# WORST LOCO ever...



## SRW (Jan 13, 2010)

Festus posting his inquiry to what might be the best loco ever, a difficult question since quite a few designs in different eras met and then exceeded their design goals and enjoyed many decades of use in wide applications lead me to wonder what the worst failures may have been in railfans minds. What engines do you feel were failures in certain applications, either because they were a day late and a dollar or two short or just total turds from the git-go.

The steam turbines to me are easy targets, very complicated designs for their day and maybe ahead of current technology but for me the C&O's M-1 steam powered turbine engine, debuted to much fanfare in 1948, sidelined in '49 and scrapped in '50 standout as very expensive, monumental failures. Looked very cool though. 

"The C&O heavily promoted the 500 as the locomotive of the future, and advertised them pulling the soon to be placed in service "Chessie" passenger train. The Chessie was to have four dome cars and one of the lounges had a large warm water aquarium with tropical fish. Yet, the train never made its debut in the summer of 1948. There were strikes at Baldwin, Pullman and Budd in 1947 that delayed the equipment, and testing the 500 was not going well. In February 1948 the B&O launched their own streamliner between Cincinnati and Washington DC. That train stole the Chessie's thunder, and also showed the C&O how minuscule the daytime Cincinnati Washington passenger train market really was. 


In 1947, during test runs, the 500 had many service failures. The C&O also found out the tropical fish in the aquarium died due to the train's vibrations. Yet the main problem was the 500. There were many bugs in this long and complicated machine. It was 106 feet long and weighed 856,000 pounds. It had five trucks in a 2-C1-2-C1-B arrangement. Only the first three axles on the eight wheel trucks were powered. The trailing truck was powered, but the leading truck and the one in between the big powered trucks were not powered. That four wheel truck supported the firebox. Coal was carried in a hopper at the nose of the locomotive, a streamlined cowl makes this look like a boiler from ground level, but the fire box was behind the cab and the boiler stretched back toward the tender. Coal dust fouled the forward traction motors and water dripping from the boiler often short circuited the traction motors on the other two powered trucks. The C&O was never able to get the 500 or her two sisters to go all the way from Washington to Cincinnati in a single day, they always broke down. By June of 1948, the gig was up and the nation's leading hauler of bituminous coal began to rapidly dieselize." 


http://www.steamlocomotive.com/turbine/

http://www.douglas-self.com/MUSEUM/...esturb.htm


Your votes for other great failures are welcome...

scott


----------



## ralphbrades (Jan 3, 2008)

The "James Tolman"... 

http://www.cabbagepatchrailway.co.uk/mls/g3/oddities.pdf 

regards 

ralph


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

Wow, this is like asking which Kardasian is the worst, there are so very many candidates to choose from!


My personal choice though would be the Santa Fe's experimental hinged boiler engines, they just failed on every level, their chassis were broken up and rebuilt as conventional engines, this 2-6-6-2 was later rebuilt as two separate 2-6-2s with standard boilers above.













Thats a terrific page Ralph, but one thing I noticed about this engine: Heilmann Electric Locomotive.


That is the template for the modern diesel/electric locomotive, only with a boiler and steam generator, amazing how prophetic that is was built only 30 years before the first true gas/electric engines began to appear.


----------



## rdamurphy (Jan 3, 2008)

Maybe not the WORST loco, but certainly an example of failure: The D&RG Class 125 locomotives, which eventually became the D&RGW Class K-27. 

They arrived in Colorado as Vauclain Compounds. If you're not familiar with the design, they were similar to mallets - with one set of drivers. They had a high pressure cylinder and a low pressure cylinder, mounted together with a complicated slide valve between them and a rigid connection for the pistons to connect them to the main rods. Steam would pass from the exhaust of the high pressure cylinder to the intake of the low pressure cylinder. Supposedly this would balance the cylinders and produce more tractive effort with less fuel and water.

Unfortunately, they were very high maintenance, and they had a problem with enginemen not knowing how to operate the Vauclain system. You could connect high pressure steam to BOTH cylinders for starting, dragging, etc, which means that you had a low pressure cylinder running high pressure steam and putting a lot of strain on the cylinder, piston, and the rigid connection. Meaning things would break. And the Rio Grande was a mountain railroad... 

The locomotives were built so low to the track that if they couldn't drag it or move it to a nearby trestle, they had to pull ties out from under the rails to get to the valve system. This also caused problems with crews not being able to adequately lubricate the valve system. Saturated steam didn't help either. 

After a few short years and a lot of cash, they were converted to the outboard/inboard mounted piston valve system we're all familiar with and became the Mudhens. Most of them were also equipped with superheaters. However, in the beginning, they were dismal failures. Numbers 450 and 451 were never converted, were rarely used, and were both scrapped in almost new condition in 1939. They provided a parts supply for their sister engines long before that though. 

So, here's a tip of the hat to the Vauclain Compounds - there were others built, including two for the Pike's Peak Cog Railway - and some standard gauge ones. 

Robert


----------



## ralphbrades (Jan 3, 2008)

Err Vic.... 

I do have to get my ideas from somewhere(!) 

http://www.cabbagepatchrailway.co.uk/heilmann.html 

It does need re-building though... It has a top speed of 15cm per second and consumes 125ml of butane gas for 10 minutes of running. I am thinking of "cheating" and fitting an alternator to it and re-building the boiler to the same type as I am going to use for the NYC Hudson -a Brotan water tube. 

regards 

ralph


----------



## SRW (Jan 13, 2010)

Ralph, that was a great link with numerous 'head scratching' designs. 

