Nobody wanted Baldwin's Best engine - Baldwin 60000
2023 ж. 17 Там.
93 672 Рет қаралды
In today's video, we take a look at Baldwin's 60000 locomotive, an engine so powerful and efficient that nobody wanted it
Please subscribe for more
This video falls under the fair use act of 1976 This video is available to use under the appropriate Creative Commons Licence.
Any images used that fall under any Creative Commons Licence belong to their respective owners.
60000 be here putting the "L" in "Baldwin"
L
Well, at least they had several other successful locomotives that earned them the "win".
lmao
Man, I actually saw this locomotive in person in late May 2021, I even have pictures of it and a video I took where I walked around the whole loco.
*Maldwin* I’m very sorry
Baldwin 60000: suffering from success.
too true
Baldwin number 26: I feel shame for you. But me I’m running still! 60000: you know I’m on static display 26: oh nvm then
on paper success but not over time cost effect…
@@bostonrailfan2427 Higher efficiency, higher power output, but higher up front cost and higher maintenance cost. From a quality control perspective this indicates a failure to consider costs as a quality factor. BTW, the Baldwin 6000's tradition has been long followed up by the Concept Car. It served the very same purpose, except this time it was sadly not intentional.
Fun fact about Matthias Baldwin (the founder of the company). He was an avid anti-slaver, and during the American Civil War began prep for his company to fully integrate the workforce. When the slaves were free, some were able to find work at the BLC, and were welcomed with open arms. Sadly, M. Baldwin did not live long after this, and passed away a year after the ACW.
A good man! I'm glad he lived long enough to see Abolition and set his company on the right path.
@@AnimeSunglasses the Pullman company also employed a lot of freed slaves. Many of them working in dining cars or as stewards. While by our standards the pay was kinda crap (a few dollars per day), back then it was considered pretty good money. Factor in that their uniforms, room, board, and food was all paid for, the money they made was basically theirs minus any taxes. And it didn't take long for them to build up a nice little nestegg with which they could start a family and buy a house.
@@Tank50us At that time, that was considered a very good job opportunity for black people. But it was a very difficult job with long hours. There are some good books on it such as "Those Pullman Blues" and "Rising from the Rails: Pullman Porters and the Making of the Black Middle Class".
The Pullman Porters union members invested wisely with a few tips to "George " from the cigar smoking fat cat barons in the dinner and lounge cars. A success story.
I’ll be honest, this fact just might make Baldwin my new favorite steam builder (plus, 60000 doesn’t hold a candle to Limas iconic Berkshires)
You know, with her power and a 70mph top speed, she could be used for mainline railtours if treated right.
Yes, YES, YES YES YES
She stuck in the middle of Philly
@@Sleeper____1472 in the basement of The Franklin Institute
@@gregsmall5939 it's more ground floor than basement
I have to agree that this is a engine that would be a strong candidate for restoration and being put back into some kind of limited service as a tourist train.
what restoration? this engine sat from 1943 in a Closed, heated enviroment, I highly doubt there will be any restoration, only maintenance.
Literally just stop talking its stuck in a building and will never ever run again
@@justinhicks4897 Dude calm the fuck down. A single comment made days ago isn't worth getting worked up over.
@@dark_one1337 All her bearings are shot from being shuttled back-and-forth a few feet at a time for years by a screw mechanism. Why the franklin institute ever thought that was a good idea at all, I'll never know. Also, the same issues that made the railroads reject it would be a major headache for modern tourist operations. The maintenance costs on the unconventional water-tube firebox AND the extra cylinder, with associated running gear, would be astronomical, even compared to similar-sized steam locomotives.
@@justinhicks4897who gives a ratsass if it’s stuck in a building? People can dream of seeing it run again, can’t they?
