What's so special about Big Boys?

[ValorStorm]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Old Timer

ValorStorm -
The original question wasn't "biggest". It was "special". If being the longest (you said it "covered more rail than any other steam locomotive") made it the most special, then you're right.

You are correct. When I said "biggest" I was neither quoting nor implying that it was the original question. It's length IS what made the Big Boy "special."

[feltonhill]

Timz,

The PRR S1 is recip (4-cylinder duplex). The S2 wasn't (direct drive turbine).

[BigJim]

[qoute]Sorry you took it personally. It wasn't so intended

[timz]

QUOTE: Originally posted by feltonhill
but the S1 is the longest locomotive including tender.

Longest reciprocating steam locomotive, he meant.

[feltonhill]

Covered more rail than any other locomotive.....

Adds a new dimension, well, sort of.

BB was 85.8 ft plus 47.0 ft tender, total 132.8 ft

PRR's S1 6-4-4-6 was 80.5 ft (not articulated!!) plus 59.7 ft tender, a total of 140.2 ft

So BB is the longest locomotive excluding tender, but the S1 is the longest locomotive including tender.

[Anonymous]

ValorStorm -

The original question wasn't "biggest". It was "special". If being the longest (you said it "covered more rail than any other steam locomotive") made it the most special, then you're right.

Actually, the question about being the most "special" can't really be answered.

There are those to whom the question of "most special" can apply to just about anything. Milwaukee Road fans are apt to argue that it was their class A Atlantics or F7 Hudsons; Southern Railway fans will go to bat for their Ps-4 Pacifics; Santa Fe fans for their 5011 2-10-4s or 2900 4-8-4s; SP fans for the cab forwards or Daylights; and on and on and on.

And you know what?

They're all RIGHT!

Old Timer

[ValorStorm]

Did anyone actually answer the original question? The Big Boy was the biggest steam locomotive in history. Not the heaviest; not the most powerful; just the biggest. That simply means that from coupler to coupler they covered more rail than any other steam locomotive. The hype was everything else.

[Anonymous]

Sayeth Big Jim:

"Old Timer,
The cylinders on the Y were only an inch larger (bore) than on the A. With them both having the same bolt pattern, I wouldn't doubt that there was a way for the men at East End Shops to get the Y head to work on the A. Who knows, they may have even been interchangable.

Unfortunately my father passed away in 1980, so I do not have him to ask. It was a long time before '80 that the story was related to me. I have never known my father to lie to me about such matters.

With all due respect to you, until you can come up with some substantual evidence that it absolutely wasn't done or couldn't be done, I stand by my father's story and my previous post.
Sincerely,
Big Jim"

Big Jim, I meant no disrespect to your father, or to impugn what he told you. But if you live in Roanoke I'd suggest that you go out to the N&WHS Archives and dig out the prints for the two cylinder heads and see. There may, indeed, have been a way to machine a Y6 HP cylinder head to fit the A. But the prints will tell you for sure, as well as the opinions of a couple of guys you'll see working out there at the Archives who worked with steam.

Either way, if you find out, please let us know.

Sorry you took it personally. It wasn't so intended.

Old Timer

[BigJim]

QUOTE: because both the low- and high-pressure cylinders and the valves were larger than those of the A

Old Timer,
The cylinders on the Y were only an inch larger (bore) than on the A. With them both having the same bolt pattern, I wouldn't doubt that there was a way for the men at East End Shops to get the Y head to work on the A. Who knows, they may have even been interchangable.

Unfortunately my father passed away in 1980, so I do not have him to ask. It was a long time before '80 that the story was related to me. I have never known my father to lie to me about such matters.

With all due respect to you, until you can come up with some substantual evidence that it absolutely wasn't done or couldn't be done, I stand by my father's story and my previous post.
Sincerely,
Big Jim

[Anonymous]

Sayeth Big Jim:

"QUOTE: Do you know anything about the rumour of 2 Y6bs resting in a Roanoke scrapyard until the late 70s?
That's exactly right. There were two Y's there east of JK diamond on the north side of the old VGN main line. i don't remember what numbers they were. My father had to go over there and get a cylinder head in order the get the 1218 ready for the Transportation Museum in Wasena Park."

