5 of the Weakest Steam Locomotives Ever | History in the Dark

[@m.cigledy6769]

I've been to the Smithsonian and saw the John Bull in person. Cute little engine. The green bridge that you can just see a part of at 3:30 is also very historic. People moving goods in the area at the time didn't like freight trains taking their business, so they would tear up or burn wooden bridges. That was one of the first metal train bridges in the country, built in an effort to keep people from destroying it as easily.

[@calvingreene90]

When you remember that you are replacing very large draft horses these small numbers or more impressive. Plus the locomotives could put in more hours of work per day without dying.

[@MercenaryPen]

I've also heard that when the Horsepower measurement was first devised, they erred on the generous side, so that most horses would struggle to provide 1 horsepower

[@calvingreene90]

@@MercenaryPen When you are promising that your fire engine (steam) will replace 10 horses and be thinking Cleveland bay and then find out they are using Shire Horses.

[@poowg2657]

You don't need a lot of horsepower to get good work from steam. The expansive properties of steam lead to ridiculously high torque ratings leading in most cases to some form of overdrive system. Good video, liked it much!

[@sirrliv]

Kinda feels a little unfair to talk about these locomotives' weakness just because they're all old. Of course they were weak by modern standards, we were still trying to learn what a "steam locomotive" was! And they were still stronger than the horses and oxen they replaced. I could see a case for a few, like the John Bull, Planet (or more accurately Lion), maybe even the B&O Grasshoppers that aren't on this list, early engines that were kept in limited service long after they were rendered obsolete. But I really have to dispute Best Friend as she blew up before any other comparable engine could come along, and Tom Thumb as she was basically just a demonstrator made from spare parts ("Peter Cooper built this in a cave, with a bunch of scraps!" You're welcome for that one). If you really want to cite weak engines, I'd have gone more for engines that should have been as strong or stronger than their contemporaries but for whatever reason just weren't. Good examples might include the LBSCR E2: Meant as a more powerful shunter and empty coaching stock engine, but ended up being outlived by the E1's they were meant to replace, the GCR 8B 4-4-2 and 8C 4-6-0: Both designed as heavy express engines to replace the aging Class 2 4-4-0's, but both suffered from such poor steaming that they barely matched the 2's performance rather than exceeding it resulting in the Class 11F "Improved Director" 4-4-0 that vastly outclassed its larger predecessors (Side note: Henry was originally supposed to be a 4-4-2 Atlantic that suffered from poor steaming. Sound familiar? While never confirmed, it's believed that the Rev. Awdry based Henry on a GCR 8B.).

[@TheGs4_4449]

I mean, tractive effort is tractive effort. I didn’t read that whole thing so…

[@robertwilloughby8050]

Wait. A "Jersey Lilly"? Weak? Probably the most loved of all the GCR engines after the aformentioned Directors? Admittedly didn't haul the Manchester trains, but hauled the Sheffied intermediate expresses, some of which were rather heavy laden? You criticise the steaming, well, what? They were notorious for the opposite, ripping coal off the coalbed in the firebox! The Directors (which I have to admit I love!) were more brought in for worries about overhang over Woodhead, and the Improved Directors were more adjuncts to the rather poor "Sir Sam Fay" and "Glenalmond" classes. I'll give you the 8C's, because the ashpan wasn't big enough, something that wasn't as much of a problem in the "Jersey Lillies". Don't forget the "Compound Jersey Lillies" either.🤬

[@MidlandMark]

This could be the first part of a 7 part mini-series: "The Weakest", featuring: Steam Locomotives / Main Line Steam Locomotives of the 20th Century Diesel / Main Line Diesel Locomotives Electric / Main Line Electric Locomotives if you like a challenge!

[@furripupau]

A bit of clarification about the Tom Thumb's boiler tubes. This is a point of major confusion caused by a misunderstanding of a statement made by Peter Cooper about the locomotive. When Peter Cooper was writing about Tom Thumb decades later, he stated that the "boiler pipe" was made from an old gun barrel. Meaning the pipe that connected the boiler to the steam engine. This was misunderstood by somebody to mean "boiler tubes" at a later date, and unfortunately that mistake has now been repeated for over a century. According to Cooper the boiler had two vertical flues, which also obviously wouldn't have worked if the tubes were gun barrels.