Sadly I think what killed 60000 was her water tube firebox. Watertube fireboxes and boilers are fantastic in things like a marine application, where on a ship, you have multiple boilers to power it so the long and often maintenance required on the boilers is a non-issue. But on a locomotive? It's just not worth it, and if the tube bursting was sorted with better quality tubes (perhaps partnering with Babcock and Wilcox or the US Navy which was using water tube boilers), I still firmly believe that the maintenance in the firetube firebox required put so many companies off 60000
also, a water tube boiler runs the risk of being... overqualified. Which could lead to snapping couplers and increased slipping.
Nigel Gresley found the same with his No 10000 4-6-4 on the LNER, a four-cylinder compound. It was later rebuilt with a conventional boiler as a three-cylinder simple (non-compound), in which form it was presumably satisfactory since it lasted until 1959, approximately as long as other conventional locos of its era.
The conventional firebox with water spaces around it to absorb the heat and raise steam was so effective that nobody has particularly wanted an alternative. Firebricks were tried in the Paget engine and Bulleid's Leader and were unsuccessful. A normal firebox does need lots of stays (hundreds in fact) which is a lot of work, but once built, is low-maintenance as long as stays are checked for corrosion. Railways were already used to this outlay so saw no reason to change.
@@cr10001 Worth noting however that 10000 had a water-tube boiler whereas 60000 just had a water-tube firebox with a conventional firetube boiler. Interesting though that they both suffered the same problems of bursting tubes. Apparently Hungary mastered this with ~1000 engines built with the similar Brolan boiler.
@@iankemp1131 yeah plus firebrick isn't needed for a coal burning locomotive, but it is very useful for an oil burning locomotive and oil burning boilers in general.
"When you put your best foot forwards, make sure it's in the right direction." Story of my college days...
Honestly it’s amazing how she’s basically a brand new locomotive. Everything about 60000 is brand new and barely run in, so “TECHNICALLY” you could just clean up the internals. Lube everything and make sure all is well, throw a fire and some water in her and she’ll probably run
Sitting almost still for almost a century will have it's effects though. Anything that requires a seal will need to be replaced and the boiler will probably need to be replaced entirely
It would take a lot more than that to get it running.
caydenworley5002 Kick the tires and light the fire!
Until one of her water tubes burst.
@@towcatto that end, 60000 has been sitting under a roof in a climate controlled environment the last 50-60 years. If the boiler is in that bad of shape from sitting in a controlled environment, there’s bigger issues at hand. Take N&W 611 for example, which prior to its most recent restoration, had been sitting on display, also under a roof, since the 90s. When the Virginia Transportation Museum decided to restore her to operation in 2015, they had the engine under steam in a matter of MONTHS following her ultrasound and boiler retube. Granted, I don’t know if 60000 was stored serviceable like 611 was. If it was, then she’d be a pretty interesting engine to see under steam. As it stands, let’s be grateful that the engine is in preservation as a testament to Baldwin proving themselves capable of producing modern superpower engines
Also Southern Pacific eventually got 4-10-2s of their own. and just like 60000, one of the Southern Pacific's 4-10-2s number 5021 is on display as of today
Union Pacific also got 4-10-2s after Southern Pacific. However, Union Pacific called them Overlands, referencing the route they took.
It’s a shame that SP didn’t take it as is. After all, an entire division in the southwest was coal fired, so I could see this succeeding there.
@@nathandeal9703also the reason they don’t want 60000 is because they don’t need them at that moment.
@@nathandeal9703 Unfortunately, I think the complexity of the design is why SP didn't take it. 60000 was a 3-cylinder Compound loco with a water-tube firebox. SP already had a sizeable fleet fo 4-10-2's with "simple" cylinders and regular fireboxes
I'm just glad she was saved. And she was one of the only water tube boiler locomotives on the planet that actually worked.
In fact she didn't have a water-tube boiler - only a water-tube firebox with a conventional firetube boiler. Quite sensible in theory as it avoids the need for stays to hold the firebox in shape. But the Brotan boiler on the same principles had over 1000 examples in Hungary, so 60000 wasn't unique.