The two engines were at United Iron and Metal for quite a while. But if your father had to go over there and get a cylinder head in order to get the 1218 ready for the Wasena Park museum, it wasn't a main cylinder head or valve head, because both the low- and high-pressure cylinders and the valves were larger than those of the A. Are you sure it wasn't a cylinder head off the stoker engine, or something like that?

Oh, and still trolling, Timzie? Have fun . . .

Old Timer

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by trainjunky29

Do bear in mind that the first 4-12-2's were 14 years older than the first Big Boys.

OK, now that makes sense. The statement by BaltACD explains a lot too. Thanks

[Anonymous]

Do bear in mind that the first 4-12-2's were 14 years older than the first Big Boys.

[BaltACD]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

QUOTE: Originally posted by trainjunky29

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

In Brian Solomon's book "GE Locomotives, 110 years of General Electric motive power", he states that the UP gas turbines were bought in part to replace the Big Boys, that were reaching retirement age-in 1958! Isn't that sort of a short life span for a steam engine?

Mr. Solomon is usually informative, but from time to time he has been wrong. The Big Boys were well below retirement age. For comparrison, the 4-12-2's were retired around 1955, worn out from WW II.

Sincerely,
Daniel Parks

I'm not sure if I follow your math there Daniel. Wouldn't the Big Boys be just about as worn out as the 4-12-2's, three years later, in 1958? Or, am I missing something here. I would have thought a steam locomotive had a longer life expectancy?

When it comes to Locomotives, of any kind, the term 'Worn Out' is purely an economic term and is based upon the investment required to effect a rebuild of the locomotive vs. the investment required to purchase the latest equipment that contains all the technological advances that have occured since the original locomotives purchase or most recent rebuilding.

We as consumers perform the same analysis every time we decide it is time for a new(er) vehicle. Except for terminal crash damage, any vehicle can continue to be rebulit long after the economic justification for it is stops existing.

[Anonymous]

I think that the GE salesmen were being kind to the railroad reader and said the word worn out rather than the more appropriate word of obsoleat.

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by trainjunky29

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

In Brian Solomon's book "GE Locomotives, 110 years of General Electric motive power", he states that the UP gas turbines were bought in part to replace the Big Boys, that were reaching retirement age-in 1958! Isn't that sort of a short life span for a steam engine?

Mr. Solomon is usually informative, but from time to time he has been wrong. The Big Boys were well below retirement age. For comparrison, the 4-12-2's were retired around 1955, worn out from WW II.

Sincerely,
Daniel Parks

I'm not sure if I follow your math there Daniel. Wouldn't the Big Boys be just about as worn out as the 4-12-2's, three years later, in 1958? Or, am I missing something here. I would have thought a steam locomotive had a longer life expectancy?

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by BigJim

QUOTE: Do you know anything about the rumour of 2 Y6bs resting in a Roanoke scrapyard until the late 70s?

That's exactly right. There were two Y's there east of JK diamond on the north side of the old VGN main line. i don't remember what numbers they were. My father had to go over there and get a cylinder head in order the get the 1218 ready for the Transportation Museum in Wasena Park.

Do you know if any pictures exist of them. I know they were supposed to have been scrapped but do you know if they actually where?

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

In Brian Solomon's book "GE Locomotives, 110 years of General Electric motive power", he states that the UP gas turbines were bought in part to replace the Big Boys, that were reaching retirement age-in 1958! Isn't that sort of a short life span for a steam engine?

Mr. Solomon is usually informative, but from time to time he has been wrong. The Big Boys were well below retirement age. For comparrison, the 4-12-2's were retired around 1955, worn out from WW II.

