Seeing the wheels move gives one just the *Barest* idea of how jawdroppingly impressive it must have been to watch these powerful and beautiful machines thunder past with a compliment of cars behind

@s0nnyburnett

2 жыл бұрын

Just imagine all the different and deafening sounds.

N&W's Y6b's had the most useable Tractive effort (166,000Lbs). DMIR 2-8-8-4's were 140,000 TE.

@FS2K4Pilot

2 жыл бұрын

And the C&O’s Alleghenies made the most horsepower (7498 hp claimed, 6800 more likely the actual figure, vs 6250).

@jacquesblaque7728

2 жыл бұрын

And ... the Y6Bs had the best thermal efficiency of the big-uns, besides the smoothest pull, thanks to compound expansion. (Still, any steamer was a coal & water disposal unit.)

@jordanalexander615

2 жыл бұрын

Horsepower vs tractive effort. Horsepower helps more with speed. A good balance of helps make a great steam engine. The n and w y6b I think had 170,000 tractive effort the y6a had the 166,000.

@jaedenlyons

2 жыл бұрын

Yes, Big Boys may be biggest, but not realistically most powerful ever, one of though.

@markantony3875

2 жыл бұрын

@@jordanalexander615 Remember the tractive effort calculated for steam is starting TE at 0 mph. They could not maintain that tractive effort while moving. The Y6b made maximum HP at 25 mph, while producing 81,000 lbs tractive effort at that speed. Which means the Y6b was a great engine if you wanted to only run trains in the 25 to 30 mph range. Large single expansion engines all were pretty much matching the Y6b HP at that speed, and their power output increased above that speed, maxing out generally in the 40 mph to 50 mph range.

It would be great if either 225 or 229 Yellowstone get restored to running

@That_Thicc_Cat

3 жыл бұрын

Agreed

@Project_Prescott

2 жыл бұрын

yes

@Leatherface123.

2 жыл бұрын

Too bad it won’t happen I’m glad because I don’t want someone going bankrupt

@jasonantes9500

Жыл бұрын

@@Leatherface123. Why? Get Union Pacific to do it as they seem to know what they are doing and have brought many old steamers back to life.

@Leatherface123.

Жыл бұрын

@@jasonantes9500 Union Pacific brought something back to life with the name Union Pacific on it They restored something that they had made for them, something with their name, they shouldn’t have to care about a different railroad Plus it wouldn’t make them money and wouldn’t be financially possible considering that 225 & 229 are far away and one is in a building

The magic of the wheels that go round and round

You wanna bring more people to the museum, bring her back to life

@thatoneguy611

2 жыл бұрын

Money isn’t an unlimited resource, my guy.

Thank god this one wasn’t scraped!!!!

1941 was the year of the "big three", (an event of coincidence and not competition) each of the three major builders, Baldwin, Alco and Lima introduced a new class of large and modern locomotives. The most famous was "Big Boy" for the UP from Alco, "Allegheny" for the C&O from Lima and then "Yellowstone" for the DMIR and 82 years later people are still arguing which was the biggest, which was the most powerful! The DMIR Yellowstones had a slight edge on the UP Big Boy's in the way of raw pulling power but couldn't match the speed. The Alleghenys left Lima in a de-tuned state and neither the C&O nor the Virginian never used them as a true manifest locomotive but instead put them on coal drags. Then Lima got in trouble with the Alleghenys being over weight resulting in a lawsuit with the C&O. The DMIR 2-8-8-4's never got the attention they deserved. Had the Allegheny been "setup as designed" with higher boiler pressure and the addition of a "booster engine" on its 3 axle rear truck it would have been the most powerful locomotive in the world. Thus, Big Boy with its size, power and 65mph cruising speed is the winner! Runner ups in the way of the biggest/most powerful would be the Pennsy S1 Duplex (unsuccessful), the earlier GN Yellowstones and the absolute bruisers in the way of the N&W Y6 Mallets. The last year a DMIR Yellowstone ran was 1960, the last revenue year a Big Boy ran was 1959 and the Allegheny was 1956. All three had their lives ended far too soon....... -stan

@stanfischer6175

3 жыл бұрын

@Иван Ангелов I believe that is about right, both the DMIR and the UP kept their newest and biggest in storage in case of what ever. Remember, the cold war was really hot about then and had it escalated in '62 there probably would have been work for them.

FYI these are simple expansion articulated steam locomotives, not “mallet”. Anatole Mallet designed a steam locomotive with two important characteristics. The locomotive was articulated, and used compound expansion (high and low pressure cylinders) The Big Boys, Yellowstones, as well as many other articulated steam locomotives, used simple expansion (high pressure cylinders all around), and thus, according to the strictest definition of the term, are not true mallets.

@neimrxcharix574

2 жыл бұрын

nice. I thought I was going to have to be the one to post this, but good to see some else did. i was going to point that same thing out.

