What was the weirdest steam locomotive ever produced for U.S. rails?

[Anonymous]

cabbage

 Given the auspicious date of today I feel it is time for me to introduce my own entry into this thread:

"My Lords, Ladies, and Gentlemen May I proudly present to you.

The Youngermann Patent Locomotive."  

The Youngermann Patent Locomotive may look perplexing to the casual observer -to the seasoned observer it is quite simply insane... It is in theory a dual bogie simple expansion locomotive of 0-6-0+0-6-0 configuration. The obvious thing is that the front bogie has wheels that are twice the diameter of the rear bogie. The idea, (according to the patent), is that the loco starts off on the small wheels and then switches to the larger wheels once the locomotive is moving at a high enough speed. Thus the locomotive has the high starting torque required of a goods/freight locomotive, with a good high speed running characteristics of an express locomotive. As far as I know, no locomotive has ever been built to this patent and it would seem that the only people to directly profit from its design -were the accounts dept of Her Majesties Patent Office to the sum of 1 Pound Sterling 17 Shillings paid annually for the period of 7 years...

regards

ralph 

Do you have a picture? 

[scottychaos]

 This one isnt SUPER weird..but its quite unusual!

 

 

Its the Lehigh Valley Railroad's "Lilliput"..built by the Mason Machine Works in 1862.

built new in that 2-2-0 configuration!

Scot 

[cabbage]

 Given the auspicious date of today I feel it is time for me to introduce my own entry into this thread:

"My Lords, Ladies, and Gentlemen May I proudly present to you.

The Youngermann Patent Locomotive."  

The Youngermann Patent Locomotive may look perplexing to the casual observer -to the seasoned observer it is quite simply insane... It is in theory a dual bogie simple expansion locomotive of 0-6-0+0-6-0 configuration. The obvious thing is that the front bogie has wheels that are twice the diameter of the rear bogie. The idea, (according to the patent), is that the loco starts off on the small wheels and then switches to the larger wheels once the locomotive is moving at a high enough speed. Thus the locomotive has the high starting torque required of a goods/freight locomotive, with a good high speed running characteristics of an express locomotive. As far as I know, no locomotive has ever been built to this patent and it would seem that the only people to directly profit from its design -were the accounts dept of Her Majesties Patent Office to the sum of 1 Pound Sterling 17 Shillings paid annually for the period of 7 years...

regards

ralph 

[henry6]

I would say everyone of them was wierd in its own time...something new and different in the march of time and each more suspect than the last.  John Bull with and without a "cow catcher", external rathter than internal piping, no pilot or trailing trucks then pilot truck then trailing truck then both!  Different valve gear on the same wheel arrangment or the valve gear was hidden; how 'bout the feedwater heater like a curled back hairdo atop the smokebox door?   Or maybe it was the complete shrouding of the whole shooting match in the name of streamlining.  My goodness, they were all wierd.  Until the diesel came along, that is.

[erikem]

 Glad you liked it.

- Erik 

[Road Fan]

Wow...what a website.  Alot of reading for me to do here. 

 

Thanks,

Road Fan

[erikem]

rdgk1se3019

erikem

santafe347

http://www.dself.dsl.pipex.com/MUSEUM/LOCOLOCO/locoloco.htm

 

I find the other parts of Doug Self's website to interesting as well, but he does show some pretty loco locos.

The section on the Triplexes has a link to Steve Berliners website - he and his partners in crime had way too much time on the hands (did get a kick out of the DDP-45). 

 

I did not see a link for the ddp-45

 

From the Loco loco's page, click on the hexaplex delurium link, and that will bring up drawings of the UP Garrat Boy and  the UP Bigger Boy (the hexaplex). That page will have a link to Berliner-Ultrasonics and quite a collection of drawings and Photoshop iamges of some pretty weird locomotives (steam, diesel, electric and etc.). A picture of the DDP-45 is on the page that comes up when clicking on the Berliner-Ultrasonics link.

I found the Berlinerwerke webpages to be a lot of fun, but then again I have a very warped sense of humor.

[rdgk1se3019]

erikem

santafe347

http://www.dself.dsl.pipex.com/MUSEUM/LOCOLOCO/locoloco.htm

 

I find the other parts of Doug Self's website to interesting as well, but he does show some pretty loco locos.

The section on the Triplexes has a link to Steve Berliners website - he and his partners in crime had way too much time on the hands (did get a kick out of the DDP-45). 

