit the GWR rather harshly. So coal and hand fired they became, as an expediency. As it turned out they performed on par with a Southern N, hardly enough to set the engineering society alight
I couldn't distract myself from the fact TRASH MACHINE was playing all along the explanation about this...machine... What a good choice of a soundtrack, sir. Trash machine for trash machines xD
The decision to make this loco coal driven was probably because of the abundance of cheap coal available in the UK and why steam locos went on longer than our European counterparts. Oliver Bullied was a greatly respected and outstanding innovative engineer and designer who produced some amazing locos and rolling stock. The Leader was certainly original in its concept.
It's nice to see this design highlighted but sadly so much of the story is missed. The leader was conceived as an oil fired locomotive but the state of the British economy ruled against the use of oil firing. If it had, it would have solved most of the problems for the fireman... The sole prototype was also dogged by reliability and performance issues caused by one of it's bogie/engines which was found to be due to a bad casting. This was never corrected mainly because by the time it had been diagnosed, the design was already considered redundant. In fact, it could be said that the main reason the project was scrapped was because BR had already decided the future was with diesel (and because it's main protagonist, Oliver Bulleid, had already left the organisation). Other points of interest missed include that the locomotive had six cylinders, three to each bogie and used a sleeve valve gear reminiscent of the Napier Sabre aero engine. A very interesting design and one that could have been developed to work effectively but sadly too late.
So, ToT covered a unique steam locomotive built like a diesel. Now let's see him go in the opposite direction and review the GT-3, a gas-turbine diesel locomotive built to look like a steam engine.
Another dead end sadly, but GT3 was a fine looking machine. There is a 7.5in model version of GT3 which actually uses a turbine powerplant! It's an amazing piece of engineering..
Bulleid actually tried again with this design when he went to Ireland after the southern railway. It was called CIÉ no. CC1 and burned turf rather than coal. If you thought the Leader was bad, i'd hold onto my socks if I were you. 😂😂
It was introduced at a time when many steam locos were converted to run on Bunker C oil. Had it been converted to such a system then the fireman could have been in the cab with the driver using remote controls. It was built a few years too early. There was also talk a few years ago of using steam engines burning coal dust in a liquid sand firebox. Further tests could have been carried out but BR was being run by ex-LMS executives leaving Robin Riddles and ES Cox in charge of future design. All BR steam classes were basically updated LMS designs.
Oil firing, adjustment to water towers, improvements to ventilation, and incorporating sliding panels or a telescoping house on rails to allow better servicing as well as a water scoop like some American engines for watering on the go would have been simple fixes. If that had all happened 10 or 15 years prior they would probably be a well known class. This is what this prototye was designed to find, needed adjustments to the design while proving the concept.
seems like the engineers behind its maintenance were the downfall. that issue with draft is quite dangerous as well, it can cause blowback in the firebox meaning flames gasses and heat would come out into the firemens cab through the fire hole door. I’ve had this happen to me in engines when i didn’t have the smokebox door properly sealed or the grits got clogged up
I think the main reason for its downfall was the fact that, by the 1940s, it should have been obvious that electric and diesel locomotives were the future, and further development of steam locomotives was a technological dead-end.
We went first with the extremely practical and cost efficient Q1 class, Then the Merchant Navies and Light Pacifics with many innovations but also impracticalities, and now to what is practically an rolling oven that sets out to kill the crew!
I have the idea that, while the Q1s were absolutely brilliant locomotives to the core, they must have given Bullied the wrong step forward in being convinced he could add as much innovations and elements to his designs as possible, ending what is 110% of Bullied: The Leader.
Front cab steam locomotives have been used elsewhere in the world, but the successful ones were all oil burners with both the fireman and driver in the front cab
Thank you for an interesting look at one of Bulleid’s designs. At Tech school I re-drew many SR loco plans for Mr GJ Click, one of the SR engineers, who then worked at the Bexley Technical School. He had many interesting stories about strange locomotives, particularly the Irish turf burner. Apparently, the chain drives on the bogies of the Leader were very troublesome. Great looking engine despite the problems.
The “Thrash Machine” song from Deltarune in the background was a pretty clever choice for the locomotive given the context in which the song was used in the game. I laughed when I recognized it.
Some nice ideas but too many experiments in 1 vehicle: Chain driven valve gear had proven unreliable, but Bullied wanted to try & prove he could get it working. The loco was said to use more oil for lubrication than a modern diesel does for fuel. Sleeve valves had been abandoned by others many years before. Bullied wanted to try where others had failed. The valves suffered many failures. The fireman's location was very inhospitable. It gave the driver a much better view than from a conventional cab. It did not need turning at the end of a journey. It was a lot easier to keep clean. All the wheels provided traction.
