When the Australian Victorian Railways wanted more power in the twenties they were contemplating a 2-10-0 for the proposed X class. However they were concerned about the long rigid wheelbase on the tighter curves that existed on the network. So the X class was built as a 2-8-2 , but to give the extra adhesion needed mainly for starting trains a booster trailing truck was used for all but one of the class. The booster idea was also applied to a least one of the lighter N class 2-8-2 locomotives. The boosters proved useful over the life of these classes. An advantage was they could be purchased off the peg fully developed by the Franklin Booster Company I recall.
Despite being a proud, railway-loving resident of Newcastle upon Tyne, I had no idea that our own Armstrong-whitworth had tried to innovate local transport in this way
There were some surprisingly large locomotives with booster trucks. Southern Pacific 4449, for example, has a booster trailing truck, though it's currently not functional. The largest locomotive that had a booster truck (that I am aware of) was the Pittsburgh & West Virginia 2-6-6-4. Yes, the N&W A was not the only class of 2-6-6-4 locomotives. The P&WV engines had boosters to help with starting heavy trains.
I think it's great to see ideas put to the test, iterative development and such. Sure, a lot of this stuff was questionable but at the time it made sense.
Boosters were somewhat common in the U.S., but mostly for smaller locomotives like 2-6-0s, or 2-8-0s. There may have been a few 2-8-2s with them as well. All were, I believe, part of the leading tender truck (bogey). This series makes me want to go back in time and design some MAD SCIENCE experiment locomotives! Like, maybe, a 4-4-4-4-4. Yeah , Pennsy, take that! My mad science experiment will outdo your T-1. 🤣😆
I once found an online steam locomotive simulator that had no constraints on reasonableness. It let me design a 4-200,000-4 and calculated that it would have a top speed of 20% lightspeed.
Most booster units I know of in the US were either mounted to the lead tender truck or to the trailing truck of the locomotive. And many of the N&W’s articulated fleet and even the J Class 4-8-4’s had them because of the mountainous terrain they had to deal with. Even the Southern Pacific GS-4’s had them on the trailing truck.
Never heard of a booster on a leading truck. Can you give an example of a few classes with that leading booster? All the one I know of were on the trailing truck of two or four wheels or a four wheel booster as the leading truck on the tender. Indiana Harbour Belt 0-8-0 switcher comes to mind.
When the Australian Victorian Railways wanted more power in the twenties they were contemplating a 2-10-0 for the proposed X class. However they were concerned about the long rigid wheelbase on the tighter curves that existed on the network. So the X class was built as a 2-8-2 , but to give the extra adhesion needed mainly for starting trains a booster trailing truck was used for all but one of the class. The booster idea was also applied to a least one of the lighter N class 2-8-2 locomotives. The boosters proved useful over the life of these classes. An advantage was they could be purchased off the peg fully developed by the Franklin Booster Company I recall.
IIRC, the New York Central had booster trucks on several classes of Hudsons. Though they were powerful and could pull fast trains, without the booster they had terrible starting tractive effort.
Off the top of my head I know the Reading T1s carry booster engines, C&O 2716 has a booster (idk about the whole Kanawha class), I think some CP & CN steam locomotive had boosters.
C&O J3a Greenbrier class 4-8-4s like the 614 also had boosters. In talking with Ross Rowland's crew, it made a significant difference when starting heavy trains, regardless of the power that the Greenbriers already had.
When the Australian Victorian Railways wanted more power in the twenties they were contemplating a 2-10-0 for the proposed X class. However they were concerned about the long rigid wheelbase on the tighter curves that existed on the network. So the X class was built as a 2-8-2 , but to give the extra adhesion needed mainly for starting trains a booster training truck was used for all but one of the class. The booster idea was also applied to a least one of the lighter N class 2-8-2 locomotives. The boosters proved useful over the life of these classes. An advantage was they could be purchased off the peg fully developed by the Franklin Booster Company I recall.
the turbine electric sounds like it should work, the problem is they tended to control the speed by increasing the turbine speed, when they should of had the turbine/alternator setup run at a constant higher set speed and vary the electricity to the motors to control speed
The GE Steam Turbines of the late '30s worked well, GE manufactured turbines and generators and it was a good collaboration. The problem was, compared to contemporary steam locomotives they were enemic in terms of performance. UP worked with GE on the initial design and specifications but after only a few months, UP gave them back to GE. I'm sure with more time they could have worked out the performance issues but it seemed nobody was interested and the project was abandoned even after other railroads tried them.