[@_molls]

Should also be noted that a big big reason why the John Bull was even on this list, is because it used to be an 0-4-0, but was converted into a 4-2-0. It was shipped to the US as an 0-4-0, but was prone to derailment as the American rails were quite rough. So, the John Bull was modified with A: a spark catching smokestack as it ran on wood instead of coal, and B: a Front bogie with a cowcatcher. Due to the way those front wheels were attached, it meant that it had to have a lot of tractive effort taken away as it couldn’t have its side rods anymore, so thus, John Bull became a 4-2-0 to combat derailments, and is what took away a lot of its power

[@Combes_]

2-4-0*

[@alexhajnal107]

@@Combes_ 4-2-0 is correct. Only the rear axle was directly powered. Prior to modification a connecting rod was used to power the adjacent axle.

[@_molls]

@@Combes_ No it's a 4-2-0. if you look at original drawings of John Bull, it was an 0-4-0 with the City of Truro style side rods, with the wheels being inside the frames, and the side rods being outside of the frames. With the added cowcatcher, they removed these side rods, as the cowcatcher took up too much space, leaving only the back wheels powered. Therefore, John Bull is a 4-2-0, as it has four unpowered leading wheels, two powered driving wheels, and no trailing wheels. Idk why it's listed as a 2-4-0 when it only has two driving wheels, but I guess it can be interpreted as such

[@Straswa]

Great work Darkness, enjoying your content.

[@dmtribaltyphoon5001]

man Kilian just cant get a break

[@anzaca1]

It's not even accurate. Currently, Krillain is actually ridiculously strong. He actually beat the entire Ginyu Force by himself in Super.

[@HistoryintheDark]

He's probably the strongest human, though Tien is close I would imagine. I used Krillin because all these locomotives were successful despite being weak.

[@naisagathefirstdestronmand8559]

That's actually a pretty great analogy for Krillin. Weak, but highly successful. Man's got himself a wife and ki, and is working a job he wants to do. And he seems pretty happy with his life.

[@anzaca1]

@@HistoryintheDark Fair point. And like these engines, he's still nowhere near the top.

[@serpentinesecrets6771]

Just training to beat Goku or at least Krillin

[@brianwelch-qq3ti]

I've actually worked alongside with one of the Tom Thumb two replicas currently being used

[@nigelgresley87546]

Fun fact, I took a trip to Charleston, SC and while on a tour I stumbled upon Best Friend in a museum and was ECSTATIC😅 I also took a trip to DC and went to the Smithsonian and saw John Bull👌🏾

[@tidepoolclipper8657]

I quite like the look of the Adler and the earlier The Planet locomotives. While it's a shame that The Planet never saw commercial success despite being an improvement over The Rocket; it's at least good to know that the Adler got to be what the The Planet wishes it could have been.

[@LegoTrainBoy]

You are just too good that it's funny every time you speak about history (mostly/sometimes (I honestly can't tell which because I feel you make yourself sound like some game show host. You don't have too agree to this statement)).

[@nicolek4076]

Kudos for nailing the pronunciation of Newcastle. You said it in the northern English way with a short A which is appropriate given the city's location.

[@JRwash25]

My lawn mower has more horsepower than Tom thumb.

[@bean_bttf3]

An interesting idea for more content could be ranking weakest and most powerful locomotives by decade. Plus, it might make more sense, comparison wise.

[@earthbaine9803]

More weak trains please very interesting loved this one

[@williamsquires3070]

Was the tender of the John Bull linked (drawbar), or actually part of the locomotive frame, like a Shay, Climax, or Heisler?

[@TryboBike]

400HP for John Bull is insanely overstated. Maybe _thermal_ which would be about 20-40hp at rail would make sense.

[@isaiahvang144]

Idea: Top 5 trains with the coolest sounding names. (Regardless if they succeeded or not.)