The Heilmann steam electric also caught my eye when I reviewed it for the same reasons mentioned above. 

Holman's Absurdity really puzzled me too. 

http://www.cabbagepatchrailway.co.uk/mls/g3/oddities.pdf


----------



## SRW (Jan 13, 2010)

The Triplex may also be a candidate for this discussion.... 

"The Erie Class P-1 and Virginian Class XA locomotives were called "triplex" locomotives because they had three sets of driving wheels. There were four such locomotives, all built by Baldwin. The Erie Railroad had three of them, the Virginian had one. Erie had a long standing custom of honoring superior engineers by painting their names on the cabs of locomotives. Triplex 5014 (originally numbered 2603) carried the name of Matt H. Shay for a number of years. 
The Erie triplexes were built in 1914 and 1915. They were an attempt of the locomotive designers to put as much tractive effort as possible into one locomotive. All six cylinders on these locomotives were the same size. The middle set was operated at high pressure, and exhausted to the front and rear sets, both of which operated at low pressure. There was no provision for running all cylinders at high pressure. Initially, they were numbered 2603, 2604 and 2605. They were soon renumbered to 5014 - 5016. It was said that the first triplex was capable of pulling 640 cars. However, the tractive effort that these locomotives generated was greater than the draft gear, couplers and frames of freight cars of that era could transmit. As a result, these locomotives were relegated to helper (pusher) service on the "Gulf Summit" or "Susquehanna Hill" grade near Deposit NY, and after 13 years were taken out of service in 1927 when the arrival of 2-8-4s on the Erie roster made 2-10-2s available for helper service. 5014 was scrapped in October 1929. 

The sole Virginian triplex was built in 1916. It was classified XA for eXperimental, first series. Baldwin sent this locomotive to the Virginian purely on an experimental basis. Baldwin personnel stayed with the engine to try to iron out the wrinkles (without success). It was somewhat smaller than the Erie counterparts. It was also slower and ran out of steam faster than the Erie triplexes. Another difference was that it had a four-wheel truck at the rear of the tender for better tracking in reverse when drifting downgrade after pushing a train up hill. This locomotive only lasted three years before being returned in 1920 to Baldwin for rebuilding into a 2-8-8-0 and a 2-8-2 (photo). Both of these locomotives lasted until 1953. 

The triplexes were used with some success on the Erie Railroad but were not without problems. They were very large locomotives and certain major repairs had to be performed in the Lehigh Valley shops at Sayre, PA in addition to Erie's own Dunmore shops. Another major problem with the triplexes was that the steam supply was inadequate for speeds past 10mph on the Erie and 5 mph on the Virginian. Part of the problem was that the tender motor unit exhausted to the air, reducing the amount of draft available to the firebox. Another problem was the "variable adhesion" of the tender motor unit. As the coal and water was consumed, the weight on drivers was reduced, thus reducing the factor of adhesion on the tender unit. 

The tractive effort of these triplex locomotives was fantastic, but the boilers and fireboxes were too small to sustain any speeds above five miles per hour. The six cylinders would use all of the steam in the boiler if it was run any faster. As low speed helpers, the locomotives were a success. The Erie used them from 1914 until 1927. The Virginian found less success with theirs." 

http://www.steamlocomotive.com/triplex/


----------



## SRW (Jan 13, 2010)

And then this might be another example but in a different vein. Maybe not a bad engine, just maybe a mutt that never quite found the 'right home'. 

Baldwin 2-4-4-2 Mallet. 

http://www.ironhorse129.com/prototype/mallet/skookum/skookum_srvc.htm


----------



## astrayelmgod (Jan 2, 2008)

"Baldwin 2-4-4-2 Mallet. " 

An engine that ran for 44 years is hardly the worst loco ever. Although, the fact that so few others were built doesn't make it a success, either.


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

I'd vote for the triplex, or maybe for the Reading 4-4-4










http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4-4-4

The thing was widely regarded as a good idea, and was written up extensively in RR trade journals in 1915. The Reading built four of them. But it quickly became apparent that they were unstable at even moderate speeds, and within a year the Reading rebuilt them into four quite fine Atlantic 4-4-2s. As Atlantics they remained in service into the early 1950s


----------



## SRW (Jan 13, 2010)

Posted By astrayelmgod on 04 Aug 2012 07:17 AM 
"Baldwin 2-4-4-2 Mallet. " 

An engine that ran for 44 years is hardly the worst loco ever. Although, the fact that so few others were built doesn't make it a success, either. 


Like I said, not neccessarily a bad engine but it was built for logging and the original purchaser returned it right away when it was apparent it could not negotiate the tight turns. Then it changed hands once or twice more and was used with some success until it finally derailed and flopped over on it's side where it was left to rot. The owner at the time didn't even bother to go get it and drag it in for scrap iron.


----------



## Crisolite (Jan 9, 2008)

Posted By SRW on 04 Aug 2012 09:31 AM 


Posted By astrayelmgod on 04 Aug 2012 07:17 AM 
"Baldwin 2-4-4-2 Mallet. " 

An engine that ran for 44 years is hardly the worst loco ever. Although, the fact that so few others were built doesn't make it a success, either. 


Like I said, not neccessarily a bad engine but it was built for logging and the original purchaser returned it right away when it was apparent it could not negotiate the tight turns. Then it changed hands once or twice more and was used with some success until it finally derailed and flopped over on it's side where it was left to rot. The owner at the time didn't even bother to go get it and drag it in for scrap iron.




