For anyone wondering how Bombardier stays afloat: it’s heavily, HEAVILY subsidized by the Canadian government because its a major company from the Province of Quebec, which had a problem with never having any money. It’s to help “stimulate their economy” or something.
The only success I see about them is the Bi-Level Car and Bi-Level Cab cars on US & Canada's commuter systems, including Metrolink in California which are migrating to the Hyundai cars and the new EMD F125. I wish Amtrak choose that instead of equipment from the Ex. Nazi company Siemens.
There is 1 succesfull type of steamtender locomotive who was build in large numbers worldwide. The Garret. The water tender in front and the water/coal tender at the rear, both have a set of driving wheels on it. The Boiler hangs articulated between both tenders.
Technically that wouldn't be a steam tender, as the driving wheels are articulated under the coal and water tanks, but the boiler is still the primary generator of steam. The "tenders" don't have power plants of their own.
@@TheNightmareRider It depends how you classify a steamtender engine. A garret has its driving wheels exclusivly beneath its front and rear tender. Yes it has way more articulation then a normal locomotive who has its driving wheels riggid under the boiler. A normal tender has very little articulation so the aditional set of driving wheels under the tender gave more problems then it solved.
The Garratt was designed by Mr. Garratt (an Australian). Who sold the patents to the Beyer Peacock locomotive construction Co, of Gorton Manchester (UK). This revolutionary design involved DOUBLE ARTICULATION, whereby the cab & boiler are built on Bridge girders with NOTHING beneath. This central section was then attached to two engines one at each end using heavy duty pivots. On top of the two engines were placed large water tanks. With the engine nearest the cab also having a coal bunker. This design was extremely clever in solving a number of issues in the "Colonies". It allowed huge great powerful & heavy steam locos to pull huge trains on lightly laid track with as little as 40lbs a yard rail. It also allowed these MONSTERS, to negotiate horribly sharp curves. And cross weak bridges, because the total weight was divided through opposite ends of the loco, spreading the load. These locos as a result were built in their hundreds, for use in many British Colonies all over the World, running on all sorts of different track gauges. Probably the most dramtic Garratts built, were built under license by the French (pre WW2) for use in Algeria. These huge standard gauge monsters were semi-streamlined, and used on both express trains as well as heavy freight, on the large Algerian rail network. South Africa was also well known for having hundreds of Garratts of various designs both on their 2ft 6in lines, as well as their 3ft 6in mainlines. Some weighing over 250tons. A handful of these ex South African 2ft 6in gauge Garratts, TODAY now run on the Welsh Highland Railway through the stunning Aberglasyn pass in North Wales (UK), having been re-gauged to 1ft 11.5in gauge !!!
The SP's Trainmasters were relegated to the San Francisco Bay Area commuter trains, because when they tried them on the road pulling freight (Sunset Route, based in El Paso,and LA-San Francisco), they encountered the same heating issues and sleeve and crankshaft failures in the American Southwest that you documented for the Erie Builts. They lasted into the early 1980's on the Bay Area commutes, where the workload, temperature, and altitude was just right, and a ready pool of Fairbanks Morse opposed piston mechanics were available (thanks to the US Navy's big presence in the bay).
"How is Bombardier still not defunct?" TRAXX. The TRAXX locomotives have become so massively succesful that they can coast on that succes for years to come
they are everywhere in the worlds rail networks, they got a contract worth £1.3 Billion for 70 Aventra trains for crossrail in 2014 along with a maintenance depot at Old Oak Common
@@cyri96 to put it simply, Bombardier Transportation was big in railway equipment as Google is today in IT. Until the trouble started in 2012. Bought by Alstom. As of January 29, 2021, BT is defunct as a company. Their designs (TRAXX among others) are continued to be produced.
I've worked on FM Opposed Piston Diesels while serving in the Navy, and they were actually quite simple to work on. The big problem was not exactly due to their design but maintenenace crews not being familier with them. Having no cylinder heads, and associated valves gave them much fewer moving parts. One of the biggest issues from a design stand point is that they don't like running at less then a full load. Being two cycles they would build up excessive carbon in their exhaust boxes and behind the piston rings if run at a light load excessively. For a railroad this isn't too much of a problem as locomotives don't usually run light loaded or idle for long periods of time. As far as crank case explosions, no they aren't good at all. Parts of pistons or rods can and sometimes do hit the side of the crank case hard enough to come through. I have also seen the bottom crank shaft on one of these broken in three pieces, and according to the crew it belonged to, it was still running and trying to power the generator it was attached to.
Bombardier Transportation was the world's largest rail equipment manufacturer. Bought by Alstom. Defunct since January 29, 2021. If there's any electric/hybrid locomotive (TRAXX being cutting edge) in the world, tram, light rail, rapid transit (metro, subway, tube, underground etc. terms) or high-speed train, Bombardier Transportation had the largest share.
The steam tender idea is an interesting idea but they had problems 1. Expensive maintenance 2. High fuel consumption 3. More work required 4. More efficient and powerful locomotive where being built Also there is a book that talks about the steam tenders and many other engines you have talked about and the book is called Experiments with steam landmarks of British locomotive designs.
That is a fair point but Garrett locomotives were in constant development to get them Bigger stronger and more efficient, had the steam tenders had the same treatment instead of being short lived they could have developed them into powerful and efficient engines.
Never been a great fan if the Class 221s but a bit harsh to put them on this list. They've been the backbone of the cross country service for a couple of decades
@@davidty2006 To be fair rarely go by train now, but did a short hop from Wakefield to Leeds about 6 weeks ago and it was a 221. I don't disagree about them being noisy and cramped, but I'm not convinced that makes them a failure. And preferable to a Pacer any day of the week
Honestly? I've travelled on the 221s many times over the years and never really noticed any ride quality problems. There were a few times where you'd come into a station and you'd notice that the train hadn't returned fully upright and you were just sitting there on a slight slant. That was always funny if inconsequential.
One really difficult thing with a tender that can apply power to the rails is the tender has a very fluctuating weight sometimes she's heavy sometimes she's light so sometimes attractive effort departed on to the rail was amazing sometimes all you got was Will slip unlike the engine which the weight stays fairly consistent
The FM Trainmasters saw a little success with the Southern Pacific, which apparently employed enough former Navy personnel in their shops for the opposed piston engines (which are still used on ships and submarines to this day iirc,) to not be an issue. They didn't just look cool though, if that weren't enough! They sounded like absolute units too (I recommend listening with headphones, as the sheer bass the FM engines had is incredible): ruclips.net/video/XElWHtywY6I/видео.html
Just to point out, there are actually 2 intact Canadian Pacific H-24-66 locomotives. The first is mentioned in your video and the second is on display in Nelson BC along side Canadian Pacific C-liner 4104.
With exception of a yard switcher, Fairbanks-Morse was the only manufacturer the Virginian bought diesels from, using H24-66 Trainmasters west of Roanoke and H16-44s from Roanoke east to the coast. I grew up in what used to be VGN territory (it’s actually considered my “hometown railroad” having been formed near my hometown, and it’s founder William Nelson Page spent much of his life in the area and his house is a historical landmark, and is a nice place to visit). Being interested in trains, I met many former VGN employees who worked on/around the Trainmasters and their predecessors: VGN’s collection of absolutely massive Mallet (often pronounced “malley” by the people of that era around here) locomotives. Virginian seemed to love the Trainmasters and didn’t experience the issues that seem to be much more common to other operators. At least they didn’t experience them as much. The Virginian was always known for having very heavy power, and running 20,000+ ton coal trains consisting of their famous 6-axle “battleship gondola” cars. So the 2,400 horse power, 110,000lbf tractive effort locomotives were right at home in the mountains of West Virginia. Once bought out by the Norfolk & Western, the N&W didn’t seem to like the opposed piston arrangement, and eventually re-engined them with different prime movers (I believe EMD models). But then again, N&W didn’t seem to care much for anything Virginian, quickly getting rid of the name, paint scheme, electrification, and most of the fleet.