I could imagine it was one of those late-steam experiments that was flawed but could have gone somewhere with more work - but even with such wouldn't have been competitive with diesels, so were abandoned.
@@Arkay315 What are you referring to? I'm thinking of the Leader class from the video. I'm sure there were some interesting French designs as well. French designs tend to be ... interesting anyway.
Imagine it being oil-fired, and having a conventional running gear setup less prone to breaking. It likely could have been one of the most powerful steam engines on UK railways in its time
@@tyler_bt3326 Would it have been advantageous over a diesel though? While that might have worked and produced impressive results, at the time diesels were quickly displacing steam due to being more fuel efficient, lower maintenance, quicker to get running, easier to operate, and not needing water. The biggest advantage of steam over diesels at the time - I get the sense especially in Britain in the Postwar era - is that they could run on coal, which was cheaper than oil/diesel. An oil burning steamer would burn more oil than a diesel (granted the unrefined oil used on steam locomotives would be cheaper than refined diesel, but probably not enough to offset the greater consumption), so have no advantage over a diesel. That timeframe produced some really interesting and promising steam locomotive designs, but they just couldn't be competitive with the emerging diesels even if fully developed. That's why some of the best and most interesting steam locomotive concepts were never developed to maturity, abandoned before they could leave their mark. The same is true of piston engine aircraft design from the same era, doing some impressive things but phased out in favor of jets.
If development had started before the war and a mechanical stoker had been used then given time to work out problems it may have been a viable concept.
Perhaps the BIGGEST travesty is that there's a single replica in any museum. It really bugs me. It deserves a full size mockup in my opinion. The Leader was, if anything, the last great example of British steam locomotive engineering.
BR (Or the BRB as it was then) wanted to dispose of this as fast as possible. They were not interested in displaying their failures in a museum. They even made it difficult to preserve steam locos as they were being withdrawn in the 1960s.
It reminds me of the attempt at making essentially a motorcar from a horse and cart where the chassis was around the horse but it also turned out to be inefficient. Another before its time invention.
It’s kinda sad that now a days we wouldn’t even attempt to build something like this. Because computers can compute so much of what we would have to guess at, so many concepts are just left in the drawing phases of development.
**Looks at the blueprint** Definitely unusual, but I wouldn't say that it's bad. In aesthetic anyway. **Sees the finished product** Oh...It's...Is there a word for "So bizarre, it's _beautiful_ in it's own unique way"?
What a fascinating and wonderful video. I wonder does anybody model these experimental engines in any scale particularly HO? That is the one I am trying to build a layout of currently.
Obscure but weird, don't know if model-making companies wouldn't bother due to obscurity, or would make it for its quirkiness. Though at this point someone could probably make their own with a resin-type 3D printer, would be just as good quality as injection-molded plastic, and you could make whatever you want. Wouldn't be surprised if that changes the model railroad industry, where people buy mass-produced running gear/electronics, 3D print their own body to put on it, and custom program the DCC sound for whatever locomotive they made.
@@quillmaurer6563 Have neither of you heard about K.R. Models making this in OO gauge???? If you’re modelling this in HO, however, you’ll probably have to find a wheel conversion method. I don’t think there is a company out there who manufactures Bulleid’s Firth wheels in HO sadly :(
Could you do a video on the Norfolk & Western "Jawn Henry"? Or the Chesapeake & Ohio M1? Or the PRR S2? Hell, what about a video of Turbines with Ruairidh MacVeigh?
One wonders if the people who have ran British Railways for the last hundred years were in charge when Stephenson designed Rocket if railways would ever have been allowed? What would have happened if it had been oil fired turbine?
makes me wonder how well this engine could have been if it was redesigned with an oil fired boiler, and put the boiler in the center a sacrifice i know, but it would make the weight lighter and even
At that point of time after the war, the only right to exist for steam locos is the fact, that they do not need precious, high quality fuel types like oil or diesel but can run on low quality fuel like coal. From a simple commercial or engineering perspective a steam engine running on oil or diesel is extremly expensive and outright stupid. Steam engines are annoying all over the place. you need to heat them up for hours and the efficiency isn't good at all. Burning precious diesel in them is a sacrileg, if you could also put that diesel into an diesel loco producing 2-3 times the mileage from the same amount. Steam locos are more of a mechanical trade off. They were the only known power source, where you could easily separate power production and turning motion. The steam is a transportation medium for mechanical power; connecting the fire to wheels. in a diesel engine, the fire is directly working onto the piston and in your car you have a friction clutch to disconnect the engine from the wheels. That does not work for railway locos but as soon as diesel-electric or diesel-hydraulic power trains were developed, the days of the steam locos were over (diesel-pneumatic wouldn't work out...).
This is why I love southern, they were so innovative even if they weren't successful. But it seems to me that Bullied loved the idea of sending a steam locomotive through a carriage washer like he tried it with Merchant Navies and light pacifics.
