That was a new one on me, so many thanks for expanding my knowledge. The earlier Beyer Garratt you mentioned was the largest machine turned out by Beyer Peacock, but the sheer size of the soviet loading gauge, coupled with it's proportions, meant it's bulk wasn't at all obvious. It did pretty conclusively prove Siberian weather and Garratts weren't a marriage made in heaven. To judge by the fact they were supplied by five builders in three countiries, Fairlie's patent articulated locos, on the Russian gauge Transcaucasian Railway, seem to have done rather better, with successive 0-6-6-0T batches serving between 1871 and (electrification in) 1934
A Soviet Yellowstone made 3800 hp in 1953. Wow. The French built a 4-8-4 Northern with 6,000 hp in 1947. And that was a much smaller loading gauge. So much for Soviet design work!
The largest ever Garratt locomotive built was used in Russia. It was way down on power compared with other 3ft6ins/metre gauge locomotives. Only one was built.
When did Russia build its first railways again-? Look. It is not the fault of the designs or really the folks who live in that country that one great big moron wants to alter the history books. The Soviets for every flawed design they made, made (nearly) as many working ones. Take a look at the old East German V200 diesel locomotives (or M62s in Russia and Hungary as well), those work *pretty darn well.* They're also a product of Kolomna, incidentally.
The main problem with the Soviet railways was the insitance on using 70lb rail on their mainlines. Everytime they built heavy locomotives the track took a beating. Even the Germans in WWII were dismayed at the poor engineering of Soviet track. Excellent video, thanks much!
I read once (source forgotten) that Soviet rails were not offset by sides at the joints. So instead of going clickety-clack clickety-clack, Soviet trains went THUNK..THUNK..THUNK.
I'd class that as an impressive looking beast, I dare say if they'd had more time they'd have sorted out the various problems. Here's hoping the railsim crowd models this one.
Well first they have to steal it.. Because that's what they did with everything.. Then they build it without reverse engineering it first.. Then you have things like K19 go down..
@@TheRailroadCrossing-SteamPower Is like they made the GAZ 13 Chaika, dismantle some Chryslers to know how the mechanical aspect should be made, and to add to the weirdness the design of the car was clearly influence on the mid 50's Packards.
4:26 Corretion. The 4-8-4 is the Class P36. Many still are running today on passenger and freight service P36-0120 with passenger train czcams.com/video/cPQrNhyHsKA/video.html czcams.com/video/KjLL_xRCa3w/video.html&pp=gAQBiAQB 3 P36s with two different Поезда Деда Мороза (Santa clause ) trains that travel all across Russia (Like the CPKC Holiday train does) П36 0027 & П36 0120 leading a freight train czcams.com/video/PfEtpgXXwOo/video.html
interesting locomotive, I think it looks better than the SP AC-9s. thing was indeed huge. Sad the Soviets didn't keep one of them around at least they were usable and not like the AA-20 which ate rail lines for lunch and like to play in the dirt. it's like a cross between a PRR T1 and a SP G4 or a G6. There's things I like about the design but then there are parts that make me scratch my head. I think if they had polished the design a bit it would of been better but the idea to electrify is just a better idea for freight railroads.
@@TheRailroadCrossing-SteamPowerWell from what I know the soviets weren't privy with a stable supply of Diesel but after securing a stable oil supply then they started the Dieselization and electrification of the railways. I assume Why electrification wasn't done sooner is probably due to electric power plants not being ready for electrification so they were still building steam engines as they were rapidly building power plants so they could.