#5 - Bombardier's best product was a snow mobile #4 - Hey! The giant catepillar was a "concept car" A nation fell in love with it, my dad had the Lionel when he was 5 The UP has a history of running experimental trains #3 - The engine needed a supercharger, it wasn't sucking enough oxygen #2 - Same problem as #3 #1 - Same thing as "Tender Booster" which existed in the 1930's - 1940's. They were steam powered tenders without the large wheels and valve gear (See Lehigh Valley 5001) they were a maintenance nightmare. They were probably a sales gimic
HitD there's something else that should be said about the steam tenders. Their tractive effort was most of the time none existence. The tender is a tender it carries the coal and water. Now when the steam tender is filled with the fuel its fine. But when there's less fuel in the tender it would tend to have wheelslip since theres not enough weight being applied to the tender.
The class 221 never had new lines to run on. With very few exceptions we still only have old lines to run on. They run at 125mph where allowed. There’s quite a few stretches where they can plus several runs above 100 but below 125. They were nicknamed Vomit Comets. Part of the reason passengers don’t like them is nothing to do with the space in them. It’s due to the Government deciding they only needed 4 and 5 car units where as midland had 7 car units. The trains would get overcrowded and too many were packed like sardines stood up.
The second pronunciation of Bombardier is correct and yeah you would expect them to be defunct with so many mishaps but their strength does lie in a few outliners like the Traxx locomotives but they do more the trains, they are also an aerospace firm and they build trams/lrt. One thing they did make which is performing still strong but is showing its age is the rolling stock used by the Eurotunnel Shuttle service
I already know one possibility that is being restored right now: Lake Superior and Ishpeming 18 (well-known for its service on the Grand Canyon Railway).
@@laaity Or, after rebuild, the Lancashire & Yorkshire Class 8 4-6-0. The rebuild improved them from "Absolutely Awful" to "A useful, workmanlike engine", all be it still a bit heavy on coal. BTW, I thought it was the Jubilees that had a really bad start, the only problem with the early Black 5 that I know about was the superheaters were a bit too small, so that later ones had much bigger superheaters.
@@robertwilloughby8050 i heard that the plans where stolen Then when the locomotives where made they realized the engine is flawed Sold them telling nobody anything A manufacturer finds out Told the people with the engines to give it to them Rebuilt the boiler with a balpare firebox Then it was one of the greatest engines in the world
Being a frequent user of the 221 on the cross country service, absolutely agree on the seat space, terrible!!! But also the terrible Wi-Fi service, and as for getting mobile single on the longest route in the UK, just forget it - allegedly something to do with the shiney film on the windows. Ah, first world problems 😂
Ohhh, god. That intro to the first engine had me laughing SO HARD "3801 quick! Steel chair time!" *Sounds of BR getting the snot beaten out of them* "thank you!!" LMFAOO
There were a few other issues with engines that used powered tenders, most notable of these being the North American "Triplex" locomotives. There were only four of these built in America, with Baldwin building three 2-8-8-8-2 engines for the Erie Railroad 1914-1916, and an additional one-of-a-kind 2-8-8-8-4 was built for the Virginian Railroad in 1916 as well. (The VRR classified there's as "XA".) - While they had great adhesion and a lot of power, the rate at which steam was consumed would quickly outpace the boiler's ability to produce steam, and as such these engines could not run past ~10 miles an hour for extended periods of time (the VRR's engine XA could only handle about 5 mph). In fact, the XA in generally is considered a far inferior design compared to the Erie's locomotives, despite Baldwin having actual personnel on sight who regularly tried to iron out kinks (without much success). - The _Matt Shay_ (the first of the bunch) proved they could handle pulling a train... in this case, one that was an astonishing 250 cars in length. Unfortunately, the journey was cut short at the 17 mile mark when one of the coal cars in tow had a coupling strained to failure. The engines would quite literally pull couplers and frames to their limits. It was found the only was to keep this from becoming a problem was for the engines to serve as bankers that pushed, rather than the intended idea of them actually pulling a train. Which is a shame, considering that some estimates thought they could have handled upwards of _650_ cars unassisted. (I am going to assume that number was drawn up before the engines had even been built.) - The Triplex engines did try to solve the smoke issue by having an additional funnel at the far end of the tender, away from the crew, which helped with the heat issue. However, smoke exiting this pipe did not have any impact on the draft through the firebox, which was effectively a waste. - As mentioned, crews complained about "twice the work, the same damn pay". - In fact, crews noted that just getting the boiler to fire up was often a very tedious process. - They had a tendency to chew through coal and consume large amounts of water. Again, this was fine for banking, but any long-distance routes without regular access to coal and water were out of the question. - An additional problem was that, as coal and water was consumed, the adhesion weight on the tender would be slowly reduced, which could prove problematic if not carefully handled. - The engines were maintenance heavy, with the XA in particular being notorious for this. Ultimately, the VRR found the engine not worth the hassle. In 1920, it was taken apart, and rebuilt into two (some sources say three) "new" locomotives. The Triplexs of the Erie Railroad lasted a bit longer, but even so they retired all three engines by 1927, with the engines being scrapped in 1929, 1931, and 1933.
Not sure what sources say XA #700 was rebuilt into 3 locomotives. The locomotive itself was rebuilt into class AF #610, a 2-8-8-0 used as a heavy yard switcher, and the last set of drivers and tender were rebuilt into class MD #410, a 2-8-2. I actually met a man years ago who worked for the Virginian in the very yard that thing ran out of. He didn’t work there while it was in service, showing up a few years after, but it was still often mentioned by his coworkers that had first hand experience with it. Aside from it being extremely maintenance heavy, he remembered it often being talked about running out of steam on a routine basis. The VGN put it on some of their toughest grades. Pulling trains, it had the power (for short periods) to pull a 20,000 ton coal train solo up those grades, theoretically eliminating the need to have 1 or 2 2-10-10-2 pushers to assist. Unfortunately, it had just as much tendency to risk ripping the train apart as it did running out of steam. Even as a pusher, it often ran out of steam which forced the whole train to back down the grade to try again. That would lead to it working hard enough to lose sufficient tender weight to cause severe wheel slippage. He said its biggest contribution to the line was illustrate the need to electrify the Mullens to Roanoke portion of the main.
Powered tenders also suffered from reduced traction benefits as the coal and water supplies were used thus rendering them somewhat inconsistently useful.
It's a shame Fairbanks-Morse couldn't get their designs quite right for railroad work, and that railroad crews couldn't or wouldn't give them the care and attention they needed. FM locomotives such as the "Erie Built" and the TrainMaster looked absolutely incredible and might have been more impactful on future locomotive designs, as the EMDs were, if they'd been able to turn things around into the 1950s.
