Larger Engines than Big Boys

[Anonymous]

I have been thinking for some time about building an engine that is larger than the largest(Big Boy 4-8-8-4). I have designed a 4-10-10-4 engine that I plan to start building within the next month. I have one question is it a good idea to try to create such a large engine?

[Anonymous]

By the way has anyone else ever thought about creating an unique engine.

[Anonymous]

Kenneth,

What scale are you considering for this project?

You need to be careful on this one because there are limits to how many drivers you may include in a group. The most I have ever heard of were dodecapods, (2-12-0 I think) built after 1900. The problem is that the wheels used for drivers must all line up (can't be articulated within their length) because of the side rods which must also be straight. The number of wheels and the diameter will restrict the minimum curve the locomotive may negotiate. You may want to check into what radii are recommended for a 4-8-8-4 in your scale.

I personally don't have any intrest in building an unique engine, although I may certainly paint one for a never existing combination.

Good Luck. - Ed

[thirdrail1]

The Union Pacific had 4-12-2's with three cylinders of the 9000-series. The Soviets built a 4-14-4 but found they didn't have an engine terminal that it could enter without derailing! Baldwinn locomotive works and Santa fe proposed locomotives with four and five sets of drivers (Erie and Virginian already had locomotives with three sets). Most of us try to model something that actually existed or close to something that actually existed, so unless you know more about the enmgineering characteristics of steam boilers and drives that almost everyone still alive, it would be very difficult to create a credible engine larger than the "Big Boys". If something bigger would have worked, don't you think it would have been built?

[Anonymous]

Gregg,
I believe what I believe, and I believe that if you don't take chances and make mistakes then how will you ever know if the design will work. Isn't that what life's about "taking chances and making mistakes". You learn from mistakes and they may not have made such a large engine because they were too doubtful about how it would run. Like you said Baldwinn and Santa Fe had designs to create engines with four of five sets of drivers so how do you know that this design will not work. Thanks for the tip though.

[Anonymous]

Ed,
Thanks for the tip. By the way, I'm working in HO gauge. I only want to create this engine to see if I can do it. I plan on designing my whole layout to accomidate this engine so I don't think turning radii will be a big factor.

[thirdrail1]

Baldwin and Santa Fe never built the locomotives with four or more sets of drivers because they could not design a boiler big enough to supply the steam. Santa Fe had some 2-10-10-2's that were converted to 2-10-2's for exactly that reason. The boiler could not supply the steam. Boiler tubes can only be made so long or they won't provide draft (or heat) and the boiler diameter is limited by the clearances of the railroad loading gauge. The "Big Boy' pushed every limit!

[Anonymous]

It sounds fastenating. I once ran accross a picture of an old ERIE locomotive that had more wheels than I could count. My memory is falty but I think it was a 4-8-8-8. I rememeber it having another set of drivers under the tender! As for the 4-10-10-4, I cannot wait to see it. What are you going to name it? I would suggest the "BIG BROTHER". Hope it turns out well.

[Anonymous]

I would like to see this when it's done! I have enough fun just trying to build kits that are on the market. I see all of these great scratch-built things and I am in awe at the detail! Good luck and post pictures.

[Anonymous]

Dan,
Good to heat from someone who doesn't think about the realistic view. I just want to design this for fun and I hope to see some of the things you scratch build in the future. As for a name, I was thinking "GARGANTUA" How is that.

[Anonymous]

Terry,
Thanks for the vote of confidence. I hope to have it complete within the next few months, but this is the first engine I have tried to build and I don't know how tall the drive wheels are of the size of the other wheels. I could use a tid-bit of help. I really want to get my hands on a Big Boy so that I can see just what I need to build.
Thanks,
Kenneth

[Anonymous]

You can't build this engine because it's never existed so why try to buuild it

[Anonymous]

Hey, I know you from somewhere. I think I do anyway. You have told me I couldn't build this engine because I was not a good enough designer and because it had never existed.

[Anonymous]

Yeah you should know me from somewhere i'm sittin right next to you

[Anonymous]

Ben,
Man I thought you were one of the kids that use to hassle me about new ideas at my old school. Why didn't you just tell me it was you.