Interestingly (well I think so anyway) in the early 'teens when the PRR was testing electrics they discovered that a low centre of gravity caused excessive track damage, and designed locomotives (like the DD1's) to purposely be set high and have a correspondingly high centre of gravity. Tbh I don't know if what they discovered was across the board with all locomotives, although it makes sense to a degree, and in this case, I just don't know if the Soviet engineers creating this would've given any consideration to these kind of dynamics. Possibly, but only Possibly, it may have been high stepped to allow accessibility to the steam pipes which I appreciate is a huge step of imagination, but other than to look impressive I don't have anything. Thought you might be interested in that bit about the PRR electrics anyway :)
@@muir8009I don't know about the PRR trials but I have a couple of 1920's books on designing single phase AC electrics, mostly german practice, and they talk specifically about the benefits of a high CG in terms of ride, and deliberately setting out to mimic a steam loco in that regard. All these things being rigid frame and mostly having coupled drivers in steam-like sizes. Another benefit of lifting the boiler up is to get as deep a firebox as possible - like just about every other big simple articuled, the firebox stretches out over the rear couple axle(s). The trailing truck helps carry the weight, but it doesn't do much to help make it deeper.
@jonathanj8303 excellent reply thanks. My GOTO book is "when the steam railroads electrified" which was produced in the sixties (Kalmbach I think), which is quite a massive volume. I did have a good book on the Kpev (Prussian) Electrification projects. Unfortunately it was written in German, but the pictures were great ;) Yeah, there were actually very few articulateds bar obviously the Allegheny and Garratts which had deep fireboxes. There are a lot of observers of garratts who comment on the boiler size, not being conspicuously vast like the North American mallets (I'm using that term descriptively, basically long boiler over all the drivers - you know what I mean) generally overlooking the garratts were awesome steam producers as the fireboxes (ashpans) were down to rail level. How on Earth did I go from a Russian articulated to Electrics and Garratts? Think I'll go back to the cheap seats...
Because by 1900, it was discovered that boiler height doesn't affect running quality as much as a low boiler limits power. Before that, the standard principle of locomotive design was to make the boiler fit between the drivers., which limited speed, power, and efficiency. By eliminating this limitation, boilers could be sized according to needs, and by 1914, power reached 3000 hp. Before this, the classic school of locomotive building roughly followed the Rocket's basic design, with a low-placed boiler between the drivers, large driven wheels, and a generally low height. But by the 1890s, it became clear that the size of boilers has to be increased, and compounding was also in the game, so they placed the boilers outside the confinement of the running gear. This was thanks to the discovery of the fact that a boiler is a comparably small percent of the total weight of the locomotive. Another reason for placing a boiler high is to be able to position a wide, deep firebox, which was very important when burning absolute trash quality coal (which was sometimes called dirt), which often contained iron pieces, stones, wood, and the overall quality of the coal was only decribable in rude words. For this problem, Wootten fireboxes were used in the USA.
I know only of the P36 4-8-4 in the St. Petersburg railway museum. If there are more I am pleased to hear it. I last visited the museum in 2018, and was pleased to see the exhibits under cover.
Even though they were made in the 1950s, the Soviets built a locomotive at the Kolomna locomotive works that was as fast as their own.
That locomotive looks like a beast!
I really like this unknown locomotive
Hehe... I have no doubt that you do!
The smoke eliminator design makes this thing beautiful
To each their own :)
Thank you for covering this little know locomotive. I myself tried many times to find information about it,but i couldn't find anything.
Glad I could help!
You make one of the best train videos. You are the best.
That was a new one on me, so many thanks for expanding my knowledge. The earlier Beyer Garratt you mentioned was the largest machine turned out by Beyer Peacock, but the sheer size of the soviet loading gauge, coupled with it's proportions, meant it's bulk wasn't at all obvious.
It did pretty conclusively prove Siberian weather and Garratts weren't a marriage made in heaven.
To judge by the fact they were supplied by five builders in three countiries, Fairlie's patent articulated locos, on the Russian gauge Transcaucasian Railway, seem to have done rather better, with successive 0-6-6-0T batches serving between 1871 and (electrification in) 1934
thanks for the info and for watching!
There is a works photo of the Russian Garratt in A E Durrant's book Garratt locomotives of the world, published by David and Charles in 1983.
You know, I think they resemble the Southern Pacific AC-9’s, as discussed in yesterday’s video.
HUh... Hadnt considered that.