Southern Pacific Commuter Crews really liked them, their acceleration was so great that SP had to modify their entire SDP45 fleet just to replace the Train Masters. They lasted 20 years in San Francisco-San Jose commuter service and were well worn by near daily use at top speed. The reason SP had the Train Masters in commute is rather coincidental, as SP originally intended for them to replace steam west El Paso, TX but the sand clogged up the insides rather infamously. Yet at the same time SP was in need of a high horsepower single unit to replace steam on the high priority SF commutes which the GP9 and SD7 proved incapable of, and conveniently SP had ordered the H24s with steam generators.
While steam tenders didn't have much success as steam tenders, one, at least, was/is very successful as its own locomotive. The Ravenglass and Eskdale Railway's River Mite started off as a steam tender for River Esk
@@the4tierbridge the tender was powered. The idea was to provide additional power for the stone trains but with the arrival of internal combustion locomotives, it was really necessary. The chassis, of course, went on to become the basis for the new River Mite. I think you're getting confused with the original River Mite which used the chassis from Sir Aubrey Brocklebank and Colossus.
While the use of the Fairbanks Morse OP engines in locomotives failed because EMD simply offered a better alternative, the Soviet Railways used a knock off version of this engine in huge numbers. Even today many locomotives powered by these engines are operational. They copied the design from U boat engines found in US U boats left at the end of WW2 (I don't know if those were under lend/lease), and after getting notice of the FM locomotives they designed a class of locomotives of their own which got in service in 1953, the TE3 powered by a straight copy of the 38D 8-1/8 producing 2000hp, the 2D100 engine. Then the engine developed into the 10D100 finally producing 3000hp, and used in all the sub series of the 2TE10 and 3TE10 locomotives. They suffered however from the same problems as the FM engines, overheating in hotter parts of the then USSR, crank case explosions and excessive smoking and sometimes exhaust fires because engine oil would leak from the upper crank case which was above the row of vertical cylinders into these cylinders when the engine was shut off or at idle for some time. This oil would burn off and cause thick smoke or ignite in the exhaust when the engine went under load. The 10D100 does smoke a lot anyway because their turbos are that big that they don't keep up with spooling up when the throttle is opened, so causing bad combustion, very similar to Alco locomotives.
Bombardier used to make double decker buses in Ireland for the Irish transport company CIÉ in the early 80's, using Detroit Diesel 6V71 engines. Have a Google, great story.
7:37: ERIE-BUILT Locomotives: In the discussion of the application of the very successful application of the Fairbanks-Morse OP engine in submarines and the not-so-successful application in railroad locomotives - primarily the overheating problem - it must be noted that a submarine had an unlimited supply of seawater cooling. Even though it was an enclosed recirculating fresh-water system on the engine itself, this system gave its accumulated heat up through a heat exchanger into the ocean. Absent the massive cooling capability at sea, the same engine produced more heat under load than air-cooled radiators on a locomotive could disperse.
You live down in Devon you will have gotten used to regularly going to catch a train and hearing a cross country 221 being delayed or cancelled due to ‘train faults’
Sturrock's steam tenders werent scrapped. They were simply reconverted to traditional tenders. They did actually work, records show them pulling a 450 ton train. Not bad for 1860
I guess a better design for a powered tender, is to mount electric motors on them. With a steam turbine generator to utilize the left energy in the steam exhausted from the locomotive, and a computer to automatically adjust the traction force from the tender.
Canidian National Railways Trainmaster 2900 also numbered 3000 at one point is preserved and it was cn’s only trainmaster, they never found a use for it, and that exists at the Ontario transportation museum in Ontario Canada, alongside the 2 cp trainmasters, a smaller train-master at Tennessee which was just bought by the Tennessee valley railroad museum, a former reading h24-64 turned into a Conrail slug.
Super Voyagers, otherwise known as "Vomiters". As well as the HSTs and Class 158s mentioned, the 221s (and non-tilting 220s) replaced Class 47-hauled Cross Country Trains. The Voyagers were smaller, noisier and less comfortable than the trains they replaced, and work some of the longest routes in Great Britain. They were very much a downgrade from the older BR-era trains.
Sorry, the biggest problem of both the 220 and 221 (which both suffered from the resistor problem) was the fact that the exhaust ran right next to the toilet vent, meaning that there was a smell of sewage that permeated the passenger area. I'm not joking either. They literally stank of s**t. The 221s were mainly there to replace Class 47 locomotive and Mk2 coach sets, as well as a few HSTs.
On re-watching this, I flicked through the comments and realised I wasn't the only one who hadn't commented on the chunky looking first entry in the "Steam Tenders" segment. For those who don't recognise the initials "R&ER", that's the Ravenglass & Eskdale Railway (Cumbria, UK, where it's locally referred to as La'al Ratty*). The loco in that shot is 'River Esk', a 2-8-2 designed by Henry Greenly, built in 1923 by Davey Paxman (who a couple of years later went on to respectively design and build the Romney, Hythe & Dymchurch Railway locos, Nos 1-3, 5-8). If those are unfamiliar lines, they're two 15inch gauge lines (yep ... 1ft 3in), both still running today. "Esk" originally featured Lentz poppet valve gear, which was evidently unsuccessful, being replaced in 1928 with Walschaerts, the same year it obtained the steam tender. That remarkably beefy looking loco stands around 5ft high!! The reason for River Esk's steam tender was that this miniature line hauled granite commercially until the 1960s, though in 1929 the company straddled the miniature line with standard gauge rails between Ravenglass and the stone crushing plant at Murthwaite, which was operated by an 0-6-0 Kerr Stuart diesel loco (No.4421), now a 95 year old resident at the Foxfield Light Railway! Uniquely for a miniature railway, the line also had a 4-6-0+0-6-4 -monstrosity- loco (classified as a Kitson-Meyer), reconstructed in 1927 from two miniature outline 'pacific' locos. This was the first 'River Mite', which due to the "scale" nature of the donor locomotives, wore out in the late 1930s, the remains being broken up in the 1950s. Rather than being scrapped, the parts of River Esk's tender were stored and later used in the 1960s to construct of a near copy of Esk, which reused the name 'River Mite'. With the exception of the 4-6-0+0-6-4, all the steam locos mentioned are still with us, River Esk was very seriously damaged in a workshop fire in 2013, before having a very thorough rebuilding between 2015 and 2018. *La'al Ratty was built in 1915 on the course of the failed 3ft gauge Ravenglass & Eskdale Railway, colloquially known as 'Owd Ratty'
Now that's just silly. Voyagers may be loathed by the enthusiast community, but they've been in service for 20 years now and have proved very reliable. No possible way you could say they should have succeeded but failed
They are usually reliable because of the maintenance depot that was constructed especially for them near Burton-on-Trent. However, they are far less versatile than the HST that is a full 26 years older.
I agree that the Voyagers are a mixed bag. I don't think the seats are that uncomfortable, since they're pretty similar to the Class 390 Pendalinos. But the tilting mechanism does indeed make them excessively narrow. They're plenty fast, but I'd otherwise describe them as being completely average.
Bombardier made very successful electric multiple units for S-Bahn and U-Bahn in many German cities as well as regional train EMUs (Talent series) and very successful double decker regional train cars. They were also involved in building the excellent ICE3 trains.
Bombardier is best known for "Ski doos" and water crafts "sea doos". at one time they made air planes (sold) and railway engines and passenger cars (sold) and still make light rail cars.
The problem with the 221s is that only virgin ordered them and that they were horribly outclassed by their tilting virgin cousin the 390. And also the cross country ones suck because cross country rushed them and it shows.
The Voyagers are...OK. Extremely fast accelerating, though ride a bit iffy at speed. Major quirk is the smell of wee from the toilets that seems to permanently infuse the carriages!!
