Why "cab-forward" steam locomotives usually didn't work - Cab Forward Locomotives

[@davidwhiting1761]

Fun fact: As mentioned, the SP ran locomotives backwards over Donner Pass before the Cab Forwards were thought of. This was not an official practice on the part of management, however, rather it was first done by a driver who finally got fed up with nearly choking to death in the tunnels and snowsheds on the Pass. As a defiant gesture he had his loco turbed round to run tender-first before departing Roseville yard despite the difficulty of running backwards. Management got the message loud and clear and began trying to figure out an answer to the problem, which led to the construction of the Cab Forwards.

[@FerrousEquusEng]

I don't mean to pry too much, but do you have a source for this information? From what I have heard and read on the topic, it was never allowable operating practice to run locomotives tender first over the Sierras and it seems that SP management was aware of the smoke problems when they arose. i.e. It was only after receiving the Mallet Consolidation Class (MC-1) locomotives that they ran into problems by nearly asphyxiating crews. While it is true that they ran experiments with the MC-1 Class tender first, they wouldn't have allowed this practice for other types of conventional locomotives. For example even after the Cab-Forward locomotives were created, conventional type engines continued to run in the forward direction over the Sierras, even with helper steam locomotives. So it wasn't as much an act of defiance that led to the creation of the Cab-Forwards, just operational necessity for the large Mallet and Articulating locomotives.

[@davidwhiting1761]

@@FerrousEquusEng You'll find that in ye olden days of American steam railroading some operating rules were treated as "guidelines" by the crews.

[@FerrousEquusEng]

@@davidwhiting1761 Yes, but even then, steam locomotives aren't particularly great at running in reverse when they are designed to run forward. I'm more curious as to which Engineer thought it would be great idea to run a full day up a mountain in reverse? Not to mention that they would often times need to double or triple head locomotives over donner in the days before the MC class showed up on the route. Did they coordinate with the other engineers so they all ran backwards?

[@Timsturbs]

@@FerrousEquusEng "steam locomotives aren't particularly great at running in reverse" why? from what i know running in reverse for steam, at least technically, is the same as running forward, just flip the steam distributor(or whatever its called) 180° and thats it

[@FerrousEquusEng]

@@Timsturbs While it is true that steam engines can theoretically run both forwards and backwards with equal ease, there are a few factors when it comes to steam locomotives that change how well certain types of locomotives can run. Firstly, as mentioned in the video above, weight distribution of the locomotive on it's wheels is hugely important. Switching/Shunting locomotives were bad at running on curved pieces of tracks at high speed because the driving wheels would "hunt" down the tracks, essentially move side to side to the point that the wheels would derail. To solve this, you add wheels to the front and back of the locomotive that would help guide the locomotive around curves. Secondly, Valve gear on a steam locomotive is never quite perfect, and in certain cases was actually designed to be more efficient running in one direction versus another. While getting into the design of locomotive valve gear is certainly a very advanced topic, it is simpler to say that most railroads made sure that their locomotives ran forwards really well, and sometimes that meant they didn't run as well in reverse. Lastly, There are a few design factors of the locomotives themselves that lead them to run better forwards rather than backwards. Aerodynamics, spring rigging, wheel profiling, driver setup and spacing, and more. Sorry if this is a very prolonged explanation, needless to say that sometimes it isn't as easy as saying, "Oh, we'll just run this train backwards all the time and it will be the same". There are a few factors that prevent steam locomotives from running backwards well.

[@delurkor]

Additional geek fact: SP had been using oil for a while (Bunker C). The oil was gravity fed to the sprayer in the firebox. Someone realized this would be a problem on the Donner route; so they pressurized the oil tank to move the oil up to the firebox.

[@jed-henrywitkowski6470]

A steam loco runs a passenger route in SoCal that was converted to burn oil. I thought it was done more recently, however, the conversion was done in the 1930s.

[@vintagethrifter2114]

@@jed-henrywitkowski6470 The Southern Pacific ordered its first oil burning locomotive in 1900.

[@Lepper36]

@@jed-henrywitkowski6470 A lot of it was simply due to cost. It was far cheaper to run oil burners in Southern California due to the amount of oil fields and reserves we have, vs shipping in coal from other parts of the country. You can see this in the history of a lot of Union Pacific Locomotives, where on one side of the Sierras, you see Coal burners, and on the other, you see Oil burners.

[@Wooargh]

why not just use electric engines because electric engines have zero emissions am I litraly the only genius to think of this omg

[@delurkor]

@@Wooargh As a confirmed wire-head, I agree electrics are more efficient. Problem is the capital cost in building the infrastructure. It took Penn nearly 20 years to build NYC to DC and that was with government help after 1932. We have to be willing to commit to doing it. Caltrain, SF to San Jose has taken over 5 years and maybe complete by 2024.

[@ThatScottishAtlantic57]

Cab forward engines, good idea on paper, backwards in practise.

[@Dontbeafraid2]

Bah dum tsss

[@DomQuartuccio]

Backwards in appearance too!

[@crocowithaglocko5876]

SP would like a word with you

[@caramelldansen2204]

*practice (practise is the verb form)

[@kishascape]

They’re ugly and give people nightmares

[@TGPilar]

Grew up about 30 minutes from 4294, I’ve seen that engines HUNDREDS of times, it’s my all time favorite locomotive, walking around that thing and seeing all the pipes and feeders is amazing, especially when you walk in the cab, it’s insanely complicated in there, absolutely love this engine

[@TheChris2009]

I recently took a trip to downtown sac to go to the railroad museum. Seeing it in person was nothing short of amazing. I, ironically, paused the video at 3:40 to look at the wikipedia page for the 4294.

[@alwaysbearded1]

My favorite at the museum as well. Remember it as a kid then later brought mine to see it.

[@Dulaman107]

Same here! Haven’t lived in Sac (yet), but I loved seeing the sheer size of that marvelous engine every time I visit downtown. Real shame it probably won’t be moving under its own power any time soon.