[@tidepoolclipper8657]

To me, I'd say: Steam: Challenger, Big Boy, Black Prince, GS-4 Daylight, GS-6 Black Daylight (unofficial nickname), Flying Scotsman, A4 Mallard, Duke of Gloucester, City of Truro, The Jupiter, Berkshire, and Merchant Navy. Diesel-Electric, Dual Mode, or Diesel Hydraulic: GE Dash 8, GE Genesis, EMD Centennial DDA40X, Siemens Vectron, Deltic, and Voith Gravita. Electric: Eurostar e300, Thalys, Avelia Horizon, and Shinkansen.

[@amtrakproductions-mx9ib]

One fun fact about puffing billy is that she was the first preserved steam locomotive in the world to turn 100 years old and 200 years old

[@nicholaskelly1958]

Probably the weakest standard gauge steam locomotive built in the second half of the the 20th century was built by Robert Stephenson & Hawthorns for the National Coal Board (England NCB). In fact this locomotive was the last steam locomotive built in Robert Stephenson's Newcastle Works An 0-6-0 Fireless works number 8082/1958. It was a very strange locomotive being designed to propell the coke car. The locomotive featured an elevated cab so that the driver could see that the coke car was being loaded evenly. It had a relatively short operational life being withdrawn by January 1971. It was scrapped by the November of that year.

[@JTRproductions]

You should do "top 5 of my favorite locomotives "list

[@tidepoolclipper8657]

I feel he should split that into steam, diesel (and not just diesel-electric), and electric categories. For me, I'm going with: Steam = Big Boy, Challenger, Mallard, Flying Scotsman, and BR Standard class 9F. Diesel-Electric and other Diesel types = EMD F40PH, GE Dash 8-40CW, RS-1, EMD F7, and British Rail Class 55 Deltic. Electric = Shinkansen E6, Pennsylvania Railroad class GG1, TGV Reseau, Eurostar e300, and ICE 3 class 403.

[@splicetape9435]

I'm sure that if built today the rifled barrels of Tom Thumb would be marketed as something like a "Vortex Inducting Boiler".

[@DerekWalsh-l4i]

No way in this world could the John Bull have achieved an output of 400 horsepower. I seriously doubt it could have reached anywhere close to 100, having a low boiler pressure, being very lightly constructed and having only a single pair of driving wheels. 40 hp is far more likely.

[@Combes_]

Sports cars have that much horsepower

[@Pence128]

@@Combes_ 200 years ago?

[@tidepoolclipper8657]

I'm surprised the very early locomotives built before Puffing Billy and the sister design aren't here. Guess there's not enough information on their overall power output.

[@geebs76]

I really enjoyed this. Now that you've done the most powerful and the weakest, how about the steam engine with the median power. The one right in the middle. Of all steam engines ever... Yeah, never mind.

[@wesw9586]

It would just end up being some British Rail piece anyway 😂

[@Marc_von_Hoffrichter]

Thanks cobber. Cheers.

[@tidepoolclipper8657]

If you did a boat and ships equivalent; I'd imagine you'd have to leave out rowing boats, canoes, and sailing ships for obvious reasons. You would have to mainly stick to steam powered riverboats and early steam powered transatlantic steam ships. Perhaps maybe even CSS Georgia the ironclad. As for airplanes in regards to weakest or having the least impressive flight ceilings; I can think of Wright Flier, Wright Model C, Etrich Taube, British Army Aeroplane No. 1, Cody Michelin Cup Biplane, Farman 3, Bleriot 11, Howard Wright 1909 Monoplane, Blackburn First Monoplane, Short Biplane No. 2, and Santos-Dumont 14-bis. Heck, the Rockwell XFV-12; which you talked about before, was awful at even trying to lift off ground.

[@tidepoolclipper8657]

Oh, yeah, there's also potentially the De Havilland Biplane No.1 to check out as well.

[@fanofeverything30465]

What about cars

[@tidepoolclipper8657]

@@fanofeverything30465 I'd imagine he'd focus on early steam powered ships, early 1900s airplanes, and very early WW1 airplanes before he would make such a video for cars. That said; Benz Patent Motor Car, 1893 Duryea Motor Carriage, Ford Quadricyle, and very early electric automobiles are nearly ensured on such a list about cars. Ford Model T and 1923 Copper-Cooled Chevy would be fitting as well.