Do please include the first large German diesel locomotive in one of these lists, at it was literally a steam engine chassis pilled off the production line, fitted with a diesel engine and compressor. Yes, they used a pneumatic drive and compressed air to drive the cylinders.
Add- the TCDD,Turkish State Railways,had a class of 2-6-0's with an extra axle,for the same reason as the Belgian Railways,to spread the weight of locomotives! Axle loading on steam engines was a sore point for the Civil Engineers,on many railroads! Bridge,and right of way restrictions were a headache,and that also applied to diesels,that was why Alco,EMD,and Baldwin had A-1-A_A-1-A versions of road switchers,and even mainline engines! There were lightweight engines,ala SDL-39,by EMD,and how many export engines had lightweight trucks,and other modifications for use! The catalogs got very interesting in both steam and diesel,plus electrics! Happy hunting,there's lots out there!! Thank you 😇 😊!
The Victorian Railways had the same axle load issue when developing the specification for their B class 1500 Hp Co-Co locomotive being developed in the late forties and early fifties. EMD at the time had no six wheel three motor truck, but at the insistence of the Victorian Railways explaining the advantages of such a bogie they developed the SD truck. EMD did well out the SD truck that soon nearly all high power locomotives started using it from the first SD7 peaking at the SD40-2. The incentive provided by VR to have EMD develop the SD truck to get the B class contract was a a good thing for EMD. VR experience with their twenties era suburban electric goods locomotives had VR convinced of the benefits of all wheel drive and the wasted adhesion of unpowered locomotive axles. Only a few other railways had the inferior early A-1-A trucks. The soon went all Co-Co or Bo-Bo as did pretty much the rest of the world by the sixties.
Hello! I think you should mention soviet hybrid steam-diesel locomotives called "teploparovoz", which were 3 types (teploparovoz № 8000,teploparovoz № 8001 and TP-1). In first one, it had two side cylinders with opposed pistons, at start and at low speeds, only steam was used, but at higher speeds, above 20km/h, diesel fuel was injected in-between opposed moving pistons, while steam continued to push these pistons at outside ends of cylinder.
Saxon locomotives were design with saving coal in mind. Hence the « compound » design. They also had large grids for low quality coal. When Germany was united, between 1866 and the creation of the Deutsche Reichsbahn in 1920, Prussian railways Robert Garbe principles were retained : simplicity and reliability over low consumption. Plus, he was from Prussia, the prominent state of germany. Germany had plenty of coal, and coal cost was no more an issue for Saxony. All compound designs were dropped, in favor of simplicity, simple expansion and superheating.
Wait... could you make a small shunting locomotive powered completely by booster bogies? A tank engine with 2 sets of 4 articulated driving wheels in a very small wheelbase. That would be able to accommodate the tightest turn could have been "really useful".
That is interesting. There is no wheel arrangement description for that. it is an 0-6-0 because the driveres are coupled, but where to describe the unpowered axle? It is neither in front nor in the back.
Sometimes, I almost want to see some of these experiments attempted again, with the foresight of engineering we have. Particularly, the ones that have just one or two things that originally held it back, like the fan on the recompression locomotive, for example.
In the old days before computer rendering and modeling. The only way to see if a new idea worked was to build a prototype and test I. Which is why you see so many one off builds then
Related to 0:57. Another tender engine that had side tanks added were ten or so GWR Dean Goods during the second world war : czcams.com/video/s2w43DzpnF4/video.htmlsi=DskBXxURw2n_na2Q Not widely known and a few other mods.
To phrases jump out for this series: "WHY?" and "Don't try this at home"
No no no
We need more people to say "that's a good idea" and "let's do it and see"
Otherwise we wouldn't have these excellent episodes 👍
When the Australian Victorian Railways wanted more power in the twenties they were contemplating a 2-10-0 for the proposed X class. However they were concerned about the long rigid wheelbase on the tighter curves that existed on the network.
So the X class was built as a 2-8-2 , but to give the extra adhesion needed mainly for starting trains a booster trailing truck was used for all but one of the class.
The booster idea was also applied to a least one of the lighter N class 2-8-2 locomotives.
The boosters proved useful over the life of these classes. An advantage was they could be purchased off the peg fully developed by the Franklin Booster Company I recall.
Despite being a proud, railway-loving resident of Newcastle upon Tyne, I had no idea that our own Armstrong-whitworth had tried to innovate local transport in this way
There were some surprisingly large locomotives with booster trucks.
Southern Pacific 4449, for example, has a booster trailing truck, though it's currently not functional.
The largest locomotive that had a booster truck (that I am aware of) was the Pittsburgh & West Virginia 2-6-6-4. Yes, the N&W A was not the only class of 2-6-6-4 locomotives. The P&WV engines had boosters to help with starting heavy trains.