@sterlingodeaghaidh5086

2 жыл бұрын

There is an actual name for the American articulated locomotives. I forget what they were called, mostly tho we never actually had names like "Mallet" for our locos in fact in all my years designing these things, outside of diesels I have never really heard of a American steam engine referred to by anything other than their wheel arrangements. A few exception is the Big Boy and the Challenger series, but aside from that nothing else. Fun fact tho, "Big Boy" was an uninentional designation, it was originally supposed to be called the "Wasatch", the name "Big Boy" was written on the front by an unknown worker. I think the Mallet association is because true Mallets are very iconic, kind of like how outhouses all are thought of to have a moon on the door, its just an association done by tourists.

@kimpatz2189

2 жыл бұрын

Simplex Mallet for straight HP. Duplex True Mallet for compounding. Triplex Mallet for the most ridiculous steam locomotive ever.

@CardboardSliver

2 жыл бұрын

Mallet has become a blanket statement, much like Kleenex, Xerox, or Saran Wrap. He mentions that in another video.

@saxonaudio

2 жыл бұрын

Yeah. This tour guide made a mistake.

Excellent video, thank you for this behind the scenes look!

Wow!!! What a great attraction. Amazing to see the wheels turn

UP 4014 is not a Mallet. Its a simple compound locomotive with all 4 cylinders operating at the same steam pressure and the exhaust from each goes up the exhaust stack. A Mallet has high and low pressure steam cylinders. Exhaust from the high pressure cylinders is fed to the low pressure cylinders before the steam is added to the exhaust stack. A museum should get this detail correct.

Another great video. My kudos to all who made this video. Thank you very much. Be safe and healthy please.

Ken, this is amazing such a huge massive locomotive having its wheels turned is phenomenal. That’s incredible how they jacked up the heavy locomotive and got the wheels to turn! Something in the future that I would love to see i’m a huge train fanatic I love trains, especially steam locomotives! So thank you for sharing that beautiful large locomotive with us ! That’s absolutely incredible!

Excellent quality of presentation, as well as a fitting resting place for such a marvellous machine.

I first saw the Duluth museum in September 1981. I have visited many timed since. It's just a few hours from the Twin Cities, where I live. Nicely done, Ken. I look forward to seeing you again.

@jnnmlchr91

3 жыл бұрын

Can you make more Videos

@NorthShoreScenicRailroadDuluth

3 жыл бұрын

We will! But many more are available to watch at www.DuluthTrains.com/youtube

We ran the LS&I 1916 BALDWIN in Western Maryland for many years! Subbed!

Very nice work.

Always wondered how they did it. Never thought it would be electric motors! :P

WELL MODULATED SPEAKING VOICE MAKES THIS SERIES EASY TO LISTEN TO AS WELL AS VIEW. THANK YOU FOR DOING THIS SERIES. MORE RAILROAD LOVING PEOPLE NEED TO SEE THESE SHORT 'snapshots" OF YOUR MUSEUM. I JUST WISH YOU WOULD COME BACK AFTER YOU FINISH WITH THE UPFRONT STUFF AND DO EVERY PIECE THAT IS IN YOUR PHOTO ALBUM PLUS THOSE PIECES THAT ARE NOT ON PUBLIC VIEW AND WAITING TO BE RESTORED! tHIS IS A WONDERFUL MUSEUM. I ONLY WISH I HAD RUN ACROSS THE SERIES EARLIER IN MY LIFE BUT THANKS FOR LETTING ME SEE WHAT YOU HAVE DONE DURING THE LOCKDOWN. LOVED THE SERIES!!!!!!!!!

@paullangford8179

9 ай бұрын

Why are you shouting?

Wow that is some steam engine. 💪🚂

when the wheels spin, do you still care for the rod bearings and crosshead surfaces etc?

Wished there was a Yellowstone restored to running

@thatmnguy6099

3 жыл бұрын

I agree

@Trickycarrot102

3 жыл бұрын

That’s my dream

@theextremeanimator4721

3 жыл бұрын

The closest thing to that for now is C&O 1309

@blackbirdgaming8147

3 жыл бұрын

Too big, too expensive, too heavy. There’s nowhere for a Yellowstone to run in this current preservation climate. You can point to the Big Boy all you want, but we have to remember that this is UP we’re talking about. They’ve been dedicated to a steam program since 1960. Steam that isn’t UP-owned is banned from their rails (exceptions made for ferry moves not under steam). UP is also not interested in running “family” steam, like SSW 819, SP 4449, and CNW 1385. That leaves just BNSF for a place for a Yellowstone to run, and I seriously doubt they’d let a Yellowstone on their rails. Yes they let a Big Boy on their rails, but that’s because it was owned by UP who has trackage rights, and can cover liability.

The Big Boys were simple steam engines, not Mallets. They only used the steam once. Other than that minor error really enjoyed this video.

So... Were the Pistons on this engine Disabled or Removed altogether?

Slightly larger piston diameter with the same stroke and slightly smaller drive wheel diameter with the additional weight helps produce more torque and gives Yellowstone the ability to put that power to the rails. Yellowstone would be a beast if it operated at 300 PSI instead of the 240 PSI. Both are awesome!