[@Randomator5000]

i always love going to give it a visit

[@nc4tn]

In my career on CSX, we sometimes ran long hood forward with diesels. With this arrangement, your visibility on some of the 14° degree curves in cuts was about 20 feet at the most. When required to run at “restricted speed”, which required a stop for an obstruction or another train within one-half the range of vision, it was virtually impossible to run at any speed to comply with the rule. Certain trainmasters knew this, and if you fell out of favor with them, they would set up a “banner” (a simulated obstruction) to test compliance with the rule. Knowing that you couldn’t stop say ANY SPEED, they used this tactic to charge the engineer with a rules violation, and resulting discipline (sometimes dismissal from service). And railroad mangers today can’t figure out why nobody wants to work for the railroad anymore. So, in my experience, cab forward was a good idea. Oil firing was what made it possible.

[@mr.meloetta1939]

Fun thing about the Italian cabfowards: they ended up in the game Railroad Tycoon 3. I played this a lot as a kid, and seeing the engine in this video just brought back a lot of memories : )

[@Sacto1654]

In short, Southern Pacific liked the cab forward not only because it made it easier for the cab crew to breathe in tunnels, but also because it offered superior visibility, too. That's why SP didn't retired the last of them until 1954.

[@russellgxy2905]

Not quite! The last SP Cab Forward to work a revenue train was actually in November 1956. Then about a year later, a fantrip occured with an AC-11, 4274. Appropriately it was a round-trip over Donner Pass, working east to Reno, NV one day, then back west to Sacramento the following day. That fantrip wasn't just the last time a Cab Forward ran over the territory that necessitated their design, but also the last time a Cab Forward ran under its own power

[@DiscothecaImperialis]

@@russellgxy2905 I don't know if UP (whom bought SP in 90s) will build a new cabforward for this and should UP bother to do so? while the 4294 is now considered relic.

[@douglasskaalrud6865]

@@DiscothecaImperialis. Build a new cab-forward?

[@DiscothecaImperialis]

@@douglasskaalrud6865 uhm.

[@TheDarkfighter101]

As a local to the Donner pass and as someone who has gone to see 4294 many times at the Sacramento Train Museum, thank you for the video. It’s just wonderful to see trains bringing people together around the world.

[@maddog2314]

I see what you did there :P

[@CaliPepper]

It should also be mentioned that even though the Southern Pacific Cab Forwards were extremely successful with the railroad, one of their biggest problems was just how much water they consumed. Bigger locomotives always use more fuel and water than smaller ones of course, but the Cab Forwards were especially thirsty. I don't remember the exact numbers, but I do know it was high.

[@antonberglund117]

Any clue why they consumed so much water? Inefficient design?

[@CaliPepper]

​@@antonberglund117 I believe it was a combination of their operating conditions and overall design. The earlier Southern Pacific Cab Forwards (I believe the AC-1 through the AC-8) were essentially just reversed and rebuilt locomotives from the MC class (MC-1 through MC-6). Later Cab Forwards (AC-10 through AC-12) were essentially just AC-9 "Yellowstone" class locomotives reversed and redesigned. I believe the MC class locomotives and AC-9 were originally designed to burn low quality coal, but obviously this wouldn't be practical on a cab forward design, so they had to have even more work done to convert them to oil burners. Safe to say, the design of these locomotives was fairly convoluted by the time they were finished. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it does mean they had some quirks that wouldn't be there had they been built from the ground up. The Cab Forwards were also specifically meant to go over the Sierra Nevada mountain range, and they'd obviously need more pressure in the boiler and cylinders to do so, meaning more water would be needed.

[@high_admiral5196]

@@CaliPepper Only Mallet/Articulated locomotives on the SP that were coal fired were the AC-9s. All others were oil fired from factory. The SP Cabforwards were built as such from Class MC-2. Only articulateds that were "traditional" from the factory on the SP were the AC-9s, MC-1, MM-1 and MM-3 classes. (Class MM-3 was a WW2 purchase as SP was hurting for motive power to move freight) All "Mx" classes besides MM-3 were rebuilt to simple articulateds from their original Mallet compound configuration. (Also, fun fact: SP classed Mallets under the MM/MC classifications, meaning Mallet (Mogul/Consolidation). They followed that up with the AM/AC classifications which mean Articulated (Mogul/Consolidation), none of which were compound expansion locomotives. Classes MC-1 and MC-2 became class AC-1 after the MC-1 class's rebuild into cabforwards, and all members of both classes converted to simple expansion articulateds. In regards to the consumption of oil/water of these beasts, it wasn't out of the ordinary for such large locomotives as SP(like other companies), frequently pushed their locos to their limits in terms of what they could pull. At least they were not as hungry as the Duluth, Missabe & Iron Range Yellowstones which were said to be able to drain their entire 25 tons of coal and 25 thousand gallons of water out of their tenders hauling ore trains up a 20 mile grade.

[@patlatorres7000]

@@antonberglund117, it's actually very simple, these locomotives were designed for and primarily used in mountain regions and as such were generally working harder then a locomotive on flatter terrain. Working harder while going up hill required more water regardless of the locomotive design.

[@Gfysimpletons]

@@high_admiral5196 copy and paste is awesome, eh?

[@redfailhawk]

I really appreciate how much effort you put into these. I learn something new every single time and I can't say that for any other channel out there.

[@catmungo4500]

Couldn’t have said it any better myself

[@Narrowgaugefilms]

There was a reluctance for crews to ride up front anyway because they felt more exposed to the impact in collisions, especially in less controlled circumstances like crossings. Because of this, many early diesels were run long hood forward to keep the cab back where the crews were used to it being. It took a long time for this to change.

[@fredgervinm.p.3315]

I would be reluctant, to say the least. From a stray Cow to a Head-on, I would be a nervous wreck. 😜

[@Narrowgaugefilms]

I think maybe the ultimate is a tractor-trailer load of gasoline at a crossing. That's where you set the brakes and jump! (if you have time...) It's actually one of the things that held back the Rail Diesel Car: basically there's nothing between you and the side of a truck in the crossing but a sheet of glass! Just as bad as the cab in a subway train, except they don't generally have road crossings.

