5 Otherwise Great Trains With One Annoying Flaw | History in the Dark

Published 2022-08-19
Nothing is perfect. Even the most flawless thing can often have its weaknesses, and there's nothing wrong with that. Flaws are what make things unique. Locomotives are no exceptions to this. Even the best locomotives, finely crafted and refined, can have some inherent weakness that just limits them in a small way. Here's five with such issues.

Music Credits:
🐝 The Diseasel -- youtube.com/watch?v=ltNrA...
🎵 Cover by Luke Pickman -- youtube.com/InstrumentManiac

0:00 - Intro
1:05 - PRR K4
3:34 - NER Class V
5:13 - NYC Mohawk L1 and L2
6:48 - BR Class 33
9:44 - GE U30CG

"The Pennsylvania Railroad's K4 4-6-2 "Pacific" (425 built 1914–1928, PRR Altoona, Baldwin) was its premier passenger-hauling steam locomotive from 1914 through the end of steam on the PRR in 1957. Attempts were made to replace the K4s, including the K5 and the T1 duplex locomotive, but neither was very successful. The K4s hauled the vast majority of express passenger trains until they were replaced by diesel locomotives. The K4s were not powerful enough for the heavier trains they often pulled from the mid-1930s onward, so they were often double- or even triple-headed. This was effective, but expensive, and several crews were needed. The PRR did have the extra locomotives, many having been displaced by electrification east of Harrisburg."

"The NER Class V was a class of twenty steam locomotives of the 4-4-2 wheel arrangement. They were designed by Wilson Worsdell for the North Eastern Railway (NER) as express passenger locomotives."

"The New York Central Railroad (NYC) called the 4-8-2 type of steam locomotive the Mohawk type. It was known as the Mountain type on other roads, but the mighty New York Central didn't see the name as fitting on its famous Water Level Route. Instead, it picked the name of one of those rivers its rails followed, the Mohawk River, to name its newest type of locomotive. Despite the more common name, the 4-8-2 was actually suited in many ways more to flatland running than slow mountain slogging, with its 4-wheel leading truck for stability at speed. However, the L1s and L2s were unstable at higher speeds due to the design of their reciprocating gear, making the 4-wheel leading truck simply a better distributor of the locomotives weight; the L1s and L2s were consequently limited to 60 mph (97 km/h), but this issue was resolved for the L3s and L4s."

"The British Rail Class 33, also known as the BRCW Type 3 or Crompton, is a class of Bo-Bo diesel-electric locomotives, ordered in 1957 and built for the Southern Region of British Railways between 1960 and 1962. They were produced as a more powerful Type 3 (1,550 bhp) development of the 1,160 bhp Type 2 Class 26. This was achieved, quite simply, by removing the steam heating boiler and fitting a larger 8 cylinder version of the previous 6 cylinder engine."

"The GE U30CG was a passenger-hauling diesel-electric locomotive built by GE Transportation Systems. It was a passenger variant of GE's U30C design purchased by the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway. ATSF had purchased ten U28CG locomotives in 1966, but while these locomotives were satisfactory operationally, they looked like freight locomotives, not passenger locomotives. Desiring smooth-sided passenger power, the railroad ordered the first cowl units from both GE and GM-EMD. GE produced the U30CG to meet this requirement."

🟢Join this channel to get access to perks:
youtube.com/channel/UCsmGCJdCZeKxrbqs_l4YCQA/join
🟢Patreon - www.patreon.com/Darknessthecurse
🟣Discord - discord.gg/KEX5eeRcxF
🔵Facebook - www.facebook.com/History-in-the-Dark-1090033051137…
🟢Donations - streamlabs.com/edgerabbit/tip
🔴Tiktok - www.tiktok.com/@historyinthedark
🟣Instagram - www.instagram.com/historyinthedark/
🔵Twitter - www.twitter.com/DarktheCurse
🟣Merch -    / @historyinthedark  
🟣Twitch - www.twitch.tv/edgerabbit

Other channels:
🟢Prehistory in the Dark:    / @prehistoryinthedark  
🟣Gaming and Fanfic Readings:    / @darknessthecurse  

🟣History Stuff:    / @historyinthedark  

👔Merch: streamlabs.com/edgerabbit/merch
---

I WRITE BOOKS! YOU CAN FIND THEM HERE:

📚Abyss: www.amazon.com/Abyss-Books-Pride-Book-1-ebook/dp/B…
📚Pryde: www.amazon.com/gp/product/B08P6SZ6DB?notRedirectTo…