Oh my god, TK!!??
I think it's great to see ideas put to the test, iterative development and such. Sure, a lot of this stuff was questionable but at the time it made sense.
You can only celibrate victory on the heaps of your own failures
Boosters were somewhat common in the U.S., but mostly for smaller locomotives like 2-6-0s, or 2-8-0s. There may have been a few 2-8-2s with them as well. All were, I believe, part of the leading tender truck (bogey). This series makes me want to go back in time and design some MAD SCIENCE experiment locomotives! Like, maybe, a 4-4-4-4-4. Yeah , Pennsy, take that! My mad science experiment will outdo your T-1. 🤣😆
I once found an online steam locomotive simulator that had no constraints on reasonableness. It let me design a 4-200,000-4 and calculated that it would have a top speed of 20% lightspeed.
Most booster units I know of in the US were either mounted to the lead tender truck or to the trailing truck of the locomotive. And many of the N&W’s articulated fleet and even the J Class 4-8-4’s had them because of the mountainous terrain they had to deal with. Even the Southern Pacific GS-4’s had them on the trailing truck.
Never heard of a booster on a leading truck. Can you give an example of a few classes with that leading booster?
All the one I know of were on the trailing truck of two or four wheels or a four wheel booster as the leading truck on the tender. Indiana Harbour Belt 0-8-0 switcher comes to mind.
When the Australian Victorian Railways wanted more power in the twenties they were contemplating a 2-10-0 for the proposed X class. However they were concerned about the long rigid wheelbase on the tighter curves that existed on the network.
So the X class was built as a 2-8-2 , but to give the extra adhesion needed mainly for starting trains a booster trailing truck was used for all but one of the class.
The booster idea was also applied to a least one of the lighter N class 2-8-2 locomotives.
The boosters proved useful over the life of these classes. An advantage was they could be purchased off the peg fully developed by the Franklin Booster Company I recall.
IIRC, the New York Central had booster trucks on several classes of Hudsons. Though they were powerful and could pull fast trains, without the booster they had terrible starting tractive effort.
Imagine if Armstrong-Whitworth actually made a rocket locomotive XD
Then they should've called it Rocketman.
@@merafirewing6591After the Elton John song?
BR: *runs and hides*
SNCB: "Darkness, why are you looking at me like that?... Darkness?... What did I do?... Aaaarrrrgh!"
6:55 *THEY TURNED EVERY 6Y OLDS’ TRAIN DRAWING INTO A TRAIN!*
“Part Six.”
Not sure why there’s six parts, but I’m 100% here for it.
Day 1 of asking for the Worst Premier League teams part 1
NO
Off the top of my head I know the Reading T1s carry booster engines, C&O 2716 has a booster (idk about the whole Kanawha class), I think some CP & CN steam locomotive had boosters.
C&O J3a Greenbrier class 4-8-4s like the 614 also had boosters. In talking with Ross Rowland's crew, it made a significant difference when starting heavy trains, regardless of the power that the Greenbriers already had.
Some of the Indiana Harbor Belt Railroad engines had boosters too.
When the Australian Victorian Railways wanted more power in the twenties they were contemplating a 2-10-0 for the proposed X class. However they were concerned about the long rigid wheelbase on the tighter curves that existed on the network.
So the X class was built as a 2-8-2 , but to give the extra adhesion needed mainly for starting trains a booster training truck was used for all but one of the class.
The booster idea was also applied to a least one of the lighter N class 2-8-2 locomotives.
The boosters proved useful over the life of these classes. An advantage was they could be purchased off the peg fully developed by the Franklin Booster Company I recall.
Hey I did say OFF THE TOP OF MY HEEEAAADD 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
the turbine electric sounds like it should work, the problem is they tended to control the speed by increasing the turbine speed, when they should of had the turbine/alternator setup run at a constant higher set speed and vary the electricity to the motors to control speed
The GE Steam Turbines of the late '30s worked well, GE manufactured turbines and generators and it was a good collaboration. The problem was, compared to contemporary steam locomotives they were enemic in terms of performance. UP worked with GE on the initial design and specifications but after only a few months, UP gave them back to GE. I'm sure with more time they could have worked out the performance issues but it seemed nobody was interested and the project was abandoned even after other railroads tried them.
They did, in fact, doing constant speed during slow speed
it still waste fuel, let's be honest with that. And they realize it when oil crisis happen
Do please include the first large German diesel locomotive in one of these lists, at it was literally a steam engine chassis pilled off the production line, fitted with a diesel engine and compressor. Yes, they used a pneumatic drive and compressed air to drive the cylinders.