Fun fact: There is a statue of Matthias Baldwin standing outside Philadelphia City Hall, in recognition of what he did for the city and the nation.
Nice to have a statue you can be proud of without reservations. Albany just yanked down the century-old one memorializing a slave-owning Revolutionary War general, which was a long time coming considering how much the African-American demographic has grown in the city over the years.
Happy to hear that it wasn’t cut up
To me, Baldwin Locomotive Works was the best locomotive manufacturer in the U.S. They made the best 2-8-2 Mikados and 4-6-0 Ten-Wheelers.
It's really not a question, they built over 60,000 of the things compared to other companies.
Here in Auckland New Zealand we had an older Baldwin running on an open live day ;- kzhead.info/sun/YLaEadqDhKuCmo0/bejne.html
@@ThePTBRULES They built more than that... A lot more than that. She was built in 1926, and Baldwin continued producing steam locomotives until roughly 1949.
What about 4-8-4s and 2-10-4s?
Those too@@williamclarke4510
As soon as you said it had a third cylinder I thought, ah, that's a big reason it wasn't successful in the US right there. With more loading gauge to play with, railroads in the US preferred dual cylinders almost exclusively due to maintenance considerations.
Surprisingly there a couple of three cylinder classes in the states, but like you said they aren’t common.
To go a bit more deeper into it and something this video kind of glosses over is there was a time where America embraced compounding with Vauclain compounds everywhere. The Vauclain system was a Baldwin design, and countless engines were built with it when new from the factory (including the what are now known as the DRGW K-27 engines). Since American railroads often had steep track gradients with rapid changes from moving up and down, it was seen as a way to conserve steam on uphill climbs giving the fireman a chance to stoke the flames on a downhill run through the efficiency gains in compounding. The problem was that the Vauclain system was a shop-queen, something that proved more problematic in the repair bay than any gains it got on the road through efficiency. By the time Lima came about with "superpower" as a concept, Vaulclain was dead and dozens of major railroads in the nation had sworn off compounding in single engine locomotives. Superpower, boosters, improved superheating, etc. was all seen as solutions that solved the problems Vauclain was originally meant to address. Only some Mallets still had compound cylinders where it was seen as less of a repair issue as it was in more compact single engine designs. The only other major compounding in a single engine design we would see would eventually be some Gresley style designs that UP and SP would use that were built by ALCO who had rights to use Gresley's triple cylinder design in America, and I know a UP example is preserved in Southern California on display in the RailGiants Museum at the Ponoma Fairplex.
Three cylinder engines apply torque more evenly than two cylinder ones so they are less likely to slip and have a greater tractive effort
@@ROBERTN-ut2il but have a higher maintenance cost. And make them more complex to work on.
@@gamerfan8445 Exactly. In the UK, despite its restricted loading gauge which limited cylinder size, two-cylinder engines were preferred for post-war designs to avoid maintenance of internal machinery. In the US, outside cylinders could be big enough to give any desired tractive effort, especially with two sets of driving wheels and cylinders.
Baldwin: “This will be the best 3-cylinder steam locomotive ever!” ALCo: “I’m about to end this mans whole career” * pulls out THEIR 4-10-2’s and 4-12-2’s *
SP's and UP's Alco ones came first. Samuel Vaclain at Baldwin essentially built it as a "oh yeah we can build one too" flex that coincided with having a 60000th engine in production.
@@OceanViewLocomotiveMachineCo No, a four wheel lead truck was needed because of the weight of the extra cylinder
Having seen this thing up-close, and having ridden in its cab when I was very young, this thing is a behemoth. I always wondered why it wasn't ever used on a heritage railway... Then I learned about how much it weighed. You can still find it today at the Franklin Institute in Philadelphia, Penn., USA.
Is it still operated by compressed air?
@@ROBERTN-ut2il I don't recall it ever running on compressed air. When I worked there in the '70s the locomotive was moved 10 feet back and forth via an electric motor and screw drive in the floor. The exhibit where it is housed is being revamped with at least one locomotive having been already moved to the RR Museum of Pennsylvania.
