UP Big Boy

[Anonymous]

JMHO, but I've never understood how restoring a Big Boy could be practical. The problems would seem to go beyond turntables.

In areas where they operated, UP had to increase clearances on curves, sidings, tunnels so the 4000's wouldn't sideswipe other trains or trackside structures. If a Big Boy were restored, where would they be able to run it? An excursion loco that couldn't tour the country probably doesn't make a lot of sense economically.

Another problem is fuel. The UP never succesfully converted a Big Boy to burn oil. They tried during a coal strike, but the frebox was just too big. Maybe someone today knows more than they did back then, but??? Given the engine's appetite for fuel, running it on coal wouldn't seem to be very practical either.

My $.02 on the Allegheny vs. Bg Boy debate is that they're two very different kinds of beasts for two very different kinds of railroads. Big Boys and Challengers were designed to both start and haul heavy trains at fairly high speeds. UP was a bridge route and hauled lots of perishable freight long distances. Within reason, the faster they could get the trains across the line the better. UP has major lines east and west, but everything goes through Wyoming. So the idea with these engines wasn't maximum T.E. or maximum horsepower it was a balance of both so they could start a heavy train, haul it up the Wasatch & Sherman grades and then wheel it across Wyoming and back downhill again at 80 mph. During WWII U.P. bought some used C&O articulateds and even after upgrades they tied up the line something awful. Considering how long the Big Boys and Challengers ran into the diesel era, the designers got it right.

[GP40-2]

Some comments on the discussion:

Horsepower: No contest here, the H8 wins by a large margin. The H8 had the largest steam producing boiler ever put on a locomotive. Steam locomotives produce their power by volume of steam produced, while increasing boiler pressure mostly just raises the thermodynamic efficiency. So, at 300 lbs pressure the Big Boy might have been more efficient boiler wise, but it could not match the Allegheny's hugh volume of steam.

In terms of true drawbar HP, the Niagara could only muster 5000 hp, not the 6700 Sooblue quoted, the Big Boy was 6000 hp and the Allegheny was around 6600-6700 hp.

The 7500 hp quoted for the Allegheny was just a single point spike in the test, and does not reflect continious conditions.

Tractive Effort: the Big Boy wins this contest for starting tractive effort due to its increased adhesion- 8 drive axles vs. 6 for the H8. The H8, would however have more tractive effort at speed due to its greater HP output.

[BigJim]

The so called BIG BOY would fit inside the boiler of an Allegheny and as for tractive effort it lags behind several locos including the N&W Y6 class.

[Big_Boy_4005]

Whoa guys, this topic was never a contest between different engines. That arguement has been played out over and over again here in the forums. Each railroad's largest steam locomotive was slightly different and was tailored specificly to it's duty on that railroad. The Big Boy is really only most famous because of UP's markrting department at the time.

Again the question wasn't about where to run it. I think that it's a common misconception that the Big Boy needed a lot of special right of way considerations, such as extra wide curves and movement of lineside structures. The Challenger wasn't a whole lot smaller, and today 3985 goes almost anywhere on UP's system. As far as I know, UP didn't add extra space between parallel tracks when the Big Boys came into service. The fact that they were only used on one part of the UP system had more to do with efficient use, and servicing facilities than it did with track alignment.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Big_Boy_4005


Again the question wasn't about where to run it. I think that it's a common misconception that the Big Boy needed a lot of special right of way considerations, such as extra wide curves and movement of lineside structures. The Challenger wasn't a whole lot smaller, and today 3985 goes almost anywhere on UP's system. As far as I know, UP didn't add extra space between parallel tracks when the Big Boys came into service. The fact that they were only used on one part of the UP system had more to do with efficient use, and servicing facilities than it did with track alignment.

I've read in several sources that UP had to redo the yard lead tracks in Cheyene, increase the clearance on several curves and sidings on Sherman. Probably not major work, but I don't know if railroads would be willing today. When 3985 came to Chicago, I heard there were issues about exceeding bridge capacities or having it sink on soft roadbed on secondary trackage.

