33 thoughts on “The Top Ten Worst Steam Locomotives”
I am well aware I am far from the first person to have this opinion, but it is a shame the PRR S2 was such a failure because the Lionel model of it is such a beautiful piece of model railroad history. Knowing in real life it was not a pleasent locomotive to operate compared to its model counterpart is sad.
The leader was such a hideous mess in engineering terms – significantly overweight, and with an offset boiler that needed yet more scrap iron piled in the corridor to stop it listing. Not to mention the valve gear, the dry back firebox… When you look at the project history, it probably would actually have been possible to produce a more conventional 0-4-4-0 kitson meyer along the lines of the original sketches, with a shortened Q1 boiler, conventional valve gear and 'austerity' Q1 style platework to keep it within acceptable weight limits. And then Bulleid went to Ireland and did it all over again with CC1. Though at least that wasn't dangerously overweight.
14:17 "..Largest passenger drivjng wheels ever put on a locomotive.." Sorry, no.
The largest coupled wheels ever used were almost certainly the 7ft 7.25in ones (91.25") on the Worsdell designed NER Q1 4-4-0's. Those are also the only locomotives ever built specifically for the competitive racing of scheduled passenger trains. Racing was curtailed, and the two built had 34 year careers running turn and turn about with their slightly smaller wheeled Q class half sisters.
The largest wheels ever used in regular public service were 9ft diameter (108") on the broad gauge (7' 0.25") Bristol and Exeter singles (4-2-4T). They lasted a decade and half from 1853/4, and then 4 of the 8 were rebuilt with 8ft 10in wheels for further service. Following an accident the surviving 3 were rebuilt again as 4-2-2 tender locos and lasted into the 1880's. There's a surviving set of wheels outside the UK national railway museum in York, and they are huge.
The largest of all time were almost certainly the 10ft (120") drivers fitted to Hurricane, an experimental GWR broad gauge loco of 1838. The loco only lasted until 1839, being broken up and many of the parts recycled, but in that year or so it did 10,000 miles, not too bad for the 1830's. It's also recorded as having run from a standing start at Paddington to pass Taplow in a little over 16minutes. From memory that's about 22miles, which suggests the loco achieved at least 80mph. In 1838.
Id always heard turbines ran full blast, or turned off. I seem to recall UP having such trouble with their gas turbines. The problem with the jointed boiler was that they were high carbon rings, and hot cinders would rupture them.
Honestly not to be annoying or whatsoever but here it goes. Personally the Southern E2s were complete bulls__t purely for how terribly they performed, and over so toxically overrated by a particular familiar fandom of talking happy little choo choo trains with faces
????? I thought the largest were put on NYC 999 at 90 something inches or the British sterling singles with 100+ inches? Granted it might be the biggest drives put on Duplex and articulate styled locomotives but 84 isn't the biggest put on a passenger locomotive.
I'd personally replace the PRR S1 with Fowler's Ghost. The least the PRR S1 was a powerful beast and found actual usage. It may have possibly broken Mallard's speed record. Besides, the locomotive looks so darn cool.
Fowler's Ghost on the other hand was arguably the first ever fireless steam locomotive. However, unlike the later fireless designs, this thing was EXTREMELY DANGEROUS.
Dishonorable mentions to the Fontaine locomotive pre-rebuild (the rebuild removed the extra top mounted large wheels), A2/2 (Thompson's most embarrassing failure of a conversion), PRR K5, LNER A2, GWR 111 The Great Bear, SR Merchant Navy pre-rebuild, and LMS 6399 Fury before its conversion to 6170 British Legion.
I AM A PENNSY FAN ,, WHERE DO YOU GET YOUR 50 MPH SPEED LIMIT ON THE PENNSY … YEAH O.K. SURE …. GG1's WERE LIMITED TO 50 MPH …… LOL EVERYTHING WEST OF PITTSBURG WAS 70 MPH FOR FREIGHT … PASSENGER WAS 100 MPH … AND T1's AND K4's TIME FRAMES WERE ALWAYS SET ABOVE 90 MPH …
To create some 2-10-10-2s out of standard 2-10-2s without doubling or nearly doubling the firebox size just seems like a boneheaded design error. How could the engineering geniuses at work on this plan have missed an obvious necessity such as a bigger firebox for a bigger locomotive? One can only wonder how successful these engines might have been had they been given fireboxes befitting their size.