Genuinely think had the loco just been oil fed and given more ventilation/acess doors it might've been successful, albiet probably not able to stand up against diesels but certainly alot more better then reality
One can only imagine all kinds of ways to bring the weight down, and make it less of a nightmare for the crew. I can think of a few. smaller wheels, 4 bogies instead of 3, centered double boiler that can be walked above by a walkway that doubles as an access hatch for the water tower, coal being fed with a screw and chute system instead of manually... Or, well, windows on the bloody cab doors. I noted that most of the end of steam era engines shared the same problem with size and weight.... and engineer's hate for operators and mechanics. no wonder diesels took over. they ARE better in every aspect, unless you're british and you absolutely want a monstruous opposed piston uniflow 2 stroke train.
A bit of a shame but I can see why it didn't get far. Few companies and organisations have the resources or courage to fund (and fund indefinitely) such a 'clear blue sky' concept. this was especially in the 1940s/50s when Britain was struggling to rebuild after WW2 and had little resources for R&D projects like this. However, I suspect that none of the Leader's design flaws were unsurmountable and, as late as the 1990s, railway and technology magazines were still wondering if this represented a valiant early attempt at what would be the locomotive of the future.
Do we have pictures of the cab? I always wondered if there ever was a steam loco that had modern controls, not all this valve and pulley stuff but something similar to a modern diesel engine
Interesting quote that I found from the SREMG article of the locomotive: “Looking back at this project with the benefit of hindsight, it would probably have been a better idea if Bulleid had spent more time in the drawing office, as he had for the Merchant Navy and the Q1 Class designs. As it was, Bulleid was a rare visitor there.”
Did the video not mention a few hundred thousand pounds in development costs for the Leader, let's face it, even if it was that amount, i think the mood in BR was to go with the tried and tested. Electrification had proved to be very reliable for general passenger work. i wonder if it was an early manifestation of the sunken cost polemic?
I actually am curious how it would've turned out as an easy operative oil burner, maybe the fireman could've stayed in the cabin of the operator then
@@cerseonbrassmann5222 Even a mechanical stoker & an additional door could have solved a lot of problems. It seems like certain elements weren't thought through to their greatest potential which is really sad.
@@timothypurser8729 That for sure, but even then is the door necessary? many things could've gone smarter
@@cerseonbrassmann5222 2 points of access for all area's on the locomotive should be a minimum in case of an accident. plus having an additional door that could be left open could have helped with the draught.
"THAT ENGINE IS A SPY!"
- Diesel engines, probably.
Hahaha!
There is an impostor among us
Bulleid, my man! Whatever he did, you could be sure it was… interesting.
*Bulleid does a line of coke* CHAPS I'VE HAD AN IDEA!
@@TheOdst219 let’s build a steam engine then build a diesel on it
I'm surprised you didn't mention the Leader's successor, the CC1, built by Bulleid for the Irish State Railway. That version had a few improvements and was designed to burn peat as Ireland had no native sources of coal or oil. However, it ultimately met the same fate as its English counterpart, being deemed more trouble than it was worth compared to just importing new diesels.
When OVSB was going to Ireland the Works Manager at Inchicore phoned his opposite number at Brighton. "What sort of man is this Mr. Bullied ?" Brighton replied "Unconventional and he will probably ask you to put the loco chimney in the tender". Which I guess was the Turf Burner. He probably missed having Sir Nigel to reign in some of his ideas but a brilliant engineer nontheless. One cannot make an omlette without breaking eggs. He just came too late.
@@martinwelsford1353 I'm not so sure about that. For one, most of the sources I've read claim the turf/peat burning was the Irish idea, again to try and compensate for the spiraling cost of importing fuel, especially in light of the growing Cold War tensions; the Winter of 46-47 had already shown the vulnerability of Irish railways to coal shortages, and importing diesel fuel was even more expensive for a railway that was already in dire financial straits. There had been peat-fired engines before, though none had been particularly successful.
The remarks about Bullied's character I raise an eyebrow at, though I'm hard pressed to fully doubt them. As for his technical accumin, while I won't fully dispute his innovation, I will say that he was more prone than most CMEs of his time to create "rolling science fairs", engines with so many new and experimental features that they end up being at best difficult and at worst practically useless in revenue service. Need we mention the long list of problems with his Light Pacifics on their first launch? The chain-based valve gear in an oil bath that could stretch and throw the valves out of timing? The all welded boiler that on some occasions had to be replaced after a single run? And don't even get us started on the outer casing that was meant to simplify maintenance, but in the end only made repairs harder on top of its propensity for the locomotive to literally catch fire? Even the Q1s, great as they were for an 0-6-0, they still suffered from poor braking due to their small size and light axle loading.
