I am a kid

Yes I did

I'm almost 44 and I still like trains.

I still like trains lol

Yes I did and I still do

Served his time at Dewhurst 😁

@G Rossi Just make a ring compressor as he had already broken one butchering it.

the different sizes of rings and were they sit inside the castings make using a compressor a pointless exercise that would take 5 times longer cos you would need 3 different ones at least and theres no space to get them in. the quickest and most efficient way of getting that assembly in is in fact the way it was done. because the rings are spun cast iron as well the chance of busting them is just as high however you do it as there as thin as a child's christening band.

@@roberta6641 Thanks for your reply, I am a machinist would has machined many sets of cast iron rings in my time, It is very hard to see the way the bore is machined and the way the rings are mounted, are they the same diameter or a different diameter.

Exactly what I thought. Mark should have compressed the piston ring with a jubilee clip as there was no room to fit a piston ring compressor before hitting the piston down with the hammer handle.

Maybe she just needs one of us Yanks to go over there and keep and eye on her!

Recently saw her stationed at Paignton. Not really a fan of the American locos. Brave heart was behind her so I just sorta payed more attention to Braveheart instead haha

@@SteamCaseor probably she is a S160. A class know for being built cheap.

the proportions are also dissimilar to basically all other locomotives so it's a bit strange to behold, but still pretty cool

It's a strange configuration, but very common in a old railroad here in Brazil: the Companhia Paulista de Estradas de Ferro (Paulista Company of Railroads). They used to have american steam locos, but 'til the mid 50's uses european buffers-and-chains couplers. Even had 3 "very american" diesels ALCo. PA-1 with these couplers

Its definitely cool seeing an american engine built to the standards and limitations of british irons. I would reccomend looking into the Flying Scotsmans USA tour to see what it looks like the other way around! She wore a cowcatcher, lamp and bell, equally strange lookin

You realise that S160s and S100 dock tanks (known as yank tanks) were built in large numbers to operate in Britain and mainland Europe in the Second World War, right? The only American part of them is the design, there entire heritage is within Europe.

@@o.m.b.demolitionenterprise5398 true but several of the S160's and S100's did work in the United States after the war, with several of them have since been preserved. Still most of them were in Europe but I've always considered then international engines given they really did work abroad anywhere a nation needed them.

And she's a valued member of our railways Steve. :)

@@o.m.b.demolitionenterprise5398 Incorrect. These locomotives were a standard design used by the US Army Transportation Corps (USATC). They were specifically designed for use on European lines taking into consideration European design standards and were intended for heavy freight work to help with the war effort and they were shipped to Britain during World War 2 in large numbers ready for the Invasion of France in 1944. A total of almost 800 were built between 1942 and 1943, and shipped to Britain. They were constructed in thirteen batches by the American Locomotive Co. (Alco), Baldwin, and Lima. Although intended for use after the invasion, the first 400 were put to immediate use by the British War Department working with the "Big Four" railway companies. The first forty three locomotives to arrive in Britain were overhauled by the LNER at Doncaster, and hauled local services whilst running in. The first S160s were largely concentrated in the South Wales area, so they were quickly transferred to the Great Western Railway (GWR) in early 1943. Between March 1943 and January 1944, a total of 168 S160s would enter regular LNER service. After the first 400 entered service with the "Big Four", later S160s were prepared by USATC personnel at Ebbw Junction before being greased and stored ready for use after D-Day. 2253 herself was built by Baldwin Locomotive Works in America in 1943 and shipped to Britain aboard the Norfolk which arrived in Hull in May 1943.

@@Crimsonedge1 that’s what I said...

Emphasis on eventually.

Not anytime soon, but yes, eventually

Or not.

Not if someone is willing to pay it even if it's not working. This is coming from an American, here. Yes, I am employed.

It’s amazing just how durable these things are they were designed to last 5 years thru the war and several are still working today

It's an S-160 not an S-180.

There is a steam locomotive at the grand canyon railway that burns recycled vegetable oil with burns much cleaner that oil.

Steam engines are as eco as they can go really there 100 years old or slightly less meaning no manufacturing infastructe they last well forever and produce steam and water no issues

@@jamestaylor766 lol

Fireless locomotives are still fairly common for certain applications

A steam engine will rarely be as efficient as even a bad diesel... due to the thermal cycle it runs 1-10% efficiency is common, and later steam engines can get into the 10-20% efficient range, whereas a steam turbine may be in the 40-50% efficient range.