I know it is no record, but Here in Germany we have some locos with 90,5 Inch Diameter wheels. They are build in the 1930s , not in the 1800s. Look at BR 05, BR 61 and BR 18 201
This was a fun video but I think it missed the point that all of these were experimental locomotives with either one or just a few exaamples ever built let alone a whole class with a long service life. I would love to see a video limited to a class of at least 25 locomotives that seved a minimum of 20 years. As it is the Erie Triplex "won",,,,a lot of laughs but hardly a surprise.
To my mind, there's a marked difference between concepts which were sound from an engineering perspective, but could never suit railway conditions e.g. sleeve valves and turbines, performance of both of which inherently optimises at a specific speed and on the other side 'triplex' steam suckers, where not even US loading gauge could hope to accommodate a large enough boiler (did anyone try triple expansion and reheating, or were they carted away as soon as they mentioned such ideas?)
Under these criteria, Oliver Bulleid's Leader design still makes the cut, even though the offset mass of it's boiler (which some may call "an intersting choice" …. the PW Engineer may have used different adjectives) wasn't even mentioned, but it did spawn 'The Turf Burner' in Ireland, which employed conventional piston valves, had lateral balance ….. and worked a LOT better!!
On these grounds, the Soviet AA20 really ought to take pride of place, managing to achieve outright failure of a design which had no need to resort to any inappropriate and/or novel component assembles …. the entire shambles being the result of unmitigated hubris.
I do feel the WWII era Australian Standard Garratt, a 3'-6" gauge design, deserved a place on the list. They really were SO bloody awful that one of the workshops ordered to build a batch refused point blank to fit their own works plates. Somehow, one of these machines survives.
I am well aware I am far from the first person to have this opinion, but it is a shame the PRR S2 was such a failure because the Lionel model of it is such a beautiful piece of model railroad history. Knowing in real life it was not a pleasent locomotive to operate compared to its model counterpart is sad.
Thanks!
Could you please do a video about the wreck of the old 97?
Thx, expected the Jawn Henry on the list. It was relegated to pusher like a lot of these.
B&M T1 could been in the list too.
man your videos just keep getting better
Personally I would have put the 2662 locomotives higher, simply because they were described as “mechanical abortions”
5:03 such a beautiful line.
The leader was such a hideous mess in engineering terms – significantly overweight, and with an offset boiler that needed yet more scrap iron piled in the corridor to stop it listing. Not to mention the valve gear, the dry back firebox… When you look at the project history, it probably would actually have been possible to produce a more conventional 0-4-4-0 kitson meyer along the lines of the original sketches, with a shortened Q1 boiler, conventional valve gear and 'austerity' Q1 style platework to keep it within acceptable weight limits.
And then Bulleid went to Ireland and did it all over again with CC1. Though at least that wasn't dangerously overweight.
No 999 had 86 inch drivers and hers are the largest
14:17 "..Largest passenger drivjng wheels ever put on a locomotive.."
Sorry, no.
The largest coupled wheels ever used were almost certainly the 7ft 7.25in ones (91.25") on the Worsdell designed NER Q1 4-4-0's. Those are also the only locomotives ever built specifically for the competitive racing of scheduled passenger trains. Racing was curtailed, and the two built had 34 year careers running turn and turn about with their slightly smaller wheeled Q class half sisters.
The largest wheels ever used in regular public service were 9ft diameter (108") on the broad gauge (7' 0.25") Bristol and Exeter singles (4-2-4T). They lasted a decade and half from 1853/4, and then 4 of the 8 were rebuilt with 8ft 10in wheels for further service. Following an accident the surviving 3 were rebuilt again as 4-2-2 tender locos and lasted into the 1880's. There's a surviving set of wheels outside the UK national railway museum in York, and they are huge.
The largest of all time were almost certainly the 10ft (120") drivers fitted to Hurricane, an experimental GWR broad gauge loco of 1838. The loco only lasted until 1839, being broken up and many of the parts recycled, but in that year or so it did 10,000 miles, not too bad for the 1830's. It's also recorded as having run from a standing start at Paddington to pass Taplow in a little over 16minutes. From memory that's about 22miles, which suggests the loco achieved at least 80mph. In 1838.
Id always heard turbines ran full blast, or turned off. I seem to recall UP having such trouble with their gas turbines.
The problem with the jointed boiler was that they were high carbon rings, and hot cinders would rupture them.
Please loose the robo voice.
I love these tep ten lists i hope to see more thanks for all your hard work this is my favorite youtube channel for trains
Fabulous! Commentary over the top great😂😂😂
Honestly not to be annoying or whatsoever but here it goes.
