What's so special about Big Boys?

[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?

[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]

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.

[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]

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

[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]

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

[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:

"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

[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]

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

[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.

[timz]

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

Longest reciprocating steam locomotive, he meant.

[BigJim]

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

[feltonhill]

Timz,

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

[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."