An articulated locomotive that should be restored to running condition again and have a lifetime of excursion carrier

People dont realize this locomotive still exists here. Everyone thinks they're gone.

Henry Ford Museum in Michigan has a C&O 2-6-6-6 Allegheny and is ALMOST similar in a way to this one here. You can also go in the cab and interact with everything. But why I bring that up and why I mention it is the amazing condition of this engine here even for an interactive display that people handle all day. It’s impeccable and I would have thought Henry ford museum would have been the leader when it came to that. But this engine can looks like it was just built

I think you should restore DM&IR 227 to operating condition! That way with would be the most powerful operating steam locomotive in the world with more tractive effort! And the Yellowstone will be converted to burn oil for longer distances!

@jaedenlyons

2 жыл бұрын

#BringBack227

That locomotive looks a lot like Engine 60000 that resides at the Franklyn Institute in Philadelphia Pennsylvania. I must have seen that locomotive at lease 2 dozen times. Just like the 227, the 60000 runs in the same concept. Then again the 60000 moves 10 feet, 5 forward and 5 reverse

@harrimanfox8961

2 жыл бұрын

but 60000 now has egg shaped wheels becuase the wheels never fully turn.

@patrickgrippo2897

2 жыл бұрын

School students there to see it.

As a model railroader of 60+ years, I didn't actually _think_ there was a gear on the loco axle and a huge electric motor with a worm gear on its shaft hidden in the firebox, but I couldn't quite figure out how you _did_ do it. Thanks. I missed seeing the 4014 when it was here, so I'm looking forward to your next video visit ("Course, I _always_ am!) Stay safe, everyone.

@oldenweery7510

3 жыл бұрын

@Иван Ангелов Excuse me, please, I was speaking about the system they used to turn the drivers on the Yellowstone on display in the museum, not the stoker mechanism. The archimedes screw from the tender is vulnerable to occasional stoppages. I remember a story in a magazine where a B&O EL-3's stoker quit while partway up one of the grades, so the fireman grabbed a scoop and handed another to the front-end brakeman to "Hand-bomb" the loco the rest of the way to the top of the grade. It was discovered that a rusty iron bolt and nut had dropped from the roof of a conveyor belt housing onto the coal at the mine, then jamming the stoker screw to a stop! Hand-firing any steam loco on an ordinary grade was a monumental task, let alone feeding the maw of an articulated loco. Stay safe.

Cool to see how you powered the wheels, that must be one heck of a gearbox

The Y6b of the Norfolk&Western was a true mallet. Although it produced less horsepower, it produced more tractive effort than the Yellowstones, Big Boys and Alleghenys. They produced 152,206 pounds in simple and 126,828 pounds in compound. N&W had to add 20-something tons of lead to the front engine frame to attempt to prevent wheelspin. The Y6b had a variable valve plumbing network to allow the use of the engine in simple at all speeds, not just on startup. So, the Y6b could have the Yellowstone beat in all aspects, except for horsepower and maybe speed. Also, the Yellowstone isn't a true mallet, as a mallet has the ability to reuse the steam from the high pressure rear cylinders as low pressure steam in the massive front cylinders. Other than that, this presentation was great! I had never known about this locomotive until now. Edit for spelling.

Very interesting and informative video! But are #227 and her classmates the most powerful in horsepower or tractive effort? I remember hearing that the Norfolk and Western Y6b 2-8-8-2’s were most powerful in tractive effort.

@blackbirdgaming8147

3 жыл бұрын

They’re neither. The Y6b had the most tractive effort from a compound if you ignore weird stuff like the Virginian AE-class 2-10-10-2s and the Triplexes. Most tractive effort from a simple articulated was the GN R-2 2-8-8-2s at 166,000 lbs. Most horsepower was the PRR Q2 at 7987 hp. Second most was the C&O Allegheny at 7498 hp (but only briefly, ~6250-6900 was likely their true continuous rating).

@ffjsb

2 жыл бұрын

@@blackbirdgaming8147 GN R-2's didn't have 166,000 lbs of tractive effort, that was the Y6B's.

@markantony3875

2 жыл бұрын

@@blackbirdgaming8147 The PRR Q HP was not measured at the drawbar like the C&O Allegheny. It was indicated HP using an extremely overfired state on the PRR testbed at the Altoona PA Engineering Labs. The Allegheny was measured in actual over the rail tests. The Allegheny was more powerful that the Q, and was the most powerful steam locomotive built.

@greatnorthernn-3154

Жыл бұрын

@@ffjsb The Great Northern R-2's tractive effort calculates at 162,475 lbs.

I knew the most powerful comment would start a pissing match ... My question is this - one of the key elements to keeping a steam locomotive moving is lubrication. With this display moving as it does are the lubricators functional or is there a regular schedule of maintenance where some one oils the running gear on a regular basis? Love the membership with guide offer. I'm in my third year of membership and used my gift shop discount to by the guide on my own so I won't be taking advantage. Guess I'll have to find another way to get my copy autographed.