[Anonymous]

Good name! Also "Oh Boy" would be an eye opener. Again I think this is great. GOOOOOOOOOOOD luck!

[RedLeader]

Hello Kenn.

To answer you question, yes, there were larger engines than the Big Boy (UP 4-8-8-4). Actually the big boy wasn't the heaviest, nor the most powerfull. There were a lot of "experimental engines" that were much bigger, and a few that actually operated with relativelay succes.

For example Virginan had 2-10-10-10-2 and 2-8-8-8-4 known as triplex engines. Eire also had engines of these type. These engines were non-articulated, and the last set of drive wheels were mounted under the tender, that made part of the engines body. The sice of the Big Boy is measured with her tender, but if you take the tender away (about 50ft) these engines were much larger. The problem with these engines beside the radii, was the suply of steam power. These type of engine required an enormous boiler to suply enough steam to run the drivers. Larger engine were designed, but the problem was never solved, so they were discarded. To solve the problem, engineers adapted the steam turbine technology of ships and power stations. These type of engines used high pressure steam for power. The problem was that they couldn't go in reverse, so double boilers had to built in one engine for such purpose. The largerst steam engine, which was a turbine, was the Jawn Henry class c+c+c+c of N&W and the M-1 class 4-8-0-4-8-4 of C&O. One was 161ft and the other 154ft, while the BigBoy was 132ft long (with the centipede tender). The M-1, was also the heaviest steam engine ever built.

The steam turbines weren't very succesful, but they did service in the mentioned railroads and were fully operational while in service. Both the jawn Henry and the M-1 looked alike, and didn't look at all as the conventional steam engines, thowgh, some turbines did look very much alike conventional steams.

As for conventional reciprocating steam engines, PRR's S-1 class 6-4-4-6 was a bit larger, by 6ft i think.

I know that the soviet union and germany actually built even larger engines, but again, not very succesful.

The myth of the Big Boy being the largest engine, may be, because is true that she was the largest succesful engine. But, if and engine runned, it existed, and therefore, you can't count them away. Just like Hughe's Sproose Goose, which was the largest airplaine for many years, and the only time she flew, was for 300ft, but she did flew!

Pardon my English I'm from Colombia :)

RL

[Anonymous]

Kenneth,

I'm sorry that some fellows don't respect your point of view here. Myself, I like to model the mundane, every day stuff. I think that if you like to build unusual/unique stuff, that's great. After reading some of these posts, I would paint it for a narrow guage lumber railroad and post a picture of it here on the site (ROTFL). Have fun. Good Luck. - Ed

[Anonymous]

Jose,
Thanks for the info. I was only aware that the Big Boy was the largest. I figured that they had larger ones that didn't run well but I just discarded them as nothing since they didn't run. I think I'll create even larger engines once I fini***his one. Again thanks for the tips.

[thirdrail1]

The Virginian triplex 2-8-8-8-4 and the three Erie triplexes 2-8-8-8-2 WERE most certainly articulated! Otherwise they could not negotiate any curve whatsoever. Although they had more wheels that a Big Boy, they were smaller engines in both weight and power.

Both the N&W "Jawn Henry" and the three C&O turbines were steam turbine ELECTRICS, using the turbine to generate electricity for the traction motors, just like a Diesel-electric. While they weighed more than a Big Boy, they were less powerful.

PRR's "Big Engine" S-1 No. 6100, a 6-4-4-6 might have been longer than a Big Boy, but it was still a much smaller engine in both power and weight.

No one in Germany or Russia built anything approaching the size of the Big Boy. See my earlier post about the Soviet 4-14-4.

[Anonymous]

So the Big Boy may not have been the largest in length but it was the largest in wieght and power. Therefore I say it was and is the largest steam engine that was ever created...

[Anonymous]

There was a machine called the Allegheny type which I think was a 4-6-6-6 which some believe was actually more powerfull and heavier than the Big Boy. Trains ran an article on it a few years back and said the weight was questionable because the C&O didn't want to pay the engineers what it was really worth to operate the machine. I have seen pictures of it and I think it looks better than the 4-8-8-4. The article explains that the maker said it was lighter than it actually was and if the truth be known....well you get the hint.