Oh!! That entrance!!! Thanks mate. Great vid. Cheers
nice
(btw I bought your british rail critic subscription thingy)
Add- the TCDD,Turkish State Railways,had a class of 2-6-0's with an extra axle,for the same reason as the Belgian Railways,to spread the weight of locomotives! Axle loading on steam engines was a sore point for the Civil Engineers,on many railroads! Bridge,and right of way restrictions were a headache,and that also applied to diesels,that was why Alco,EMD,and Baldwin had A-1-A_A-1-A versions of road switchers,and even mainline engines! There were lightweight engines,ala SDL-39,by EMD,and how many export engines had lightweight trucks,and other modifications for use! The catalogs got very interesting in both steam and diesel,plus electrics! Happy hunting,there's lots out there!! Thank you 😇 😊!
The Victorian Railways had the same axle load issue when developing the specification for their B class 1500 Hp Co-Co locomotive being developed in the late forties and early fifties.
EMD at the time had no six wheel three motor truck, but at the insistence of the Victorian Railways explaining the advantages of such a bogie they developed the SD truck. EMD did well out the SD truck that soon nearly all high power locomotives started using it from the first SD7 peaking at the SD40-2.
The incentive provided by VR to have EMD develop the SD truck to get the B class contract was a a good thing for EMD.
VR experience with their twenties era suburban electric goods locomotives had VR convinced of the benefits of all wheel drive and the wasted adhesion of unpowered locomotive axles.
Only a few other railways had the inferior early A-1-A trucks. The soon went all Co-Co or Bo-Bo as did pretty much the rest of the world by the sixties.
The Saxon XV is cool, it's a treat to hear about the activities of the Little Germanies before unification!
THIS VIDEO IS AMAZING 🤩👍
Hello!
I think you should mention soviet hybrid steam-diesel locomotives called "teploparovoz", which were 3 types (teploparovoz № 8000,teploparovoz № 8001 and TP-1).
In first one, it had two side cylinders with opposed pistons, at start and at low speeds, only steam was used, but at higher speeds, above 20km/h, diesel fuel was injected in-between opposed moving pistons, while steam continued to push these pistons at outside ends of cylinder.
Saxon locomotives were design with saving coal in mind. Hence the « compound » design. They also had large grids for low quality coal.
When Germany was united, between 1866 and the creation of the Deutsche Reichsbahn in 1920, Prussian railways Robert Garbe principles were retained : simplicity and reliability over low consumption. Plus, he was from Prussia, the prominent state of germany. Germany had plenty of coal, and coal cost was no more an issue for Saxony.
All compound designs were dropped, in favor of simplicity, simple expansion and superheating.
Wait... could you make a small shunting locomotive powered completely by booster bogies? A tank engine with 2 sets of 4 articulated driving wheels in a very small wheelbase. That would be able to accommodate the tightest turn could have been "really useful".
That is interesting. There is no wheel arrangement description for that. it is an 0-6-0 because the driveres are coupled, but where to describe the unpowered axle? It is neither in front nor in the back.
Sometimes, I almost want to see some of these experiments attempted again, with the foresight of engineering we have. Particularly, the ones that have just one or two things that originally held it back, like the fan on the recompression locomotive, for example.
Those money can instead spend to electricify the whole route
In the old days before computer rendering and modeling. The only way to see if a new idea worked was to build a prototype and test I. Which is why you see so many one off builds then
The reading t1s actually all had them and in fact, 2100 is going to have her booster once more.
The saxons who shared the same pistons sounds interesting
Besides the Saxon sharing cylinders, why are the outer most forwards and backwards wheels outside framed
Can you please put The DSB Litra E class locomotive from Denmark.
ain’t no way i missed the stream
I want a oo gauge model of that turbine-electric loco!
We had had on our kb loco in New Zealand used in oitra
Related to 0:57. Another tender engine that had side tanks added were ten or so GWR Dean Goods during the second world war :
czcams.com/video/s2w43DzpnF4/video.htmlsi=DskBXxURw2n_na2Q
Not widely known and a few other mods.
Bet they wish they had computer modelling back then. Would have saved a lot of messing around and potential loss of limbs.
Cover bn coal slurry power they had i think in the 1980’s
was there no diesel engine that would fit better in the Titanic? to me it seems that the Titanic and her sisters were on the wrong side of technology
Too early technology the first ocean-going vessel was built in 1911.
Germany... My country really has a habit of doing mas science. Gruntgütiger. (German for good god.)
2236th