[@whyjnot420]

This is commonly cited as a reason for using tractor engines instead of pusher engines in airplanes. At least from the pilots perspective in single engine aircraft. The engine and engine space basically provided extra protection from head on attacks and a buffer in case of a rough or crash landing. I honestly have some doubts as to just how prevalent this line of thought was, seems like it could be something 2 people said and then was just repeated _ad infinitum_ .

[@Narrowgaugefilms]

It makes some sense to have the plane's engine between you and the impact rather than to put yourself between the engine and the impact. All that hurtling mass tends to keep on going when the rest of the plane suddenly stops. (Above a certain speed it all ends the same anyway...) I guess in a cab-forward steam locomotive not only could the boiler squish you, it might COOK you too!

[@erikmattson2507]

For good reason. On 2008, the train operator was killed after colliding with another train on the Green Line D branch between Woodland and Waban stations, Massachusetts. The new 1900 red line subway cars have large cabs at the front for bigger crumple zones.

[@RailPreserver2K]

Sp used cab forwards successfully for decades and the last one built is also the only one preserved (in SPs case)

[@templar_1138]

I've been curious about cab-forward engines for a while (I've seen pictures of 4294 since I was a kid and have driven it in Rail Simulator). So thank you!

[@pacificostudios]

Your story about the Santa Susana tunnel tragedy illustrates that the SP Cab Forward engines were so successful they roamed many lines far from the Sierras. Oddly though, no other American railroad used similar engines more than experimentally, not even the Rio Grange, which had Moffat Tunnel. Great Northern had the longest tunnel in North America at the time, but it was electrified until ventilation fans were installed.

[@t.bunker2511]

Many Railroads and locomotive engineers didn't like cab-forwards in-case accidents and the vulnerability of the crews when of a vehicle stuck on the tracks. Even in the Diesel era, some Railroads like the Southern ran their engines with the long-hood forwards for decades until reinforced modern "safety cabs" were produced. With in increased use of semi-trucks the likelihood of a truck getting stuck on a road crossing actually increased in the 60s and 70s, especially in rural areas with limited views of the tracks ahead.

[@Genius_at_Work]

Regarding 03:15: The 05 003 didn't have a second Cab, it was just a normal Class 05 (one of only three btw) turned around. The "Cab" at the Back is to open the Smoke Box Door to blow Soot from the Smoke Tubes. Fuel Oil was considered for 05 003, but ditched for Strategic Reasons that we all can imagine but won't discuss as to not risk YT censoring this Comment. Instead, 05 003 burned Powderised Coal, by blowing it into the Fire Box with Compressed Air. That System was tried and trusted by 1937, but 05 003 always suffered from unreliable Fuel Supply often causing it to burn Fuel rich, thus sooting up the Smoke Tubes, often even until they were completely blocked by Soot. If the Oil Burner wasn't ditched in Favour of Lebensraum, 05 003 would almost certainly have worked very well. The unreliable Fuel Supply was caused by the Coal Piping having to pass under the entire Locomotive, which was not exactly a straight Pipe. The Fuel Feed System and Air Blower were driven by the same Auxilary Engine and thus couldn't be controlled independently, otherwise the Stoker might have been able to react to these Combustion Irregularities. Although I don't know how quickly Combustion changed, if it required Adjustments every few Seconds, I doubt that even the most skilled Stoker could deal with that. Because of the Problems, 05 003 was rebuilt in late 1944 by turning the Locomotive around again, and removing the Aerodynamic Covers completely, thus turning it into a pretty normal German Standardised Locomotive, just with huge Driving Wheels. The other two Class 05 Locomotives were un-streamlined after 1945, matching them to 05 003. 05 001 was preserved with a Replica Streamline Shell. Edit: Apparently, 05 001 and 05 002 had their Covers removed around 1941-1942, so 05 003 was matched to them and not the other Way around. My Mistake.

[@terrygoyan]

Powdered coal being blown into the fire box sounds like a good way to blow something up!

[@Genius_at_Work]

@@terrygoyan That's how almost every Coal Power Station is fired. And it's no different than Oil; Oil Burners spray the Oil in a very fine Mist, that is just as "explosive" as Powdered Coal. I don't know about Powdered Coal Burners as I never worked with them and probably never will, but Oil Burners must be ventilated before lighting, to prevent Accidents caused by any flammable Fuel Residue left in the Furnace. I guess it's the same with Powdered Coal.

[@mbr5742]

East germany operated the BR 52.90 wuth coal dust firing for at least 20 years without problem

[@Genius_at_Work]

@@mbr5742 Because the Firebox was right next to the Tender, so you've got a straight Line between them. With the 05 003, the Coal had to go all the Way under the Boiler and around the Axles, which involved many Bends where the Coal got stuck. Originally, the Fuel System was intended for Oil and then just quickly repurposed for Coal.

[@oldtimer4791]

A few more ideas I heard about during my travels consisted of making tenders shorter, but longer. Installing a cab at both the back *and* front of the engine. (The one at the back was used to drive the train, and the one in the front was used to see the tracks ahead better). It worked on small/ slow goods trains, but was seen as awkward and dangerous on faster trains as there weren't too many people willing to be at the front of a train in case it derailed or collided with something (it's also possible that this could have been illegal). True, having eyes at the front of an engine would prove valuable... but it would look ridiculous and prove to be dangerous: speaking of which- I overheard how one day a train crew tried the brake van at the front idea, almost costing the guy in the van his life as the train he was on traveled down a hill and nearly collied with another goods train. They were only saved when a signal man heard the danger and sent them into a siding. The buffers weren't strong enough to stop the train before the brake van broke in two. Luckily the train wasn't going fast and the guy lived by jumping into a pound. I was always on a plane whenever I heard these stories, and I'm usually not one to but in on someone else's conversations. Still... might be a good idea for another video.

[@lukechristmas3951]

Great to see you kicking off the New Year with one of the most well known of odd locomotive designs! I'm particularly interested in those Italian cab-forwards. A model of one of those must be a beauty!

