To be fair, the LNER Garratt actually worked unlike the LMS Garratts, of which, one on a coal train to Tauton, melted it's brakes to the wheels when trying to stop the train from running away. Also, the LMS Garratts suffered from Midland Disease-The small axleboxes used on engines such as the 3835 class, which were fine for such a small engine, but not for anything bigger and these axleboxes ran hot all the time.
@@dustin_4501 That's what lead to her longevity. The LMS Said "Use these axleboxes and design them like this" for their garratts, where as Gresley told Beyer-Peacock that they had free reign to design the loco
@@thestainmorephoenix8632IMO even Gresley forced his Ideas on Beyer Peacock. I feel like if the LNER just let them design the loco they wanted, and already knew worked, and didn't force them to work with LNER spare bin compenents, the resulting Loco could've easily been better than either the LMS Garratts or the U1.
@thestainmorephoenix8632 and @dustin9425 , if I remember correctly the U1 was Gresley saying "here's the plans for the O4 class, turn that into a Garratt", so although there was Gresley interference it was with an already proven product.
It’s worth mentioning that one reason why Cecil Paget was able to indulge his locomotive for so long was that his father George was chairman of the board of The Midland Railway
If they just kept the engines in them, they probably would've been better. It really is no different than a double or triple header, except it lacks its own power. The extra engines in those setups are unmanned and controlled by the lead locos computer. Two engines, two generators powering each set of trucks in a cabless loco like that, would've been a much better design. It would be able to pull, push, and run high speeds, essentially making any loco in control a three engine 3-6000hp machine. The execution is an example of Ocam's Razor being the wrong solution. It was too much parasitic draw from the loco, and it's excessive and superfluous weight just made that worse. I think this is obvious.
Another locomotive which deserves been in these lists is the Argentine Railways GAIA 1050/1350, a model that was sidelined upon arrival because of its unrealibility! In fact, 3 of them were involved In the worst argentine train wreck (Benavidez 1970, 270 casualties) because one of them failed and stand still and the other two (pulling an express train) collisioned with the stopped train
They are called « vacuum cleaners » (railway people love nicknames), because of the shape of the front and… the loud noise of their engine. Probably Alstom tried to cut costs too much.
I found out that in Romania they still use the old french RRR sets (the ones that resemble a metro train, but are attached to a locomotive). Kinda different, but Bulgaria (a neighbouring country) still uses some old electric UK locomotives! (Classes 87, 90 and 92 IIRC)
Hmmm, perhaps in the future, could you do a most deadly locomotives list, like, the locomotives that caused the most death either by design failure or single engine accidents
Love the ghost train theme at the start! Never thought one of Sir Nigel Gresleys garrets would be considered a failure. Also, thanks for saving an Australian locomotive for the very last!
Huh, it is fortunate they did not make it have a fule tank, but a concrete ballast, as a weight. 🔥🔥💥 I wonder how much unfortunate people would have suffert that way.
the pure evil of those who like bad loco vids: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO WE MUST CONTINUE HIS PAAAAAAAAAIIIIIIIINNNNNNN! FOR WE ARE LEGION AND WE ARE MANY! Me: yeah urm dont mess with fucked up people........ they are evil for a reason.
The problem with smoke inhalation for the crew on the U1 would occur with any locomotive coupled to the end of the trains trough the tunnels. The bad steaming was due to an undersized boiler to feed the 6 cylinders, the U1 existed of two 3-cylinder engines, and the fact it had no mechanical stoker, a device fitted to many of the export models from the British industry but deemed unnecessary for the Brits themselves. The U1 could only be used as a banker because the 3-link couplings couldn't hold up with the tractive effort of this locomotive when coupled to the head of the train.
The BU class in Australia was probably a copy of the US slugs. I believe there only purpose was really in shutting duties in rail yards. Why they tried them out in mainline service is beyond me. I believe they were very successful for extra traction whilst just shunting.🇦🇺
The Aussie concrete block- comical!🤣. As for those steam turbines, as useless as they were, they look freakn great and I wish one was kept. Love turbines and these were the beginning of that UP turbine era
Hi. So I'd like to point out that that last one, the austrailian tractor is referred to as a slug here in the states. And they CAN work. The concrete is used to help improve traction, otherwise the wheels would just slip and slop and slip. They're used mainly for slow private lines, no more than 20 mph.
yeah it just seemed like the only reason why the BU class failed was because of improper utilization. slugs are absolute monsters in shunting yards, but it seemed like the aussies kept trying to use them on mainline trains. 85kmh is around 52mph, you wouldnt want a running slug going that fast. no WONDER they kept having electrical issues and subsequent fires.