@NorthShoreScenicRailroadDuluth

3 жыл бұрын

The locomotive is lubricated roughly every 6 months or so. It used to run/operate every 20 minutes (3 times an hour), but since we switched to a button activation, it runs alot less in the off-season, but more in the summer.

@renegadeoflife87

2 жыл бұрын

@@NorthShoreScenicRailroadDuluth Best practice would still be to either uncouple the piston rod at the crosshead, or remove the pistons entirely. Same with the valve spool. These engines need steam flow for proper lubrication of the valve and piston. Turning it without for any more than towing a failed engine to a workshop means risking cylinder scoring.

I always thought the N&W Y6b was the most powerful steam locomotive ever built

@futfhifak4930

3 жыл бұрын

So as me because the steam locomotive that you said is actually has more than 160,000 hp

@DavidSanchez-ks4ub

3 жыл бұрын

@@futfhifak4930 The Y6b had 160,000 lbs in simple but only around 5600 hp. The title of most powerful conventional steam locomotive goes to the C&O H8 Allegheny which had 7498 hp but only 110,200 lbs of tractive effort.

@blackbirdgaming8147

3 жыл бұрын

@@futfhifak4930 Not hp, lbs of force, essentially torque.

@blackbirdgaming8147

3 жыл бұрын

@@DavidSanchez-ks4ub The Q2 could be considered a conventional steam loco, thus it is the most powerful at 7,987 hp.

@DavidSanchez-ks4ub

3 жыл бұрын

@@blackbirdgaming8147 At the Cylinders or the Drawbar?

I want the man that made this presentation to gave my school a graduation speech

Do you have to lube the running gear every once and a while

Does the engine need to be greesed and oiled to avoid wairing out the barings

@NorthShoreScenicRailroadDuluth

3 жыл бұрын

Indeed it does. Roughly every 6 months or so, crews come in and lube everything up.

@jacobramsey7624

3 жыл бұрын

@@NorthShoreScenicRailroadDuluth cool. Does it take the same grease and oil that a fully functional steam locomotive would use?

The debate goes on. Biggest most horsepower etc. Whatever they were all great!

Nit pick- while the Big Boy is articulated, it's not a mallet. The steam is used only once.

How will it compare to Erie Duplex Locomotive

hello 277!

god there better be steam locos in the after life

Are there any plans for restoration Yellowstone steam locomotive back to steam?

@NorthShoreScenicRailroadDuluth

3 жыл бұрын

There aren't any plans right now. Not that it is impossible, but the UP spent over $5 Million on their restoration of the Big Boy, and they have huge facilities, and nearly unlimited resources. Also, most trackage on the North Shore Scenic Railroad was never designed to handle a locomotive of this size and weight.

@steamtechnicolor461

3 жыл бұрын

@@NorthShoreScenicRailroadDuluth Why don't they move Yellowstone to Union Pacific. I think they'll nice to meet her come to their home.

@blackbirdgaming8147

3 жыл бұрын

@@steamtechnicolor461 UP doesn’t see any reason to restore a Yellowstone, as it’s not part of their heritage, and frankly I don’t either.

@K-Effect

3 жыл бұрын

I would rather see 4294 Southern Pacific Cab Forward that's in the California State Railroad Museum get restored before the Yellowstone

The Big Boy is NOT a Mallet. It’s a simple articulated engine. In fact, 227 isn’t a Mallet either. Now the Y6b’s of the N&W and C&O 1309 are Mallets. The difference being that these engines use steam twice, with a high and low pressure set of cylinders. Engines like 1218 only used the steam once.

When it comes to power, TRACTIVE EFFORT is how you measure power, NOT horsepower. Tractive effort is how much pulling power goes from the wheels to the track. You can have a million horsepower, but if the wheels just spin you're not going to pull anything. N&W Y6b's were the Kings when it came to pulling trains.

N&W Class Y6B's had 170,000 lbs tractive effort. I wonder what the effort was on this locomotive.

@blackbirdgaming8147

3 жыл бұрын

~140,000 lbs

The Allegheny 2-6-6-6 produces 7600 HP. And some duplexes even produced more, but there weren't many of them. So the Yellowstone wasn't most powerful, although it had extremely high tractive effort.

U.P. Big Boy : *Hol' up*

C&O 2666 Allegheny locomotive was rated at 7500 horsepower but since it only 12 driving wheels not 16 wheels the tractive power was less at 120,000. Its 7500 rated horsepower is higher than any other.

@michaelasbury7121

2 жыл бұрын

Any other except for the Penssylvanoa Railroad's Q2, which runs at 7,980 or so. It doesn't quite match up to the H-8's traction effort but with the booster engine it gets damn close, at 115,800 or so.

never heard it called lake spear before. interesting.