[@stevenjohnston3496]

My Grandfather was a boilermaker for the SP and worked on these very locomotives. The cab forwards carried a classification of AC-10 I believe (please feel free to correct this if you know for certain). Incidentally, the SP burned oil in their locomotives because coal is scarce on the west coast, but oil is plentiful,

[@thomasavensjr.2790]

Southern Pacific rr cab forward articulated types were an impressive & unique class of locomotives with the cab placed at the front of the locomotive for improved crew visibility and less smoke accumulation. The SP cab forward engines were highly successful in operation and had a unique appearance, it's a shame that SP only saved 1 example for preservation display (4294) as I would like to have seen at least 3 cab forward locomotives survive for public display viewing.

[@leonardmiyata482]

The SP Cab forward was much more then simply swapping the cab from one end of the locomotive to the other. SP also had to reinforce the forward cab so that the crew could survive the impact of running into an obstacle on the tracks, such as car stopped on a rail crossing...

[@slimetank394]

I'm not an engineer but, if having tender at the front we would have either a tender too tall that it block view, or too small it would limit range, can we instead have a tender low but longer to hold more fuel?

[@KlingelTimi.]

I really like the almost "classic" steam design of the Italian locomotive at 1:35. Maybe that would have worked better with oil. And the German BR 05 at 1:58 looked like today's normal diesel locomotive, impressive

[@Jacktoro44]

We had a successful cab-forward here in Wales! the engines on the Glyn Valley Tramway!

[@JohnDavies-cn3ro]

Bless you. butti bach! I was going to mention them as, running alongside a public highway they were officially tram locos, and had to have the cab leading. (Depended on how closely the Board of Trade were looking, from a few photos I've seen.) The Clogher Valley Tramway / Railway in Ireland was another true 'cab forward' design, roughly contemporary with the Forney engines. Most steam trams were actually 'double enders', having duplicate controls at each end. There was one early German double ender you omitted - an experimental 4-4-4 of about 1900, which was also crudely streamlined. (Marklin made a contemporary model of it) Like the later 05, she was a speed queen, but rather light footed.

[@wizlish]

That German locomotive was not a 'double-ender' but a true cab-forward; it separated the crew as on a camelback but moved the 'windsplitter' cab to the front. There was at least one French engine with a similar arrangement. The Henderson multiplexes (quadruplex and longer!) were designed with the driving cab in front, with the engineer communicating with the fireman via a speaking tube, as on a ship. I'm surprised he didn't mention the ATSF cab-forward duplex 6-4-4-4, which was likely not built only because of rapid diesel-electric development...

[@collinparks274]

The S.P. cab forward locomotives are the exact same locomotives the the DM&IR used here in Minnesota, just flipped around, the Yellowstone class as they were known, are 2-8-8-4 locomotives, going from smoke box to foot plate, and was the main competitor for U.P.s Big Boy, being only 5 feet shorter and smaller driving wheels the Yellowstones are actually more powerful the the Big Boys, and the Yellowstones, and S.P.s cab forwards, were both built by Baldwin, the main competitor to A.L.C.O. which built the Big Boys

[@crow_boi3387]

I have so many great memories from my childhood of engine 4294, as I and my family would regularly visit the museum, and it's one of the bases to my interests in trains. One of the main reasons it played such an important role though, was because you are allowed to go into the cab, and as a child I would go into it and play, unfortunately in a more recent visit they had to close it off due to covid. But I always wondered why it was like that. I've always sort of assumed that it had something to do with giving better visibility, but I knew that there had to be some sort of more advanced reason for it.

[@Chuck_vs._The_Comment_Section]

3:48 The problem could just as well have been solved with a Garratt locomotive coupled "the wrong way around", right?

[@PuzzlingHousing56]

In otherwords there's always going to be design flaws no matter what

[@RoamingAdhocrat]

*until you switch to electric traction ;)

[@theoneandonlynumber1253]

@@RoamingAdhocrat untill you lose power from a emp or a rainstorm causing a power outtage XXXXDDDD

[@MrJoeyWheeler]

@@theoneandonlynumber1253 Or there's too many leaves on the line. Electric and diesel traction just moan and complain that they can't work if the slightest thing goes wrong. Steam engines meanwhile are shockingly robust and can be overworked into the dust if they have to.

[@laurencefraser]

@@MrJoeyWheeler the trade off being that steam engines require a rather extreme amount of maintenance even when nothing is going wrong (because otherwise things DO go wrong, Spectacularly) than diesel and electric trains. Which is honestly the main reason for the switch to diesel in the first place. (now, railways switched to Electric because it was Objectively Better at the things an engine needs to do. Diesel? Advantages over electric consist entirely of 'those who control the purse strings are cheap, and possibly idiots, so this is all we can afford'.) Also, leaves on the line were bad for steam engines too. That's less of an engine type issue and more of a safety regulation issue, to my understanding... well, I suppose I could see third-rail electrical possibly having more of an issue with leaves on the line than other sorts (on balance, overhead wire is better than third rail outside of certain very specifici niches). There was that instance of some British engines being unable to run due to 'the wrong type of snow', I suppose. Though to be fair, that was entirely because they'd been fitted with the wrong sort of filter (which was the only reason there was a 'wrong type of snow' that could do that to begin with), because this was a known and solved issue (water where it shouldn't be is bad for pretty much Anything. Steam engines have a lot less places water shouldn't be, but when it got in those places it did have a tendency to either cause or be caused by rather catastrophic failures.)

[@RoamingAdhocrat]

@@laurencefraser fewer leaves-on-the-line issues when a design flaw with your locomotive means that all lineside vegetation must be aggressively cut back or your engine exhaust will set it on fire ;)

[@Shmerpy]

My grandfather and my uncle were both engineers for CN. They would have loved this channel.

[@SierraRail3Prod]

0:27 this reminds me of Lexi from The Journey Beyond Sodor movie.