[@mityace]

Another question is how small do you go. There are live steam locomotives that are in the territory of traditional models (O or HO scale for example, 1:48 & 1:87 respectively.) Rideable live steam locomotives run on track of 3" (76 mm) or less on up. Park engines in amusement parks, zoos, etc. start at 1/4 scale. In the UK, there are some 15" (381 mm) that are considered working "minimum gauge" railways. In Maine, USA, there were the famed 2 ft. gauge locomotives. (610 mm) as well as many other lines of 1 meter or less around the world. In the early 20th century, small railroads were used for construction and in the trenches of WW I. Some of these are almost certainly less than 1.4 hp. So, it depends on where you draw the line.

[@SethPiros]

y'know it's funny when i saw puffing billy on the list I immediately thought of the Australian Tourist Railway of the same name

[@SimonTekConley]

The 2cv had what 8hp engine? I am honestly impress at the numbers all of these have for their time period, and who built them

[@D.S_Productions]

Steven The Number One Locomotive she is a Really Useful Locomotive you know!

[@RobertSwickard-o1w]

FORGOT TO MENTION THAT 1 HORSEPOWER CONTRAPTION .... THE ----- 1 HORSE TREADMILL ON RAIL WHEELS ........

[@MGower4465]

Imagine trying to use a 400 horse team to pull a cargo train. You'd need hours to just hitch up 400 animals.

[@haroldwilkes6608]

More modern but I'm reminded of Tweetsie, If you blew the whistle, the engine would stall on an uphill grade...

[@Fnaffan1983e3t]

Have you heard of the york a steam locomotive that was built in 1831in york pennsylvania and was the first coal burning locomotive and was the first locomotive used in revenue service on the B&O

[@Captain_Char]

I just realized I think i remember your voice from a certain final fantasy clown video

[@williamsquires3070]

It’s probably a good thing the early steam locomotives couldn’t go too fast; I’m sure that - to some - 20 mph was like race horse speed! Five MPH was much more manageable; someone could outrun it easily. This way, everyone got used to the technology, and then the technology would improve incrementally with a bit more HP, and a bit more torque. At least, until the invention of Westinghouse air brakes! Then they could cut loose, and pull many more railcars now that the stopping power wasn’t limited to the BHP (braking horsepower) of the locomotive alone. 😊

[@Tom-Lahaye]

Most of the numbers in this video are quite feasible to me. But not the power output of John Bull, it never made 400hp or anything close to that. Her boiler is very similar to that of another famous Stephenson locomotive, that's Lion preserved in the UK. The boiler of Lion might even be a bit larger, John Bull as built was mostly to the design of the Planet type, but her boiler was a bit enlarged, Lion came a few years later and was a further enlarged design. Typical boiler pressure of that time was only 50psi, that greatly reduced the possible power output, compare with a Big Boy which has 300psi. For Lion I found top speed and tractive effort numbers, top speed 25mph/40km/h and tractive effort 2160lbf/9.4kN. When I calculate her power output in the theoretical event that maximum tractive effort is exerted at top speed I get 145hp. But that's theoretical, in practice the tractive effort of a locomotive drops when a locomotive goes faster. So a number of 80-100hp seems more appropriate for Lion. As John Bull has a slightly smaller boiler it would rather be at the low end of this estimate, so 75-80hp Every locomotive had a speed/tractive effort diagram which was obtained during testing with a dynamometer car which was invented in 1838. A spring scale between locomotive and car would record the drawbar force, at the same time speed was recorded, both readings were constantly recorded on a paper roll driven by a clockwork mechanism. A load was added with a train and brake car behind.

[@azzifyy5988]

I have no idea of the true power output but the John Bull was designed for a boiler pressure of 70PSI so while it won't change the final figure much it's something to bridge the gap a little bit.

[@Leatherface123.]

If we’re considering steam locomotives of all sizes I’d say that any scale steam powered one is weaker than Tom Thumb but at that point it comes down to how small can you make it and that situation would draw in hundreds, thousands or possibly even a million other locomotives/models

[@flyingmonkeydeathsquadronc968]

Id Argue it should be limited to working steam on a working gauge. I'm sure he's missing some narrow gauge industrial madness. Also HP is terrible for rating steam.

[@williamnichols467]

I’ve seen the replicas of the John Bull and the Tom Thumb

[@kingkyle8991]

Tom thumb was literally a iron horse as it was only as powerful as a horse.