Can I please point out that Derby isn't pronounced the American way, but is actually pronounced as if it were selled Darby. And in the UK Cecil is not Ceecil, but as Cessil.
FYI, regarding the Paget loco from Derby Loco Works, Derby is pronounced Darby by us locals. Thanks for the great video’s, I used to work British Rail Engineering in Derby back in the 70’s when I lived in England.
Well, U1 actually work quite well in terms of performance despite making her crew life miserable and picky coal consumption. The same couldn’t be said for LMS Garratt(s) though, they got the same kind of issues but worse plus more other issues. Their axle boxes are barely fit making them almost melted on a run, their brakes are bad, their experimental rotating coal storage also let off a large coal dust which choked the crew even more when running back.
To pick out the eccentricity of the Paget.... well i suppose the Sentinel Columbia might fit the bill, with pairs of uniflow cylinders for each axle (derived from existing road transport), a pair of three axle bogies, so six axles and twelve cylinders. Built during the waining era of steam.
The Paget Locomotive is a weird locomotive. As you delve deeper into the Mechanics of the locomotive you wonder what actually was going on at the Midland Railway cause Engineers who've made live steam models of the locomotive design can't figure out what was causing the Failures. Some believe cause of this the Paget was in the middle of Hostel Corporate infighting the whole time he was developing this locomotive. Had Paget been able to continue development of the locomotive it's believed and postulated MU capabilities could of been developed for this form of steam locomotion.
Software and drivers for Microsoft Windows is certainly one source of technical problems with newer locomotives, along with insufficient operational testing before more examples are built.
Frankly the LNER Garratt doesn't belong in this category. It did perfectly well on the Worsborough bank which is 2 miles of 1 in 40. Ok so it was unpleasant at the back of the train, but it would have been equally unpleasant for the 2 crews of the other other locos that would have been needed as bankers otherwise, that's not the loco's fault! It did ok on Lickey too, the LMS "Big Bertha" wasn't that great either (very constricted steam passages, lucky it never needed to try to go fast). But BR Class 9s were simpler and could handle the normal loads. The Garratt was simply designed for the specific task of Worsborough and naturally wasn't that suited for other jobs, it was simply oversized for UK conditions. And as pointed out below, it was better designed than the LMS Garratts, which were equally unpopular with crews (extra work again) and were less reliable due to axlebox problems.
The last one was pretty useful they just used it wrong, we call them slugs here in the states and they're pretty useful for switching and local freights.
Boi, that start was creepy. Also... Bloody Useless?! (No. 1.) 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 Your voicing always makes me laugh. Helps excellent against my depressions.
@@kingkyle8991Definitely, although British Rail has gone to the death for privatisation to which all the franchises are run by European owned Railways.
@@icaruskarinnot all, Hong Kong's MTR runs the Elizabeth Line TFL rail services and 30% of the joint venture that Holds the South Western franchise (the rest being First Group).
To be fair, UP's turbine locomotives were only ever experimental. They were a proof of concept. Meaning that UP and the company they were working with, General electric, were demonstrating how steam didn't just have to be used in a conventional sense. In that regard then, keeping in mind their overall experimental and proof of concept nature, they weren't bad at all. What ultimately killed them though, before all the kinks in the system could get addressed, was WW2, when it was deemed by GE that they were more valuable for the raw materials that went into their construction, than as locomotives. Had there not been a war on, it stands to reason that GE would have worked out the various kinks in the system and the turbines would have become more popular. It should also be noted, they weren't specifically "Built For" the Union Pacific. UP had a partnership with General Electric to allow GE to test new locomotives on UP property. This was due to having a better access to both steep grades and flatlands in the same railroad, as well as long heavy trains to put locomotives through their paces.
I am shocked that this is episode 25 of the worst trains ever. Those Steam turbines look like Union Pacific's City of Los Angeles units, and I understand that they were garbage.
The two GE steam-electrics were an application of the Steamotive approach, developed in the early-to-mid Thirties, using oil firing and high pressure (1200, then 1500psi). A first problem was that the steam plant was undersized for the actual horsepower that needed to be produced from this size and complexity of unit; the real sticking point was that, for reasons including silica carryover, the Steamotive used recirculated distilled water and hence needed a good condenser that could not choke or fail under any road conditions. That 'turned out not to be the case' on UP. The locomotives were dusted off and used on Great Northern during WWII, and I have read that most of the 'bugs' that caused trouble on the UP were addressed. But by that point the EMD 567 had evolved into a much better way to burn oil to generate traction power... so there was no future for enormous 2-C-C-2s doing less work than a drawbar-coupled pair of FT units...