The Chihuahua al Pacifico railway used Fairbanks Morse locomotives for about 20 years under much worse conditions than they ever saw on US railways. FM locomotives did better as switchers than as road locomotives in the USA and were noted for ease of use and pulling power. Besides railroad locomotives, the Russians used the FM style opposed piston motors in the T-64 tanks and Ukrainians in their T-84 tanks.
Maybe instead of steam tenders they could've made a driveshaft that connects the locomotive's driving wheels to the tender. This way there's only one regulator needed, but the pistons would need to be dimensioned with the driven tender in mind. And with a power take off system similar to what tractors use (which tbf wasn't invented yet) the tender could still be decoupled if necessary. I heard of Shays using similar systems, but those obviously have driveshafts all the way to the pistons
Say what you will about the Class 221 but the mileage they cover vs the downtime they suffer due to reliability and the sort is astonishing. Its extremely rare that they fail in service.
Speaking of Bombardier. The NYC Subway has some models built by them, and the last model we got from (R179) , has some SERIOUS issues: 1) welding issues caused cracks in the prototype trains, causing the lot being rejected, and pushing the delivery schedule back 2) The Delays in delivery would also increase the cost of the cars (Because of point 1 and 2, they were banned from bidding on the R211 contract, which was going to be a MASSIVE contract, going over $3 BILLION) 3) The first cars that were delivered and put into service, then pulled out of service because of more issues (Doors, propulsion, and air compressors) 4) MORE welding defects were found on some the cars (Collision pillars) 5) The biggest F up was when a Consist of 10 cars was pulling into the Chambers Street Station, something happened to the link bar between the 6 and 7 cars, causing the train to split into 2 sets of cars. lucky this happened in the middle of night, at 1AM. Some sources: www.nydailynews.com/new-york/mta-encounters-delay-replacing-trains-article-1.1883555 montrealgazette.com/business/local-business/bombardier-shut-out-of-n-y-subway-contract-because-of-poor-performance-report ny.curbed.com/2017/12/11/16761874/mta-nyc-subway-r179-train-problems www.mta.info/press-release/nyc-transit/new-york-city-transit-interim-president-sarah-feinberg-launches
Another problem with the Super Voyagers was that after they were ordered and entered service, there was a big shake up of the franchises in the UK which meant that Cross Country who inherited most of the Super Voyagers from Virgin Trains were not given the main route that the Super Voyagers were designed for, the northern West Coast route past Manchester. Ironically the services were handed over to Trans Pennine Express using none tilting 100mph DMUs, although these were later replaced by similar EMUs, and now finally have 125mph none tilting EMUs. A few of the Super Voyagers were kept with Virgin Trains West Coast to run to none electrified destinations alongside their electric tilting Pendolinos, and these are still run by Avanti West Coast although due to be replaced by new bi-mode trains based on the Hitachi IET. As well as the tilt profile, another issue with the Super Voyager is the weight. Due to the tilt equipment each coach weights about 10tonnes more than a normal Voyager (and they aren't light). As well as increasing stress on the track, they also don't have the same acceleration and are barely better than the HSTs they replaced. Their one advantage though is that unlike the Voyagers they have a 5th coach, giving quite a bit of extra capacity.
I am not that well informed when it comes to bombardier's international performance, but I do know that they have several bigger contracts with the German rail operator DB. These contracts, among other things, include a 30% share in the ICE 4 construction as a supplier. Note that this contract is DB's largest control, in terms of capital, to this date. As well as the procurement of the intercity 2 train, of which they will buy around 120 units of. But the intercity 2 apparently also has its teething issues.
For one of the Worst trains list can you do BR 10100 or the fell locomotive but technically we have the LMS to blame for it as it was built right before BR grouping en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_10100
Most successful trains: EU06 Based on the British Class 83, it was a license built electric locomotive for the Polish State Railways (PKP). The inside mechanics were basically the same as the class 83 but based on the EU06, multiple other Polish locomotives were built, such as the EU07/EP07, EP08, ET22, ET41 Basically the backbone of the Polish State Railways since the 60s.
How about 5 not as known trains If you were to do this, PLEASE talk the Florida east coast railway 4-8-2 Mountains and the southern railway's ps-2 and ps-3 class 4-6-2 pacifics
"38-01 get the steel chair" why is that so damn funny to me? _God I love that locomotive._
Best part of the video!!
"3801 quick steel chair time"
For anyone wondering how Bombardier stays afloat: it’s heavily, HEAVILY subsidized by the Canadian government because its a major company from the Province of Quebec, which had a problem with never having any money. It’s to help “stimulate their economy” or something.
Well now they’re part of alstom which gives them the perk of being able to stay afloat quite easier.
@@twinboo529 but they still get the subsidies!
They’re not even French-Canadian any more!
The only success I see about them is the Bi-Level Car and Bi-Level Cab cars on US & Canada's commuter systems, including Metrolink in California which are migrating to the Hyundai cars and the new EMD F125. I wish Amtrak choose that instead of equipment from the Ex. Nazi company Siemens.
Don't they also make private jets or is that is different bombadier
@@hypernovamkvi715 no.
They make both.
1:03 Darkness: Quick, 3801!! Steel chair time!!!
3801: *MY TIME IS NOW* **sacks the BR logo**
That's the best bit
Lol that’s so true
There is 1 succesfull type of steamtender locomotive who was build in large numbers worldwide.
The Garret.
The water tender in front and the water/coal tender at the rear, both have a set of driving wheels on it.
The Boiler hangs articulated between both tenders.
Technically that wouldn't be a steam tender, as the driving wheels are articulated under the coal and water tanks, but the boiler is still the primary generator of steam. The "tenders" don't have power plants of their own.
@@TheNightmareRider It depends how you classify a steamtender engine. A garret has its driving wheels exclusivly beneath its front and rear tender.
Yes it has way more articulation then a normal locomotive who has its driving wheels riggid under the boiler.
A normal tender has very little articulation so the aditional set of driving wheels under the tender gave more problems then it solved.
Garrat
Garrets didn't have tenders.....
They were technically monsterous tank engines.
The Garratt was designed by Mr. Garratt (an Australian). Who sold the patents to the Beyer Peacock locomotive construction Co, of Gorton Manchester (UK). This revolutionary design involved DOUBLE ARTICULATION, whereby the cab & boiler are built on Bridge girders with NOTHING beneath. This central section was then attached to two engines one at each end using heavy duty pivots. On top of the two engines were placed large water tanks. With the engine nearest the cab also having a coal bunker.
This design was extremely clever in solving a number of issues in the "Colonies". It allowed huge great powerful & heavy steam locos to pull huge trains on lightly laid track with as little as 40lbs a yard rail. It also allowed these MONSTERS, to negotiate horribly sharp curves. And cross weak bridges, because the total weight was divided through opposite ends of the loco, spreading the load. These locos as a result were built in their hundreds, for use in many British Colonies all over the World, running on all sorts of different track gauges.
Probably the most dramtic Garratts built, were built under license by the French (pre WW2) for use in Algeria. These huge standard gauge monsters were semi-streamlined, and used on both express trains as well as heavy freight, on the large Algerian rail network.
South Africa was also well known for having hundreds of Garratts of various designs both on their 2ft 6in lines, as well as their 3ft 6in mainlines. Some weighing over 250tons. A handful of these ex South African 2ft 6in gauge Garratts, TODAY now run on the Welsh Highland Railway through the stunning Aberglasyn pass in North Wales (UK), having been re-gauged to 1ft 11.5in gauge !!!