But if money is no object, let's restore 2 4000's so they can be double headed on a coal triain [:)][:)] I've talked to the guys at the Il Rwy Museum where they're restoring UP 428 and one of the biggest problems is rebuilding or replacing appliances. Parts could be borrowed from other Big Boys, but one that's been indoors and not vandalized might be the best candidate. As long as we're dreaming, I'd also love to hear a UP 9000 back in steam.[:)]

[Big_Boy_4005]

QUOTE: Originally posted by up829

QUOTE: Originally posted by Big_Boy_4005


Again the question wasn't about where to run it. I think that it's a common misconception that the Big Boy needed a lot of special right of way considerations, such as extra wide curves and movement of lineside structures. The Challenger wasn't a whole lot smaller, and today 3985 goes almost anywhere on UP's system. As far as I know, UP didn't add extra space between parallel tracks when the Big Boys came into service. The fact that they were only used on one part of the UP system had more to do with efficient use, and servicing facilities than it did with track alignment.

I've read in several sources that UP had to redo the yard lead tracks in Cheyene, increase the clearance on several curves and sidings on Sherman. Probably not major work, but I don't know if railroads would be willing today. When 3985 came to Chicago, I heard there were issues about exceeding bridge capacities or having it sink on soft roadbed on secondary trackage.

But if money is no object, let's restore 2 4000's so they can be double headed on a coal triain [:)][:)] I've talked to the guys at the Il Rwy Museum where they're restoring UP 428 and one of the biggest problems is rebuilding or replacing appliances. Parts could be borrowed from other Big Boys, but one that's been indoors and not vandalized might be the best candidate. As long as we're dreaming, I'd also love to hear a UP 9000 back in steam.[:)]

Now you're getting into the spirit of this conversation. Secondary trackage and weight restrictions on bridges are real issues. When 3985 came to St Paul in 2002, UP's route map and schedule showed it coming via the ex C&NW route of the 400's between Chicago and the Twin Cities (via Milwaukee). But It ended up coming via Des Moines instead, as there was concern about some bridges on the other route.

Most modern mainlines around the US, especially the heavily traveled ones should accomadate the Big Boy. Servicing facilities would be a little tricky to find, however when 3985 came to town, the whole train just backed onto a light industrial track for the layover. When it came to a stop, the crew came out and went to work greasing and oiling.



Parts are definately going to be an issue. With 8 engines on display, in various states of disrepair, one would hope to be able to cobble together a complete one. Some elements would be easy to recreate, and may even be common to other steam engines, others will be unique to the Big Boy. Nobody said a restoration project would be cheap.[swg]

By the way, based on the parts situation, and the fact that it was stored outside for so many yrears, 4005 is probably a "dead dog".

On a happier note, for fans of the large articulateds, the train museum in Duluth Minnesota has a DM&IR Yellowsone on display, who's wheels turn. I think it's powered by compressed air.

[Anonymous]

By way of information, Mr. Bill Gates is a great believer in the rails. Being a knowlegable man who respects history, he knows that the railroad and telegraph were the first steps toward the modern communication and transportation systems which evolved to the internet. He is also one of the major investors in one of the big Canadian Roads (it ain't Pacific) Also, I don't think he would put money into something he could net a good yield on his investment[tup] On the topic of the Big Boy (4000's) Ed King in his feature article in the September "Trains" wrote well about myths, blind eyes, super salesmanship, and a coal road that managed to make lots of money that did not need Big Boys. We have to remember folks that we do not live in the 1940's or 50's. The railroads are now more a business than ever and as both Mr Claytor's were known to say from time to time. "You can't run a railroad on romance." If the railroads were like they were in 1950's today, they would now be a nationalized system, a drain on the nations economy and the nation poorer because of it. [tdn] With that said, no one is a greater fan of the roalroad and its place in the history of this great country of ours than I am. You cannot study American History without studieing the railroad. I agree with Steve Lee @ UP on that one (that's amost a first for a Southern Man) The nice thing however just might be that the railroads might get to skip right into the 21st centrury with new tech comming on line and new minds rising to deploy and make it happen[tup]