Hey, how dare you disrespect British/American heritage

Have you ever seen Italy’s Crosti boiler equipped “140s” (2-8-0s)? 1 still operates.

Why?

I mean I believe this one was made in the UK, its called american because it was Designed in the US and was used in the US for a while and I am sure the US provided the parts and tools to build them in the UK to help the war effort in WWII. I can agree though that the chain couplers are just not right on a locomotive, its just feels off.

@@PilotTed No, it was built By Baldwin Locomotive Works of Pennsylvania.

@@PilotTed It wasn't made in UK. It's fully American built locomotive for military use during the war. It was specifically designed to fit British and European railway standards. After the war those locomotives were given away to many European countries.

It is a strange sight…. Although I think it’s cool seeing an American Loco with British rolling stock. Very cool!

Lol he nows everything about trains

how about this, an Isle of Man 4-4-0 on the cumbres or durango lines. would be fascinating since same guage but iom loco is tiny compared to a k37

A lot of american mallets physically won't fit on the british rail network

The rail gauge is the same but the UK structure gauge is even smaller than some narrow gauge systems and certainly all standard gauge. Only US equipment that fits was needed to specially built low and narrow like this war time locomotives but still standard rail gauge.

@@johnd8892 Or a smaller earlier locomotive like the early baldwin 2-8-0's and The old rogers ten wheelers

@@raymondleggs5508 you have reminded me of the earlier era when the USA made smaller Locomotives for home use and export. In 1899 the Midland Railway, Great Northern Railway and Great Central Railway purchased a total of 80 Baldwin 2-6-0s of similar design, fitting the UK loading gauge. The last of these ran in 1915. A short time for UK railways Their short period of operation did not convince the railways to make any future purchases but the Mogul wheel arrangement caught on. Another US locomotive running briefly around the same time was an ex Philadelphia and Reading Baldwin 4-2-2. Later bought and named Lovett Eames by the Eames Vacuum Brake Co to demonstrate their brake in the UK. Photos show it fitted with buffers but importantly a special curved profile and possibly lower cab fitted to cope with the tight clearances in the UK. Only did a few demonstration runs that was judged not to show enough advantages over existing UK vacuum brakes. It's bell survived at Kings Cross then Hornsey. I think this was the total amount of US standard gauge steam usage until WW2 specially built locos. I must track down the actual substantially smaller width, height and width over cylinders to cope with UK platforms, tunnels and bridges. Even caused a major redesign by EMD to fit SD40-2 mechanicals into the restrictive car body needed by the class 59 and now class 66 diesels.

I thought nymr restored her I don’t understand why they didn’t keep her it’s unique

@@COMPILATIONCOMMANDER People send their locomotives to places like the NYMR to get restored. That might explain it. Just because you fix something doesn't make that thing yours.

Not as bad as when ours was damaged while on loan. You take out the swearing own MD said. They couldn't have it back once it was fixed.

90days? That sounds too short, i know the german 52s were made for 15 years, but 90days just sounds to short for the effort of making any kind of locomotive

@@the_retag it was a while back when I found out so it could have been 90 or 190 days

90 days. There is a link in the valve gear that can be cut to disable the, should they have to be abandoned in a retreat, as well as an emergency steam dump valve on the boiler to dump all pressure. The metal was just thick enough and indeed it was 90 days.

@@jacobwoods8738 thank you for the clarification

How about we paint the flying Scotsman in n&w red and black, I hope it gets it’s proper us army colors back

@@jadedfox4672 What on earth? Why would they paint it in US army liveries? It would never have carried those. It only ever worked in Britain, France, and Poland. Just like most of the S160s, their heritage is in Europe, they only ever worked in Europe. Maybe do some research before you criticise a perfectly adequate livery.

@@o.m.b.demolitionenterprise5398 a lot of them wore straight black with u.s army markings, check the tender and tell me what you see

@@jadedfox4672 This particular one is preserved in Britain, and while it was in Britain it wore British liveries. There is no criticism you could make of that. And comparing it to dressing Scotsman in an American livery makes no sense.

@@o.m.b.demolitionenterprise5398 it was ment to be a reference to an April fools joke played my the north Carolina transportation museum and the people who own the flying scotsman who said the scotsman would be painted in n&w and sold to the us permanently, my apologies

In my opinion They don't fit so well at all. I'm glad that we have stick with only couplers as buffers, but on any other Trains from different countries, buffers dose fit well.

That’s just any form of network television. It all sucks.