The reason the owner didn't bother to drag her out of the woods is that the whole rail line was in the process of being scrapped. In order for her to be hauled out the rail line had to be rebuilt to hold the weight of the locomotive. The reason she fell over in the first place was the the ground was too soft to hold the weight of the locomotive. It just made more sense to leave the locomotive there then to rebuilt a line that was being scrapped.


----------



## SRW (Jan 13, 2010)

"The reason the owner didn't bother to drag her out of the woods is that the whole rail line was in the process of being scrapped. In order for her to be hauled out the rail line had to be rebuilt to hold the weight of the locomotive. The reason she fell over in the first place was the the ground was too soft to hold the weight of the locomotive. It just made more sense to leave the locomotive there then to rebuilt a line that was being scrapped." 

Yeah, I read that too. Like i said. "Not the worst loco ever" but I think compared to other contemporary engines built for logging it didn't really prove to be a wildly successful alternative or they might have built more of them. They did apparently build another one with different size drivers, spaced differently which I believe did work very well for them on the little river logging line which had quite a few rod engines. Like also said when i first mentioned it, maybe it never really found it's best application. A very cool engine to look at too. 
Certainly not in the Worst Ever category of which there are better examples out there which probably never should have been built at all and were quickly scrapped.


----------



## SRW (Jan 13, 2010)

I cede the point about my suggestion of the little 2-4-4-2 not being in the Worst Ever Loco category. It was a engine that filled a small niche for a standard gauge logging line with difficult turns to traverse and the few built performed well enough apparently. 

Maybe these might be better examples of other dubious engine designs; 

PRR Q-1, 4-6-4-4 which seems to have spent more time in the shop than on the road. 

PRR T-1, immensely powerful but wheel slip and maintenance issues, possibly from not being operated correctly. 

PRR S-1, 6-4-4-6 steamer, largest rigid frame steamer ever built but could only run on a few places on the line and at over 140' long was hard to even turn around without putting it on the ground. 

PRR S-2, steam turbine efficient and powerful at higher speeds but very inefficient at lower speeds. 

The Baldwin Centipede diesel design superceded by other more conventional easier to maintain diesel engines. 

Maybe these are better examples of what I was thinking of, but they could also be viewed as experimental engines, [sometimes very expensive experiments], at the time they were being batted around. 

I guess I was asking about other people's opinions of more glaring failures such as the C&O 500 steam turbine or really wacky designs, or just really horribly designed/manufactured locomotives and diesels or follies like the ones Ralph mentioned or the example of the Santa Fe Hinged boiler.


----------



## ralphbrades (Jan 3, 2008)

The PRR T-1 did suffer from wheel slip as did its Danish counterpart on the South Funen Railway which really did require perfect handling. S-2 is always seen as the US counterpart to the LMS "Turbomotive" -which also had problems -this time in reversing. Turbines operate best at high speed and the only still existing turbine loco -is freight one! I have on the design sheets a coal burning Gas Turbine loco and a peat burning loco. The latter I have proved to be workable by destroying a 1 kilogramme sample of my wife's potting compost... 

What (to my mind) typifies a bad design is when the designer takes a known "Law" of design and ignores it and then has to rejig the design around his applied ignorance of it... 

There is an infamous locomotive in British Railway history called "Leader". It was designed by a designer with years of experience and training. It was an absolute disaster. Why it never worked as it should have, has been the subject of dozens of volumes and hours of discussion in the pub amoungst "students of locomotives". To give you some idea of how bad the design aspects of it where, the loco was 20% over weight, they required 15 tons of scrap iron to balance it laterally and they couldn't fill the boiler because none of the water towers was high enough to get the hose to the filler point. And this is BEFORE they had even got it out of the workshop... 

Could "Leader" ever have been made to work -in my view the answer has to be "NO". 

regards 

ralph


----------



## SRW (Jan 13, 2010)

Ralph, 
There's a YouTube vid floating around that shows several T-1 launches from a dead stop and clearly it took a delicate touch. the third or fourth example shows one starting nicely then all of a sudden the front drivers peel out furiously and continue to do so for good distance. I think I read PRR may have lent some T-1s to the c&o to see if they wanted to buy the things. They declined and returned them. the author said no mention was made of wheel slip and postulated the C&O may have had more experience running engines of that type so their engineers might not have encountered the problem. I have to wonder if they just didn't want to admit they couldn't run them without spinning the drivers either so therefore didn't mention it. 
Sometimes designs get changed for external reasons. I think in the case of the S-2 the lighter weight materials were getting sourced to the War effort so it ended up heavier and required an additional wheel under the front truck or rear truck that had not been in the original design. Still, as noted, the turbines work wonderfully in ships but not so much in trains that need to chug along at slow speeds and get banged around coupling cars. 
I think other loco designs suffer from things I have noticed in auto design sometimes. Like in american autos where rather than, say, design a proper new automatic transmission from the ground up for a new application they try to pull an old design off the shelf and modify it in ridiculous ways to make a a four into a five speed or things like that. Or what i see in German autos sometime where to ring that extra .005% improvement out of a design they over engineer to achieve a dubious amount of performance which can lead to expensive repairs down the road. I think the text you provided the link to mentioned the potential for problems tinkering/complicating a design that has probably reached a very succesful zenith of performance and ingnoring the KISS principle only leading to maintenance headaches down the road.


