Forums

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by 4884bigboy

I don't see why they're not still using Big Boys. The Big Boys could generate almost 6000 HP. It took us almost 50 years to achieve that with the new AC6000CW. I know it sounds crazy, but a Big Boy or an Allegheny would be more useful than a string of diesels on the head of a train.

On an average good day when the big boys where still around how long was the longest Manifest the one big boy pulled? (Miles).

[railman]

QUOTE: Originally posted by BNSF railfan.

QUOTE: Originally posted by 4884bigboy

I don't see why they're not still using Big Boys. The Big Boys could generate almost 6000 HP. It took us almost 50 years to achieve that with the new AC6000CW. I know it sounds crazy, but a Big Boy or an Allegheny would be more useful than a string of diesels on the head of a train.

On an average good day when the big boys where still around how long was the longest Manifest the one big boy pulled? (Miles).

That's the same reason UP brought out it's centennial diesels for service a few times, wasn't it? Lotta power there.

[Anonymous]

Ya big time,The big boy was the only real big locomotive that knew how to get the job done!.......The right way.

[jimitimi]

I have always been a fan of the big boys, but I guess I'll have to wait until I win the lottery to invest in getting one under steam again............

[Anonymous]

Dear 4884bigboy,
The longest train ever hauled was 7 miles or so behind doubleheading Big Boys. A Big Boy could haul a 5.5 mile train on level track at over 65 miles per hour. (Impressive, isn't it?!)

The reason is that steam locomotives are much more expensive to maintain.

Okay, we all knew that. There is one other reason (it's also why the DDA-40X wasn't such a success as the DASH-9):

With steam locomotives, there is no multiple unit control. Therefore, it's cheaper to overpower a train than doublehead, because extra fuel is cheaper than two crews. Of course sometimes you can't help but have helpers. In any case, with diesels, massive diesels are worse, becuase MU control is around, and it's cheaper to run the appropriate horsepower becuase that way you don't have to waste fuel, and you still only have one crew.

I'm a died-in-the-wool steam fan. I'll never say that diesels are better, but the are cheaper, in most cases.

Sincerely,
Daniel Parks

P.S. One Year!!!!

[railman]

QUOTE: Originally posted by trainjunky29

Dear 4884bigboy,
The longest train ever hauled was 7 miles or so behind doubleheading Big Boys. A Big Boy could haul a 5.5 mile train on level track at over 65 miles per hour. (Impressive, isn't it?!)

The reason is that steam locomotives are much more expensive to maintain.

Okay, we all knew that. There is one other reason (it's also why the DDA-40X wasn't such a success as the DASH-9):

With steam locomotives, there is no multiple unit control. Therefore, it's cheaper to overpower a train than doublehead, because extra fuel is cheaper than two crews. Of course sometimes you can't help but have helpers. In any case, with diesels, massive diesels are worse, becuase MU control is around, and it's cheaper to run the appropriate horsepower becuase that way you don't have to waste fuel, and you still only have one crew.

I'm a died-in-the-wool steam fan. I'll never say that diesels are better, but the are cheaper, in most cases.

Sincerely,
Daniel Parks

P.S. One Year!!!!

Now, I guess I know what I spend the powerball jackpot I'll win someday on...not one, but TWO Big Boys!!! ooohhh, ahhhh!

[GP40-2]

"A Big Boy could haul a 5.5 mile train on level track at over 65 miles per hour. (Impressive, isn't it?!)"

Hey trainjunky, please let me know what illegal drugs you were on when you made up that statement. I want some!!

Lets look at some facts:

A 5.5 mile train made up of 40' boxcars would have 726 cars. Let's say each car only weighed 50 tons. That would be a train weight of 36,300 tons.

It takes 62,959HP to move 36,300 tons at 65mph on level, tangent track.

A Big Boy produced only around 4500 hp at 65 mph.

So would you please mind explaining to us how this happened. I can't wait for your explaination!!!

God, don't you just HATE science, especially when it crushes your stupid world of make believe??