If the Australians had done it right,they should have gotten some Conrail,[former PRR/NYC] rebuilds of Alco RSD's,that became Road and Hump Slugs! Same Guage and couplers,so they would have proven equipment! Worked here,but not there! Interesting,but why didn't they ask others,about their successes?? Thank you 😇😊!! 😇
@@fanofeverything30465 Here are the stories but vastly oversimplified: B&O EM-1 (659 I believe): Was supposed to be on display at the B&O railroad museum, but a mixup in communication resulted in it being scrapped. CNJ 774: Ran excursions, some people tried to preserve it, but CNJ felt that they did enough for preservation and didn't donate the 774. Someone tried to buy it, but he didn't get the money in time, so it was scrapped. N&W 2174: Sat in a scrap yard for about a decade. People tried to preserve it, but the fund raising didn't get the money in time, and new owners of the scrap yard were less sympathetic for steamers so the 2174 was cut up. IC 2613: Ran a few excursions on the IC. The IC wanted to give her to a museum in Kentucky, but they didn't have the room, so instead of finding another museum, they just sold her for scrap. The Milwaukee Road streamliner: I don't remember if it was an F7, or a Class A, but the Milwaukee Road wanted to give that locomotive to a museum, but the museum declined saying that the locomotive was "too modern", so it was cut up.
In the U1 defense she was much more funcional that her LMS fellows with is down to the desings and their choices while LMS decise use the axleboxes of the 4Fs, yeah you guess it, cause them to overheating, that could be fix with some mechanical lubricators which was done with the 4Fs, but appearenty never was done to the Garratts, also Paget locomotive is quite interesting shame no much information about exist.
It's really the Italian and frensh having problem with new stock. Swizz and germany have much less so. Sadly Regina would be the last fully swedish train.
Er, Darkness? Were you a bit rude to the 4-CEP's in the titles? The 4-CEP's should probably go either on the best list or maybe on the great engines with one minor flaw. (The internal fixtures and fittings got VERY shabby, VERY quickly, and they needed refurbishment roughly halfway through their careers), but were otherwise deeply loved. So no 4-CEP slander, please, Darkness.😅
Great, now you can be done with this series. 25 is good enough. Now then, in place of this series, how about a worst Lego Trains video, eh? I can think of some, the original RC units, the original three C battery power trains, sadly the Emerald Night, as I can attest that she has great difficulty going around my track, via a 9v motor in her tender, always getting stiff, not to mention she has constant running issues when running via power functions XL motor, and locking up when going in reverse. Plus, you could talk about the recent UCS Hogwarts Express, that thing certainly didn’t do well, stupid broad gauge. Oh well, Rockatoa, Brickticks out!
If you think about it Paget was kinda onto something, cause granted yes it has issues under steam power HOWEVER its very similar to how modern diesels work but with traction motors instead of pistons.
To paraphrase Monty Python, among the problems with the Paget locomotive were the peculiarly guaranteed-to-seize excuses for rotary valves and the Leaderesque choice of a dry-back boiler. How the lubrication and steam sealing on all those little 9"-stroke cylinders worked in practice is not clear from the surviving records, although the method of producing 'cranked' axles would have scaled nicely to much higher engine power. It would be fun to replicate this chassis with a better valve arrangement and a proper boiler...
By the ominous intro music of doom, I thought every loco was going to be British Rail. 😂😂😂😂 That australian thing is an example of Ocam's Razor not being the right solution. Or being taken way too far. Now that I think about it; it might be better to call it Ocam's Dagger or something. Keeping it [not as simple, entering absolute simpletonism] simple would've been clearly keeping the engine in it, or given that it looks like two cabless locos put together; both engines, so it powered itself. It wouldn't be as heavy(making it obviously more convenient), yet would still be heavy, with it's own power negating it's girth to a degree. It would then basically be a DMU, which exist already, but you could call this thing a Diesel Assist Motor Unit or Diesel Assist Multiple Motor Unit. DMUs work just like a double or triple header, where the lead loco controls the unmanned assisting locos via computer connection. This DAMU with two engines would probsbly also be capable of speeds greater than most of what would pull it. It'd essentially make whatevers in control a 3-6000hp loco, versus being nothing but a huge, heavy, parasitic loss. You could even throw lights on it and have a program to show its train position, so it knows what lights to use incase one was used in the rear, given which end is being the directional front. Instead of that, they made it a useless EMU. I also think a steam turbine could be made to work well, but it would just complicate it more by having a system that works on low speeds and kicks over to the turbine, like how hybrid cars used to work, but I think that might be doing too much when other alternative are just as good, or better. I admit after watching these videos; it gave me an idea for a high speed passenger diesel/electric train that controled and powered EMU cars, but I think that aussie thing just threw that idea out of the water. A single standard loco would probably suffer just as much, or more powering several cars, as one would that heavy [essentially] concrete laden EMU. But then... if it had a seperate engine/generator just for the cars.... orrrr... a DAMU that's already making excessive power, anyway, that wouldn't be too stressed powering eight to twelve light passenger cars.... ehhhh.... maybe this is just crazy.