----------



## Dr Rivet (Jan 5, 2008)

Ralph 

Regarding the Leader, designed by OVS Bullied: 

One of the oft repeated [so possibly pure myth] stories was that the fireman's compartment in the center of the locomotive was so hot that the fireman was required to wear asbestos coveralls [or at least pants] over his regular clothes to prevent them from catching fire when the fire box door was open.


----------



## SRW (Jan 13, 2010)

The Big Engine, the S-1 also had what could be considered a rather glaring design flaw in that it only carried 40% of it's 600,000 lb. weight on the drivers. This apparently lead, not only to slippage when starting out but also the drivers could slip and spin at other times at higher speeds. Duplex engines were, according to accounts, difficult for the engineer to hear when they were slipping over the other rhythyms of the engine making proper driving even more of an arcane art form. 

I like this story on turning the engine about on a wye from this website http://crestlineprr.com/duplexexperimentals.html 

"Turning the S1 here in Crestline was obviously not done on the turntable. It was turned on the "wye" which was just west of the roundhouse and one leg of it crossed Bucyrus St. During the War, Crestline was one of several facilities that were used to train military railroad personnel. One day a clerk was relieved from duty early and was "railfanning" near the roundhouse and came upon the S1. Its hostler saw him and asked if he could throw switches so he could get the S1 to the wye and then into stall #30. After an affirmative response, he climbed up into the cab and went for a smooth ride, throwing switches where necessary. When it first entered the wye, the S1 slipped badly and came to a stop. The hostler is reputed to have said, "Soldier, if this stiff-legged, blank, expletive, blankity blank is on the ground!" The soldier got down to take a look, and sure enough, the rear set of drivers were on the ties. This brought on some more blue language from the hostler. After he cooled down, he said, "Soldier, go tell the house foreman this animal is on the ground again." I've read somewhere that when the S1 was to be turned on the wye, some people from town would go down to the roundhouse to watch the event. If it did happen to come off the rails, it must surely have added to the excitement." 


From the days before folks had TVs. "Hey kids, they're turning that big Be-otch engine around down at the railyard. Lets take the lawnchairs down and see if they drop the monster off the rails."


----------



## rdamurphy (Jan 3, 2008)

AA20-1 The Soviet 4-14-4 
It was huge, it was powerful, it was heavy, it was a dismal failure.

"The seven driving axles were laid out 1.7 m (5.6 ft) apart, giving a very long rigid wheelbase of 10 m (33 ft). This required adaptations to negotiate curves. The center three driving axles were blind, and the first and seventh driving axles were fitted with lateral motion devices. These measures were not enough to make the AA20-1 work properly, however. It was prone to frequent derailments, and despite its large number of wheels, it was still too heavy for the track. As a result of its long wheelbase, the AA20-1 also spread the track and wrecked the points of the switches it passed over. It was too big to fit on the turntables, too powerful for the couplers in use at the time and unable to run at full power for very long due to its undersized boiler.
The AA20-1 made a publicity trip to Moscow in 1935. It was then put into storage at the Shcherbinka test facility and finally scrapped in 1960, though this was not stated publicly."

Robert


----------



## SRW (Jan 13, 2010)

The design goal was for 14 driver wheels to support a really long boiler to burn poor quality coal. Hmmm. Obviously the same comittee must've later gone on to design the Trabant automobile. 

"...it spread the track and wrecked the points of the switches it passed over....was too big to fit on the turntables, too powerful for the couplers in use at the time and unable to run at full power for very long due to its undersized boiler." {Sounds like a good candidate for this list to me.} 

"The AA20-1 made a publicity trip to Moscow in 1935. It was then put into storage at the Shcherbinka test facility and finally scrapped in 1960, though this was not stated publicly." 

Kind of sounds a little like the Spruce Goose flying boat. "See! It flies. Success!!!"


----------



## rdamurphy (Jan 3, 2008)

True. But wouldn't you love to see a model of it? 

Robert


----------



## SRW (Jan 13, 2010)

Go for it!! 


They were possibly using the UP 4-12-2 as a design model? They apparently worked but... maybe another candidate for this list themselves. 

Then again, this was a country that bought the Fiat 124 assembly line to build the 'wildy' succesful early Lada automobiles.


----------



## ralphbrades (Jan 3, 2008)

Already available.... 

http://www.users.waitrose.com/~n25ga/Locos/caterp.htm 

I see no reason why the design could not be stretched to the 4-14-2 configuration. I would have to sit down with a slide rule to work out how to get it to corner(!) 

regards 

ralph


----------



## ralphbrades (Jan 3, 2008)

Ok -coffee and brainstorming session later... 

The front bogie we link to driver axles 1+2 via a Schwartzkopff-Eckhardt bogie connection, the next 5 driver axles are pure Gölsdorf system -and the trailing pony truck we mount as a Cattazzi axle. The quick slide rule calculations show it "might" be possible to get it around a 12 chain radius curve -which at 2 Scale (1:29) is 27feet. 

Anybody feeling lucky???? 

regards 

ralph


----------



## SRW (Jan 13, 2010)

Gee Ralph, you make it all sound so simple. And the advantages of this type of locomotive over two smaller, easier to maintain engines lashed together making the effort all worthwhile would be what again?


----------



## Totalwrecker (Feb 26, 2009)

One less crew to pay overtime.... until dismals, which could be operated from the lead loco, crew costs were a deciding factor behind designing larger locos.