[@knight60000]

Because it is 😅

[@FerrousEquusEng]

Good Video, and a good introduction to "Cab-Forward" locomotives. Being from across the pond, and a huge fan of the SP and their exploits, I thought I would share some notes for additional context: @0:35 - I think it's a bit misleading to consider the Forney locomotives as a "Cab-Forward" designed locomotive. Primarily, I'd like to point out that it was designed to be a 0-4-4T engine, with the intention of bi-directional running. It sounds a lot more similar to shunting/switching locomotives, but with an additional set of wheels to distribute the weight. Additionally, there are plenty logging locomotives that had similar design traits: good running capabilities in both directions, often ran backwards for extended periods of times, had a singular frame on which both water and fuel were stored, yet there are often not considered to be "Cab-Forwards" @3:26 - The American Camelback locomotives come to mind when you discussed this section. It must have been awful trying to communicate with a fireman if you couldn't see or hear them. It's possible that something similar to a steam ship's engine telegraph could be created to improve communication between the engineer/driver and the fireman. @5:10 - While the risks from oil leaks were possible from Cab Forward locomotives, the reason that they were not widely adopted was more to do with the fact that they were not conventional locomotives. The only reason that these locomotives were created was out of necessity, and it was certainly a lot easier to produce conventional locomotives than it was to produce these specialty "Cab-Forward" types. There are additional nit-picky limitations on "Cab-Forward" designs, logistically, practically, and technically, but I recommend that you pick up a copy of Donald Church's book, "CAB-FORWARD" to go into those details.

[@Adder6112]

cool to see that a design that was inpractial in most places is better in one instance

[@raydunakin]

The SP cab forwards have been a favorite of mine ever since my dad told me stories about his experiences with them, during a very brief stint as a head-end brakeman for SP.

[@niraqw5908]

I've visited the Sacramento museum a fair few times and I've always loved the way 4294 looks.

[@darrellborland119]

Number 4294 of course, is housed at the CA. State Railroad Museum. Quite a monster up close. Rather amazing what it took to get so much power. Reminds one of the Wright R3350 Turbo Compound engine which powered some of the last piston engined airliners. 😇

[@gerrard1144]

People who made cab forwards: the design is very human

[@JohnDavies-cn3ro]

Thanks for this - have I had fun sharing with some of the other commentators.

[@drdewott9154]

In Denmark we did a small cab forward locomotive design similar to the first one shown in the video. It was known as the Jutlandian & Funen Railways (JFJ, later part of DSB) P class locomotive A small 0-2-2 tank engine from the 1880's with a long rear tank, making the locomotive look more like a tender engine. Like the american engines they were specifically designed for work on light railways with very cheaply laid trackage to save money. Though this quickly became a problem as the lines they operated on quickly had so much demand the little P class machines couldn't keep up. Over the next many years many were shuffled around to work on branches and secondary routes around the country until around 1904-06 when all the locomotives were sold to private railways. The private railways in Denmark were historically a scruffy affair with lower finances and poorer tracks. So for many of these, getting some P class locomotives to start service with for their brand new line was quite ideal. Though most only lasted 10-20 years on such lines. Today a single P class is preserved, P 125. It was sold to the Copenhagen-Slangerup railway in 1906. The line opened a year before with 4 subpar steam locomotives and needed better locos asap. The little locomotive ran on the line, doing shunting and light trains partway up it, all the way until 1948 when the Copenhagen-Slangerup railway was taken over by the state railways. With P 125 being one of only 2 surviving P class locomotives at the time, the State railways immediately put the locomotive into their historic collection, forming part of whats today the Danish national railway museum, which was separated from DSB in 2017

[@george2113]

When you say cheaply laid trackage, does that referring to the weight/strength of the rail or the frequency of the ties? Thanks

[@drdewott9154]

@@george2113 Strength of the rails. Also many of these lines didn't even use traditional railway ties but rather pots turned upside down to support the track. And the trackage weighed just 17,5 kg per meter. So very cheap and very weak

[@george2113]

@@drdewott9154 that's pretty flimsy. Even worse were snakeheads in early US railroad. A loose, bent-up end of one of the strap rails, or flat rails, formerly used on American railroads. It was sometimes so bent by the passage of a train as to slip over a wheel and pierce the bottom of a car. The cars were made of wood and frequently had a wood stove and kerosene lighting.

[@JTA1961]

Thanks for staying on track with this subject

[@fritz46]

The 05 003 did _not _ have a separate cab for the fireman as is implied with the picture shown at 3:15. It was basically a turned-around standard 05, so the fire box was in front. The locomotive burned coal dust to deal with the distance between tender and fire box. The dust was carried through long pipes by an air stream, and this didn't work too well.

[@ShinGhidorah17]

Should have been oil instead.

[@Kaze919]

Not even a big train guy but went to the Train Museum in Sacramento and was blown away by their cab forward displays there. Really stunning to see in person

[@trainman9024]

if you don't mind me asking but at 0:09 I know that engine I've been on it but I was wondering where did you get that image

[@laura-ann.0726]

You can see #4294 in the California State Railroad Museum in Sacramento. It's really huge, too. Somehow, when you are standing next to it in the museum, it seems to dwarf modern diesel-electric locomotives, even though they are actually about the same in overall physical dimensions.

[@Danny_Ninjago_28]

Fun Fact: Loco 4249 is currently preserved at the California State Railroad Meuseum. (And you can sit in the cab to experience what it was like to drive one)

[@Jeremiah_Rivers76]

Isn’t it 4294? You have the last two numbers switched.

[@Danny_Ninjago_28]

@@Jeremiah_Rivers76 your correct! Its 4294. Thank you for that!

[@BrendynRobertson]

Fun fact: Lexi from Beyond Sodor is inspired by the Cab-forward train.

[@shurikadze]

I see I am not the only one here commenting about Western USA where we had no coal, bringing it over from, let say, Pennsylvania would have make it expensive. Oil fed front cab locomotives were a norm for some time here. But I got to give it to the content creator(s), they did mention it and its problems. Yet, I would not say it was such a rare case. Thank you for pictures from California State Museum. We go their twice a year at least.

[@george2113]

Did the coal reserves near Utah run out or was that before the Montana reserves became available?

[@wizlish]

Plenty of coal in the West; it's even remarked on in the notes from the Lewis & Clark expedition. The principal issue was that much of it is low-rank compared with Eastern coals, but that didn't stop locomotives like the UP 4-8-8-4s burning it effectively for decades.