G.E. Steam Turbine Electric was used in 1939 Premiere tour of "UNION PACIFIC" movie 🎬 🎥 by Cecille B. Demille Super Director. With Stars 🌟 🤩 Joel McCray, and Miss Barbara Stanwycke, and rogue Robert Preston. TURBINE was leaded into Omaha. Nebraska, by small 4-4-0 American -🇺🇸 Class Actually from the Virginia and Truckee Rr, The Gold Route to the Mother Lode, in Carson City, Nevada. And thevPullman cars carried the Stars 🌟 🤩 and Director. And Omaha, and other cities had weekend celebrations. Here on Y.T. you can see the Original 1939 " #FOX MOVIE TONE NEWSREEL", about this MOMENTOUS EVENT!!!!!
To be fair, the LNER Garratt actually worked unlike the LMS Garratts, of which, one on a coal train to Tauton, melted it's brakes to the wheels when trying to stop the train from running away. Also, the LMS Garratts suffered from Midland Disease-The small axleboxes used on engines such as the 3835 class, which were fine for such a small engine, but not for anything bigger and these axleboxes ran hot all the time.
I guess she was lucky to be design by Gresley and build by Beyer-Peacock.
@@dustin_4501 That's what lead to her longevity. The LMS Said "Use these axleboxes and design them like this" for their garratts, where as Gresley told Beyer-Peacock that they had free reign to design the loco
@@thestainmorephoenix8632IMO even Gresley forced his Ideas on Beyer Peacock. I feel like if the LNER just let them design the loco they wanted, and already knew worked, and didn't force them to work with LNER spare bin compenents, the resulting Loco could've easily been better than either the LMS Garratts or the U1.
@thestainmorephoenix8632 and @dustin9425 , if I remember correctly the U1 was Gresley saying "here's the plans for the O4 class, turn that into a Garratt", so although there was Gresley interference it was with an already proven product.
We got the full sized Garretts like the GMAM or GO Garretts. Magnificent beasts.
It’s worth mentioning that one reason why Cecil Paget was able to indulge his locomotive for so long was that his father George was chairman of the board of The Midland Railway
I expected BU to stand for "Buggered Up", but "Bloody Useless" works too
The pain never stops.
There's a finite number of train designs so eventually he will have covered all of them in either the worst or best trains series...
Time to see how the Australian concrete blocks on wheels (with only two main electrical systems, both of which failed) goes on this list ;)
😂😂 he really missed the opportunity to call it a slug instead of a booster
@@Rocker-1234I’m surprised that they had so much trouble with them, a slug is not a very complicated machine!
If they just kept the engines in them, they probably would've been better. It really is no different than a double or triple header, except it lacks its own power. The extra engines in those setups are unmanned and controlled by the lead locos computer. Two engines, two generators powering each set of trucks in a cabless loco like that, would've been a much better design. It would be able to pull, push, and run high speeds, essentially making any loco in control a three engine 3-6000hp machine. The execution is an example of Ocam's Razor being the wrong solution. It was too much parasitic draw from the loco, and it's excessive and superfluous weight just made that worse. I think this is obvious.
Another locomotive which deserves been in these lists is the Argentine Railways GAIA 1050/1350, a model that was sidelined upon arrival because of its unrealibility! In fact, 3 of them were involved In the worst argentine train wreck (Benavidez 1970, 270 casualties) because one of them failed and stand still and the other two (pulling an express train) collisioned with the stopped train
Fun fact about the x72500: They are used now in Romania, both variants. And somehow they work great
They are called « vacuum cleaners » (railway people love nicknames), because of the shape of the front and… the loud noise of their engine.
Probably Alstom tried to cut costs too much.
Well, it sounds like they fixed the reliability problem!
I found out that in Romania they still use the old french RRR sets (the ones that resemble a metro train, but are attached to a locomotive).