YES!
Finally, a video mentioning the Train Master! Oh, this is a wonderful day!
We have 1 trainmaster left. Its at TVRM
The SP's Trainmasters were relegated to the San Francisco Bay Area commuter trains, because when they tried them on the road pulling freight (Sunset Route, based in El Paso,and LA-San Francisco), they encountered the same heating issues and sleeve and crankshaft failures in the American Southwest that you documented for the Erie Builts. They lasted into the early 1980's on the Bay Area commutes, where the workload, temperature, and altitude was just right, and a ready pool of Fairbanks Morse opposed piston mechanics were available (thanks to the US Navy's big presence in the bay).
They lasted until 1975 when Amtrak ended their lease of SP SDP45s and SP had an order of 3 GP40P-2s on the way.
"How is Bombardier still not defunct?"
TRAXX. The TRAXX locomotives have become so massively succesful that they can coast on that succes for years to come
They did end up being aquired ba Alston though, so technically they aren't around anymore (not that this changed much)
they are everywhere in the worlds rail networks, they got a contract worth £1.3 Billion for 70 Aventra trains for crossrail in 2014 along with a maintenance depot at Old Oak Common
@@cyri96 to put it simply, Bombardier Transportation was big in railway equipment as Google is today in IT. Until the trouble started in 2012. Bought by Alstom. As of January 29, 2021, BT is defunct as a company. Their designs (TRAXX among others) are continued to be produced.
Also all the planes they have built.
@@SDCHAWKSTITO Yes. Bombardier Aviation (Canadair & de Havilland Canada formerly). Best business jets on the market today!
I've worked on FM Opposed Piston Diesels while serving in the Navy, and they were actually quite simple to work on. The big problem was not exactly due to their design but maintenenace crews not being familier with them. Having no cylinder heads, and associated valves gave them much fewer moving parts. One of the biggest issues from a design stand point is that they don't like running at less then a full load. Being two cycles they would build up excessive carbon in their exhaust boxes and behind the piston rings if run at a light load excessively. For a railroad this isn't too much of a problem as locomotives don't usually run light loaded or idle for long periods of time. As far as crank case explosions, no they aren't good at all. Parts of pistons or rods can and sometimes do hit the side of the crank case hard enough to come through. I have also seen the bottom crank shaft on one of these broken in three pieces, and according to the crew it belonged to, it was still running and trying to power the generator it was attached to.
Oh Mr. Darkness; "Door--Lish" nope, all one word, no gap or USA emphasis on the second syllable. You got Bombardier right, well done.
Bombardier Transportation was the world's largest rail equipment manufacturer. Bought by Alstom. Defunct since January 29, 2021.
If there's any electric/hybrid locomotive (TRAXX being cutting edge) in the world, tram, light rail, rapid transit (metro, subway, tube, underground etc. terms) or high-speed train, Bombardier Transportation had the largest share.
The steam tender idea is an interesting idea but they had problems
1. Expensive maintenance
2. High fuel consumption
3. More work required
4. More efficient and powerful locomotive where being built
Also there is a book that talks about the steam tenders and many other engines you have talked about and the book is called Experiments with steam landmarks of British locomotive designs.
Well it was that or build a garret....
Which works in a similar way only like a monsterous tank engine...
That is a fair point but Garrett locomotives were in constant development to get them Bigger stronger and more efficient, had the steam tenders had the same treatment instead of being short lived they could have developed them into powerful and efficient engines.
Never been a great fan if the Class 221s but a bit harsh to put them on this list. They've been the backbone of the cross country service for a couple of decades
I hate them,uncomfortable and they stink (at least the one I went on)
You sure?
Last i checked on Cross Country they were using class 43's on lease to VTEC because idk why.
@@davidty2006 To be fair rarely go by train now, but did a short hop from Wakefield to Leeds about 6 weeks ago and it was a 221. I don't disagree about them being noisy and cramped, but I'm not convinced that makes them a failure. And preferable to a Pacer any day of the week
@@davidty2006 When I went outside and actually touched grass I saw more cross country 221s than 43s
Honestly? I've travelled on the 221s many times over the years and never really noticed any ride quality problems.
There were a few times where you'd come into a station and you'd notice that the train hadn't returned fully upright and you were just sitting there on a slight slant. That was always funny if inconsequential.
One really difficult thing with a tender that can apply power to the rails is the tender has a very fluctuating weight sometimes she's heavy sometimes she's light so sometimes attractive effort departed on to the rail was amazing sometimes all you got was Will slip unlike the engine which the weight stays fairly consistent
The FM Trainmasters saw a little success with the Southern Pacific, which apparently employed enough former Navy personnel in their shops for the opposed piston engines (which are still used on ships and submarines to this day iirc,) to not be an issue. They didn't just look cool though, if that weren't enough! They sounded like absolute units too (I recommend listening with headphones, as the sheer bass the FM engines had is incredible): ruclips.net/video/XElWHtywY6I/видео.html
Just to point out, there are actually 2 intact Canadian Pacific H-24-66 locomotives. The first is mentioned in your video and the second is on display in Nelson BC along side Canadian Pacific C-liner 4104.
With exception of a yard switcher, Fairbanks-Morse was the only manufacturer the Virginian bought diesels from, using H24-66 Trainmasters west of Roanoke and H16-44s from Roanoke east to the coast. I grew up in what used to be VGN territory (it’s actually considered my “hometown railroad” having been formed near my hometown, and it’s founder William Nelson Page spent much of his life in the area and his house is a historical landmark, and is a nice place to visit). Being interested in trains, I met many former VGN employees who worked on/around the Trainmasters and their predecessors: VGN’s collection of absolutely massive Mallet (often pronounced “malley” by the people of that era around here) locomotives. Virginian seemed to love the Trainmasters and didn’t experience the issues that seem to be much more common to other operators. At least they didn’t experience them as much. The Virginian was always known for having very heavy power, and running 20,000+ ton coal trains consisting of their famous 6-axle “battleship gondola” cars. So the 2,400 horse power, 110,000lbf tractive effort locomotives were right at home in the mountains of West Virginia. Once bought out by the Norfolk & Western, the N&W didn’t seem to like the opposed piston arrangement, and eventually re-engined them with different prime movers (I believe EMD models). But then again, N&W didn’t seem to care much for anything Virginian, quickly getting rid of the name, paint scheme, electrification, and most of the fleet.
Re: Fairbanks Morse opposed-piston diesels
The US Navy was putting them in their nuclear submarines as a backup power generator well into the 1980s.
Fairbanks-Morse still sells this engine for use as a stationary power plant, to this day.
Here's a new idea. How about 5 CURRENT AMAZING TRAINS that don't have much time left?
#5 - Bombardier's best product was a snow mobile
#4 - Hey! The giant catepillar was a "concept car" A nation fell in love with it, my dad had the Lionel when he was 5 The UP has a history of running experimental trains
#3 - The engine needed a supercharger, it wasn't sucking enough oxygen
#2 - Same problem as #3
#1 - Same thing as "Tender Booster" which existed in the 1930's - 1940's. They were steam powered tenders without the large wheels and valve gear (See Lehigh Valley 5001) they were a maintenance nightmare. They were probably a sales gimic
HitD there's something else that should be said about the steam tenders. Their tractive effort was most of the time none existence. The tender is a tender it carries the coal and water. Now when the steam tender is filled with the fuel its fine. But when there's less fuel in the tender it would tend to have wheelslip since theres not enough weight being applied to the tender.