Sincerely,
Daniel Parks

[Murphy Siding]

In Brian Solomon's book "GE Locomotives, 110 years of General Electric motive power", he states that the UP gas turbines were bought in part to replace the Big Boys, that were reaching retirement age-in 1958! Isn't that sort of a short life span for a steam engine?

[timz]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Old Timer
Gross Ton Miles is tons times miles; train hours is train hours. Length of run is immaterial.

Correct-- GTM/train-hour doesn't depend on length of run. It's your proposed GTM/train-hour/$ stat that does.

[timz]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Old Timer

Let's start with Ralph Johnson of Baldwin. In his "Steam Locomotive" there's no mention of the N&W, either in his text or in any of the tables of what he considers to be notable locomotives made by other companies; the N&W might as will not have existed.

For those who don't have his book: Table LXXIV gives "Typical Locomotive Proportions" for 15 engines from 12 railroads, with no commentary. The text has little or no discussion of any particular railroad's locomotives.

QUOTE: Originally posted by Old Timer
A. W. Bruce, In "The Steam Locomotive in America" gives the N&W polite lip service when he considers wheel arrangements of 4-8-4, 2-6-6-4, and 2-8-8-2, but polite lip service is all it is.

"These Norfolk & Western [2-8+8-2] engines are probably the most highly developed articulated compounds ever built and give remarkable service on a road that operates them within their inherent limitations."

"In 1936 this [2-6+6-4] type was further developed on the Norfolk & Western as an outstanding unit with 70-in. drivers and a boiler having over 6,600 sq ft of heating surface with a grate area of 122 sq ft. This engine was exhibited at the New York World's Fair, 1939-1940, and has been built in quantity by the Norfolk & Western for manifest-freight services with all improvements, including integral cast-steel bed frames and roller bearings on all axles and crankpins. The deep firebox is placed behind the drivers and over the trailing truck and has a 108-in. combustion chamber, so that combustion and ashpan conditions are excellent. A maximum horsepower output of 6,500 has been reported for this engine."

QUOTE: Originally posted by Old Timer
Frank Swengel, in "The Evolution of the North American Steam Locomotive" considers N&W's Y-1 2-8-8-2 in his 1910-1915 chapter, and elsewhere notes in text of 4-8-4s "the information available shows the N&W J class with the highest tractive effort at 80,000 pounds. Not a ringing endorsement.

And that's the worst he said?

QUOTE: Originally posted by Old Timer
Robert A. Le Massena, in his writings prior to about 1985, gave lip service to N&W, but was seduced by the maximum locomotives - the Allegheny, Big Boy, and what he considered to be the finest 4-8-4, the NYC 6000. After 1985, he saw the light.

From the "Big Engines" article in 6/68 Trains: "No eastern carrier surpassed this railroad in the design and operation of high-power steam locomotives. Its 4-8-4 was within a whisker of the Santa Fe's engine, its 2-6-6-4 was the equivalent of Union Pacific's 4-6-6-4, and its compound 2-8-8-2 was the equal of Rio Grande's simple counterpart. N&W matched the engine to the job too, establishing ton-mile-per-hour records at minimum costs."

Le Massena apparently thought SFe 4-8-4s had 310 psi boiler pressure, so he figured they were 310/300 times as good as N&W's. Had he known the SFe engines had 300 psi he would have shaved the whisker.

QUOTE: Originally posted by Old Timer
Others giving the N&W short shrift who consider themselves to be part of the steam intelligentsia include the names Huddleston, Zukas, Pennypacker . . .

Any juicy quotes? (Just for the record, I can authoritatively assure you Tim Zukas doesn't consider himself part of any steam intelligentsia.)

[wallyworld]

it is big

[BigJim]

QUOTE: Do you know anything about the rumour of 2 Y6bs resting in a Roanoke scrapyard until the late 70s?