Although the Yellowstone is my favourite locomotive, it isn't the highest steam locomotive with tractive effort, the Y6bs had 170,000 pounds of T.E also the 2-8-8-8-8-2 had about 200,000 pounds of tractive effort.

What's the estimated cost to make this big thing run again? (not saying it ever will, knowing it's likely to be in the millions, but purely curious)

@nikerailfanningttm9046

Жыл бұрын

Union Pacific 4014 took a whopping 4 million dollars to overhaul, rebuild and restore to operating condition. So a Yellowstone is bound to be in 3 to 4 million dollar budget.

@mistzy8435

Жыл бұрын

@@nikerailfanningttm9046 i believe the saddest one is that SP 4294's cost is far higher than that, possibly in the 8 million range.

It's NOT a "Mallet" it's a simple articulated, a "Mallet" is compound. A Mallet" uses the steam twice, high pressure in the rear cylinders which exhausts lower pressure steam to drive the front cylinders.

How does this engine compare to a c&o Allegheny

@blackbirdgaming8147

3 жыл бұрын

This engine murders an Allegheny as far as tractive effort, at ~30,000 lbs more. Horsepower would be about equal because the Allegheny only briefly produced the famous 7498 hp reading.

I do just feel the need to mention... that the C&O H8 class was officially measured to produce 7600hp... and is recognized as the most powerful cylinder steam locomotive... but there were steam turbines with yet more power, and if you're going off tractive effort... that honor falls to the N&W class Y6b

@blackbirdgaming8147

3 жыл бұрын

The C&O H8 wasn’t the most powerful cylinder steam locomotive in terms of hp. PRR measured a Q2 Duplex at 7987 hp during testing. I believe it was at Altoona, but I could be mistaken.

@allegheny48

2 жыл бұрын

@@blackbirdgaming8147 The Pennsy Q2's high horsepower rating was obtained at the Altoona test plant under controlled and optimal conditions. Had it been calculated with a dynamometer car out on the road while hauling a freight train it would have undoubtedly been less.

@blackbirdgaming8147

2 жыл бұрын

@@allegheny48 I know it’s apples to oranges, but same idea with things like cars, they often are rated from the manufacturer as tested under ideal conditions. I think if cars are rated that way then it should still be acceptable to take the Q2’s hp rating.

@markantony3875

2 жыл бұрын

@@blackbirdgaming8147 No, it isn't acceptable at all. Even with cars, you can not compare their engines unless you are using the same definition of horsepower. In the 1960's cars engines were rated in Gross HP. Cars are now rated in SAE Net HP. SAE Net HP is far lower than Gross HP. A car today with a 400 SAE Net HP engine is far more powerful than a 1960's car with a 400 Gross HP rating. Same thing applies to calculated Indicated (cylinder) HP of the Q2 and measured Drawbar HP pf the Allegheny. It also applies to modern diesel-electric locomotives which are rated in Nominal HP. You can't compare the three since they are defined in completely different ways. Horsepower is a made up term, and you can define it in many ways. To make it comparable between objects, it must be defined in exactly the same way.

@Romans--bo7br

2 жыл бұрын

@@markantony3875.... "A car today with a 400 SAE Net HP engine is far more powerful than a 1960's car with a 400 Gross HP rating". That is absolutely Not true. The engines of the 60s muscle car era.... had / have.. substantially more torque than a comparable 400hp engine (V8) of today. The reasons for the factories using "gross hp" factoring (which were All grossly Under-rated).... was two-fold, 1.) Insurance companies, and 2.) the NHRA's hp/wgt factoring in the Stock eliminator classes. With anywhere from 10.0:1 cr to as high as 13.5:1 cr's and the Far superior gasoline of the era that was capable of supporting cr's of as high as 14.25:1... and longer strokes, it's no contest. The biggest advantage is that the cars today are quite a bit lighter, which raises the hp/wgt ratio. I will say though, that the "muscle car" offerings from Dodge, and the new "vettes" from Chevy, etc.... are "fast".... and should be with over 700hp on tap from the factory. Growing up in the 1950s and 60s, I've owned and driven "muscle cars" from both era's..... and quite frankly, I'll take a Non-computerized, brute torque engine (factory) powered car of the 60s, any day... over ANY electronically tricked out car of "today". I'm just not impressed with electronic anything..... I like mechanically actuated mechanisms.... if it breaks... you can See It, and usually fix it good enough to at least get you home or to the nearest parts store.... unless of course, it's a "windowed" block, dropped valve, etc. : )

How many of what kind of diesel could pull the same load?

@markantony3875

2 жыл бұрын

Just about any single AC induction drive diesel-electric would pull a heavier load, since they have more tractive effort and no short time thermal rating. The question is a what speed? The DM&IR Yellowstone had more HP, especially in the 30-40 mph range than say an GE ES44AC. However, steam locomotives tended to drop power, some a lot such as the N&W Y Class, when running over their peak HP speed. A single ES44AC would pull more total tonnage than the DM&IR engine, but the Yellowstone could get a lighter tonnage train up to a higher speed. If you are talking about a 6,250 HP 16 cylinder GEVO powered CSX AC6000, then that would be interesting. It would definitely pull more tonnage at a lower speed than the Yellowstone due to its AC induction drive motors. However, the AC6000 had a huge, flat power curve right up to 75 mph. It would probably equal the Yellowstone in the 30-40 mph range, and run away from the Yellowstone with tonnage above 40 mph. The problem is none of the Yellowstones are operational, and CSX retired its AC6000 fleet after 20 years of hard service. So the answer to that question may never be found.