 

I did not see a link for the ddp-45

[dredmann]

The "successful monorail system in Ireland" was the Lartigue monorail. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lartigue_Monorail. It was or is being re-created.

 

[dredmann]

The NC&StL's 2-8-2 + 2-8-0 duplex experiment was hardly unique. Southern did pretty much the same thing, putting IIRC 2-6-0 and 2-6-0 engines under a 2-8-2's tender. They called these the Mk-5 and Mk-6 classes, IIRC. They didn't work too well or last to long in that configuration.

 

[dredmann]

I suspect that, in normal use, the tripple-expansion loco was / would have been not nearly as efficient as theoretically possible, because taking advantage of that efficiency would have required too much from the engineer. Not saying it wouldn't have been more efficient, just not as much more as predicted.

 

[Road Fan]

Cool, a 4-2-4 locomotive, I never heard of a creature like that before.

 

Thanks,

Raod Fan

[Anonymous]

There was a whole genre of early inspection locomotives that were about as strange as you could get.

  

http://www.catskillarchive.com/rrextra/plate120.Html

  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inspection_locomotive

[J. Daddy]

you know I thought the 0-6-0T saddle tank switcher was very weird looking. There are many variants and all of them look akward, dock-siders too meet this catagory... but the strangest I think are some of the early logging locomotives... one before the shay and heisler came along... some were actually chain driven....they had that back woods cobbled up look, that just says " how in the heck did that work"? 

But if we are talking main-line locomotives than the Jawn Henry gets my vote.

[Road Fan]

I recall reading in a book (I think it was 'The World Encyclopedia of Locomotives' or something like that) of a successful monorail system in Ireland (I believe) and had a fairly long life- really weird looking. 

I also came across several early U.S. monorail systems from the late 1800's and early 1900's, including one in 1911 that ran along the mud flats of Seattle- but it couldn't get financing to back it.

 

Thanks,

Road Fan

 

[spikejones52002]

Then this was not a "MONORAIL" it had a rail under and over.

Back in the mid to late 40s. Sears or Webolts store in Downtown Chicago had a Monorail train hanging from the ceiling of the toy floor.

At Christmas Kids could ride around the looking at all the toys The store sold.

[blownout cylinder]

I fell over this one--early mono rail?

I quote from Locomotive Oddities (Railroad Magazine: Aug. 1948:pg19-20):

"Perhaps the freakiest of the lot of odd engines ever built in this country was the Cycle No. 1 built for the Boynton Bicycle Railway Co. by the Portland compant's Works in February 1889. E.M.boynton was the instigator of this *** rig. He managed to acquire a short line on Coney Island,NY where he demonstrated the so-called advantages of the one-rail line which would virtually convert any single track to a double track railroad. The engine had one driving wheel some 8' in diameter, with two cylinders 12X14 inches. It hauled a passenger car that was 4 feet wide, 14 feet high and 42 feet long with a capacity of 108 passengers on two levels. The main joker of the whole scheme was that an overhead structure had to be erected to prevent the locomotive and car from falling over. If anything went wrong with this--and it did---the train promptly went into the ditch. The line was abandoned."

A double ended thing was made that had two seperate trucks each being a 2-6-0 configuration---apparently that didn't really know which way to go---Dang odd ducks--

[spikejones52002]

 back in 2002 during my travels through Germany and Switzerland. I seen gauge inter change dollies for cars like that engine. narrow to standard and standard to narrow.

[tcox009]

Although they were very sucessful and are popular with railfans and modelers, you have to admit the SP cab forwards just look strange

[ACF1001]

I don't know if these two would be in the category of weird. Perhaps unique. The C&O's Chessie Stream Turbine and The N&W's Jawn Henry Turbine deserve mentioning.

[Deggesty]

rji2

 It's hard to beat that "wheels on top of wheels" thing, but I'll nominate the NC&StL's 2-8-2 + 2-8-0 duplex experiment.  2-8-2 number 616 had the frame and running gear of retired 2-8-0 number 304 installed under its tender in 1918 for service between Nashville and Bruceton.  The 616's boiler couldn't supply enough steam for the maximum demands of four cylinders, and as coal and water were taken from the tender enroute and it lost weight on the 2-8-0's drivers, it became slippery.  In less than a year, the rear engine was scrapped and number 616 resumed service as a conventional 2-8-2.

I hadn't heard of this one; I knew of the Virginian's and the Erie's triplexes--which proved that relying on an engine beneath the tender is a poor policy. My mother was staying with an aunt who lived near McKenney, Va. at the time the Virginian was trying its triplex, and she told me that they could feel the engine as it passed through Alberta.