@@martinwelsford1353 I overheard a comment on the turf burner from 2 older men in the IRRS library about 20 years ago, where one claimed to have modelled it as it was being built or designed. He proudly proclaimed that his model was older than the prototype. It is worth noting that most IRRS members are ex CIE staff.
@@sirrliv And then there's the 4DD. Responsible for people continuing to think that a double-deck train is feasible on the UK loading gauge. Spoiler alert: it isn't.
NOW he did
KR models has announced that they are doing an OO scale model of the "Leader".
I have one on order.
In Belgium there was a such odd shaped steam engine that was built in 1932. A massive articulated design with twin Franco-Crosti boiler. The fireman was also in the middle, with cabs at both end. It was so powerful that it was cut in half by the germans to make two separate locomotives...
I'd never heard of that Belgium thing, so I googled it and found out about some mad US ideas, like the 48888884 Hexaplex thing, like two bigboys in a tub-of-war. I thought that the proposed double Garet proposed by David Wardale (his book the Red Devil is a must read) was mad enough.
You could find out which locomotive that is by any chance?
What loco is that
Just search "quadruplex steam locomotive" and you'll find it since it was the only one built in the world
@@GewelReal only its running number is known : 2096
I've seen some square shaped steam locomotives, basically tram engines and vertical boilered engines, as well as the Q1 Class too, but this...this is bizarre yet interesting. As a bonus, this reminded me of a diesel Bulleid built in 1949: BR 11001. This Diesel was unique for it's cab layout similar to a steam engine's since drivers at the time weren't familiar with operating Diesel engines. Sadly, 11001 was only in service for a decade and then scrapped in 1959.
Despite the faults, this quirky design has always fascinated me.
Excellent video! Very interesting locomotive for sure. Reminds me of some of the failed steam turbine locomotives built here in the United States such as the C&O M1 and the Norfolk & Western Jawn Henry. Would love to you cover these two as well in future.
Mr Bulleid was a genius, whose main problem was his ideas were several years ahead of the available technology.
"Electric?" - Toby
ELECTRIC INDEED
The only way a steam engine could have competed with diesels any longer than they did, would have been if they switched from boilers to steam generators, and liquid fuel. Basically the way some steam cars went near the end of their run.
I've put some thought into it myself, it would have made sense to go with multiple steam generators, running just the number needed for a given load, with a relatively small accumulator tank to make up the short time it takes for them to come on as the throttle is opened. The space saved from not running a boiler would allow more fuel and water onboard, as well as a condenser to conserve the water already there. Plus the steam engines themselves could be mounted on the frames, and drive shafts that go to the bogies like geared locomotives had. The higher steam pressures you could safely run would also mean it could be geared for speed and still haul a lot of weight.
Though it's easy to say what they could or should have done in hindsight, with the technology they had.
I have wondered about the failure to build a steam generator electric drive locomotive for decades. I have never found information that explained why it was never done. Does anybody have a guess?
Yup
@@MattTCfarm i think it was down to diesel electric engines just where better. Pull more and at higher speeds. Freight trains you see today are not much better than the ones first brought in. More efficient and more powerful yeah. Same tech though.
Fun fact: The sleeve valve gear for the Leader was actually tested on an ex-LBSCR Atlantic.
Mmmmmmmmm Brighton
It was also used on th Midland Railway Paget Locomotive.
Hartland Point, an otherwise beautiful engine.
Here in the US there were "cab forward" steam locomotives used on the Southern Pacific from 1944 to 1956 when they were replaced with diesel. While still being steam driven they used fuel oil to fire the boiler. It was the Southern Pacific 4294 class.
A fascinating concept. But the desire to retain coal fired boilers was possibly the greatest drawback. Had Bullied dared to go a step further, an oil fired boiler might just have worked, saving the fireman from being roasted.
With an oil-fired boiler it could have avoided needing a fireman's cab entirely, perhaps could have had the fireman in the same cab as the driver - or just have one of the cabs be the fireman's station, driver being in whichever is at the front for the direction they're going. I've thought about the idea of "modern" steam locomotives (something that would have no compelling reason to be built) that could have the function f the fireman entirely automated, even if coal-fired by using an auto-stoker. But on the other hand, I suspect ability to run on coal rather than oil was the main advantage of steam locomotives over diesel, if you're going to burn oil a diesel is simpler and cheaper to maintain, easier to operate, doesn't need water, and more fuel efficient than an oil-burning steam locomotive.
The country was completely bankrupt after the war. The was no question whatsoever of producing anything that would run on oil - either internal or external combustion. This was especially so, since we were sitting on huge reserves of coal.
Boiler management can now be automated. Even the steam turbines of Union Pacific made their boilers automated. Even better when it is oil fired.