----------



## ralphbrades (Jan 3, 2008)

I cannot comment on the economics of it -I simply designed a workable loco!!! Which is more than the Russian design team did -(but then again I did not have a local NKVD agent to answer to).... But in answer to your question there is always R-01 which was 4-8-2+2-8-4 -(sorry but this keyboard doesn't do Cyrillic). 

http://users.powernet.co.uk/hamilton/bgpix/ussr.jpg 

regards 

ralph


----------



## Dr Rivet (Jan 5, 2008)

Ralph 

Looks like a USSR knock-off of a Beyer-Garratt. Why design one if you can steal it. Worked with the B-29.


----------



## David Leech (Dec 9, 2008)

Posted By ralphbrades on 05 Aug 2012 12:14 AM 

Could "Leader" ever have been made to work -in my view the answer has to be "NO". 

regards 

ralph 
Well, maybe?
Since Mr. Bulleid was able to make the 'turf burner' version work in Ireland, I think that the Leader could have been made to work given a couple of 'generations'.
As with anything unique on railways, they needed to be given a chance to get them to work as planned on paper.
Jim - please note that it is EI and NOT IE in Bulleid!
All the best,
David Leech, Delta, Canada


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

The Ruskie AA-20 monster has been mentioned and YES YES YES I would love to have a model of it, something to tear up the Fairplex with.


----------



## ralphbrades (Jan 3, 2008)

These are my thoughts on "Leader" 

http://www.cabbagepatchrailway.co.uk/leader.html 

It might actually be possible to build an actual "compost burner" -I have proved the chemistry and maths for it. YES CC-1 did work but if you study the design you see just how much of the original "Leader" design has been dumped and "conventional" design work added. 

There exists in London an unofficial auction held monthly that I sometimes bid for plans on. I have in my possession a UK designed geared logging loco -for the NZ logging arena. The design was fortunately rejected -but it would make an interesting model for you Vic. It was designed by Johann Kupka of the Austrian Republic. It features transverse cylinders (three of them) under the boiler to a longitudinal propshaft. The power to the bogies is then taken off this to a 2-6-2+2-6-2 "garrett type" bogies except all the bevel gears etc pass their power through the pivot point (ie. the power shaft IS the pivot!). The power is then transferred to the bogies by a Jackshaft to: a fly crank, a pushrod and finally -conrods to the drive axles. If you like Vic -I can photostat it and mail it to you! 

regards 

ralph


----------



## wigginsn (Jan 9, 2008)

That sounds interesting - any chance of getting a copy of those plans Ralph? 

Cheers 
Neil


----------



## ralphbrades (Jan 3, 2008)

*Neil -you have mail...* 

The loco has some aspects of the Beyer Peacock design for the Rimatuka incline. But be warned it is not a "conventional" design for a Garratt style loco. 

regards 

ralph


----------



## wigginsn (Jan 9, 2008)

Thanks Ralph, 

Since I'm layout-less for the next few years I'm trying to get motive power ideas for an NZR style logging road. Weird and wonderfull fits my bill. 

I've seen the Rimatuka Fell engine at the museum in Featherston, only a quick visit but absolutley fascinating. Would have loved to see the incline in action. 

Cheers 
Neil


----------



## SRW (Jan 13, 2010)

No seriously Ralph, good work!! Keep drinking the Java. Pity you weren't consulted when the AA20 Engine was on the drawing board. You could've figured it out and also maybe how they could run the thing on Peat Moss or possibly Vodka. Still sounds like the beast would've wreaked havoc on the track, couplers and switches they had versus multiple engines. 
Engines like the ones I mentioned previously maybe weren't very successful in their time and were obviously experimental and pushing the limits of the slide rule, materials and technology of their day but... In time, without the introduction of diesels they might have become the new standards of locomotive power. As Wrecker notes, one locomotive engine crew was needed not two or three. That would also be only one complex steam loco to service instead of two or three more simple locomotives but still.... the ability of hooking and plugging cheaper to operate diesels together to be run by one crew gave RRs the tractive effort they needed without huge steam locomotives. [sigh] Maybe if diesels had drive rods and belched huge columns of smoke [okay, some diesels did that], they would've been much more interesting to look at instead of rectangular black boxes on small driver wheels with their diesels, turbos and generators droning along. Efficient, but where's the romance in that?


----------



## ralphbrades (Jan 3, 2008)

Neil -I assume you have studied the site below? 

http://www.trainweb.org/nzgearedlocomotives/ 

Both Vic and I have produced our own versions of a Price 16 Wheeler. http://www.cabbagepatchrailway.co.uk/price16build.pdf 

I cannot say that the NZ produced Lokeys were poor designs -with the possibility of the Dispatch 12 wheeler... 

regards 

ralph


----------



## ralphbrades (Jan 3, 2008)

SRW, 

I am going to get a long sort after book called "Locomotives that never were" This is almost the *Holy Grail* of "Students of Locomotives"!!! Once it arrives I will have my nose glued to the pages and yes rather a lot of coffee will flow. But NOT Java -I drink Kenyan "Peaberry" and I have a "Cona" maker too.... I can envisage most of the designs (suitably modified) will appear on my tracks. My fathers notebooks have designs in them that make me pause and ask "Pop -what were the requirements for that type of loco?" Thank you for your appreciation of my humble efforts and as I state in my by-line in another forum "Everything I build was REAL -unfortunately...." 

regards 

ralph


----------



## Totalwrecker (Feb 26, 2009)

Ralph, 
Thank you for bringing such fine examples of engineering to light, I always have fun following your leads. 
The Dispatch 12 looks like a good idea for a small one crew logging operation. Take a train slowly to the woods, load it with logs and trundle it home to the mill. 
Nice by-line.... 