Kinda different, but Bulgaria (a neighbouring country) still uses some old electric UK locomotives! (Classes 87, 90 and 92 IIRC)
The more I watch your videos the higher the production quality gets. Good job👍🏻
What a effin brilliant intro!!!! Thanks mate, great vid...still.....again. Australia!!! wooooo we topped a list!!!...a bad list but hey!
Hmmm, perhaps in the future, could you do a most deadly locomotives list, like, the locomotives that caused the most death either by design failure or single engine accidents
Now that we're at part 25 can we get a supercut of all of them so far? I'd love to watch a few hours of terrible locomotives
Love the ghost train theme at the start! Never thought one of Sir Nigel Gresleys garrets would be considered a failure. Also, thanks for saving an Australian locomotive for the very last!
Hahaha that is impressive that the Australian found a way to get concrete catch fire. Congratulations guys😅
Huh, it is fortunate they did not make it have a fule tank, but a concrete ballast, as a weight. 🔥🔥💥
I wonder how much unfortunate people would have suffert that way.
Impressive Australia, not only you guys made a Giant Moving Brick, a Giant Moving Brick that catches fire.
Worse still , the units that they converted to make these , 600 class , were good workhorse's..
He needs a break from talking about bad locomotives, and we need to encourage him to do more good ones
Yes
I agree, GP38-2, CN U series 4-8-4's and the F-3's should be considered for best locomotive ever.
the pure evil of those who like bad loco vids: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO WE MUST CONTINUE HIS PAAAAAAAAAIIIIIIIINNNNNNN! FOR WE ARE LEGION AND WE ARE MANY!
Me: yeah urm dont mess with fucked up people........ they are evil for a reason.
@@YoLo-bb2vc: MORE BRITISH RAIL!!!!!!
@@mortensen1961 oh god yes they deffinately do this and i feel sometimes on purpose :S
Aussie here, keep up the brilliant and humourous work!!
The problem with smoke inhalation for the crew on the U1 would occur with any locomotive coupled to the end of the trains trough the tunnels.
The bad steaming was due to an undersized boiler to feed the 6 cylinders, the U1 existed of two 3-cylinder engines, and the fact it had no mechanical stoker, a device fitted to many of the export models from the British industry but deemed unnecessary for the Brits themselves.
The U1 could only be used as a banker because the 3-link couplings couldn't hold up with the tractive effort of this locomotive when coupled to the head of the train.
The BU class in Australia was probably a copy of the US slugs. I believe there only purpose was really in shutting duties in rail yards. Why they tried them out in mainline service is beyond me. I believe they were very successful for extra traction whilst just shunting.🇦🇺
The Aussie concrete block- comical!🤣. As for those steam turbines, as useless as they were, they look freakn great and I wish one was kept. Love turbines and these were the beginning of that UP turbine era
These are my favorite videos. I love watching Darkness descend into madness when he mentions British Rail. 🤣
Hi. So I'd like to point out that that last one, the austrailian tractor is referred to as a slug here in the states. And they CAN work. The concrete is used to help improve traction, otherwise the wheels would just slip and slop and slip. They're used mainly for slow private lines, no more than 20 mph.
yeah it just seemed like the only reason why the BU class failed was because of improper utilization. slugs are absolute monsters in shunting yards, but it seemed like the aussies kept trying to use them on mainline trains. 85kmh is around 52mph, you wouldnt want a running slug going that fast. no WONDER they kept having electrical issues and subsequent fires.
Can I please point out that Derby isn't pronounced the American way, but is actually pronounced as if it were selled Darby. And in the UK Cecil is not Ceecil, but as Cessil.
FYI, regarding the Paget loco from Derby Loco Works, Derby is pronounced Darby by us locals.
Thanks for the great video’s, I used to work British Rail Engineering in Derby back in the 70’s when I lived in England.
Then spell it Darby you locals. "My name is Schwarzenegger which pronounced correctly is Todd!" "Huh?!"
Based on what I can tell from the beginning, I think History In The Dark is engi-nearing his limit just by doing 5 of the worst trains lists.
Well, U1 actually work quite well in terms of performance despite making her crew life miserable and picky coal consumption. The same couldn’t be said for LMS Garratt(s) though, they got the same kind of issues but worse plus more other issues. Their axle boxes are barely fit making them almost melted on a run, their brakes are bad, their experimental rotating coal storage also let off a large coal dust which choked the crew even more when running back.
PART 25 GUYS, humanity has a great history of bad trains...
Humans are great at building a lot of bad things
Trains are hard, m'kay?