Not the most powerful and not the most tractive effort. That honor belongs to the Q2 Duplex (7,987 hp) and the N&W Y6b (170,000 lbf tractive effort in simple mode). Runners-up would be the C&O Allegheny at 7498 hp, and the Great Northern R2 2-8-8-2 at 166,000 lbf of tractive effort. 6,250 hp is quite a ways away from the most powerful... even the Big Boys had more horsepower, at 6,290. #4014 produces even more than that, at 7000.

@sharkheadism

3 жыл бұрын

Don't care

@blackbirdgaming8147

3 жыл бұрын

@@sharkheadism You cared enough to tell me that you didn’t care

@sharkheadism

3 жыл бұрын

@@blackbirdgaming8147 Ok

@09JDCTrainMan

3 жыл бұрын

The 7,987 hp figure for the Q2 is cylinder hp, not drawbar hp. I'm not sure where the Q2 stands in dbhp, but the Allegheny has the most drawbar hp, with 7,498 dbhp Edit: Yeah the 7,987 is clearly higher, but dbhp is what mostly counts for pulling at speed

@blackbirdgaming8147

3 жыл бұрын

@@09JDCTrainMan The cylinder hp figure is kind of confusing based on how PRR measured horsepower for steam. I imagine drawbar horsepower was still very high. I’ve also heard recently that the 7,498 hp figure from the Allegheny is apparently an anomaly. I don’t know how true that is, but apparently the 7,498 figure wasn’t held long enough for it to be considered valid, and the Alleghenies produces closer to 6,900 hp.

Why dont you restore 227 to operation lol

@JACESOFFICIAL

3 жыл бұрын

to big and expensive parts

@thatoneguy611

2 жыл бұрын

It would be extremely expensive

Big Boy is the largest steam locomotive ever, It’s really this loco that’s the biggest,

@georgemeyer8521

3 жыл бұрын

Wrong, you can but the boiler of a Big Boy INSIDE the boiler of a C&O Allegheny ! ! ! ... Plus they only made 25 Big Boys, but they made 60 Allegheny's ! ! ! The Big Boy was just more popular because of advertising. Both great locomotives, but I'll take the Allegheny any day, especially if you raise the boiler pressure to 300 and see what she'll do. Largest, heaviest, longest, highest HP, most TE, doesn't matter, what matters is that we still have some of 'em, and even some of 'em with fires in their bellies. Great vid ! ... Thanks, George

@dieselteen0770

3 жыл бұрын

Well, that is interesting!

People saying the N&W Y6 has the highest tractive effort of any steamer, but the Virginian AE 2-10-10-2 produced more, with 176,000 lbs in simple mode, but were nowhere near as fast as a Y6. I think the Triplexes earned the title for the most TE of any steamer, but they weren't very successful.

there are 3 surviving yellowstones dmir 227 dmir 229 and dmir 225

Now that’s impressive.this’ll make a digerati excursion locomotive.

@saxonaudio

3 жыл бұрын

Great excursion locomotive.

@saxonaudio

3 жыл бұрын

@Joey Sa thanks son

@saxonaudio

3 жыл бұрын

@Joey Sa One day we'll see these in person!

@saxonaudio

3 жыл бұрын

@Joey Sa love you too.

Big Boy is the fastest articulated loco I know of, capable of 80mph.

@pennsylvaniarailroad1223

Жыл бұрын

I think the Q2 are faster

@paullangford8179

9 ай бұрын

@@pennsylvaniarailroad1223 Q2 not articulated.

They'll know do you know about Explorer II

Wrong, Not the most powerful and highest tractive effort locomotive ever made. The Pennsylvania Railroad Q2 had the highest horsepower at 7,987 and could pull 125 freight cars at 50 mph. The N&W Y6b had the most starting tractive effort at 166,000 lbf in simple mode but only 5,600 horsepower. Check your facts.

@parts323

3 жыл бұрын

@Mike Smith check the PRR Historical Society webpage, The N&W Historical Society webpage and wikipedia, that is where all the information came from. All public record. Users below have also listed the same information. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania_Railroad_class_Q2 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norfolk_and_Western_2156 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2-8-8-4

@blackbirdgaming8147

3 жыл бұрын

Good to see somebody else who knows their stuff here.

Huh!, Union Pacific Railroad Still has the Worlds largest active steam locomotive. BullyBilly, Colorado.