Make the AI operate the boiler with thousands of sensors. Even better, make the boiler and controller as a single package for easy swapping.
@@kimpatz2189 This would be trivial to do with modern technology, and a lot of boilers are so automated. Likewise internal combustion and turbine engines (including the gasoline engines in cars) are highly automated in this manner. But there really isn't a compelling reason to build a steam locomotive with such, as diesels are still going to be simpler, easier to maintain, and more efficient. The only possible advantage I could see would be that steam engines can run on coal, which is cheaper than diesel fuel or oil - going against your oil-fired suggestion. But emissions would prevent a coal-fired steam locomotive being used in regular service in any developed country, coal can only be burned in large power plants that have sophisticated emissions controls that would be impractical or impossible to implement on a smaller scale (and if they were would negate any cost savings).
As for your mention of Union Pacific, I don't believe they ever operated steam turbine locomotives - a few experimental ones were built but none by Union Pacific. You're probably thinking of their gas turbine electric locomotives, which were successful because they were able to run on then otherwise useless (later methods for refining it were developed) heavy fuel oil, but were quite inefficient. These replaced the steam Big Boy locomotives, showing that if running on fuel oil even a gas turbine is more cost-effective than steam.
@@quillmaurer6563 UP did actually have a stab in '38 with a steam turbine, but unlike the Stanier pacific or the PRR S2 the UP example used a steam turbine to run a generator and traction motors
You have love Bulleid. What a quirky genius.
Interesting fact: this was meant to replace engines on branch lines, those engines were M7 tank engines, fairly small, this thing was almost triple the size and much heavier
Leader somewhat looks like a steam engine version of the Class 28 Metrovick. The shape reminds me of it.
You
"It looks like one of those London Underground battery locos full to the brim with steroids, jacked up, and mounted on bricks. It's hideous!"
-Chris Eden Green
The steam loco shown at the start is a 2-8-0 WD Austerity. There was one based at Thornton (Fife) and as a child I used to watch it shunt coal wagons at Dysart on the main LNER line. I remember often saw famous locos like Mallard, Silver Fox and Union of South Africa whizz bye but I was much more impressed by the WD, with it's unusual clanking sound. It was a rare and impressive sight - I was mesmerised by it.
It’s too bad it didn’t end up in a museum
Not only is this video entertaining, it's informative as well! Thank you for creating, uploading and sharing!!
Hooray a video on the Leader!
Would be curious to see your take on its Irish counterpart. Bulleid certainly crossed new turf with that one...
I see what you did there!
That was good ;)
;D 👍
Don't re-"peat" that one. Har har har
Groan!
The Leader was chain driven which was offset,which I believe caused axle fractures also the chains were prone to breaking.It may have enjoyed more success as an oil fired steam turbine,however it was a brave attempt to give steam one last chance.
What a fascinating engine. Thanks.
Just scrolling through the comments and for general information Leader was intended to be oil fired. British railways in the thirties had dabbled with oil firing, generally at the behest of the government.
Mine labour issues prewar had driven home the fact of dependence on coal. The LNER boards' interest in the Reichsbahn VT for their own east coast route being along this line of thinking. A substantial factor in Gresleys A4 streamlining was to effect coal savings.
Bulleid used this premise, hence a very small firemans cab, and centrally located.
It appears that the oil firing intention was always there throughout leaders production, never having actually changed to coal firing.
Where this change came about was the passing of Southern into British Railways: and the learning of some fairly long winded production of some locomotives of interesting engineering. British Railways now having to foot the bills, they rather expectedly were quite keen on having something to show in a not unreasonable amount of time. And the thing with the oil firing was that even if fitted to the locos, you still needed somewhere to fill up: a bothersome aspect that bit the GWR rather harshly.
So coal and hand fired they became, as an expediency.
As it turned out they performed on par with a Southern N, hardly enough to set the engineering society alight
Your video Le are incredible, keep up the good work man
I love the loco vids I do think the Bullied Leader Looks odd but looks like BoCo idk It just looks weirdly unique.
If there was an SR Leader Class character in "Thomas the Tank Engine," then it would also be ousted by the Diesels as well as Steamies
I couldn't distract myself from the fact TRASH MACHINE was playing all along the explanation about this...machine...
What a good choice of a soundtrack, sir. Trash machine for trash machines xD
The decision to make this loco coal driven was probably because of the abundance of cheap coal available in the UK and why steam locos went on longer than our European counterparts. Oliver Bullied was a greatly respected and outstanding innovative engineer and designer who produced some amazing locos and rolling stock. The Leader was certainly original in its concept.