[@61936]

Really should’ve used yamcha for the thumbnail like he isn’t even fighting anymore krillin is still at least trying even though he’s just getting beat every fight

[@gordieboi2340]

9:55 I thought he sat on it

[@warmstrong5612]

I think this list would've been more varied if you measured HP/Ton (horsepower per ton) like they do with tanks. I was expecting larger, heavier, and cripplingly underpowered locos tbh. Still good video though.

[@micoasters]

I would think the little amusement park trains like the cp Huntington and the Allen Hershel iron horse would be the weakest

[@61936]

Well good on you miata you make twice the hp as a train from the early 1800s

[@TIMMEH19991]

I've a diesel shunter with a whopping 150hp. Am I in the running for the weakest diesel???😆

[@mmes5271]

welp i would say the jhon bull is the UNSPEAKBLE POWER in that day so i think she is powerful not as bad as tom thumb

[@megladon6]

Weakest by weight to power ratio?

[@weird1012]

The weakest train is the old model train you bought 12 years ago sitting in your basement that looks like a piece of crap on the sidewalk on a hot day, otherwise known as thomas the tank engine

[@tuckercole4191]

#4 he’s definitely right I mean these people were using literal horses to pull cars before trains so it would have been some serious output to put 50 hp on something and pull it I mean I think those people would be mind blown at the 6,000 or more horsepower engine we use I mean think of what 6,000 horses would look like in a pasture

[@andreww2098]

a Horse produces 4 horsepower, so you would only need 1,500 horses

[@flyingscottproductions1937]

Im luck enough to be able to see John Bull in real life

[@TubsOnWheels101]

You take John Bull off this list right now or else i will make your ears ring forever with the sound of 100 Irish Bagpipes. (This is a joke comment 😂)

[@JohnJ.Crunchalot]

YEEEEEEESSS 🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉

[@danielbedrossian5986]

Wait what? The horse on that 13 km could have lost the competition to a machine with only less tha 1,4 Hp, if the mechanical failure did not interfire? How, why? A horse is estimated to be 30 Hp, and unless the terrain isn't full of hills, I am almost sure about that the horse has the tenacity to carry on.

[@allangibson8494]

A horse’s power was defined by the amount of power it could put out under load in a minute. One horsepower is actually optimistic for a horse under continuous load. BTW a car needs 40HP to travel at 60mph - and guess the power of an original VW Beetle? 43HP.

[@pontushaggstrom6261]

The weakest steam loco was probably the first

[@emilioi.valdez6680]

Ok. Next better be weakest diesels and electrics.

[@pras12100]

No "honourable mention" for the "Cycloped" which was disqualified from the Rainhill Trials (for steam locomotives)? 🤣 1 horse power exactly! 🤣

[@HistoryintheDark]

That's *not* a steam locomotive. XD

[@pras12100]

@@HistoryintheDark I think that's what the judges said at the Rainhill Trials!

[@andreww2098]

weirdly horses produce 4Hp!

[@ammonium4]

So the Tom Thumb is the first American demo unit?

[@kristoffermangila]

It seems so...

[@nostalgiccameralife]

Technically no. John Stevens built a single cylinder rack locomotive in 1825 to demonstrate the idea of a steam locomotive to Americans. Apparently, nobody was impressed. The boiler of this locomotive still exists though.

[@HomeGrown001]

Krillin gets powerful in the world tournament

[@henrywang3977]

An actual horse may have 1.4 hp.

[@harrisonallen651]

If the Puffing Billy was that weak, why make up songs about her?

[@davidwhyte5918]

Why can't Americans say Edinburgh. ( Edin- burrow not berg ) and FYI Glasgow is glas- go not gow

[@TB76Returns]

Why are you referring to the John Bull as a female? And Puffing Billy too, and even Tom Thumb?

[@Gordanovich02]

All locomotives are female, even if their namesake is male. Don't ask me why.

[@23GreyFox]

Isn't he the strongest human, you should have chosen Yamcha for it.

[@zingxiu6123]

Ye im probebly stronger then those even tho im a stick

[@haroldchase4120]

Lol Democrats thinking o I’ll hate that noice got to close that valve . Booom 😂.