To pick out the eccentricity of the Paget.... well i suppose the Sentinel Columbia might fit the bill, with pairs of uniflow cylinders for each axle (derived from existing road transport), a pair of three axle bogies, so six axles and twelve cylinders. Built during the waining era of steam.
The Paget Locomotive is a weird locomotive. As you delve deeper into the Mechanics of the locomotive you wonder what actually was going on at the Midland Railway cause Engineers who've made live steam models of the locomotive design can't figure out what was causing the Failures. Some believe cause of this the Paget was in the middle of Hostel Corporate infighting the whole time he was developing this locomotive. Had Paget been able to continue development of the locomotive it's believed and postulated MU capabilities could of been developed for this form of steam locomotion.
Wow no BR this time? That's.....oh sh*t, that's actually terrifying.....
Curse of the bad trains
Software and drivers for Microsoft Windows is certainly one source of technical problems with newer locomotives, along with insufficient operational testing before more examples are built.
Ooh! In the next installment, you have to talk about UP #80/8080, the Coal fired Turbine
Frankly the LNER Garratt doesn't belong in this category. It did perfectly well on the Worsborough bank which is 2 miles of 1 in 40. Ok so it was unpleasant at the back of the train, but it would have been equally unpleasant for the 2 crews of the other other locos that would have been needed as bankers otherwise, that's not the loco's fault! It did ok on Lickey too, the LMS "Big Bertha" wasn't that great either (very constricted steam passages, lucky it never needed to try to go fast). But BR Class 9s were simpler and could handle the normal loads. The Garratt was simply designed for the specific task of Worsborough and naturally wasn't that suited for other jobs, it was simply oversized for UK conditions. And as pointed out below, it was better designed than the LMS Garratts, which were equally unpopular with crews (extra work again) and were less reliable due to axlebox problems.
The intro bit was perfect!
The problem with the UP steam turbine was that it was simply ahead of its time.
It’s at the point that we don’t need explanation of the top 5 cuz it makes it fun
Everything catches fire here in Australia, it's just how it is XD
OH YEAH BABY!!!!!!
Thank you Sir Darkness 😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊
I can tell by the intro Darkness is going crazy because of 😂BR
This intro is spooky. Ready for Halloween.
The last one was pretty useful they just used it wrong, we call them slugs here in the states and they're pretty useful for switching and local freights.
Adding the 30 tons was the real problem, had they only added 20 tons they probably would have worked just fine.
Boi, that start was creepy. Also... Bloody Useless?! (No. 1.) 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Your voicing always makes me laugh. Helps excellent against my depressions.
Wait, there wasn't a single british rail locomotive on this list, thats odd...
Watching Darkness descend into madness >>>
LOL, BRITISH RAIL HAS NOW TURNED INTO THE VILLIAN ON THIS CHANNEL, XD!
NOW MAN! Now you get it? They've been the villain for years! Now in the 25th episodes you see that?
@@kingkyle8991Definitely, although British Rail has gone to the death for privatisation to which all the franchises are run by European owned Railways.
@@icaruskarinnot all, Hong Kong's MTR runs the Elizabeth Line TFL rail services and 30% of the joint venture that Holds the South Western franchise (the rest being First Group).
Steam turbine 1 sings in a quartet with a CSX sd70mac, and 2 diesel shunters
To be fair, UP's turbine locomotives were only ever experimental. They were a proof of concept. Meaning that UP and the company they were working with, General electric, were demonstrating how steam didn't just have to be used in a conventional sense. In that regard then, keeping in mind their overall experimental and proof of concept nature, they weren't bad at all. What ultimately killed them though, before all the kinks in the system could get addressed, was WW2, when it was deemed by GE that they were more valuable for the raw materials that went into their construction, than as locomotives. Had there not been a war on, it stands to reason that GE would have worked out the various kinks in the system and the turbines would have become more popular.
It should also be noted, they weren't specifically "Built For" the Union Pacific. UP had a partnership with General Electric to allow GE to test new locomotives on UP property. This was due to having a better access to both steep grades and flatlands in the same railroad, as well as long heavy trains to put locomotives through their paces.
Midland railway Paget locomotive reminds me of old shape Henry or school's class just its own type
Getting some very early Halloween vibes.
I am shocked that this is episode 25 of the worst trains ever. Those Steam turbines look like Union Pacific's City of Los Angeles units, and I understand that they were garbage.
The two GE steam-electrics were an application of the Steamotive approach, developed in the early-to-mid Thirties, using oil firing and high pressure (1200, then 1500psi). A first problem was that the steam plant was undersized for the actual horsepower that needed to be produced from this size and complexity of unit; the real sticking point was that, for reasons including silica carryover, the Steamotive used recirculated distilled water and hence needed a good condenser that could not choke or fail under any road conditions. That 'turned out not to be the case' on UP.