It's nice to see this design highlighted but sadly so much of the story is missed. The leader was conceived as an oil fired locomotive but the state of the British economy ruled against the use of oil firing. If it had, it would have solved most of the problems for the fireman... The sole prototype was also dogged by reliability and performance issues caused by one of it's bogie/engines which was found to be due to a bad casting. This was never corrected mainly because by the time it had been diagnosed, the design was already considered redundant. In fact, it could be said that the main reason the project was scrapped was because BR had already decided the future was with diesel (and because it's main protagonist, Oliver Bulleid, had already left the organisation). Other points of interest missed include that the locomotive had six cylinders, three to each bogie and used a sleeve valve gear reminiscent of the Napier Sabre aero engine. A very interesting design and one that could have been developed to work effectively but sadly too late.
So, ToT covered a unique steam locomotive built like a diesel. Now let's see him go in the opposite direction and review the GT-3, a gas-turbine diesel locomotive built to look like a steam engine.
Another dead end sadly, but GT3 was a fine looking machine. There is a 7.5in model version of GT3 which actually uses a turbine powerplant! It's an amazing piece of engineering..
Excellent! Great video about an unusual loco. How about one on gas turbine experiments, such as GT3 or the "Kerosine Castles"?
Congratulations on your 100th video.
Bulleid actually tried again with this design when he went to Ireland after the southern railway. It was called CIÉ no. CC1 and burned turf rather than coal. If you thought the Leader was bad, i'd hold onto my socks if I were you. 😂😂
I was going to suggest this as a video
It was introduced at a time when many steam locos were converted to run on Bunker C oil. Had it been converted to such a system then the fireman could have been in the cab with the driver using remote controls. It was built a few years too early. There was also talk a few years ago of using steam engines burning coal dust in a liquid sand firebox.
Further tests could have been carried out but BR was being run by ex-LMS executives leaving Robin Riddles and ES Cox in charge of future design. All BR steam classes were basically updated LMS designs.
Oil firing, adjustment to water towers, improvements to ventilation, and incorporating sliding panels or a telescoping house on rails to allow better servicing as well as a water scoop like some American engines for watering on the go would have been simple fixes. If that had all happened 10 or 15 years prior they would probably be a well known class. This is what this prototye was designed to find, needed adjustments to the design while proving the concept.
seems like the engineers behind its maintenance were the downfall. that issue with draft is quite dangerous as well, it can cause blowback in the firebox meaning flames gasses and heat would come out into the firemens cab through the fire hole door. I’ve had this happen to me in engines when i didn’t have the smokebox door properly sealed or the grits got clogged up
I think the main reason for its downfall was the fact that, by the 1940s, it should have been obvious that electric and diesel locomotives were the future, and further development of steam locomotives was a technological dead-end.
Nice bit of railway history. Thank you for sharing.
Bravo..........one day we will use steam again .....no boiler......flash boiler......still use diesel ......cheers
White Elephant 🐘 is a fairly good name for a character. 🚂
A strange loco but it's influence lived on in the bogies of the early type 4 diesels and bogies of certain SR EMU stock too
Imagine if they got this thing running on fuel oil. that would have been one hell of an engine
That is how the Southern Pacific 4294 class cab forward stem locos were set up
Thanks for all the ghost stories.
great yet sad video 👍😢
We went first with the extremely practical and cost efficient Q1 class, Then the Merchant Navies and Light Pacifics with many innovations but also impracticalities, and now to what is practically an rolling oven that sets out to kill the crew!
I have the idea that, while the Q1s were absolutely brilliant locomotives to the core, they must have given Bullied the wrong step forward in being convinced he could add as much innovations and elements to his designs as possible, ending what is 110% of Bullied: The Leader.
Front cab steam locomotives have been used elsewhere in the world, but the successful ones were all oil burners with both the fireman and driver in the front cab
Thank you for an interesting look at one of Bulleid’s designs. At Tech school I re-drew many SR loco plans for Mr GJ Click, one of the SR engineers, who then worked at the Bexley Technical School. He had many interesting stories about strange locomotives, particularly the Irish turf burner. Apparently, the chain drives on the bogies of the Leader were very troublesome. Great looking engine despite the problems.
How did the Awdrys miss this?
Looks like an early idea for the class 66.
This is an oddly exciting title for something so benign.
Calling it a "Chinese Laundry" is genius, hillarious, and kinda offensive. I loved it
The “Thrash Machine” song from Deltarune in the background was a pretty clever choice for the locomotive given the context in which the song was used in the game. I laughed when I recognized it.
Some nice ideas but too many experiments in 1 vehicle:
Chain driven valve gear had proven unreliable, but Bullied wanted to try & prove he could get it working.
The loco was said to use more oil for lubrication than a modern diesel does for fuel.
Sleeve valves had been abandoned by others many years before. Bullied wanted to try where others had failed. The valves suffered many failures.
The fireman's location was very inhospitable.
It gave the driver a much better view than from a conventional cab.
It did not need turning at the end of a journey.