John


----------



## wigginsn (Jan 9, 2008)

Thanks for the link Ralph - thats a new one for me. I saw Vic's 16 wheeler up for sale a while back and was tempted to ask.. My current interest is somewhat new as layout development is no longer available to me. 

I had an almost continuous loan of a book "The era of the Bush Tram in NZ" from the local library for a while. It has an excellent summary of known manufacturers /imports, locos and their current situation - thats where I got the idea to build the Alco Mallet. 

Cheers 
Neil


----------



## SRW (Jan 13, 2010)

Ralph, 
"Locomotives That Never Were"? I'm gonna Google that right now. sounds like a really cool book. Maybe I can find a copy myself. 

I'm a coffee fan myself, buy my beans green from Sweet Marias and roast them myself. I think the Ethiopian beans are running well right now as well as the Central American beans. 
I think life is way too fleeting to drink lousy coffee, bad beer, or cheap scotch/bourbon. 
I think that people that also enjoy watching/feeling, a massive steam locomotive rumble by them with steam and coal/wood smoke blowin' from the stack obviously appreciate the finer things in life. But other people's mileage may vary. Works for me.


----------



## SRW (Jan 13, 2010)

We haven't talked about other designs of steam locos like the camelback/ Mother Hubbard or the Cab Forward steam loco. I think the B&O had their own reasons of placing the cab over the drivers for more weight on the drivers and with a bigger firebox and maybe something to do with the Winans' design for 8 wheel drivers. Jersey Central also revisited this design decades later. Erie built an articulated camelback I think. I think the issue may have been forward visibility around a huge firebox needed to burn Anthracite waste which may have been a cheap source at that time. Not sure.
Here's a pretty loco example of an early engine:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File...engine.jpg
and Jersey Central's
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Camelback.jpg
The SP had their own issues that lead them to develop the cab forward design for their oil burners. I wonder if diesels hadn't come along if other RRs might have adopted at least the cab forward design.


----------



## SRW (Jan 13, 2010)

Classic Trains magazine in their latest issue shows a rebuilt/recabbed Camelback. It made me research the camelback further. 
This website has great information on the engine style. It states that the John E. Wooten firebox allowed RRs that had ready acccess to this type of 'waste' fuel converted 3,000 engines to this configuration. I was surprised at that number. 
http://www.american-rails.com/camelback-steam-locomotives.html 
There's a nice video on the site of Reading steam engines, with numerous Mother Hubbards in the video. 
It also states; 
"Because the locomotive was developed to burn the very abundant anthracite coal waste, culm, Camelbacks became fantastically popular with the railroads which staked their livelihoods on the resource (names like Central Railroad of New Jersey; Delaware, Lackawanna & Western; Lehigh Valley; Lehigh & New England Railroad; and the Lehigh & Hudson River). Other lines which came to use the the Camelback design included the B&O, Erie, Union Pacific, Southern Pacific, Santa Fe, Pennsylvania, Wheeling & Lake Erie, and Maine Central." 
and; 
"While Wootten's design allowed railroads, particularly the anthracite carriers, to gain huge savings on fuel costs it also came at an increased safety risk. Because the firebox on Camelbacks was so large, as to gain the necessary and needed fire temperatures, it forced the cab to be placed astride the boiler and over the driving wheels (so the engineer could gain proper clearance). This not only made for an extremely uncomfortable and hot ride during warmer months for engineers it also made them more at risk to injury if any part of the driving wheel assembly failed while at-speed. 

To make matters worse the fireman was left exposed to the elements back by the firebox, where of course he had to remain to feed fuel to the locomotive. Due to these safety issues the Interstate Commerce Commission began to seriously look at the hazards Camelback steam locomotives exposed to train crews and by 1927 the agency had completely banned new or rebuilt locomotives which featured the Camelback design." 

This is also a good source on the engine style:

http://www.steamlocomotive.com/camelback/

An interesting fact in that article was;

"The camelback was an ideal passenger locomotive because the hard coal burned almost without smoke. Some impressive speeds were obtained with these locomotives as very often they would turn in an average speed of under a mile a minute. Five Class P5se P&R "Atlantics" numbers 340, 342, 343, 348 and 349, routinely made the 55.5 mile trip from Camden, NJ to Atlantic City, NJ in under one hour. One of these "Atlantic City Flyers" number 343 ran the trip in 41 minutes, start to stop, in June of 1907."

I was not aware that Camelbacks had been so prolific and suspect they might be good G scale kitbash for people modeling the RRs listed. They certainly are unique to look at. 

Scott


----------



## ralphbrades (Jan 3, 2008)

That is interesting !!! In the UK the Wooten firebox was a popular addition and was almost an LNER "trademark" -like the LMS with their Belpaire firebox. I do know that during "the interchange trials" of the formation of BR that some of the locos had to have specific coal shipped to them as they performed the tests throughout the UK railway network. The GWR locos HAD to have "Welsh Steam Coal" and the LNER engines HAD to have "Yorkshire Hard Fines". I would just love to see some information on the articulated Camel Back 0-8-8-0. This appeals to me as it must have been a design mish mash of plumbing... I had never really researched the Camel Back -but articulated Camel Backs now have a horrible appeal!!! 

I got the book "Locomotives that never where". I spent quite a lot of time studying the pictures and the text. Some of them are now definitely on the "to build list". The oddest one was actually an american Baldwin design for the GCR -a sort of Vauclain double simple 2-10-0 another was a "Midland" Compound Duplex shunting loco 0-4-4-0 looking for all the world like a du Bousquet that shrank in the wash.... 