The locomotives were dusted off and used on Great Northern during WWII, and I have read that most of the 'bugs' that caused trouble on the UP were addressed. But by that point the EMD 567 had evolved into a much better way to burn oil to generate traction power... so there was no future for enormous 2-C-C-2s doing less work than a drawbar-coupled pair of FT units...
If the Australians had done it right,they should have gotten some Conrail,[former PRR/NYC] rebuilds of Alco RSD's,that became Road and Hump Slugs! Same Guage and couplers,so they would have proven equipment! Worked here,but not there! Interesting,but why didn't they ask others,about their successes?? Thank you 😇😊!! 😇
Morrison Knudsen (Australia) did the BU conversions. If anyone should have known, they should!
Modifying old diesel-electric locomotives to use external power make sense but replacing the Diesels with concrete is just stupid.
5 more locomotives that almost survived but didn’t when? I can list some entries, if you can’t think of any.
A B&O EM-1, A CNJ 4-6-0 Camelback, Norfolk and Western 2174, Illinois Central 2613, and a Milwaukee Road streamliner that was used on the Hiawatha.
@@harrisonofcolorado8886What are the stories
@@fanofeverything30465
Here are the stories but vastly oversimplified:
B&O EM-1 (659 I believe): Was supposed to be on display at the B&O railroad museum, but a mixup in communication resulted in it being scrapped.
CNJ 774: Ran excursions, some people tried to preserve it, but CNJ felt that they did enough for preservation and didn't donate the 774. Someone tried to buy it, but he didn't get the money in time, so it was scrapped.
N&W 2174: Sat in a scrap yard for about a decade. People tried to preserve it, but the fund raising didn't get the money in time, and new owners of the scrap yard were less sympathetic for steamers so the 2174 was cut up.
IC 2613: Ran a few excursions on the IC. The IC wanted to give her to a museum in Kentucky, but they didn't have the room, so instead of finding another museum, they just sold her for scrap.
The Milwaukee Road streamliner: I don't remember if it was an F7, or a Class A, but the Milwaukee Road wanted to give that locomotive to a museum, but the museum declined saying that the locomotive was "too modern", so it was cut up.
On the bright side that Aussie train doesn’t be the main cause of Wild Fires.
Best intro ever! 🤠👍
More horrible trains. More. More.
It is Australia, we can get pretty much anything to catch fire down here
Another good one, the IHB SW1500
In the U1 defense she was much more funcional that her LMS fellows with is down to the desings and their choices while LMS decise use the axleboxes of the 4Fs, yeah you guess it, cause them to overheating, that could be fix with some mechanical lubricators which was done with the 4Fs, but appearenty never was done to the Garratts, also Paget locomotive is quite interesting shame no much information about exist.
Great opening.
Laddies and gentlemen he finally lost his shit 😂
125 trains down, a lot more to go
Does anyone else find it odd there wasn't one single British Rail train on this list?
Next time throw on the GE power they set up to run on coal slurry. I think they where c39-8.
December of 1941, really, this has got to be the only event that pearl harbor wasn't the reason something changed
1 minute in ight he's lost it, but onwards from there, pretty decent, also, they drunk when they built that "power unit."
The BU class were basically Aussie slugs (that’s what they are called here in the states)
It's really the Italian and frensh having problem with new stock. Swizz and germany have much less so.
Sadly Regina would be the last fully swedish train.
Er, Darkness? Were you a bit rude to the 4-CEP's in the titles? The 4-CEP's should probably go either on the best list or maybe on the great engines with one minor flaw. (The internal fixtures and fittings got VERY shabby, VERY quickly, and they needed refurbishment roughly halfway through their careers), but were otherwise deeply loved.
So no 4-CEP slander, please, Darkness.😅
Part 25? Eh, why not! XD
Great, now you can be done with this series. 25 is good enough.
Now then, in place of this series, how about a worst Lego Trains video, eh? I can think of some, the original RC units, the original three C battery power trains, sadly the Emerald Night, as I can attest that she has great difficulty going around my track, via a 9v motor in her tender, always getting stiff, not to mention she has constant running issues when running via power functions XL motor, and locking up when going in reverse. Plus, you could talk about the recent UCS Hogwarts Express, that thing certainly didn’t do well, stupid broad gauge.
Oh well, Rockatoa, Brickticks out!
We've reached 125
The booster units are called snails.