We get this all the time. Let's have some education in the media!

tamis teh twain. his fierbocks woz on fuyer

I was playing a guessing game with my friends, and my word was engineer, I drew it, and they just kept saying "conducter" until one of them just guessed

Still has her boiler raised off the frame! Not as common on british locos

Actually granted it's small but there where ones that ran here in the u.s. mainly in Alaska and in ports, they had bells, head lamps, cow catchers and a few more American commodities.

i dont know about to small. We have Consolidations in America.

Its made by usa for britain

1: 200 year tech 2: it is

I don't think this production is fair to anyone involved in it. Of course they are going to drama it up for TV, but a ~100 year old piece of machinery being temperamental is just business as usual. It really made the boss and the locomotive owner look sort of unreasonable, and that probably (hopefully) is not the case in real life.

@@bussesandtrains1218 actually 100 year was correct, the s160 was built roughly in the 1940s.

@@ryano.5149 actually some owners are absolute peices of work, and ive had the honor of meeting a few that luckily my workplace wont ever do work for again. but the owner in this video actually is an alright guy, ive met him in passing once. he was just REALLY looking forward to going on that loco.

It is as reliable as a modern car if you repair and maintain it properly. That air compressor wasn't repaired properly, someone caked the outside with 10 layers of paint but did barely any work on the insides.

Wrong, one side is in 90 degrees offset to the other, so when one piston is in the middle of the cylinder, the other is at the end of the other cylinder.

That would be a big problem, Even tho U.K and the USA share Quite the same loading gauge, American locomotives like the FEF is Simply too Tall ,wide and heavy for the rails and for Station platforms and traveling through most of U.K areas. Just think of what the big boy could do to those Rails.

The rails would all die at the thought of an fef

@@backonpro5679 I’m sure they would, but old me didn’t know that

i would check your local usatc dealer

Might be some still lying around in Greece

It’s a USATC S160 modified for use on the British network.

@@daylightman8459 huh. Well how bout that

Look up 2253 Omaha

World war 2, the us sent trains to the uk, and other European countries

Thank you for Answering

Came here for the war effort and never went home.

More details about the USATC S160 class locomotives on Wikipedia.

I believe this one was sold by the Polish railways after an overhaul at Olesnica workshops in Poland. it worked on the NYMR for a while and was stored. So this is it's first overhaul since it came from Poland.

Locomotive.

it's called Locomotive because that's the type of machine it is, it uses a steam to creation locomotion in a train, a locomotive is what is used to ferry the train to and fro industrial locales or from platform to platform in railway stations carrying passengers.

It was built during WW2 to help Britain and other European countries.

it got loaned or sold to england for the war effort. sold into preservation and never left.

@@roberta6641 It first was loaned to the UK then worked on Mainland Europe after D-Day, then sold to Poland after the war and finally returned to the UK in the early 90s.

@@DanielChannel57 i was making a generalised supposition, not offering an sort of fact. unless you know the history of every exact loco you'll probably be wrong every time. some of these locos go through some pretty colourful jernoys on there way to were they are now. lol one engine ive worked on was like that.

ww2

well it is american...

@@andyg3 wait. Is it required that standard gauge locomotives in England have buffer beams? Why not replace the nickel coupler with a chain?

Nuckel*

​@@smyset1112 That's because the locomotive was sent off from Built in America but was sent off to the British to Help Out the railways during world war 2, being giving British modifications

@@DistanceNsVeterans yes. please note i was much more immature back when i posted this.

Most of the 'look' is just sheet metal fairing. Under the skin they're all pretty similar.

That's because The locomotive was sent off From America to help with the British during world war 2, being designed and added with British modifications for it to fit on the railways

It is actually American. It was built by Baldwin Locomotive Works of Pennsylvania, and sent to Europe for World War II.

That's because It was Sent off During World war 2 to help the British, being designed to be A part of the British Railways

It's a USATC S160, it was built in America and then shipped to Britain during WW2.

American built engines ended up all over, and indeed this is one of the USATC S160s, which along with the S118s, and S100s were wartime export Locos for America’s allies. On the other hand American Locos were built in peace time for railways in Brazil, India, Japan, Peru, Chile, France, Spain, and so many others.

It looks British. Doesn't mean it is British.

@@RodFleming-World o yea brithis pepole on a brithis station if a BRITHIS LOCO IF BRITHIS TRUCKS

@@centralpacificrailroadfan5679 sorry is your keyboard defective?