Johnny

[rji2]

 It's hard to beat that "wheels on top of wheels" thing, but I'll nominate the NC&StL's 2-8-2 + 2-8-0 duplex experiment.  2-8-2 number 616 had the frame and running gear of retired 2-8-0 number 304 installed under its tender in 1918 for service between Nashville and Bruceton.  The 616's boiler couldn't supply enough steam for the maximum demands of four cylinders, and as coal and water were taken from the tender enroute and it lost weight on the 2-8-0's drivers, it became slippery.  In less than a year, the rear engine was scrapped and number 616 resumed service as a conventional 2-8-2.

[Deggesty]

erikem

Deggesty

CSSHEGEWISCH

I'll put in a vote for D&H 1403, the only triple-expansion reciprocating steam locomotive built in the United States.  It may have been the most efficient steam locomotive ever built, and probably the most maintenance-intensive.

If it comes to the weirdest-looking locomotive, I agree that Leonor Loree's 1403 takes the cake for a locomotive that did not have wheels under wheels. An article in Trains back in the early fifities had pictures of this and other engines that Mr. Loree designed. One feature of the 1403 was that it steamed at 500 psi. Definitely, this engine called for high maintenance (just ast the steam turbines did).

Johnny

 

I'm pretty sure the article that you are referring to appeared in the June 1967 issue of Trains (which happened to have been the first issue I purchased). The article was the third in a series of D&H Consolidations (though the 1403 was not a Consol).

The loco locos webpage mentioned earlier in this thread has a picture of the bare boiler from the D&H 1400, showing the watertube firebox and steam drums.

While we're on the subject of watertube boilers, I'd say the North Pacific Coast cab forward locomotive was even weirder than the D&H 1403. 

You're right. Was my memory really faulty! This morning, I dug it out, and refreshed my memory. The locomotive, which had four cylinders (one high pressure that was under the engineer, one medium pressure that was under the firemen, and two low pressure that were in front of the drivers) could really pull. But, it became subject to frequent problems when running, and it was said that a machine shop had to be sent out with it.

[erikem]

Deggesty

CSSHEGEWISCH

I'll put in a vote for D&H 1403, the only triple-expansion reciprocating steam locomotive built in the United States.  It may have been the most efficient steam locomotive ever built, and probably the most maintenance-intensive.

If it comes to the weirdest-looking locomotive, I agree that Leonor Loree's 1403 takes the cake for a locomotive that did not have wheels under wheels. An article in Trains back in the early fifities had pictures of this and other engines that Mr. Loree designed. One feature of the 1403 was that it steamed at 500 psi. Definitely, this engine called for high maintenance (just ast the steam turbines did).

Johnny

 

I'm pretty sure the article that you are referring to appeared in the June 1967 issue of Trains (which happened to have been the first issue I purchased). The article was the third in a series of D&H Consolidations (though the 1403 was not a Consol).

The loco locos webpage mentioned earlier in this thread has a picture of the bare boiler from the D&H 1400, showing the watertube firebox and steam drums.

While we're on the subject of watertube boilers, I'd say the North Pacific Coast cab forward locomotive (NPC 21) was even weirder than the D&H 1403. 

[Deggesty]

CSSHEGEWISCH

I'll put in a vote for D&H 1403, the only triple-expansion reciprocating steam locomotive built in the United States.  It may have been the most efficient steam locomotive ever built, and probably the most maintenance-intensive.

If it comes to the weirdest-looking locomotive, I agree that Leonor Loree's 1403 takes the cake for a locomotive that did not have wheels under wheels. An article in Trains back in the early fifities had pictures of this and other engines that Mr. Loree designed. One feature of the 1403 was that it steamed at 500 psi. Definitely, this engine called for high maintenance (just ast the steam turbines did).

Johnny

[al-in-chgo]

I'll nominate the turbine engines of the 1940s, because the theory got ahead of the technology and they did not work as supposed.  It seems weird to me because so many RRs (or builders) kept thinking they had the inside line on turbines, but it was like a "holy grail" quest that failed.  Scary big and some threw oil!  -  a.s.

 

[vsmith]

The Holman Horror?

[oldline1]

My vote goes to the really ugly P&LE 2-8-4s! They looked too much like stationary steam boilers to me.

Roger Huber

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

I'll put in a vote for D&H 1403, the only triple-expansion reciprocating steam locomotive built in the United States.  It may have been the most efficient steam locomotive ever built, and probably the most maintenance-intensive.