You can see some of them here on this utube: 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcZ7W5EZ6eE 

regards 

ralph


----------



## SRW (Jan 13, 2010)

Ralph, 
Thanks for the link! Enjoyed it. 

The Erie supposedly bought three 0-8-8-0 articulated Camelbacks from Alco around 1907. They may have been the biggest steam locomotives built to that time. Sounds right up your alley as they may have been, as you say, a "mish-mash" of plumbing. Built as 'pushers' I think. Their ability to reach their design potential may have relied on superhuman effort on the fireman's part and may have required lots of water.

I believe they were ultimately rebuilt as 2-8-8-2's with mechanical stokers and superheaters. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Erie_L-1_2601.jpg 

data:
0-8-8-2
http://www.steamlocomotive.com/articulated/?page=err
2-8-8-2
http://www.steamlocomotive.com/chesapeake/?page=err


----------



## SRW (Jan 13, 2010)

I was also wondering about diesels. 

Why did Baldwin fail in this transition from steam to diesel? 

Fairbanks Morse had some excellent engines. Why didn't they survive longer than they did? 

Alco had some very early duds as did many manufacturers but ultimately produced winning designs of great longevity. 

Why did EMD end up on top in the early diesel competition?


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

Wow that 4 separate topics on its own: 


Why did EMD end up on top? the short answer is that it was all they did right from the start and unlike Baldwin or ALCo, they never built steam locomotives. As a result EMD never had the “Institutional Baggage” that ALCo and Baldwin had in their front offices. IMHO Baldwin failed because early in the transition era they never truly embraced the new technology. As a result when they finally did seriously start building diesels they were very late to the game, even then treating diesels as a “necessary evil” subservient to their primary Legacy business of building steam engines. ALCo had a similar transition. EMD on the other hand, only built gas/electrics or diesel/electrics right from the start, they were an offshoot of General Motors, so they were weaned and teethed on internal combustion. All their front office came from GM, no baggage of the steam era legacy to carry around. 

One of EMDs most succesfull designs, the SW switcher, was 1st built in the very early 30’s.Most people equate the success of the diesel era with the introduction of the F-units in the early 40’s, not so. The SW type was appearing at industries, freight yards, and grain silos, impressing everyone who owned one, for almost a decade before the F unit made its debut. So railroads were ready to embrace the new clean easy to maintain and operate mainline diesels when they appeared. The labor costs savings alone more than justified the transition. Baldwin and ALCo somehow failed to see the writing on the wall and came into the fray almost a decade behind EMD, what they did produce was hit and miss, unlike EMDs which were all hits. 

FMs failure was more to do with EMDs overwhelming dominance of the diesel market by the mid-50s, although like EMD, they never built a steam engine, like ALCo and Baldwin what they did produce was yet another competitor in an already crowded pond in that era. ALCo was able to make the transition to the new technology, the RS-1 was the engine that saved their bacon. It was embraced by smaller lines and commuter lines and was a tremendous success. They built on that success with the FA-1 and RS12. While Baldwin did build some very good engines, they never sold in the numbers EMD was doing, they never found that one “must have” model that could act as a foot in the industry door to keep the factory doors open.


----------



## ralphbrades (Jan 3, 2008)

I cannot comment for obvious reasons why North American steam engine manufactures failed to make the transition Diesel Locomotives. however I can give you some history into three of the largest UK manufacturers who failed the transition. Vulcan Engineering of Newton-le-Willows had a steam loco history that was titanic -the problems they had related not to their locomotive designs -but to the ones they "bought" from foreign manufacturers for local consumption. Every Colonial kid can spot a "Vulcan type 5" body shell they were plastered over a total of 12 differing locos from a RENFE 277, a VR class "L" or a GIPR class WCM-1. As such these locos were brilliant dependable and trusty. Infact they served the customers well for decades... Hence no more orders for "type 5"... They did try to diversify into diesel, electric and gas turbine. But they never regained their market again. 

North British Locomotive supplied a vast market with locos -they bought in a German design from MAN that proved to be their undoing. 

Beyer Peacock produced the much loved "Hymek" diesel loco -but by that time was in so much financial trouble that the Gorton works folded... 

regards 

ralph


----------



## SRW (Jan 13, 2010)

It sounds like both early US and UK diesel markets had to do with long range planning and comittment to the diesel locomotive and the companies that made the best choices and marketed succesfully survived and the rest went out of business or went into other products. 

I read on some site about a laundry list of problems, maybe none fatal with early Baldwins but by that time EMD was producing engines that had already surpassed those growing pains so compared to them.... Alco also got in early and worked through some duds and produced a sound loco product that worked well with EMDs and grabbed a big share of the switcher and road switcher market. Am I also remembering correctly that baldwins or FM diesels didn't lash up in MUs with other diesels that RRs already owned limiting their applications? Baldwin also tried things like the Centipedes that were unique but not superior compared to other designs. I think i also read somewhere that Fairbanks Morse diesels were very good but when they required big engine service or rebuilds they were more complicated or maybe just unique compared to EMD and thus tended to get set aside in the shop more. I guess when the lead looked too great FM threw in the towel with locomotives. Maybe it wasn't that any of them were the 'worst' neccessarily but other manufacturers just won out in the market place. I think of the early days of automobiles and trucks when everybody and their brother tried their hand at building them and over time the good vehicle manufacturers were absorbed by other companies or just disappeared. 