That's exactly right. There were two Y's there east of JK diamond on the north side of the old VGN main line. i don't remember what numbers they were. My father had to go over there and get a cylinder head in order the get the 1218 ready for the Transportation Museum in Wasena Park.

[feltonhill]

Daniel,

I believe Old Timer's reference has more to do with authors ignoring N&W. It wasn't on their radar.

If you can find an issue of June 1956 Trains mag (pgs24-28), the article Roanoke Alamo of Steam sums it up fairly well. There D.P. Morgan writes (quoted in part) -

Strange but I never thought much about Norfolk and Western in the days when the diesel was still a minor statistic in the other-than-steam column and all the world was young. Roanoke's power was too standardized, too severe to warrant more than a sort of sterile appreciation based purely on performance. Of course, there N&W had you......

N&W's fame came later as more critical looks at operations and motive power were developed and written. Sometimes distance, either in place or time, helps one get a more accurate perspective.

[Anonymous]

Quoth Daniel:

"Dear OldTimer,
You do of course realize that you're attacking two of the most respected authors on steam technology, Bruce and Johnson, right?"

Daniel, I'm not attacking anybody; I'm just telling you what's in their very famous steam locomotive books. Same with Swengel. The others, by inference, implied the N&W power was not in a class with others. Look it up, guys. The printed words are out there. Read Le Massena's early works; read Huddleston.

Timzie - Gross Ton Miles is tons times miles; train hours is train hours. Length of run is immaterial. Can you honestly not see this, or do you just want to assume the role of troll-in-residence on this thread?

Old Timer

[Robert Langford]

Whats special about Big Boys? Have you ever seen one pulling a train up Echo Canyon in Utah? I have and I have seen the turbines too. Don't question what you haven't experinced.
BOB

[Anonymous]

Dear OldTimer,
You do of course realize that you're attacking two of the most respected authors on steam technology, Bruce and Johnson, right? I'm not saying you're wrong, and we already went through "he who publishes first wins," but I don't really think that they were going after the N&W. The N&W was only one of hundreds of steam railroads in the US, and we can't go praising it all the time.

Sincerely,
Daniel Parks

[timz]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Old Timer

N&W had only 100 lousy old compound 2-8-8-2s and 43 anemic 2-6-6-4s (if you listen to the steam locomotive intelligentsia).

[timz reply] Which intelligentsia is that?

Those who've loudly proclaimed that the compound Y's were too slow and the A's were too light and not powerful enough, for many years. You know who you are.

In his later post Old Timer gives seven names: R. P. Johnson, A. W. Bruce, Frank Swengel, Le Massena (!), Huddleston, Zukas and Pennypacker. Can anyone find where any of them (or anyone else) said the N&W 2-8+8-2s were lousy old compounds, or too slow, or the 2-6+6-4s were anemic, or too light, or not powerful enough?

QUOTE: Originally posted by Old Timer
Opineth TimZ:

"We're agreed C&O ton-miles per operating dollar equalled N&W?"

[Old Timer reply] No, TimZ, we're not agreed, because it just ain't so. Look it up.

[timz reply] Pick a year.

[Old Timer reply] OK, Timzie. Any year from, say, the PM acquisition to the mergers.

Any year after C&O absorbed the Pere Marquette, you mean? So we're agreed C&O ton-miles per dollar equalled N&W until 1947?

QUOTE: Originally posted by feltonhill
Does this work?

GTM for 200 miles will be double that for 100 miles. The cost will also double. The two cancel. The ratio of GTM/train-hr/$ should be the same for both.

GTM for 200 miles is double; train-hours is double as well, so GTM/train-hour is the same for the two railroads. Then you divide by double the dollars...

[Anonymous]

Old Timer

Do you know anything about the rumour of 2 Y6bs resting in a Roanoke scrapyard until the late 70s?

Andy Smith

[feltonhill]

Does this work?

GTM for 200 miles will be double that for 100 miles. The cost will also double. The two cancel. The ratio of GTM/train-hr/$ should be the same for both.