The class 221 never had new lines to run on. With very few exceptions we still only have old lines to run on. They run at 125mph where allowed. There’s quite a few stretches where they can plus several runs above 100 but below 125. They were nicknamed Vomit Comets. Part of the reason passengers don’t like them is nothing to do with the space in them. It’s due to the Government deciding they only needed 4 and 5 car units where as midland had 7 car units. The trains would get overcrowded and too many were packed like sardines stood up.
The second pronunciation of Bombardier is correct and yeah you would expect them to be defunct with so many mishaps but their strength does lie in a few outliners like the Traxx locomotives but they do more the trains, they are also an aerospace firm and they build trams/lrt. One thing they did make which is performing still strong but is showing its age is the rolling stock used by the Eurotunnel Shuttle service
British Railway: One of Us, One of Us, One of Us.
I think a series of the Best extinct trains would be cool
How about 5 trains that failed horribly (then got better)?
I already know one possibility that is being restored right now: Lake Superior and Ishpeming 18 (well-known for its service on the Grand Canyon Railway).
That's a GREAT idea 💡👍
Yea like the black 5
@@laaity Or, after rebuild, the Lancashire & Yorkshire Class 8 4-6-0. The rebuild improved them from "Absolutely Awful" to "A useful, workmanlike engine", all be it still a bit heavy on coal. BTW, I thought it was the Jubilees that had a really bad start, the only problem with the early Black 5 that I know about was the superheaters were a bit too small, so that later ones had much bigger superheaters.
@@robertwilloughby8050 i heard that the plans where stolen
Then when the locomotives where made they realized the engine is flawed
Sold them telling nobody anything
A manufacturer finds out
Told the people with the engines to give it to them
Rebuilt the boiler with a balpare firebox
Then it was one of the greatest engines in the world
I love fairbanks morse locomotives all were years advance of their time. The trainmaster was their most best engine in my opinion.
Being a frequent user of the 221 on the cross country service, absolutely agree on the seat space, terrible!!! But also the terrible Wi-Fi service, and as for getting mobile single on the longest route in the UK, just forget it - allegedly something to do with the shiney film on the windows. Ah, first world problems 😂
Ohhh, god. That intro to the first engine had me laughing SO HARD "3801 quick! Steel chair time!" *Sounds of BR getting the snot beaten out of them* "thank you!!" LMFAOO
There were a few other issues with engines that used powered tenders, most notable of these being the North American "Triplex" locomotives. There were only four of these built in America, with Baldwin building three 2-8-8-8-2 engines for the Erie Railroad 1914-1916, and an additional one-of-a-kind 2-8-8-8-4 was built for the Virginian Railroad in 1916 as well. (The VRR classified there's as "XA".)
- While they had great adhesion and a lot of power, the rate at which steam was consumed would quickly outpace the boiler's ability to produce steam, and as such these engines could not run past ~10 miles an hour for extended periods of time (the VRR's engine XA could only handle about 5 mph). In fact, the XA in generally is considered a far inferior design compared to the Erie's locomotives, despite Baldwin having actual personnel on sight who regularly tried to iron out kinks (without much success).
- The _Matt Shay_ (the first of the bunch) proved they could handle pulling a train... in this case, one that was an astonishing 250 cars in length. Unfortunately, the journey was cut short at the 17 mile mark when one of the coal cars in tow had a coupling strained to failure. The engines would quite literally pull couplers and frames to their limits. It was found the only was to keep this from becoming a problem was for the engines to serve as bankers that pushed, rather than the intended idea of them actually pulling a train. Which is a shame, considering that some estimates thought they could have handled upwards of _650_ cars unassisted. (I am going to assume that number was drawn up before the engines had even been built.)
- The Triplex engines did try to solve the smoke issue by having an additional funnel at the far end of the tender, away from the crew, which helped with the heat issue. However, smoke exiting this pipe did not have any impact on the draft through the firebox, which was effectively a waste.
- As mentioned, crews complained about "twice the work, the same damn pay".
- In fact, crews noted that just getting the boiler to fire up was often a very tedious process.
- They had a tendency to chew through coal and consume large amounts of water. Again, this was fine for banking, but any long-distance routes without regular access to coal and water were out of the question.
- An additional problem was that, as coal and water was consumed, the adhesion weight on the tender would be slowly reduced, which could prove problematic if not carefully handled.
- The engines were maintenance heavy, with the XA in particular being notorious for this.
Ultimately, the VRR found the engine not worth the hassle. In 1920, it was taken apart, and rebuilt into two (some sources say three) "new" locomotives.
The Triplexs of the Erie Railroad lasted a bit longer, but even so they retired all three engines by 1927, with the engines being scrapped in 1929, 1931, and 1933.
Not sure what sources say XA #700 was rebuilt into 3 locomotives. The locomotive itself was rebuilt into class AF #610, a 2-8-8-0 used as a heavy yard switcher, and the last set of drivers and tender were rebuilt into class MD #410, a 2-8-2. I actually met a man years ago who worked for the Virginian in the very yard that thing ran out of. He didn’t work there while it was in service, showing up a few years after, but it was still often mentioned by his coworkers that had first hand experience with it. Aside from it being extremely maintenance heavy, he remembered it often being talked about running out of steam on a routine basis. The VGN put it on some of their toughest grades. Pulling trains, it had the power (for short periods) to pull a 20,000 ton coal train solo up those grades, theoretically eliminating the need to have 1 or 2 2-10-10-2 pushers to assist. Unfortunately, it had just as much tendency to risk ripping the train apart as it did running out of steam. Even as a pusher, it often ran out of steam which forced the whole train to back down the grade to try again. That would lead to it working hard enough to lose sufficient tender weight to cause severe wheel slippage. He said its biggest contribution to the line was illustrate the need to electrify the Mullens to Roanoke portion of the main.
Powered tenders also suffered from reduced traction benefits as the coal and water supplies were used thus rendering them somewhat inconsistently useful.
It's a shame Fairbanks-Morse couldn't get their designs quite right for railroad work, and that railroad crews couldn't or wouldn't give them the care and attention they needed. FM locomotives such as the "Erie Built" and the TrainMaster looked absolutely incredible and might have been more impactful on future locomotive designs, as the EMDs were, if they'd been able to turn things around into the 1950s.
Southern Pacific Commuter Crews really liked them, their acceleration was so great that SP had to modify their entire SDP45 fleet just to replace the Train Masters. They lasted 20 years in San Francisco-San Jose commuter service and were well worn by near daily use at top speed. The reason SP had the Train Masters in commute is rather coincidental, as SP originally intended for them to replace steam west El Paso, TX but the sand clogged up the insides rather infamously. Yet at the same time SP was in need of a high horsepower single unit to replace steam on the high priority SF commutes which the GP9 and SD7 proved incapable of, and conveniently SP had ordered the H24s with steam generators.
While steam tenders didn't have much success as steam tenders, one, at least, was/is very successful as its own locomotive. The Ravenglass and Eskdale Railway's River Mite started off as a steam tender for River Esk
But the tender was unpowered.
They just didn’t wanna build a wheelset and so took ones of Sans Pareil or Colossus.
@@the4tierbridge the tender was powered. The idea was to provide additional power for the stone trains but with the arrival of internal combustion locomotives, it was really necessary.
The chassis, of course, went on to become the basis for the new River Mite.