6000 is my absolute favourite locomotive. A 4-10-2 (favourite wheel arrangement) and a compound?! That is the coolest thing ever! What a shame that no one wanted her... I want her.
For those of you who don’t live near Philadelphia, I have an interesting story from my childhood. It was roughly 1960 when I was part of a group of kids visiting the Franklin Institute, and walking into the room where 60,000 is displayed I was awed by the size of this wonderful locomotive. What I did not realize at the time was that the staff of the Franklin Institute had installed an electric motor and a jack screw between the gage under the engine, which allowed the engine to be moved back-and-forth several feet. Now, picture an eight year old boy in the cab of the engine, trying every lever and valve that is exposed…..and suddenly, the engine begins to move………….
And for a long time (in the 1980's & 90's?) that jackscrew was out of service. But I understand they fixed it up a few years back as part of a major renovation of the train room. Also, in the 60's through the 70's, every Christmas they would set up a huge model railroad in the train room. They no longer display this, but I understand the layout has been displayed in 30th street station. I'd love to see that layout again. Sadly, the Franklin Institute has changed a lot since my day. Not a lot remains of the old museum, replaced by flashy glitz that appeals to the younger generations. But the engine remains, and so does the Heart.
@@tracedehaven2190 I'll bet the heart needed some major renovation work, too.... because it was a little shopworn in 1960 when I walked through it..
In fact I think the heart has been rehabbed a couple of times since I first saw it, probably in the middle 1960's on a school trip. There used to be some flaps that were supposed to be like the valves in the heart, those are long gone now. I imagine the heart takes a bit of abuse from thousands of school kids every year. Still one of my favorite exhibits because I was born with heart problems that had to be surgically corrected.
Nice photo of an Erie 2-8-4 in the intro. The Erie 3300 series Berkshires were something special. Baldwin actually built 35 S-3 class 2-8-4s for the Erie in 1928. Hopefully the 3300s will someday be the topic of a video.
I believe that I read somewhere that 60000 being too heavy is a common myth, as railroads already had heavier locomotives at the time (if someone could confirm or deny this would be great). Something that I don't hear talked about is her absolutely behemoth size, challenging that of the FEF-3s and WM 2-10-0s. I have seen her with my own eyes, and I really wish she wasn't sitting in a building collecting dust, but at least she is cared for.
It's not so much overall weight as it is weight and footprint. Most heavier locos were notably larger than the 60k so the weight was spread out more
@@towcat Forgot to specify axle load weight not total weight
Nice work. Bill Withuhn suggests that 60000 was marginly more efficient than the locomotives she ran trials against - whilst being significantly more complicated. Baldwin had built only one first tier three-cylinder locomotive other than 60000, had never built a three-cylinder compound, and hadn't put any effort into compounding since the technology they rolled out circa 1905. 60000's failure must have hit Mr. Vauclain's ego pretty hard.
My eyes lit up when I seen this video I been on that train so many times at the Franklin institute, I love the story of how they moved it from Baldwin to FI by laying tracks down the middle of the street and taking out the wall of the museum to fit her in the building , def some great photos of the event out there
Been there several times myself when I lived in the Philadelphia area.
It is incredibly weird to me that the AT&SF could've theoretically had Vanderbilt tenders if they wanted the 60000.
I've never understood why anyone would want a Vanderbilt tender. Maybe I am missing something.
The whole point of them is that they're easier to build and take less maintenance. With a box tender you need to have a ton of plates rivetted together, while a Vanderbilt can be made with a few rolled sheets. They also require less maintenance because a circle can handle fluids and pressure much better than a square. However, the shortened range of Vanderbilts is what drove away most people like the AT&SF and UP, who need as much range as possible.