A Soviet Yellowstone made 3800 hp in 1953. Wow. The French built a 4-8-4 Northern with 6,000 hp in 1947. And that was a much smaller loading gauge. So much for Soviet design work!
The largest ever Garratt locomotive built was used in Russia. It was way down on power compared with other 3ft6ins/metre gauge locomotives. Only one was built.
When did Russia build its first railways again-?
Look. It is not the fault of the designs or really the folks who live in that country that one great big moron wants to alter the history books.
The Soviets for every flawed design they made, made (nearly) as many working ones. Take a look at the old East German V200 diesel locomotives (or M62s in Russia and Hungary as well), those work *pretty darn well.* They're also a product of Kolomna, incidentally.
What about their tractive efforts? Were the soviet locos superior regarding that at least?
Not very impressive, I agree.
TE was just over 90.000.. Which isn't terrible..But certainly not in the U.S. Yellowstone standard.
Love what you are doing, thank you from a damp Wales.
Thanks for watching! BTW, I live in the U.S. Pacific NW.. Which I call U.K. West because the rain and such is strikingly similar.
The main problem with the Soviet railways was the insitance on using 70lb rail on their mainlines. Everytime they built heavy locomotives the track took a beating. Even the Germans in WWII were dismayed at the poor engineering of Soviet track. Excellent video, thanks much!
You're welcome
Communist cost cutting
I read once (source forgotten) that Soviet rails were not offset by sides at the joints. So instead of going clickety-clack clickety-clack, Soviet trains went THUNK..THUNK..THUNK.
This locomotive looks awesome and badass.
Okay then! It's a 50/50 split on the aesthetics
Da! Good video, Comrade! Fearless Leader would be proud.
I'd class that as an impressive looking beast, I dare say if they'd had more time they'd have sorted out the various problems. Here's hoping the railsim crowd models this one.
I think they did do a model
Russian engineering consists of,
Can we build it ???
Yes...
Do you know how to design ?
Not really.
But we can build it, that will do...
Well first they have to steal it.. Because that's what they did with everything.. Then they build it without reverse engineering it first.. Then you have things like K19 go down..
@@TheRailroadCrossing-SteamPower Is like they made the GAZ 13 Chaika, dismantle some Chryslers to know how the mechanical aspect should be made, and to add to the weirdness the design of the car was clearly influence on the mid 50's Packards.
4:26 Corretion. The 4-8-4 is the Class P36. Many still are running today on passenger and freight service
P36-0120 with passenger train czcams.com/video/cPQrNhyHsKA/video.html
czcams.com/video/KjLL_xRCa3w/video.html&pp=gAQBiAQB
3 P36s with two different Поезда Деда Мороза (Santa clause ) trains that travel all across Russia (Like the CPKC Holiday train does)
П36 0027 & П36 0120 leading a freight train czcams.com/video/PfEtpgXXwOo/video.html
I like Soviet locomotives. If I purchase a Soviet locomotive I would convert it to standard gauge in China before delivering it to the US and Canada.
Soviet Automatic Coupler
Советских Автосцепка.
interesting locomotive, I think it looks better than the SP AC-9s. thing was indeed huge. Sad the Soviets didn't keep one of them around at least they were usable and not like the AA-20 which ate rail lines for lunch and like to play in the dirt. it's like a cross between a PRR T1 and a SP G4 or a G6. There's things I like about the design but then there are parts that make me scratch my head. I think if they had polished the design a bit it would of been better but the idea to electrify is just a better idea for freight railroads.
yeah, I was wondering why they built these in the mid 50's when everyone else was going to diesel or electric.
@@TheRailroadCrossing-SteamPowerWell from what I know the soviets weren't privy with a stable supply of Diesel but after securing a stable oil supply then they started the Dieselization and electrification of the railways. I assume Why electrification wasn't done sooner is probably due to electric power plants not being ready for electrification so they were still building steam engines as they were rapidly building power plants so they could.
Thx.
No problem!
Why was the boiler so high above the drivers? Lots of open air between the two. I'd think they'd want it as low as they could get it.