Big boy is the most powerful steam loco ever built

@thatoneguy611

2 жыл бұрын

No, it’s just the largest

@1llenium

2 жыл бұрын

@@thatoneguy611 after restoration in 2019 it’s power was increased by a little over 200 more than the loco in the video

@michaelasbury7121

2 жыл бұрын

@@1llenium And yet, the C&O H-8s hold more horsepower at the drawbar, at 7,500 or something close to that. The Q2 was tested at 7,980 horsepower at the cylinder. The Y6b had a max tractive effort of 152,200, operating in simple.

DM&IR kept strict adherence to their speed limit of 30 mph for loaded trains and 35 mph for empty trains. With that said, why did DM&IR buy a locomotive capable of 60 mph? Had they purchased a locomotive with small drivers/higher steam pressure, I think they could've gotten more pull for their money. I also wonder why DM&IR's Yellowstone's get all the "glory" when Northern Pacific was the first RR to use that wheel arrangement and hence, gave the locomotive it's name.

hope those moving parts get lubricated daily, otherwise thats just wearing away a piece of history

20,000 pounds more of a tractive effort? According to your chart the Yellow Stone has 6,625 pounds more of tractive effort

The 4014 is not a Mallat.

Impressive, very nice. Let's see Paul Allen's Big Boy.

There's no comparison between the M3/M4 and the Pig Boy! The DM&IR Yellowstones were very beautiful in comparison. Did he piss in his pants?

@floydrandol2731

2 жыл бұрын

YellowStones we’re fine locomotives, BigBoy was also a great and Powerful Locomotive. TE was close 138,000 vs 140,000. Yellowstone was not as fast though.

Why not compare its ratings to the most powerful steam locomotive. The 2-6-6-6 allegheny built by Lima locomotive works. Had more power then the big boy. Heck even the Norfolk westerns had a powerful locomotive. But the 2-6-6-6 is actually the most powerful. With the highest tractive effort of any locomotive built in North America. Maybe even the world.

@michaelasbury7121

2 жыл бұрын

Horsepower-wise, I would agree. Although it was powerful, it did not have the most tractive effort. That honor goes to the brute Y6b class ran by the N&W. They were a mallet type, with 152,200 pounds of effort in simple, and 126,800 in compound. The Y6b also had variable valve plumbing that allowed the engine to be ran in simple at all speeds if needed, though it was not efficient at all. Had the Alleghenys been built as designed, with 300 psi boiler pressure and a booster engine on the trailing truck, there would have been no doubt it would have been the most powerful engine in the world. The USA's steam engines tended to be bigger and better than everyone else's.

Pere 1225 is bigger than 227

@09JDCTrainMan

2 жыл бұрын

How on earth did you come to that conclusion? That's far from true.

Ahh Actually #227 isn't the Most Powerful Steam Locomotive on the Planet going by Traction Effort that would go to the Virginian Railway Class AE with a massive 176,000 Traction Effort rebuilt in 1918 way before the Yellowstone Class. #6131, 6175-6199 of The Pennsylvania Railroad titled as Class Q2 a Non-articulated Locomotive produced by Altoona Works Altoona PA in 1945 with the Highest Steam Power ever constructed a Whooping 7,987 hp a 4-4-6-4 which were the Strongest Ever made for pure Horsepower Traction Effort isn't nothing without Power to back it up All have been scrapped and none were preserved. But overall, Most Powerful at pulling Freight on Record were the Allegheny Class Steam Locomotives N&W and the C&O 2-6-6-6 which were the Heaviest Biggest Ever Made Ever have reported pulling over 160 Cars all by themselves as to where the Yellowstone was only pulling 115 cars haha more Traction Effort doesn't always mean better performance Especially when you don't have the Horsepower. And as for the UP Big Boy #4014 being the one of the two, the second being ( #4012 Located in Scranton PA at Steam Town USA in 2020 was classified in working order to be able to run under her own power by the FRA / Federal Railroad Administration / but hasn't do to her location and tight curved trackage that she be better to sit ) so with #4014 running under her own power only means she's at a greater risk of getting into trouble and being Decommissioned as the world gets more and more out of touch with things going on in life as New tech is easier to maintain than older, one of the biggest reasons why a lot of Steam Locomotives are preserved in museums of Not taking the chance of being wrecked.

That’s not a 9F

(True Story) 3 Years Ago We Went to Duluth and we went to THAT EXACT museum, and the first enginne i got into was That VERY ENGINE, and I Started Fidling Around with the controls, (Testing My Locomotive Knowlodge)....Suddenly I Saw The Wheels Turning, (Not Knowing A Generator Turned Them) Thinking "OH SHIT I STARTED IT!!" So I Ran Off, Then I Came Back, And I Realized The Real Cause And Laughed. 🤣🤣🤣

instead of Taking care of myself can I just take care of the engine? Give it's piston back, fill up the tender with water and coal, run it on your rail, blow the whistle. I mean come on it's not even in operating condition. Epic Sadness. I will personally start a fundraiser to get that locomotive back into operating condition and running.