I can't say if it's the compound principle or the water tube fire box which did put railroads off from ordering this locomotive. Low maintenance cost and high availability always have been a strong point of most American locomotives, and in a country with cheap fuel and relatively expensive workforce at the time the savings in fuel from 60000 couldn't outweigh its higher maintenance demand. That was different in Europe where the cost aspects were the opposite and more fuel efficient locomotives although needing more maintenance had success.
I've had the opportunity to see this locomotive a couple of times, and am still amazed whenever I get close to it. I also read in an article that the Franklin Institute is planning on refurbishing the "Train Factory" room (where #60000 is housed) so that it's possible to walk under this engine, and remember a book about railroads in Pennsylvania stating that the top of #60000's smokestack just barely grazed the ceiling as it was being rolled in.
Another fun fact about the Institute installing this locomotive is that they actually built the room just for it, leaving the wall undone until the locomotive was in place. Then they finished the wall, sealing it in.
@@Stephan_Rothstein Makes sense, considering the engine might not fit elsewhere in the building and that they wouldn't want to build a wall prior to having #60000 put in place.
Thank God it's been preserved, such a mechanical looking engine which is a feast for the eyes and an excellent subject for model railroads
Glad you mentioned their Post-WWII exports! 5917 still pulls the Picnic Train from Sydney to Kiama on weekends to this day
60000 is one of my favorite none PRR conventional locomotives, I guess partially because it isn't super conventional for the US. Something about a rigid frame loco just has a character an articulated doesn't have. That and I for some reason much prefer the look of a 4-10-2 over other x-10-x layouts, it just looks "more correct" to me.
I literally smiled upon hearing that she got a happy ending.
Phew, I was really relieved when you said she was preserved!
The firebox on the 60000 is called a McClellan firebox. There was one railroad that did buy into them, albeit on Alco 4-8-2s, The New Haven. By the time that 60000 was erected, the defects in the water tube fireboxes were well known as the New Haven had had to deal with leaky fireboxes that flexed, causing broken welds and insulation to fall out so that the fireboxes drew cold air on to the fire. New Haven Power has an interesting section on those fireboxes. The McClellan firebox was one of those ideas that looked good on paper but not working on the rails.
It seems that a similar design called the Brolan firebox was used in Hungary and they built lots of engines that way, so they presumably found ways to live with them. But no other European countries adopted them.
Nice video. The watertube firebox had issues, although, in theory, it could have saved railroads literally millions of dollars in flexible staybolts.
Lima Locomotive Works was considered the Cadillacof steam locomotives in the steam era. 😊
I was very happy when I saw you included a picture of the D59's from NSW.
I have a feeling ToT might be incorrectly saying the word "Lima" on purpose.
As soon as I saw those ten fixed wheels I instantly said 'well there's your problem, Baldwin.'
Not really, many roads across America had Texas or Santa Fe types which had 10 coupled sets. The real issue lies in the third cylinder and water tube boiler which made most roads shy away.
look up up 9000 class its a 4-12-2 steam loco
60000 could still compete with modern locomotives. Long live steam.
Not really. Only the big boy, class A, and challengers can go toe-to-toe with modern equipment.
@@gamerfan8445 not competlely true most 6 axle diesels have 4,000 to 5,000 hp, the only diff is diesels can be DPUed together
Very cool, thank you for the always informative videos c:
I got to see 60000 when my dad and I went from Los Angeles to Philadelphia in 1970. Dad had a Penn State conference to attend, and I got to visit my maternal grandparents. Grandfather took me to the Franklin Institute; step-grandmother took me to ride the Metroliner; both of them took me to visit the Strasburg Rail Road. It was a great trip. . .