[@hueywallop2461]

Nice video. Were there any attempts to use periscopes or other optical devices to improve forward visibility in the standard rear cab configuration? Thanks.

[@jonistan9268]

Switzerland's Eb 3/5 "Habersack" tank engines had many controls duplicated on both sides of the cab so that the driver could look out the back while driving in reverse.

[@RabbiHerschel]

I know nothing and care nothing about rail logistics and design, there is nothing about this video that should make me interested in it, and yet I am still glad that it showed up in my recommendations.

[@petertimowreef9085]

This video raises a question I feel kinda stupid about for not asking it myself before, and then answers it. Thanks.

[@jamesweir139]

How do you not have at least 1 billion subs??? Great video! I live in the sierras and taking Amtrak from Colfax to Reno is really cool because of all of the sharp turns and going through the snow tunnels 👌

[@Pennsy6755m1b]

Southern pacific cab forward

[@KenR208]

Had never seen these before - impressive if not all successful, good information on all.

[@whyjnot420]

0:40 If you showed this picture to 100 people, each for 10 seconds, how many do you think would correctly identify the front? If you removed the pilot (cowcatcher), how many would? Seriously, almost everything that is quickly apparent save the pilot, wheels and coupling (essentially the undercarriage), looks completely ass backwards.

[@Sammy1234568910]

I would date cab forward (or perhaps driver forward might be a better terminology in these examples) designs to the early days of locomotives. Some of Stephenson's engine's placed the driving position well ahead of the fire grate. Locomotion and Invicta had the driver standing on the side of the boiler, presumably to give him a better view. Hackworth probably built the earliest 'cab/driver forward lcoos, with the Royal George and Derwent types of engines placing the driver on the opposite end of the boiler to the fireman all be it with a tender on both ends. I would suggest Sans Pareil could be the first true driver forward loco as the driver's footplate was a raised platform at the front giving an unobstructed view ahead whereas the fireman stood at the rear on the tender.

[@bobwillis8731]

Considering the SP ran a lot of these very successfully for a long time and they did what was required of them, this video is knocking the Cab Forward principle on the few that weren't a success in other countries. Please read the authoritative books on the SP locos and watch the videos of them in action. The bunker C oil was pressurised in the tank from the start...

[@fuzzyhead878]

That was my only issue with this video too. First half was good. Second half felt like he was suggesting the cab forwards were “just ok I guess”. Which is odd considering hundreds were made and lasted to the end of steam on the SP.

[@williamgeorgefraser]

Surprised you didn't mention Bulleid's Southern Railway "Leader Class" which was a failure because the newly-formed British Railways was LMS-orientated. 5 were under construction though only the first was finished. A few more weeks of development could have led to working locos.

[@richardc674]

A valid point, though it probably needed more than a few weeks more development work. The Leader Class was intended to be worked like a Diesel and had a cab at each end of the loco. The main problem was caused by the corridor from one end to the other to allow the Driver to change ends without leaving the loco. It also needed much better ventilation for the Fireman who was in "cave" in the centre of the loco. A shame it was never given a chance, because with these and a few other adjustments it could have been a great design.

[@DiscothecaImperialis]

0:54 Tank Locomotive sometimes is considered Cabforwards but these are designed to run in equal speeds in two directions and thus can do return trip faster by simple passing switch and not turntable.

[@grumpybollox7949]

2:55 cracked me up mate very accurate loved it

[@tyronemarcucci8395]

Many SP workers called them "backwards Mallets". There it goes, here it comes. I remember seeing them go through my home town in Nevada and seeing always at least 13 at the Sparks, Nev, round house.

[@vaclavmacgregor2464]

Wait what about the Leader class?

[@russellgxy2905]

There were a few later Cab Forward designs tried in the US besides the SP designs. All of these were steam turbines

[@ant_mk3596]

I can think of a way that would work for having two cabs one for driver one for fire crew, have two or 3 drivers like an airliner in the first cab, then in the fire cab have the same number of fire crew, as for communication between the two they could have had levers that pull signals inside the two cabs like a signal box for the driver (if that makes sense) they could signal each other "slow down low water" or whatever, or they could use flags signalling different things. I also think that in the driver cab you could have the regulator, reverser and brakes all linked up with the ones in the rear cab, maybe not the reverser or brakes but defo the regulator and then the fireman can see the position of the reg and he will know weather to keep firing or not. This makes sense in my head lol so hopefully whoever reads this will know what I mean

[@RealCadde]

Driving tender first is the one solution i would have though of. And through the tender you have a passageway where driver and fireman can pass. I would also look into making a chute where you shovel coal from the front (back) such that it travels to the firebox and this chute can be positioned to distribute coal in the firebox. The issue at its core though is that you have to have access to the firebox AND tender AND be able to communicate. Oil fired would be the optimal solution if made with this limitation in mind. Making sure that it's built from the ground up with cab forward in mind. But then again, diesel did just this and did away with steam altogether. Eliminating the problem entirely.

[@DavidBContentExtravaganza3967]

I think Lexi from Thomas & Friends and Piper from Chuggington would be insulted by that.

[@justinwilliam6534]

You might be right because cab forward steam engines are experimental in trying to solve the problems of trying to see a clear path in front of you.

[@matthewkirby6080]

I would like to see an episode with the topic about the Italian/European designed and inspired Franco Crosti boiler locomotives.

[@lorenzosdeadchannel]

👆 This, please.

[@bruceboyer8187]

Thank you. The Santa Sudana Pass tunnelisjust three miles from me. Visiting it since I was a kid in the 1970s. Ad a train guy I had no idea about the deaths of a train crew interested in 1941. I'll hold that with me bow for the rest of my life

[@patrisio3]

I've seen that 4294 in Sacramento at the museum. Seeing it in person where you can look at the details and go inside the cab is very interesting.

[@garybarnes4169]

02:33 I live about half-a-mile from the former Sentinel Steam Wagon works.