It was a lot easier to keep clean.
All the wheels provided traction.
Ever wonder what Bulleid smoked when he designed his engines? Cause I need whatever he had
no you don't, we don't want another leader class
With some modifacations those leader locos could've been revolutionary. Also could you maybe make a video about the Heilmann locomotive?
I could imagine it was one of those late-steam experiments that was flawed but could have gone somewhere with more work - but even with such wouldn't have been competitive with diesels, so were abandoned.
@@quillmaurer6563 no, it was a French steam electric protype
@@Arkay315 What are you referring to? I'm thinking of the Leader class from the video. I'm sure there were some interesting French designs as well. French designs tend to be ... interesting anyway.
Imagine it being oil-fired, and having a conventional running gear setup less prone to breaking. It likely could have been one of the most powerful steam engines on UK railways in its time
@@tyler_bt3326 Would it have been advantageous over a diesel though? While that might have worked and produced impressive results, at the time diesels were quickly displacing steam due to being more fuel efficient, lower maintenance, quicker to get running, easier to operate, and not needing water. The biggest advantage of steam over diesels at the time - I get the sense especially in Britain in the Postwar era - is that they could run on coal, which was cheaper than oil/diesel. An oil burning steamer would burn more oil than a diesel (granted the unrefined oil used on steam locomotives would be cheaper than refined diesel, but probably not enough to offset the greater consumption), so have no advantage over a diesel.
That timeframe produced some really interesting and promising steam locomotive designs, but they just couldn't be competitive with the emerging diesels even if fully developed. That's why some of the best and most interesting steam locomotive concepts were never developed to maturity, abandoned before they could leave their mark. The same is true of piston engine aircraft design from the same era, doing some impressive things but phased out in favor of jets.
If development had started before the war and a mechanical stoker had been used then given time to work out problems it may have been a viable concept.
It was never intended to be coal fired. I'm going to add a general comment...
This is interesting. I feel like that this would be something that the Rev. Wilbert Awdry would’ve had in his books.
Would make sense, he included a lot of one-off oddball locomotives as "visitors" to the Island of Sodor, but not the main cast.
@@quillmaurer6563 Yeah
Perhaps the BIGGEST travesty is that there's a single replica in any museum. It really bugs me. It deserves a full size mockup in my opinion. The Leader was, if anything, the last great example of British steam locomotive engineering.
BR (Or the BRB as it was then) wanted to dispose of this as fast as possible. They were not interested in displaying their failures in a museum. They even made it difficult to preserve steam locos as they were being withdrawn in the 1960s.
@@TheRip72 The bastards!
If memory serves well, the front has a close resemblance to that of the Waterloo and City line stock back in the days when SR ran the infamous 'drain'
Bulleid designed the Waterloo and City stock...
It reminds me of the attempt at making essentially a motorcar from a horse and cart where the chassis was around the horse but it also turned out to be inefficient. Another before its time invention.
Yes
It’s kinda sad that now a days we wouldn’t even attempt to build something like this. Because computers can compute so much of what we would have to guess at, so many concepts are just left in the drawing phases of development.
Next up: The steam-electric locomotive.Or maybe steam-hydraulic. That would have been cool.
Ngl it’s a bit weird seeing the normal into after the spoopy one we’ve had for the last month
You should discuss Bullied's next design, the Turf Burner from Ireland.
I wonder if building it as oil-fired instead of coal would have solved any of the issues (not the heat problem, though)
This locomotive was like the United States concept called the ACE3000!
"That Brunel built some weird locomotives" - Bulleid " hold my beer...."
**Looks at the blueprint** Definitely unusual, but I wouldn't say that it's bad. In aesthetic anyway.
**Sees the finished product**
Oh...It's...Is there a word for "So bizarre, it's _beautiful_ in it's own unique way"?
Hm, do you think “surreal” would be a fitting expression? The only other word that comes to my mind would be “extravagant”, but that doesn't fit.
@@mediocreman6323 "Surreal" is certainly close, I think.
Ugly cute, perhaps?
The leader is my favorite locomotive. It's a shame it was such a failure- but it showed what Mr. Bullied could do.
What a fascinating and wonderful video. I wonder does anybody model these experimental engines in any scale particularly HO? That is the one I am trying to build a layout of currently.
Obscure but weird, don't know if model-making companies wouldn't bother due to obscurity, or would make it for its quirkiness. Though at this point someone could probably make their own with a resin-type 3D printer, would be just as good quality as injection-molded plastic, and you could make whatever you want. Wouldn't be surprised if that changes the model railroad industry, where people buy mass-produced running gear/electronics, 3D print their own body to put on it, and custom program the DCC sound for whatever locomotive they made.