I think you're getting confused with the original River Mite which used the chassis from Sir Aubrey Brocklebank and Colossus.
@@jameswells6003 my book lied to me!
@@the4tierbridge I double checked, to be sure, in an addition of the official Ravenglass & Eskdale Railway's stock books. 🙂
@@jameswells6003 oh
While the use of the Fairbanks Morse OP engines in locomotives failed because EMD simply offered a better alternative, the Soviet Railways used a knock off version of this engine in huge numbers. Even today many locomotives powered by these engines are operational.
They copied the design from U boat engines found in US U boats left at the end of WW2 (I don't know if those were under lend/lease), and after getting notice of the FM locomotives they designed a class of locomotives of their own which got in service in 1953, the TE3 powered by a straight copy of the 38D 8-1/8 producing 2000hp, the 2D100 engine.
Then the engine developed into the 10D100 finally producing 3000hp, and used in all the sub series of the 2TE10 and 3TE10 locomotives.
They suffered however from the same problems as the FM engines, overheating in hotter parts of the then USSR, crank case explosions and excessive smoking and sometimes exhaust fires because engine oil would leak from the upper crank case which was above the row of vertical cylinders into these cylinders when the engine was shut off or at idle for some time.
This oil would burn off and cause thick smoke or ignite in the exhaust when the engine went under load.
The 10D100 does smoke a lot anyway because their turbos are that big that they don't keep up with spooling up when the throttle is opened, so causing bad combustion, very similar to Alco locomotives.
Bombardier used to make double decker buses in Ireland for the Irish transport company CIÉ in the early 80's, using Detroit Diesel 6V71 engines. Have a Google, great story.
An idea for a list.
Oldest locomotives to survive till the present day.
Check out Anthony Dawson on RUclips. He specializes in that. He has loads of videos about early steam all the way back to Trevithick.
The steam tender would be useful for getting started particularly after you just took on water.
7:37: ERIE-BUILT Locomotives: In the discussion of the application of the very successful application of the Fairbanks-Morse OP engine in submarines and the not-so-successful application in railroad locomotives - primarily the overheating problem - it must be noted that a submarine had an unlimited supply of seawater cooling. Even though it was an enclosed recirculating fresh-water system on the engine itself, this system gave its accumulated heat up through a heat exchanger into the ocean. Absent the massive cooling capability at sea, the same engine produced more heat under load than air-cooled radiators on a locomotive could disperse.
You live down in Devon you will have gotten used to regularly going to catch a train and hearing a cross country 221 being delayed or cancelled due to ‘train faults’
Sturrock's steam tenders werent scrapped. They were simply reconverted to traditional tenders. They did actually work, records show them pulling a 450 ton train. Not bad for 1860
I guess a better design for a powered tender, is to mount electric motors on them. With a steam turbine generator to utilize the left energy in the steam exhausted from the locomotive, and a computer to automatically adjust the traction force from the tender.
Canidian National Railways Trainmaster 2900 also numbered 3000 at one point is preserved and it was cn’s only trainmaster, they never found a use for it, and that exists at the Ontario transportation museum in Ontario Canada, alongside the 2 cp trainmasters, a smaller train-master at Tennessee which was just bought by the Tennessee valley railroad museum, a former reading h24-64 turned into a Conrail slug.
Super Voyagers, otherwise known as "Vomiters". As well as the HSTs and Class 158s mentioned, the 221s (and non-tilting 220s) replaced Class 47-hauled Cross Country Trains. The Voyagers were smaller, noisier and less comfortable than the trains they replaced, and work some of the longest routes in Great Britain. They were very much a downgrade from the older BR-era trains.
Sorry, the biggest problem of both the 220 and 221 (which both suffered from the resistor problem) was the fact that the exhaust ran right next to the toilet vent, meaning that there was a smell of sewage that permeated the passenger area. I'm not joking either. They literally stank of s**t. The 221s were mainly there to replace Class 47 locomotive and Mk2 coach sets, as well as a few HSTs.
went to the Canadian Railway Museum in 2017. what a place. everything Canadian and a few British and France steam locos. Great Museum!
1:02 | when history in the dark had enough.
On re-watching this, I flicked through the comments and realised I wasn't the only one who hadn't commented on the chunky looking first entry in the "Steam Tenders" segment.
For those who don't recognise the initials "R&ER", that's the Ravenglass & Eskdale Railway (Cumbria, UK, where it's locally referred to as La'al Ratty*). The loco in that shot is 'River Esk', a 2-8-2 designed by Henry Greenly, built in 1923 by Davey Paxman (who a couple of years later went on to respectively design and build the Romney, Hythe & Dymchurch Railway locos, Nos 1-3, 5-8).
If those are unfamiliar lines, they're two 15inch gauge lines (yep ... 1ft 3in), both still running today. "Esk" originally featured Lentz poppet valve gear, which was evidently unsuccessful, being replaced in 1928 with Walschaerts, the same year it obtained the steam tender.
That remarkably beefy looking loco stands around 5ft high!!
The reason for River Esk's steam tender was that this miniature line hauled granite commercially until the 1960s, though in 1929 the company straddled the miniature line with standard gauge rails between Ravenglass and the stone crushing plant at Murthwaite, which was operated by an 0-6-0 Kerr Stuart diesel loco (No.4421), now a 95 year old resident at the Foxfield Light Railway!
Uniquely for a miniature railway, the line also had a 4-6-0+0-6-4 -monstrosity- loco (classified as a Kitson-Meyer), reconstructed in 1927 from two miniature outline 'pacific' locos. This was the first 'River Mite', which due to the "scale" nature of the donor locomotives, wore out in the late 1930s, the remains being broken up in the 1950s.
Rather than being scrapped, the parts of River Esk's tender were stored and later used in the 1960s to construct of a near copy of Esk, which reused the name 'River Mite'.
With the exception of the 4-6-0+0-6-4, all the steam locos mentioned are still with us, River Esk was very seriously damaged in a workshop fire in 2013, before having a very thorough rebuilding between 2015 and 2018.
*La'al Ratty was built in 1915 on the course of the failed 3ft gauge Ravenglass & Eskdale Railway, colloquially known as 'Owd Ratty'
Steam tenders would have probably worked quite well on a cab forward design.
"3801 QUICK! STILL CHAIR TIME!"
Could you maybe make a video on why Japanese and Swiss trains are so good?
Would be great to see why the trains that are good, are good.
But LIONEL made a million trainmasters and kids loved them !!!!
Bombardier is WELL known for airplanes, Like the Dash-7 and 8
Now that's just silly. Voyagers may be loathed by the enthusiast community, but they've been in service for 20 years now and have proved very reliable. No possible way you could say they should have succeeded but failed
They are usually reliable because of the maintenance depot that was constructed especially for them near Burton-on-Trent. However, they are far less versatile than the HST that is a full 26 years older.
I agree that the Voyagers are a mixed bag. I don't think the seats are that uncomfortable, since they're pretty similar to the Class 390 Pendalinos. But the tilting mechanism does indeed make them excessively narrow. They're plenty fast, but I'd otherwise describe them as being completely average.
Bombardier made very successful electric multiple units for S-Bahn and U-Bahn in many German cities as well as regional train EMUs (Talent series) and very successful double decker regional train cars. They were also involved in building the excellent ICE3 trains.
Bombardier is also an aircraft company, that's probably how they stay afloat
As someone from Québec, yeah, your pronunciation of Bombardier was pretty close
Bombardier is best known for "Ski doos" and water crafts "sea doos". at one time they made air planes (sold) and railway engines and passenger cars (sold) and still make light rail cars.