[@stephenquandt6508]

As a child (9) I saw the 4-8-8-2 going over the hill at Donner pass, I still can hear and smell those monsters, have been to CSRM many times, great time.

[@yeoldeseawitch]

not too many people like you around to remember the days when steam was king

[@trainknut]

Canadian Pacific for a time considered converting their T1a class 2-10-4s into cab ahead locomotives for service in British Columbia, where CP trains had to tackle not one but two entire mountain ranges back to back. Those of course being the cascades and the Rockies, which bookend my beautiful province. The 2-10-4s were already uniquely designed for mountainous terrain, being the largest and most powerful locomotives on the railroad, however they wanted to take this a step further by following SP’s example and turning the locomotives so they ran cab-first. It was a logical step, as CP was also known for its long snow sheds and numerous tunnels along its lines perhaps even more so than the Espee down south, which sometimes did cause problems for the crews when it came to breathing and visibility. In the end CP came under more conservative management that decided not to go forward with a lot of the modernization projects CP had planned, instead opting to purchase a fleet of new smaller locomotives based on old designs, rather than move on with the new 4-6-4s and 2-10-4s that were pushing technology forward at the time.

[@andrewmazzarini2742]

1:06 That's the Nantucket Railroad, a potential video in and of itself, as it was a narrow gauge line running from the harbor in the center of the town of Nantucket across the island to the village of Siasconset. It was ripped up during WWI and the rolling stock sent abroad to aid in the war effort. In addition to it, there were two narrow gauge lines on Martha's Vineyard due west of the island, both of which ran between the harbor at Oak Bluffs and Edgartown.

[@quasimoto7662]

Yeah the Espee’s cab forwards really had visibility as a secondary benefit. The main reason just had to do with air flow because of the fumes in the several snow sheds and tunnels coming from the stack. Plus it wasn’t a one off or Frankenstein creation the SP decided to make from several locomotives. Having a set basket to put your eggs in can do wonders for any class of locomotive

[@EllieMaes-Grandad]

The long tunnels and snow sheds in the mountains also gave rise to air-intake problems on replacement diesel locos. Usually roof-mounted, intakes suffered from the fumes which accumulated, reducing oxygen levels, so the locos were modified to have them at footplate level. They then became known as "tunnel motors".

[@Genius_at_Work]

They just inadvertedly invented Exhaust Gas Recirculation

[@wizlish]

The tunnel-motor arrangement is for cooling (specifically cold-side radiator fans drawing from lower in the tunnel), not engine induction.

[@EllieMaes-Grandad]

@@wizlish Primarily, yes, but clean, cold air makes for better-running engines. Can you be more specific about induction air, as in identifying the flow routes?

[@wizlish]

The SD-40T-2 and SD-45T-2 had inertial air-filter induction high on the long hood just behind the cab, in the same location as production six-motor dash-2s. There were some experiments with baffles to draw induction air from lower down; I know of none that were thought successful enough to duplicate. My understanding was that the concern was less with temperature than with re-ingested exhaust gas; engine cooling being the critical thing. Note that even recently there have been attempts at 'elephant ear' intakes intended to direct cooler air to 'conventional' radiators on more modern power... and there have been no 'tunnel motors' built new in any modern 4400hp or higher configuration.

[@EllieMaes-Grandad]

@@wizlish Thank you - solves an issue for me.

[@henrywhite2984]

The Cavan and Leitrim Railway in Ireland used 4-4-0 T locomotives, but because part of the route ran as a street tramway, they were required by law to have the driver at the front where he had the best view of traffic. They tried running cab-forward as 0-4-4, but it was too hard on the track, so they ended up putting a second set of controls in a little cabin on the pilot deck at the smokebox end. I would love to see a picture of one of those. Consider also the Great Western Railway railmotor/autocar sets, which had the second set of controls at the far end of the passenger car. (There is one in service at Didcot.) I think there was some sort of signal bell between the driver's end and the fireman's end.

[@seand485]

Worth noting that the experimental SR Leader class also had a cab forward design (although it failed for a number of reasons, as far as I can tell, it was in part due to the unusual cab configuration). Some Garratt locomotives ran cab first as well.

[@Pystro]

0:42 isn't that a 4-4-0 then, since the guide wheels are forwards in the driving direction? I.e. it looks like a 0-4-4 because that's what it would be if you drove it boiler-forwards (the wrong way). [edit:] ah, I didn't catch that it was _designed_ as a boiler-forwards engine, because you showed a figure of the cab-forward configuration while talking about its design phase (and then a boiler-forwards picture while talking about how it was run cab-forwards).

[@ChaosDeere007]

Can you do a cab-forward video? Loved the stream yesterday (03.03.23)

[@lorenzosdeadchannel]

Nice to hear a little about in Italian engine. Doesn't happen often lol. On that note would you please be able to do more videos on FS stean locomotives ? Be it Franco Crosti ones, Caprotti, anything really.

[@skovner]

Great video. Thanks. You should do a video on the halfway compromise - the Camelback. Fireman at the back, engineer in a cab that straddled the boiler.

[@garryferrington811]

The SP liked their cab-forwards and had more than a couple hundred of them.

[@ZeldaTheSwordsman]

Putting a cab at the front - well, at both ends; they were steam boxcabs - worked out for the LNER Y6 and J70 engines. Like with the SP cab forwards, the arrangement was made to solve a practial problem (in this case, safety on street tramways + avoiding having to turn the engine around), and them being short tank engines meant it caused little trouble.

[@ericcrockett479]

You should do a piece on geared locomotives

[@firefox5926]

3:42 could you not just put the tender on the rougnt too and make it a bit lower and longer so you can see over it while retainign the same volume ...

[@christophernewman5027]

I'm surprised that you didn't mention the Leader...

[@JohnDavies-cn3ro]

But he has - the Leader has a film all to itself.

[@christophernewman5027]

@@JohnDavies-cn3ro Yes, l remembered just after posting the comment, John! 😊

[@russellfitzpatrick503]

I suppose really the ultimate cab-forward design would probably be the Leader (from Southern Railways in the UK). It wasn't a success but the design was promising

[@AtheistOrphan]

I’ve always been fascinated by that class of loco. Would have loved to have seen one!