Sounds like thise Australian blocks were a failed attempt at yhe MATE's that GE produced for the SCL U36B's.
If you think about it Paget was kinda onto something, cause granted yes it has issues under steam power HOWEVER its very similar to how modern diesels work but with traction motors instead of pistons.
To paraphrase Monty Python, among the problems with the Paget locomotive were the peculiarly guaranteed-to-seize excuses for rotary valves and the Leaderesque choice of a dry-back boiler. How the lubrication and steam sealing on all those little 9"-stroke cylinders worked in practice is not clear from the surviving records, although the method of producing 'cranked' axles would have scaled nicely to much higher engine power. It would be fun to replicate this chassis with a better valve arrangement and a proper boiler...
I love the goofiness you bring to this.😅
Wouldn't #2 classify as a steam motor locomotive?
wait, does this mean you've gone over 125 bad locomotives thus far? I'm surprised you've kept your sanity in check this long.
No BR this time. FINALLY
By the ominous intro music of doom, I thought every loco was going to be British Rail. 😂😂😂😂
That australian thing is an example of Ocam's Razor not being the right solution. Or being taken way too far. Now that I think about it; it might be better to call it Ocam's Dagger or something. Keeping it [not as simple, entering absolute simpletonism] simple would've been clearly keeping the engine in it, or given that it looks like two cabless locos put together; both engines, so it powered itself. It wouldn't be as heavy(making it obviously more convenient), yet would still be heavy, with it's own power negating it's girth to a degree. It would then basically be a DMU, which exist already, but you could call this thing a Diesel Assist Motor Unit or Diesel Assist Multiple Motor Unit. DMUs work just like a double or triple header, where the lead loco controls the unmanned assisting locos via computer connection. This DAMU with two engines would probsbly also be capable of speeds greater than most of what would pull it. It'd essentially make whatevers in control a 3-6000hp loco, versus being nothing but a huge, heavy, parasitic loss. You could even throw lights on it and have a program to show its train position, so it knows what lights to use incase one was used in the rear, given which end is being the directional front. Instead of that, they made it a useless EMU.
I also think a steam turbine could be made to work well, but it would just complicate it more by having a system that works on low speeds and kicks over to the turbine, like how hybrid cars used to work, but I think that might be doing too much when other alternative are just as good, or better.
I admit after watching these videos; it gave me an idea for a high speed passenger diesel/electric train that controled and powered EMU cars, but I think that aussie thing just threw that idea out of the water. A single standard loco would probably suffer just as much, or more powering several cars, as one would that heavy [essentially] concrete laden EMU. But then... if it had a seperate engine/generator just for the cars.... orrrr... a DAMU that's already making excessive power, anyway, that wouldn't be too stressed powering eight to twelve light passenger cars.... ehhhh.... maybe this is just crazy.
Part 26 coming soon?
Oh your pronunciation or Worsborough was mint! DARBY.....Derby is pronouced DARBY!!!!!
Wow no British rails in these one
Have you done the Danish IC 2 Now that's a troubled train ‼️
I like #3
Basically Australia failed to make a slug
Nice intro, man. :-)
I actually think the garrat is good I'm actually thinking using a garrat Sprite for a vid
The AN BU class were rebuilt by an American owned company
lol i guess the aussies cant make slugs
Personally, I'm looking forward to Episode 40 and the effects on Darkness' sanity.
If not British Railways been involved i think he can handle it 😁
can you put the DSB Litra E on a list?
G.E. Steam Turbine Electric was used in 1939 Premiere tour of "UNION PACIFIC" movie 🎬 🎥 by Cecille B. Demille Super Director. With Stars 🌟 🤩 Joel McCray, and Miss Barbara Stanwycke, and rogue Robert Preston. TURBINE was leaded into Omaha. Nebraska, by small 4-4-0 American -🇺🇸 Class Actually from the Virginia and Truckee Rr, The Gold Route to the Mother Lode, in Carson City, Nevada. And thevPullman cars carried the Stars 🌟 🤩 and Director. And Omaha, and other cities had weekend celebrations. Here on Y.T. you can see the Original 1939 " #FOX MOVIE TONE NEWSREEL", about this MOMENTOUS EVENT!!!!!
They should of not made the BU just plate over the window and would if worked beter
Maybe they should be called the Australian “PU” class, instead.
That being said, they were slugs. Bad ones. I guess they should have just ordered some (slugs) from EMD. 😐
Where's British Rail?
Can some one hear " we are going there" at the start of the video
History in the dark has a mental brakedown and other stories
What is that 105 locos now
So, the BUs are slugs?