[Anonymous]

This is a moot point isn't it? The U.P. spends a lot on the restored engines it already has and I doubt they'd want to (more than likely ) double their expense in running another big steam engine not to mention the insurance costs to run steam in the first place. But, I personally would love to see a Big Boy run only because I never had the chance when they did. As for all the pros and cons; the rail issue doesn't make sense to me. Maybe I'm in error (probably am ) but isn't the size/weight of mainline rail now larger than it was when the BB was in revenue service? If so that can't be the issue. Wear and tear on the track? Well, yeah, that's true but you're already running lots of steam, large and small, not to mention the excursion diesels so what's one more? It really comes down to the basics: 1) There is already a large steamer out there (Challenger) on the U.P. not to mention other examples on other roads so why one of slightly larger proportions? 2) You might well sell a lot of tickets to ride behind or SEE a BigBoy but probably not enough to make it worth the while in restoring one. 3) Fuel would be a problem unless the U.P. wants to set aside a coal train for exclusive use for the BigBoy when they would choose to run it. 4) The track infrastructure in the country more than likely would not handle the BB for the most part (as in wyeing the engine or yarding it) as the yards now are not the yards of yesterday, obviously, since freights make the money for a railroad not the excursion train. 5) The biggest issue (?) is money, as in ' What's in it for the railroad?' because unless they're going to benefit from it you can probably forget ever seeing a Big Boy run again. I can't believe I even expressed the side of the arguement that I did because I would be the biggest proponent for restoring and running a BB. It's just that I'm being practicle I guess. I can only hope that I'm wrong and that the U.P. and/or some benevolent soul will rescue one and answer all our prayers to see one run again. But don't count on it.

[miniwyo]

I have found this site on the bigboy, It even has a section on wether they will return to the rails.

http://www.steamlocomotive.com/bigboy/

[n2mopac]

QUOTE: Originally posted by miniwyo

I have found this site on the bigboy, It even has a section on wether they will return to the rails.

http://www.steamlocomotive.com/bigboy/

Cool site. Interesting and very informative. Thanks for sharing it.

Ron

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by GP40-2

"A Big Boy could haul a 5.5 mile train on level track at over 65 miles per hour. (Impressive, isn't it?!)"

Hey trainjunky, please let me know what illegal drugs you were on when you made up that statement. I want some!!

Lets look at some facts:

A 5.5 mile train made up of 40' boxcars would have 726 cars. Let's say each car only weighed 50 tons. That would be a train weight of 36,300 tons.

It takes 62,959HP to move 36,300 tons at 65mph on level, tangent track.

A Big Boy produced only around 4500 hp at 65 mph.

So would you please mind explaining to us how this happened. I can't wait for your explaination!!!

God, don't you just HATE science, especially when it crushes your stupid world of make believe??

Dear GP40-2,
Forgive, me but I am at a loss to follow your calculations. I have performed some physics equations on my own, and found that a Big Boy could accelerate a train of five and one half miles from a stop to 65 miles per hour in about 26 minutes, 32 seconds, neglecting friction, in which time the train would have traveled a little more than 14.3 miles.

Sincerely and respectfully yours,
Daniel Parks

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

A train 5 1/2 miles long? Imagine the stresses on the lead drawbar. N&W ran a 500-car coal train in the Blue Ridge as an experiment, proving that it could be done but also proving that it was more bother than it was worth.
Big Boys were pulled over track in the East (they were, after all, built in Schenectady) but it was done with empty boilers and tenders, reducing their weight significantly. Also, the other articulateds mentioned could hardly be considered system engines by any means. Also, the restrictions on operation in the East wouldn't be based solely on weight, but also on dimensional clearances. An EM-1 was definitely smaller than a Big Boy, and B&O still couldn't operate EM-1's systemwide.

[GP40-2]

"Dear GP40-2,
Forgive, me but I am at a loss to follow your calculations. I have performed some physics equations on my own, and found that a Big Boy could accelerate a train of five and one half miles from a stop to 65 miles per hour in about 26 minutes, 32 seconds, neglecting friction, in which time the train would have traveled a little more than 14.3 miles."

Sincerely and respectfully yours,
Daniel Parks

If you believe that, then you should sue your physics teacher for providing a substandard education! Forget acceleration, a Big Boy could never move that much tonnage period. It just can't done. Do some research on the Davis Equation, and you will prove to yourself that it could never happen.

[GP40-2]

I'll give you a tip also. Don't assume the starting tractive effort of 135,000 lbs is a constant, because it is not. A Big Boy had around 25,000 lbs TE at 65 mph. Assuming constant TE as speed increases implies that HP is unlimited. We know that the Big Boy was only 6000 HP at 38 mph.

By 65 mph, it was well into the downward side of its HP curve. In fact, my first statement of 4500 HP at 65 is probably a bit optimistic. It was more like 4000 HP.

The bottom line is that at 65mph, the Big Boy would have a hard time matching a single AC4400 in power.

[railman]

Statement: Either the Big Boy pulled the 5.5 mile train or it didn't. If there is proof, then it had to have. If there is no proof, then it's up for debate.

Otherwise...if one IS restored, I doubt there will be any mile-long trains it'll need to take on...but that could be an interesting revenue maker, pulling some freight on the side to pay the bills!