Interestingly (well I think so anyway) in the early 'teens when the PRR was testing electrics they discovered that a low centre of gravity caused excessive track damage, and designed locomotives (like the DD1's) to purposely be set high and have a correspondingly high centre of gravity.
Tbh I don't know if what they discovered was across the board with all locomotives, although it makes sense to a degree, and in this case, I just don't know if the Soviet engineers creating this would've given any consideration to these kind of dynamics.
Possibly, but only Possibly, it may have been high stepped to allow accessibility to the steam pipes which I appreciate is a huge step of imagination, but other than to look impressive I don't have anything.
Thought you might be interested in that bit about the PRR electrics anyway :)
Cant tell you on the boiler height above the driveres.
@@muir8009I don't know about the PRR trials but I have a couple of 1920's books on designing single phase AC electrics, mostly german practice, and they talk specifically about the benefits of a high CG in terms of ride, and deliberately setting out to mimic a steam loco in that regard. All these things being rigid frame and mostly having coupled drivers in steam-like sizes.
Another benefit of lifting the boiler up is to get as deep a firebox as possible - like just about every other big simple articuled, the firebox stretches out over the rear couple axle(s). The trailing truck helps carry the weight, but it doesn't do much to help make it deeper.
@jonathanj8303 excellent reply thanks. My GOTO book is "when the steam railroads electrified" which was produced in the sixties (Kalmbach I think), which is quite a massive volume.
I did have a good book on the Kpev (Prussian) Electrification projects. Unfortunately it was written in German, but the pictures were great ;)
Yeah, there were actually very few articulateds bar obviously the Allegheny and Garratts which had deep fireboxes.
There are a lot of observers of garratts who comment on the boiler size, not being conspicuously vast like the North American mallets (I'm using that term descriptively, basically long boiler over all the drivers - you know what I mean) generally overlooking the garratts were awesome steam producers as the fireboxes (ashpans) were down to rail level.
How on Earth did I go from a Russian articulated to Electrics and Garratts?
Think I'll go back to the cheap seats...
Because by 1900, it was discovered that boiler height doesn't affect running quality as much as a low boiler limits power. Before that, the standard principle of locomotive design was to make the boiler fit between the drivers., which limited speed, power, and efficiency. By eliminating this limitation, boilers could be sized according to needs, and by 1914, power reached 3000 hp.
Before this, the classic school of locomotive building roughly followed the Rocket's basic design, with a low-placed boiler between the drivers, large driven wheels, and a generally low height. But by the 1890s, it became clear that the size of boilers has to be increased, and compounding was also in the game, so they placed the boilers outside the confinement of the running gear. This was thanks to the discovery of the fact that a boiler is a comparably small percent of the total weight of the locomotive.
Another reason for placing a boiler high is to be able to position a wide, deep firebox, which was very important when burning absolute trash quality coal (which was sometimes called dirt), which often contained iron pieces, stones, wood, and the overall quality of the coal was only decribable in rude words. For this problem, Wootten fireboxes were used in the USA.
Could you also perhaps cover the p 36? The only thing I know is that it was an experimental articulated steam locomotive, nothing else.
I dont recall seeing anything in my archives about this... Interesting.. I'll take a look
The Russian P36 class is a 4-8-4 and many are still in service czcams.com/video/y9dfmJsXnRY/video.html
I think the P36 was the 4-8-4. . One is preserved in the Museum of Railway Technology in St. Petersburg.
@@gwaithwyrWhat do you mean one is preserved? There's a few of them in operation with retro trains
I know only of the P36 4-8-4 in the St. Petersburg railway museum. If there are more I am pleased to hear it. I last visited the museum in 2018, and was pleased to see the exhibits under cover.
I hope the locomotive performed much better than it looked! 😮 🚂
It didnt
П38-Паровоз
Good God, I don't think I've ever seen an uglier locomotive.
Yeah.. cant say it's all that great looking myself.. Might make my coming top 10 list
I don't think the Soviets placed much stock in aesthetics. . . they tried for functionality, although they didn't always get it. . .