📚Abyss on Audible: www.amazon.com/hz/audible/mlp/mfpdp/B08TFDNMJH?ref…

#trains #railfan #top5

All Comments (21)
  • As a firefighter, I know about the physics of water. To those unaware, inside a fire truck and indeed inside ANY large vehicle designed to hold liquids, there are specially designed bulkheads that divide the tank as a whole into compartments that limit the liquids motion. They generally have a small opening up top that allows water to flow forwards and backwards depending on if you're going uphill or downhill and assists when going on curves.
  • @superted6960
    A bit hard to criticise a Pacific built to haul passenger trains when they're put on heavy freight duties. That's not a fault, it's mismanagement
  • Honorable mention: all locomotives of the Midland Railway and their axleboxes.
  • @trainknut
    Personally I think the K4 should be swapped for the T1 in this list, the reason being the "annoying flaw" you mentioned isn't a fault of the locomotives themselves but in the locomotives being used in the absolute worst way you could use a locomotive of that design. First of all, the K4s pacific was exceptionally powerful for a 4-6-2, its the main reason they held on until 1958 despite being a 40 year old design at that point, however they were still 4-6-2s. They had incredible power at speed with long strings of passenger equipment owing mainly to their large boiler and tall drivers giving them good top speed performance, however if you know anything about tall drivers you'll already see the problem. Using a locomotive best suited to high speed passenger running on flat trackage as a freight hauler in the Appalachian mountains isn't just a bad idea, its a monumental misuse of the equipment they had. Pennsy already had locomotives that were specifically meant to fill those roles in the form if the L1s, I1s, M1a/b and even the later J1s and Q2s, the problem wasn't that the K4 had too little power, the problem was she had power for a completely different kind of running and Pennsy simply was not using the locomotives they already had to the best of their strengths. So why the T1? Well because unlike the K4s, the T1 actually did have an annoying and eventually fatal flaw, that being wheel slipping. Due to the extremely high profile of the drivers, and the distribution of the weight over two sets of four wheels instead of one set of eight, it meant the locomotives had a tendency to slip bad when starting a train... Simply put the T1 wasn't heavy enough for the amount of power it put to the rail. PRR engineers were used to the K4s which needed a lot of steam to kick their heavy passenger trains into motion but had very little trouble with slipping due to the incredible weight on the drivers... The T1s needed precisely the opposite, with an extremely gentle hand being required while starting a train due to the low factor of adhesion and extremely high steaming ability of the boiler being a perfect combination to spin out one or sometimes even both sets of drivers. Modifications to the class in the late 40s as well as improved engineer training eventually eliminated this problem. But by the time they had worked the kinks out of the design, this single minor annoyance had turned into a fatal flaw and ultimately sealed the fate of the T1s, with the impressive duplexes all scrapped within the first phase of dieselization due mostly to the bad reputation they had built as slippery and unpredictable locomotives.
  • @vicsams4431
    Speaking as someone who knew the British Rail Class 33 in service, I have to say, with the greatest respect, whoever you got your information from, you need to get your money back from. The BR Class 33 was one of the best locomotives ever produced. Popular with traincrew and passengers alike. They could easily out-perform a Class 37, which on paper was stronger, had 6 powered axles (not 4), a heavier weight and a higher top speed. In multiple, a pair was superb, and in triples, they were truly phenomenal. Very versatile on passenger and freight. The 33/0 standard design was great. The 33/1 push pull design was used on high speed passenger duty for decades. The 33/2 Hastings Gauge loco showed that you could even put them in a narrower body, perfectly fine. Of all the thousands of locos I have had across the globe, none of the Class 33 I have enjoyed has ever failed. Not even once. As for saying the ETH (HEP in North American speak) was not need, what on earth ! The lines they covered were electric heating long before to the introduction of the Class 33.
  • @johnhagan7742
    4:45 I really like that voice for the NER Class V locomotive. Coal, coal, more coal! O.M.GOODNESS!
  • @Tom-Lahaye
    The class 33 never had steam boilers. There was/is an issue however with them, and in fact all locomotives built by BRCW (classes 26, 27 and 33). That's rust, and lots of it. The cab roof is made of glasfiber reinforced resin. The connection to the steel body above the window line always started leaking over time and water could enter. You wouldn't see the water as it dripped down behind the sound deadening cladding inside the cab, but would pool on the floor behind the instrument panel, and cause the underside of the cab front to rot, in severe cases including structural members. Most BRCW locomotives still in existence had their cab fronts rebuilt or is needing a rebuild.
  • Love NYC 3001. Her location is Elkhart, In. There is a big push to get her running again. My grandpa took me to the museum when I was little. Taking my kids there to see her. Hope my grandchildren will get a chance to take a train ride in the future.
  • @Daan_0172
    The GCR class V reminds me of one of my favorite steam locomotives: the NS 3900’s. These were very coal hungry to the point that firemen started calling them executioners. This problem was also present with the very similar 6300’s, but without the rest of the problems.
  • @TB76Returns
    So The Dieseasel is now British Rail's theme right?
  • The U30 hood units were very good locomotives on coal trains and other heavy freight. Burlington Northern used a lot of them on those Powder River Basin coal trains out of Wyoming. BN replaced them with new General Electric C30-7s - basically a reworked and improved U30.
  • @solarflare623
    What if you did 5 most annoyingly average trains ever? (Also I suggest renaming it to 5 of the okayest trains ever.)
  • @sambrown6426
    1:05 I have a vintage belt buckle with K4 5475 on it. I know it's a K4 because it has PENNSYLVANIA on the tender, and the Pennsy-style number plate on the smokebox says 5475 on it. I looked up her road number, and it came up as a K4.
  • @SamutheHamu
    4:455:01 ok this is the closest darkness the curse has gotten to Meat canyon levels
  • Their was another locomotive before the u30cg . called the u28cg, these engine were like the u30cg without the full with body.it just looked like a stranded u28c freight engine . 10 where order in 1966.but sadly santa fe didn't like them . they were number 350-359.