Personally the Southern E2s were complete bulls__t purely for how terribly they performed, and over so toxically overrated by a particular familiar fandom of talking happy little choo choo trains with faces
????? I thought the largest were put on NYC 999 at 90 something inches or the British sterling singles with 100+ inches? Granted it might be the biggest drives put on Duplex and articulate styled locomotives but 84 isn't the biggest put on a passenger locomotive.
The s1 and s2 could’ve been used effectively if they gave it a second chance
I'd personally replace the PRR S1 with Fowler's Ghost. The least the PRR S1 was a powerful beast and found actual usage. It may have possibly broken Mallard's speed record. Besides, the locomotive looks so darn cool.
Fowler's Ghost on the other hand was arguably the first ever fireless steam locomotive. However, unlike the later fireless designs, this thing was EXTREMELY DANGEROUS.
Dishonorable mentions to the Fontaine locomotive pre-rebuild (the rebuild removed the extra top mounted large wheels), A2/2 (Thompson's most embarrassing failure of a conversion), PRR K5, LNER A2, GWR 111 The Great Bear, SR Merchant Navy pre-rebuild, and LMS 6399 Fury before its conversion to 6170 British Legion.
Yep, Leader was certainly a dud, just like Fowler’s Ghost, The Great Bear, and Fury.
I AM A PENNSY FAN ,, WHERE DO YOU GET YOUR 50 MPH SPEED LIMIT ON THE PENNSY …
YEAH O.K. SURE ….
GG1's WERE LIMITED TO 50 MPH …… LOL
EVERYTHING WEST OF PITTSBURG WAS 70 MPH FOR FREIGHT …
PASSENGER WAS 100 MPH …
AND T1's AND K4's TIME FRAMES WERE ALWAYS SET ABOVE 90 MPH …
To create some 2-10-10-2s out of standard 2-10-2s without doubling or nearly doubling the firebox size just seems like a boneheaded design error. How could the engineering geniuses at work on this plan have missed an obvious necessity such as a bigger firebox for a bigger locomotive? One can only wonder how successful these engines might have been had they been given fireboxes befitting their size.
Then there is the infamous LBSCR E2 0-6-0t. Seeing that and the S1 being the worst functional engines made me into a USRA fanboy.
I know it is no record, but Here in Germany we have some locos with 90,5 Inch Diameter wheels. They are build in the 1930s , not in the 1800s. Look at BR 05, BR 61 and BR 18 201
I'm kinda surprised you included the Santa fe 2-6-6-2, and the 2-10-10-2, but didn't also include their equally horrible 4-4-6-2.
to be honest b&o george h emerson should have been rebuilt into a 4-8-4 with a normal firebox but hey thats just me
Yeah I'm glad you included the Q-1s on your list. It's not really because of mechanical issues. It's just I thought the Q-1s looked ugly.
This was a fun video but I think it missed the point that all of these were experimental locomotives with either one or just a few exaamples ever built let alone a whole class with a long service life. I would love to see a video limited to a class of at least 25 locomotives that seved a minimum of 20 years. As it is the Erie Triplex "won",,,,a lot of laughs but hardly a surprise.
Dude, I did the numbers for the m1 turbines, they cost the C&O over 584,000,000 Dollars in today's money
Adjusted from the investment of 42,000,000 back in 1947
thank you, i really enjoyed the video
Another very enjoyable clip. Love your stuff!!
To my mind, there's a marked difference between concepts which were sound from an engineering perspective, but could never suit railway conditions e.g. sleeve valves and turbines, performance of both of which inherently optimises at a specific speed and on the other side 'triplex' steam suckers, where not even US loading gauge could hope to accommodate a large enough boiler (did anyone try triple expansion and reheating, or were they carted away as soon as they mentioned such ideas?)
Under these criteria, Oliver Bulleid's Leader design still makes the cut, even though the offset mass of it's boiler (which some may call "an intersting choice" …. the PW Engineer may have used different adjectives) wasn't even mentioned, but it did spawn 'The Turf Burner' in Ireland, which employed conventional piston valves, had lateral balance ….. and worked a LOT better!!
On these grounds, the Soviet AA20 really ought to take pride of place, managing to achieve outright failure of a design which had no need to resort to any inappropriate and/or novel component assembles …. the entire shambles being the result of unmitigated hubris.
I do feel the WWII era Australian Standard Garratt, a 3'-6" gauge design, deserved a place on the list. They really were SO bloody awful that one of the workshops ordered to build a batch refused point blank to fit their own works plates. Somehow, one of these machines survives.
I like that he talks about the locomotives that thousands of people have already talked about
I still want a 2-10-10-2 in HO scale