[@michaelbrennan5409]

This gives me ptsd from the general stream

[@SouRwy4501Productions]

The cab-forward locomotives were basically the reason why diesel locomotives typically run with their cabs forwards to the direction of travel. Increased visibility is really difficult to do on a steam locomotive without sacrificing operating efficiency and running qualities. Diesels are less of a problem, as they don’t normally need tenders, and have no firebox. Additionally, since diesels use internal combustion engines, the engine can be mounted in a way that makes cab-forward operations more practical.

[@DiscothecaImperialis]

One of a very common design also has dual cabs. it is common design outside North America but not there!

[@jeffdriver3000]

One of the last photos on this video of the SP cab forward is at the California Railroad museum in Sacramento, CA

[@ledorf]

If fumes/smoke in tunnels were an issue, why not just put/pipe the exhaust to the end of the cab? I get that a longer exhaust is not optimal, but it seems like a simple solution compared to putting the cab at the front..

[@FunAngelo2005]

0:32 the basis of Lexi from thomas and friends journey beyond sodor

[@NWRNo.17Misery]

Shush child

[@skyedowning9489]

That is the locomotive named Thomas Stetson, not lexi

[@emilioescobedo8487]

Hey I have a theory that Lexi is infact a prototype of her basis and that's why she thinks she's a freak.

[@FunAngelo2005]

@@NWRNo.17Misery I was born in 2005

[@florjanbrudar692]

@@FunAngelo2005 So...? Stop bringing up TTTE when you see a real life photo.

[@fasold2164]

3:15 The main reason why 05.003 failed was the use of coal dust as propellant, as oil would have to be purchased abroad in foreign currency. So they choose stone coal. This was mixed with air and blown to the fire box by means of a turbine. It did not work very well because of frequently incomplete combustion of the coal. A lot of unburned dust and slag settled in the smoke tubes, clogging them rapidly. Moreover passengers in the coaches were molested by excessive cole dust floating through the windows of the coaches. As the problems could not be solved, it was put out of service in 1940. Yet in late 1944 05.003 was rebuilt to standard configuration. It survived the war and was used during the fifties on regular duty as a fast train locomotive. Together with 05.002 it was finally scrapped in 1960. Interestingly only 2 or 3 photos of this interesting machine exist, but no footage...

[@PowerTrain611]

Honestly I'm surprised no cab forward designs ever came about in the UK. There was that one really long tunnel on the S&D, if I'm not mistaken... And on the trans Pennine route outside of Manchester Victoria where they had to evacuate a train after it hit a huge chunk of ice that came down the ventilation shaft

[@AtheistOrphan]

We did have one, the Southern Railway’s ‘Leader’ class. Wasn’t a success.

[@PowerTrain611]

@@AtheistOrphan Fair point. I forgot about the leader. Interesting concept, would have been neat to see it preserved. I know someone has one in a live steam model, it's very cool.

[@wizlish]

Leader might have worked (or at least, worked somewhat better) if built with oil firing as Bulleid originally intended. As with the dotty Belgian Franco-Crosti locomotive (the one with the near-indescribable wheel arrangement) the boiler wound up having to be fired from the side, confined by the British loading gage in a heat-holding metal shell, and offset to the extent of needing several tons' counterbalance. This "could" have been avoided if the American pattern of center-cab bunker-first design (as on the PRR Steamotive and V1 designs, the C&O M-1, and the N&W TE-1 been used, but you'd still have had visibility problems operating bunker-first and smoke problems the other way...

[@lbaker3602001]

Do you use left & right turn signals when going around a curve? What about a steering wheel, is there one? Brake/backup lights?

[@swonardian342]

I love theese videos man. Keep making them they are so good

[@dragonblaster-vu8wz]

I got an idea for how a cab-forward locomotive could work. Use a corridor tender to hold the coal and water, modify the tender to have a driver cab on one end while the fireman cab is at the other end, and make it a duplex engine like a Big Boy. And, if you have redundant controls in the tender cab and the firebox cab, it can be easily driven either way

[@BryanTorok]

This is interesting and I find a parallel here with diesel locomotives. In the first several decades of diesel it seems that freight locos mostly had the cab at the rear. I'm guessing that this was a hold over from steam engine design. From what I have read, many engineers preferred that layout as in the event of a wreck or collision at a road crossing, they had much more metal between them and the point of impact. However, the railroads felt that cab forward increased visibility would ultimately be safer all around and thus that is the standard today. Yes, it is only a matter of flipping some switches and a diesel will drive either way, but cab and control layouts favor cab forward.

[@Wombattlr]

Cab-forward video when?

[@sargentrowell81]

I wonder if 4294 could be restored to running order. That would be a very neat engine to see in action, perhaps even alongside 4014, 3985 or another big articulated locomotive.

[@CaliPepper]

Sadly that's unlikely to happen. Although 4294 may have escaped the scrap yard, it was still canabalized for parts. Many crucial components are missing, and while they could technically be remade with modern tools and technology, the California State Railroad Museum, where 4294 is on display, simply doesn't have the budget to restore it to operating condition right now, let alone anywhere to run it.

[@oscar_charlie]

The museum estimates it would cost 1.5 million $, and they can't afford it.

[@sargentrowell81]

@@oscar_charlie That seems pretty common. At least it's possible, unlike other locomotives that are deemed incapable of restoration. If someone really wanted too, they could start an organization to work with the museum or lease it from the museum similar to the partnership between Kentucky Steam Heritage and the Kentucky Railway Museum. KSH approached the museum about restoring C&O 2716 and in return they get more funding and publicity so that they could also work on restoring their other steam locomotive, L&N 152. So I would call it a silver lining that it could be done if someone really wanted too.

[@nathanschmidt4889]

Let it be known, the museum can afford it. It just has no need. The 4294 is the most popular exhibit and taking it out for five-ten years for restoration would be terrible for profit in the meantime

[@over9000andback]

TLDW: Why "cab-forward" steam locomotives usually didn't work? Because crews couldn't access the tender which meant limited coal and water supplies.