[Anonymous]

Kenneth,
There are a few things that I can suggest for your project. Pick or build a reliable drive or drives and flatten some of the flanges on the drivers (Is this still called a blind driver?), this may help with curves or turnouts. Articulation would be a help too. One last thing, it's your world, do what makes you happy.

Dave

[RedLeader]

Yes greg, your'e right about the turbines, but they were still steam engines. Just like diesels, although their main diesel engines are for providing power to their electric motors, their still diesels. Only a few turbines were trully steam driven. eg: PRR 6-8-6.

You're also VERY right about the articulated triplex, sort of lapsus while writing the ideas.
But still, there were heavier and more porwerful engines than the big boy. For example: C&O H-8 class 2-6-6-6 had a weight of 778,000 while the big boy was 772,250. In power, there were several above the big boy (6.200hp@40mph), like PRR Q-2 4-4-6-4 7,987hp@57.4mph; C&O H-8 class 2-6-6-6 7,500hp@40MPH; WM M-2 class 4-6-6-4 6,345hp50MPH, and well, the turbines(m-1 and JH) that were much more heavier but no very powerfull.

About the triplex, virginian 2-8-8-8-4 had a pulling force of 166,300 and the erie 2-8-8-8-2 had one of 160,000 while the big boy had a pulling force 135,375.

And finally, congratulations to Kenn by having the longest thread in the forum!

[Anonymous]

Hey, everyone thanks for the info. I think I'll try everyones ideas, and I'll have photos of it when I'm finished. Can anyone tell me where I can get photos and info. about locomotives? I think I'll do some research into the triplexes and that may be my next goal. Make an engine that is larger than a triplex. By the way, what did Jose mean aout having the longest tread in the forum?

[raysaron]

longest thread (series of replies, 24)

(does anyone else wi***hat all repies were
available with one click? I would scroll down
the screen for 24 replies, but I won't click
and wait 24 times and not be able to see
related replies on the same screen, IMHO)

[Anonymous]

Kenneth, somewere in this long column you asked about detailing and drivers and such. Model Railroader mag. ran a series for about 6 or 7 months starting in Oct. 1997. It was on scratch building a brass engine and might help yoou out on some of the things you might be wanting to know to make this monster work. Any large / regional public library in your area should have about 5 years worth of back issues in it to find the info. GOOD LUCK on your project and I really wi***hat these guys who are BEATING you up about this engine would remember that this hobby is fun for the individuals out there weather you are running trains on a 4 by 6 layout like myself or a 40 by 60ft layout. Shut up guys and let Kenneth have his fun the way HE wants to. Build what YOU like to build and ENJOY.

[Anonymous]

Raysaron(?),

I can get over the scrolling. It would be nice to have a 'next message/previous message' button sometimes.

The thing I would like is not having to go outside the message area after I log in and walk back in three steps to get where I was when I requested to log in.

All in all, it is no big deal to me. - Ed

[Anonymous]

thanks James. I really think people now-a-days have actually stop having fun and just build to exact replecation. Some people are too perfect when it comes to modeling. I think the people that build the model layouts have lost the fun and do it just to see how perfect they can get it. That is why I have decided to build this engine along with my new layout. I lost the true meanig of model railroading and was making everything to look like the original thing. That isn't what it is about, it is about having fun while you use your own creativity. Many people recreate old railroads, I think that's cool, but they don't have fun doing it.

[Anonymous]

Hey Kenneth, You cought most of my point and I was just trying to get them off your back. The guys who know all the stats. on all the different engines and everyone else I'm sure are having fun in this hobby, as did I triing to dig and remember were I saw those articles for you. But we all have to realize that just because one guy models nothing but the B & O in 1943 doesn't mean it's not fun for him. And what you are doing may not be fun for the next guy. I'm not real big on thomas the tank engine stuff, but if it's gonna get my 6 yr old interested in the hobby, it doesn't matter to him what I think. He just wants to see thomas go around and around. Know one should criticise because thats not what thay like. Let the B&O guy and the CN guy and the rest of them in cluding your self do what yuo want to. FUN IS WHAT IT IS ABOUT, no matter how it is done AS LONG AS YOU LIKE IT . That is what this hobby is about. Have fun James