you guys are wrong, The big boy is the most powerful steam engine

@09JDCTrainMan

2 жыл бұрын

Not really, the Big Boy isn't the most powerful in terms of horsepower nor tractive effort. In terms of drawbar horsepower, the C&O Allegheny is the most powerful, ranging between 6,600-6,900 regularly, with a possible temporary reading of 7,498. However, the Yellowstone has more tractive effort, so the Yellowstone is more ideal for slower, heavier tonnage trains while the Allegheny is more ideal for lighter, faster freights. The Yellowstone and N&W Y6 also have more tractive effort than the Big Boy, but with a lighter train, the Big Boy can outrun both. Edit: There is the PRR Q2 with its 7,987 rating, but that's in indicated horsepower, not drawbar, which always has a higher number than drawbar.

Union pacific big boy 4014 is stronger than that locomotive

@09JDCTrainMan

2 жыл бұрын

In horsepower, yes, in tractive effort, no. Big Boy: 6,290 DBHP, 135,375 lbf Yellowstone: 6,250 DBHP, 140,093 lbf

@toasterbrick7780

2 жыл бұрын

@@09JDCTrainMan I stand corrected

LOL This guy has no idea what he is talking about. The DM&IR Yellowstone were indeed powerful, but did not produce the power of an C&O H8 Allegheny.

@michaelasbury7121

2 жыл бұрын

Neither the power of an H-8, or the tractive effort of a Y6b.

@markantony3875

2 жыл бұрын

@@michaelasbury7121 The high tractive effort of the Y6b only occurred when starting and was due to a valve that would let fresh steam from the steam chest into the low pressure cylinders in the front of the locomotive. This was only used a very low speeds because the Y6b had a relative small boiler that could not keep up with this demand. When the Y6b hit 5 or 6 mph, the valve was shut and the locomotive went into full compound mode. At this point, the tractive effort dropped to around 120,000 lbs. Above very slow speed, the DM&IR Yellowstone would just walk away from a Y6b.

@michaelasbury7121

2 жыл бұрын

@@markantony3875 That was the case for most of the Y-classes. The Y6b on the other hand, according to the N&W 3-1955 locomotive diagram book, the Y6b had a variable valve plumbing system which allowed simple operation at all speeds if needed, not just on startup. It could still run on compound, though. That required some 20 tons of lead weight on the front engine frame to prevent instant wheel slip at speed. Also, the Y6b's fire tubes were shortened by 4 feet to 20' and the firebox was lengthened by that same amount. This significantly increased their steaming ability, but whether it was enough to run simple at higher speeds is debatable, since 2174 was lost. Edit for spelling, sorry I suck. And, in case you couldn't tell, I have a veeeeery slight bias.😂

@markantony3875

2 жыл бұрын

@@michaelasbury7121 Are you sure about adding 20 tons or 40,000 lbs to the front engine? That would raise the total driver axle load to nearly 80,000 lbs per axle on the front engine. Seems a tad high unless you want to destroy the trackbed. Very true about the tube and combustion chamber modifications. That was a common "late steam" design that greatly increased steam production, although I think even with increased steam production, the Y6b's giant 39" x 32" low pressure front cylinders would suck any boiler dry being used in simple operation fairly quickly! In any even, the Y6b was a great locomotive when used within its design and speed parameters. What really hindered its performance at higher speeds was it 58" drivers. It is almost impossible to effectively counter balance drive wheels less than 64" in diameter. If the N&W had done one with 64" drivers, now that would have made the Y Class truly a nice all around locomotive!

E

@hrk9209

3 жыл бұрын

Am I first? For me it says I am.

@hrk9209

3 жыл бұрын

I think I am also it might say three because the replies count as comments.

had me till the mask bull shit

You soiled the video by being up the mask.

TRULY I TRULY EXTREMELY TREMENDOUSLY EXTREMELY TRULY LOVE THE ARTICULATED STEAM LOCOMOTIVES THE MOST . . . (( BUT )) . . . TO ME IT (( DOES NOT ))(( LOOK RIGHT )) . . . WHEN THEY HAVE THE DRIVING WHEELS (( NOT ))(( SET TOGETHER )) WHEN THEY START MOVING . BECAUSE WHEN THAT STEAM LOCOMOTIVE REALLY TRULY WAS OPERATIONAL WHEN THE ENGINEER OPENED THE THROTTLE (( BOTH ))(( SETS )) OF (( DRIVING WHEELS ))(( WOULD ))(( START MOVING ))(( AT ))(( THE SAME TIME )) . . . (( NOT )) . . . (( ONE SET )) THEN THE (( OTHER SET )) .

Per Jeff Lemke these DMIR Yellowstones hold many of the North American records for tonnage pulled by a single steam locomotive. In the last month's of operation a unit train of 21,000 tons...about 300 loaded ore cars....was assembled and pulled down to the ore docks by a single Yellowstone. See the details here... www.flickr.com/photos/jeff_lemke/16406145435/in/album-72157665589886152/