Ive seen this thing at the Franklin Insitute loads of times, but I had no idea it was working over in Morrisville (next town over from me). Tbh, I would rather it go to the PRM like the Reading Rocket, but its still pretty cool to see a steam locomotive in Center City
Baldwin made some fantastic superpower locomotives (for example the Yellowstones they built for the DM&IR were the best articulateds made IMO), but at the end of the day, their bread and butter were smaller locomotives that were well-built and affordable
Nice video. Great information
Railroads didn’t want this locomotive because they had found out that simpling articulated compounds resulted in large increases in power and performance while reducing maintenance costs. They weren’t interested in efficiency nearly as much as they were interested in pulling more at a faster rate without any three-cylinder complex maintenance nightmares to suck up valuable shop time. Only one railroad had ever expressed any interest at all in water-tube boilers and despite all their promise the B&O never found a way to make them work well enough to rate a commitment. One look at the jumble of rods behind the cylinders in the builder’s photo would have been enough to send any mechanic fleeing and screaming.
I have been in the cab of the Baldwin 60000. The Locomotive is huge.
This locomotive used to have a fun addition to it while being an exhibit where you can fiddle with the knobs and levers to learn how it works. I remember this because I got to see it when I was a kid. She's still there too. Quite an amazing machine to stand next to, if I do say so myself. Pennsylvania's history with railroads is a big reason why I feel proud to have been born in this state.
Task failed successfully
60000 Looks nice, Also Lima Locomotive Works is pronouced as Lie-Muh. Also Great Vids!
No U.S. locomotive that had a third cylinder was going to be successful. A true pain in the ass to maintain.
But the Union Pacific owned 88 4-12-2 engines that had 3 cylinders; they ran almost to the end of the steam era.
Baldwin didn't sell any three-cylinder 4-10-2s, but ALCO did. ALCO sold 49 to the Southern Pacific and 10 to the Union Pacific. All were simple-expansion (simplex), not compound. The Southern Pacific 4-10-2s had relatively long service lives of almost thirty years. The Union Pacific locomotives survived almost as long, but their careers included being rebuilt as two-cylinder locomotives.
Y’know that feeling when you build the perfect steam locomotive and nobody wants to buy it??? That’s what it feels like to drive a Ford F150
Could you do a review of the former EAR Garratt locomotives.
It was also made of denser steel, so it weighed A LOT more than another engine of comparable size. This had a tendency to damage track and rail beds.
Baldwin 60000 was the first steam locomotive that I ever rode in. As a child, the Franklin Institute was one of my favorite places in the world, and I was down there most weekends. The locomotive was one of my favorite exhibits. The Institute had left it open for the visitors to climb on and into and see everything about the cab and tender. Periodically, they would evacuate the locomotive and line up everyone who wanted a ride. If you were one of the lucky ones to get back in, they had electric winches underneath it that would move it about 20 feet forward, then back to where it had been. I still love trains and that is a big part of why. I now model railroads and wish I could get a model of the Baldwin 60000.
Correction to my memory. Per @arthouston7361, it was a jackscrew and electric motors, not winches. I did not remember how they made it move, just that it was through electric power.
I am surprised that this locomotive is still on display today. Fun fact: many nicknamed this locomotive as "Baldwin Boomer"
I've seen the locomotive lots of times
I personally saw this locomotive inside the basement of the Franklin Institute, During World War II because of the war effort they were considering of bringing the 60000 back into revenue service but was dropped, Had it been put back into service the locomotive would've proved itself but could've very likely been scrapped due to dieselization after the war in the 50s
Best part of the Franklin Institute by far.
I would've tried to have gotten my hands on it. It would be nice to see the engine breathe fire and steam again.
Thats in the Franklin Institute bro that train is awesome
Looks like it has a monoblock cylinder (3 cylinders cast as a single piece) like the LNER V2?
I never knew 60000 went though all that, but hey at least it didn't get sent for scrap and is on display
Baldwin's upstart competitor was Lima (Lye-muh) Locomotive Works.
ive seen this up cose at the franklin instatute its cool
If you like locomotives that were interesting and a one off while being excellent I’d recommend looking into the Victorian railways H class or heavy harry really interesting story it also helped start railway preservation in Australia
Lie-Ma, not Lee-Ma.