Bombardier's tilt feature didn't work on the Acela either.
On my HO club's layout, these engines run fantastic!
The 1st HITD episode I EVER watched... And I still love it.^^
The problem with the 221s is that only virgin ordered them and that they were horribly outclassed by their tilting virgin cousin the 390. And also the cross country ones suck because cross country rushed them and it shows.
Yay you said bombardier correct on your second go!
The Voyagers are...OK. Extremely fast accelerating, though ride a bit iffy at speed. Major quirk is the smell of wee from the toilets that seems to permanently infuse the carriages!!
The Chihuahua al Pacifico railway used Fairbanks Morse locomotives for about 20 years under much worse conditions than they ever saw on US railways. FM locomotives did better as switchers than as road locomotives in the USA and were noted for ease of use and pulling power.
Besides railroad locomotives, the Russians used the FM style opposed piston motors in the T-64 tanks and Ukrainians in their T-84 tanks.
Bombardier made some great trains such as the Comet / Horizon Series cars from NJ Transit that was originally designed from Pullman Standard
Bombardier did fine building other peoples designs. When they had to design their own equipment they failed.
Maybe instead of steam tenders they could've made a driveshaft that connects the locomotive's driving wheels to the tender. This way there's only one regulator needed, but the pistons would need to be dimensioned with the driven tender in mind. And with a power take off system similar to what tractors use (which tbf wasn't invented yet) the tender could still be decoupled if necessary.
I heard of Shays using similar systems, but those obviously have driveshafts all the way to the pistons
Say what you will about the Class 221 but the mileage they cover vs the downtime they suffer due to reliability and the sort is astonishing. Its extremely rare that they fail in service.
I know Erie had a triplex locomotive and wasn't successful but some tenders did have boosters installed for starting a train.
Speaking of Bombardier. The NYC Subway has some models built by them, and the last model we got from (R179) , has some SERIOUS issues:
1) welding issues caused cracks in the prototype trains, causing the lot being rejected, and pushing the delivery schedule back
2) The Delays in delivery would also increase the cost of the cars
(Because of point 1 and 2, they were banned from bidding on the R211 contract, which was going to be a MASSIVE contract, going over $3 BILLION)
3) The first cars that were delivered and put into service, then pulled out of service because of more issues (Doors, propulsion, and air compressors)
4) MORE welding defects were found on some the cars (Collision pillars)
5) The biggest F up was when a Consist of 10 cars was pulling into the Chambers Street Station, something happened to the link bar between the 6 and 7 cars, causing the train to split into 2 sets of cars. lucky this happened in the middle of night, at 1AM.
Some sources:
www.nydailynews.com/new-york/mta-encounters-delay-replacing-trains-article-1.1883555
montrealgazette.com/business/local-business/bombardier-shut-out-of-n-y-subway-contract-because-of-poor-performance-report
ny.curbed.com/2017/12/11/16761874/mta-nyc-subway-r179-train-problems
www.mta.info/press-release/nyc-transit/new-york-city-transit-interim-president-sarah-feinberg-launches
1:34 i snorted my drink through my nose at that
You had it right with “Bom-bar-D-Yay” pronunciation
To be fair the Train master is still great without any problems
Yeah, the opposed-piston engines proved maintenance headaches in railroad use, but when they ran, they RAN...
The Class 222 was the cross-bread that finalised the design faults that the 220 and 221 most definitely have
Another problem with the Super Voyagers was that after they were ordered and entered service, there was a big shake up of the franchises in the UK which meant that Cross Country who inherited most of the Super Voyagers from Virgin Trains were not given the main route that the Super Voyagers were designed for, the northern West Coast route past Manchester. Ironically the services were handed over to Trans Pennine Express using none tilting 100mph DMUs, although these were later replaced by similar EMUs, and now finally have 125mph none tilting EMUs. A few of the Super Voyagers were kept with Virgin Trains West Coast to run to none electrified destinations alongside their electric tilting Pendolinos, and these are still run by Avanti West Coast although due to be replaced by new bi-mode trains based on the Hitachi IET.
As well as the tilt profile, another issue with the Super Voyager is the weight. Due to the tilt equipment each coach weights about 10tonnes more than a normal Voyager (and they aren't light). As well as increasing stress on the track, they also don't have the same acceleration and are barely better than the HSTs they replaced. Their one advantage though is that unlike the Voyagers they have a 5th coach, giving quite a bit of extra capacity.
The reason Bombardier is still around is because they have a huge monopoly on regional jets.
The Voyagers were probably Branson's rocket ship follies which he called "Mission? Impossible!!"
I wish at least one 10 thousand was preserved
I feel like the Class 23 "baby deltic" should be on this list. While the Class 55 Deltic was a massive success, its baby brother was... not.
Im suprized that powered tenders didnt take off.
Douplexes took off.
So why not steam powered tenders?
4:23-4:30 tapered profiles are common on UK trains, even non-tilting sets.
I am not that well informed when it comes to bombardier's international performance, but I do know that they have several bigger contracts with the German rail operator DB.
These contracts, among other things, include a 30% share in the ICE 4 construction as a supplier. Note that this contract is DB's largest control, in terms of capital, to this date. As well as the procurement of the intercity 2 train, of which they will buy around 120 units of. But the intercity 2 apparently also has its teething issues.
I laughed more than I should've at the steel chair bit in the beginning
For one of the Worst trains list can you do BR 10100 or the fell locomotive but technically we have the LMS to blame for it as it was built right before BR grouping
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_10100
He will probably add to the worst trains in future
Bombardier also makes really good planes
I had to rewatch the tornado1 coming in hot with that steel chair! Really funny
YES YOU GOT IT RIGHT
The bombardier the way you prounounce it was the name of the company's first product a snowmobile
Dang darkness- I love the videos- but it's like you're reading right off Wikipedia on the Erie built
They were also known as shark noses and there are actually still 2 over on the Escanaba lake superior railroad
Most successful trains:
EU06
Based on the British Class 83, it was a license built electric locomotive for the Polish State Railways (PKP). The inside mechanics were basically the same as the class 83 but based on the EU06, multiple other Polish locomotives were built, such as the EU07/EP07, EP08, ET22, ET41
Basically the backbone of the Polish State Railways since the 60s.
Uh oh 😟 I see British Rail (Not really because it’s after they went defunct)
if you pause the video at the right moment the locomotive that gets called has a chair!
Exactly why the UP went to turbines in the 50s- those diesels weren't up to the task on that Railroad. Especially between Ogden & Cheyenne.
PLEASE make a video of the "Top 5 most Gorgeous Trains EVER"!!!!!!!!!!!!!🚂🚃🚄🚅🚆🚇🚈🚉🚊🚝🚞🚋
I'm surprised the APT didn't feature here at all, due to its own embarrassing history.
1:06 3801 I’m on it!
Go on 3801 get’m.
3801 to the rescue
I think we need a new worst trains lists, and include the X’trapolis 100 and the Siemens Nexus running in Melbourne
How about 5 not as known trains
If you were to do this, PLEASE talk the Florida east coast railway 4-8-2 Mountains and the southern railway's ps-2 and ps-3 class 4-6-2 pacifics
The 2nd pronunciation of Bombardier was correct
Yay he got the name of bombardier right finally lol
Steam Tenders sounds like a tasty entree, also no. 5 sounds it was just a big toy than an actual locomotive. 😂