What about geared locomotives? I think when most of us think about them we think Shay, Heisler and Climax but i believe there were quite a few other companies that tried to market those. i don't know if there were notable weirdos or failures among them but maybe also the good ones were absorbed early on into other companies or just flashed in the pan and died out.


----------



## ralphbrades (Jan 3, 2008)

Hunslet made an articulated 0-4-0+0-4-0 loco for 2 feet gauge. It had a underslung cylinders in a Vee 4 arrangement not unlike a Heisler. This drove the two power bogies via a prop shaft and bevels to a conrod system. According to the sales sheet in front of me it was able to pull 660 tons on the level and 190 tons up a 1 in 50 incline -not bad for an engine that only weighed in at 25 tons!!! It is a very "cutesy" looking loco and would make a great addition to my stable -but I do not have space to run it as it would have to be built at something like 1/10th scale and I doubt I could lift it... 

http://www.aqpl43.dsl.pipex.com/MUSEUM/LOCOLOCO/hunslet/hunslet.htm 

regards 

ralph


----------



## Randy Stone (Jan 2, 2008)

It's so sad we have to look at locos using links instead of the photos being posted on this site.


----------



## SRW (Jan 13, 2010)

I wish it was easier to cut and past photos to MLS too but [sigh]...otherwise it's one of the better forums, so for now, we should be thankful that links work. Maybe some day that will change. 

Ralph, I may have seen a photo of that Hunslet before. Sounds like a real 'Mighty-Mite'. I also love these...Garratts. Articulated tank engines. I think their flaw may have been the tractive effort dropped as the water weight was used up. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garratt 

These are examples of engines that appeared to have been quite successful though. I can't recall any real wacko failures in geared locos myself but there must have been some duds. 

S


----------



## SteveC (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By rlvette on 19 Aug 2012 02:05 PM 
It's so sad we have to look at locos using links instead of the photos being posted on this site. Randy

In this particular instance (i.e. Ralph's Hunslet 0-4-0+0-4-0 loco), wouldn't you think it bad form to hot link to the image directly?


----------



## ralphbrades (Jan 3, 2008)

SRW, The water weight traction problem with a Garratt is a myth -expounded by another manufacturer who should have known better -Baldwins... The real problem with a Garratt design is the LENGTH of it. The amount of water that is consumed is actually quite low and since the water bowser is on the leading bogie and the trailing bogie has coal BOTH are consumed -thus in theory lowering the tractive weight. The supplies actually contribute a low figure compared with the net dry weight of the loco. If the amount of water required is a factor then steam regulators would lower the admission to the cylinders. Have a read here. 

http://www.cabbagepatchrailway.co.uk/super golwe pic1.jpg 

The weight of water in the U shaped rear tank also allowed the loco to do some very strange things in the cornering dept and still remain stable.... 

http://www.cabbagepatchrailway.co.uk/kitchen4pic7.jpg 

The curve is 2 feet six inches radius and the loco is 118cm long(!) 

From a design point of view the Golwé loco was possibly the last new articulated principle to make it to production before the diesels came. 

regards 

ralph


----------



## SRW (Jan 13, 2010)

Ralph, 
I agree with you about what you state on water weight/tractive force maybe being a 'myth'. I think I read that sometimes they planned for that and sometimes carried a tender to re-supply the engines while they ran so...problem solved. I think Garratt engines are beautiful to behold and they performed well to my knowledge. I think some are still in use today. 

Scott


----------



## SRW (Jan 13, 2010)

Ralph, 

I found another candidate. The 4-2-4. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4-2-4T 

"They were soon deemed too light and lacking in adhesion for most short trains: Their single driving wheel axle did not have the full weight of the engine's rear due to the trailing truck."

Just looking at the photos I bet they spun out like crazy on any imperfection in the track.

"The little blue engine from the 1906 book The Little Engine That Could was a Forney with this wheel arrangement." 

Scott


----------



## SRW (Jan 13, 2010)

I got a PM from Ralph today. He sounds like he may be dealing with some unpleasant distractions and pulled away from the subject of trains for a while. Hope he will be able to join us again here soon on the forum. He did take a minute to point my research towards another 'less than succesful' locomotive design and I looked it up and thought i would share what I found. The GWR "Hurricane". it appears they only fooled with it for about a year before scrapping it and building another engine with the boiler. That engine may have been named "Bacchus". I guess after they puzzled over the design of Hurricane that everybody involved may have needed some wine.

It appears to be a 2-2-2 on a preceding frame with a 10 foot tall driver!!! and the boiler coupled and connected on a seperate trailing frame, and a tender coupled behind the boiler. Hmmmm. I guess in 1838 they were trying all kinds of different ideas in the fledgling locomotive technology. The drivers appear to have had internal cylinders, and/or gears, can't tell by the illustration and if I read the articles correctly these early engines were "broad gauge"; 7 ft 0 1⁄4 in (2,140 mm) 

Quotes from the first article: 

"First came the engine itself, with a huge 10-foot driving wheel impelled by two inside cylinders. Then came the separate boiler, (connected by jointed pipes) and finally a conventional tender. The 10-foot driving wheels are believed to be the largest ever applied to a steam locomotive." 

"The obvious screw-up here is that very little of the locomotive's weight is available for adhesion- one wonders that it could move at all. " 

article and illustration at this link; 

http://www.aqpl43.dsl.pipex.com/MUS...ricane.htm


Thunderer was apparently a dud too;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GWR_Thunderer_locomotive


----------