The Santa Fe, Espee and B&O were some of BLW's best customers - but it's true soulmate was the mighty Pennsy (both were headquartered in Philadelphia)
If you visit her at the Franklin Institute, you can also see pictures of the move when she was first installed. Track had to be laid in the street to bring her in through an open wall.
It is curious that in the same year, ALCO built a 3-cylinder, compound locomotive, with a 4-12-2 wheel arrangement, (the 9000 class) that, while not entirely successful, (long rigid wheelbase, complex servicing of the center crank) ended up having 88 examples built (mostly) for the UP, in the next 4 years, with the last one being retired in 1956 - with only one, the original prototype, being preserved. Perhaps the issue with the 60000 was too many technical leaps all at once.
As somebody who lived in Lima for two years, let me help with pronunciation, haha. The “I” sound is like “eye”. L-eye-Ma. Just in case they come up in other videos later. 👍🏻
F in replies for 60000 She is a good locomotive Now I wanna know if 60000 could be restored to working order
Baldwin Locomotive Works Is Amazing
Hello can you do a video about CFR 151 or 142 ? :)))
I wish this engine was brought out of the museum and be used for excursions but I can understand why it's their and more complex
For people who (like me) don't know that much about locomotives, a mallet type engine has it's front wheels drive wheels on a swivelling boggie which allows it to have far more drive wheels.
And imagine later down the line they reject future baldwin steamers due to steam being unefficient... I can see they going off like yeah well you turned down our most efficient locomotive x years ago remember...
Nuts that the Union Pacific didn’t want this loco Then again, they did have the 9000s, so maybe just one class of heavy freight locomotives without articulated wheels was enough
The Loading Gauge has nothing to do with the weight of a locomotive on the track, but everything to do with height, width and length; so, will it fit through tunnels and under bridges, will it foul any lineside structures, etc? Weight on the rails is a different thing entirely.
It is Lima, long I.
And out of it we literally have the only factory mint condition steam locomotive in a museum in the world!
Are there any of those locomotives around today?
Lima is pronounced like Lima bean
Every new generation of steam locomotives made more HP while consuming less fuel and water.
60000 doesn't just stand on display, it moves back and forth on a short stretch of track in the Franklin Institute Railroad Hall. So often and for so long its wheels are egg shaped.
Is that the music from Warioland 4?
Lima concentrated on higher firebox efficiency- burning coal at a lower rate per square foot per hour. The 60000 kept beating the compound dead horse- trying to squeeze all the energy out the steam(with corresponding counterbalance problems because of the large cylinders ) I'm not saying that compounds were bad on roads like the N&W which had a lot of curves and grades hence restricted speeds.
Any chance thathe 60K could be restored and used for tours?
60000 NEEEEEEDS to be restored
Unlikely, it a better chance for UP838 to be restored then 60000
60000 had Baldwins best potential, such a shame that the public didn’t see any use of interest.
Video Idea: Do a video on locos from movies and video games, and talk about the ridicules steam loco from Fallout 4.
Seems to me that US railroad management just refused to accept any advances unless they got a BIG saving in money right away AND got the right sustained marketing pitch, like from diesel locomotives. This continues into modern times, in which they absolutely refuse to consider electrification. Meanwhile, they give their (now all freight) customers bad service and treat their workers like dirt (witness the fight over paid sick leave last winter, which the workers lost). Barons from the First Gilded Age, still acting as such in the Second Gilded Age.
i want Baldwin's Best engine
I expected a live stream,😢
Sometimes bigger is not better.
Ask that to the SP, N&W, C&O, B&O, and UP they probably beg the differ.
@@gamerfan8445but were they heavier and harder to maintain like that locomotive?
don't mess with my toot-toot bro
I think that the 60000 wound up at the Franklin Institute because Vauclain was on the board.
The story kinda awfully similar to SD89MAC, EMD's also unwanted locomotive
What about SP 5021
Baldwin 60000 would’ve succeeded if she were articulated, compound or not.
Interesting. A small point Mallet was French so pronounced Mallay.
Did the Great Depression have anything to do with the lack of sales?