@@quillmaurer6563 Have neither of you heard about K.R. Models making this in OO gauge???? If you’re modelling this in HO, however, you’ll probably have to find a wheel conversion method. I don’t think there is a company out there who manufactures Bulleid’s Firth wheels in HO sadly :(
@@amazi6542 HO and OO use the same track.
@@Ballinalower Oh yeah, that's true! haha I believe I got confused between HO and EM somehow. Silly me.
Imagine if this engine was in Thomas & Friends.
Please note: "as such" does NOT mean the same as "and so", "for that reason" or "therefore".
So, in the end: "BOOM! No more Chinese Laundry."
Very interesting.
Could you do a video on the Norfolk & Western "Jawn Henry"? Or the Chesapeake & Ohio M1? Or the PRR S2? Hell, what about a video of Turbines with Ruairidh MacVeigh?
I wonder if this would work better with more modern technology, that’s a pretty cool steam locomotive if I do say so
You really need to do a story on good ole 10-k there and sister 10-k-1, really sad story in the end
Fascinating. Nuff sed. 🐨🇦🇺
This is what happens when you give Toby steroids!
One wonders if the people who have ran British Railways for the last hundred years were in charge when Stephenson designed Rocket if railways would ever have been allowed?
What would have happened if it had been oil fired turbine?
Such a shame they didn't think to put this in a shed for preservation in a museum.
This reminds me of an engine built by GE in the 1930's. Two steam turbine locomotives that look like diesels
So you have covered the Hush-hush, The Great Bear, The Fury, Decapod and now the Leader. What next.
Some of the ideas were continued into the turf-burning loco when Bulleid moved to the CIE at Inchicore.
you should make a video about harvey’s basis, i bet there’s an interesting story there
makes me wonder how well this engine could have been if it was redesigned with an oil fired boiler, and put the boiler in the center a sacrifice i know, but it would make the weight lighter and even
At that point of time after the war, the only right to exist for steam locos is the fact, that they do not need precious, high quality fuel types like oil or diesel but can run on low quality fuel like coal. From a simple commercial or engineering perspective a steam engine running on oil or diesel is extremly expensive and outright stupid. Steam engines are annoying all over the place. you need to heat them up for hours and the efficiency isn't good at all. Burning precious diesel in them is a sacrileg, if you could also put that diesel into an diesel loco producing 2-3 times the mileage from the same amount. Steam locos are more of a mechanical trade off. They were the only known power source, where you could easily separate power production and turning motion. The steam is a transportation medium for mechanical power; connecting the fire to wheels. in a diesel engine, the fire is directly working onto the piston and in your car you have a friction clutch to disconnect the engine from the wheels. That does not work for railway locos but as soon as diesel-electric or diesel-hydraulic power trains were developed, the days of the steam locos were over (diesel-pneumatic wouldn't work out...).
The Q1's could haven been easy to maintain... except the front!
This is why I love southern, they were so innovative even if they weren't successful. But it seems to me that Bullied loved the idea of sending a steam locomotive through a carriage washer like he tried it with Merchant Navies and light pacifics.
So, basically, it's a Shay with a long box-cab shell built around it? Neat.
Genuinely think had the loco just been oil fed and given more ventilation/acess doors it might've been successful, albiet probably not able to stand up against diesels but certainly alot more better then reality
See also, CIE CC1 --- a tuf burning version of this that was *bizarre* but worked. The common link being Oliver Bulleid
One can only imagine all kinds of ways to bring the weight down, and make it less of a nightmare for the crew.
I can think of a few. smaller wheels, 4 bogies instead of 3, centered double boiler that can be walked above by a walkway that doubles as an access hatch for the water tower, coal being fed with a screw and chute system instead of manually... Or, well, windows on the bloody cab doors.
I noted that most of the end of steam era engines shared the same problem with size and weight.... and engineer's hate for operators and mechanics. no wonder diesels took over. they ARE better in every aspect, unless you're british and you absolutely want a monstruous opposed piston uniflow 2 stroke train.
It looks like a tube train that doesn’t skip leg day
Is there a recording of the steam locomotive moving and being built?.
A bit of a shame but I can see why it didn't get far. Few companies and organisations have the resources or courage to fund (and fund indefinitely) such a 'clear blue sky' concept. this was especially in the 1940s/50s when Britain was struggling to rebuild after WW2 and had little resources for R&D projects like this. However, I suspect that none of the Leader's design flaws were unsurmountable and, as late as the 1990s, railway and technology magazines were still wondering if this represented a valiant early attempt at what would be the locomotive of the future.
It's main fault is that it was over-engineered.
Kinda like Barry
Do we have pictures of the cab?
I always wondered if there ever was a steam loco that had modern controls, not all this valve and pulley stuff but something similar to a modern diesel engine
Unlikely because it would still need some sort of system to control regulator & cutoff on behalf of the driver.