What's so special about Big Boys?

[Anonymous]

Asketh Nanaimo73:

"Old Timer-
I realize this is off topic, but could you tell me what the first diesels were on the N&W, and what year did they arrive ?
Thanks."

Andysmith9670 is partly right. N&W got 4 Alco Rs3s numbered 96-99 and 4 GP9s numbered 10-13 in 1955. The Rs3s became 300-303 and the GP9s became the 710-713. The Rs3s were joined by four brothers and then more than a hundred RS11s. The GP9s were joined by several hundred brothers. Dieselization was complete by May, 1960.

Old Timer

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by nanaimo73

Old Timer-
I realize this is off topic, but could you tell me what the first diesels were on the N&W, and what year did they arrive ?
Thanks.

I think I'm right in saying that the first diesels bought by the N&W were four Alco RS3s in 1955. Followed by Alco RS11s, EMD GP9s and Alco T6 switchers.

Aswell as being the last Road to order diesel power it is also worth noting that Roanoke Shops were still turning out Steam Loco's into the 1950's. The last loco a S1a 0-8-0 shifter being completed in 1953.

[nanaimo73]

Old Timer-
I realize this is off topic, but could you tell me what the first diesels were on the N&W, and what year did they arrive ?
Thanks.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by andysmith9670

QUOTE: Originally posted by waltersrails

There great locos. i prefer C&O 2-10-2 or B&O 4-10-4

BigBoys are great loco's (Its a shame the 4023 left Cheyene roundhouse to go rust out in the elements) I'm also a big fan of the Berkshire 2-8-4's but my favourite would have to be a N&W J class 4-8-4.

About the Berks I agree that they were probably the most eloquent of North American Steamers and the J's were probably the last word in what they were built to do for where they had to work. As for the Big Boys, Well they were big. - PL

[Anonymous]

Sayeth TimZ:

"Compare two railroads-- they run the same size trains with the same engines, same everything else, same speed, same operating costs per train-hour or train-mile or ton-mile. So, same GTM/train-hour. But one railroad is one division, 100 miles and the other is two divisions, 200 miles. Operating costs of the longer railroad will be twice as great (close enough) so GTM/train-hr/$ will be half as great."

Class, did anyone find the fatal flaw in Timzie's above proposition? Show of hands, now . . .

Old Timer

[Anonymous]

Opineth TimZ:

"We're agreed C&O ton-miles per operating dollar equalled N&W?" No, TimZ, we're not agreed, because it just ain't so. Look it up.

Pick a year.

OK, Timzie. Any year from, say, the PM acquisition to the mergers.

Go ahead.

Old Timer

[Anonymous]

OK, Timzie, here we go:

1 - "Old Timer prefers not to identify the "steam locomotive intelligentsia". Anybody else got any theories who said any of that?"

I'll take care of it, Timzie, since you insist:

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.

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.

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.

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.

Others giving the N&W short shrift who consider themselves to be part of the steam intelligentsia include the names Huddleston, Zukas, Pennypacker . . .

Now will you drop it?

Old Timer

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by waltersrails

There great locos. i prefer C&O 2-10-2 or B&O 4-10-4

BigBoys are great loco's (Its a shame the 4023 left Cheyene roundhouse to go rust out in the elements) I'm also a big fan of the Berkshire 2-8-4's but my favourite would have to be a N&W J class 4-8-4.

[timz]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Old Timer

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.

Old Timer prefers not to identify the "steam locomotive intelligentsia". Anybody else got any theories who said any of that?

QUOTE: Originally posted by Old Timer
Opineth TimZ:

"We're agreed C&O ton-miles per operating dollar equalled N&W?" No, TimZ, we're not agreed, because it just ain't so. Look it up.

Pick a year.

QUOTE: Originally posted by Old Timer
Further opineth TimZ:

"Apparently you've never tried to calculate GTM/TH/$. Try it." I did, TimZ, many years ago. Several moves have robbed me of both the source materials and the calculations, but the results were as stated. If you want to go through the exercise again, do so; but if you expect me to get into a p-----g match with you over it, forget it.

Compare two railroads-- they run the same size trains with the same engines, same everything else, same speed, same operating costs per train-hour or train-mile or ton-mile. So, same GTM/train-hour. But one railroad is one division, 100 miles and the other is two divisions, 200 miles. Operating costs of the longer railroad will be twice as great (close enough) so GTM/train-hr/$ will be half as great.

[waltersrails]

There great locos. i prefer C&O 2-10-2 or B&O 4-10-4

[Anonymous]

Or his SUV doesn't get as good mileage as your SUV . . .

Old Timer

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by ndbprr

As I said about 146 responses ago, "Never tell a man his wife is ugly or his engine choice is wrong".

Or his dog can't hunt and his children are below average.

[Anonymous]

Asketh TimZ:

"But nobody else does. Who are they?" As long as you do, Tim, that's sufficient. If anybody else wants to know, they can ask me.

Opineth TimZ:

"We're agreed C&O ton-miles per operating dollar equalled N&W?" No, TimZ, we're not agreed, because it just ain't so. Look it up.

Further opineth TimZ:

"Apparently you've never tried to calculate GTM/TH/$. Try it." I did, TimZ, many years ago. Several moves have robbed me of both the source materials and the calculations, but the results were as stated. If you want to go through the exercise again, do so; but if you expect me to get into a p-----g match with you over it, forget it.

Old Timer

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by trainjunky29

I'm getting the feeling that some here think that if it was N&W, it was Neat and Wondrous, if it was UP it was Useless and Pathetic. Once again, East vs. West.

Sincerely,
Daniel Parks

"Oh No, it wasn't the mighty Big Boys - it was the lowly Geep killed Wy Sixbie" [:)]

[timz]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Old Timer

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.

But nobody else does. Who are they?

QUOTE: Originally posted by Old Timer
QUOTE: Originally posted by Old Timer
Come on. C&O should have mopped up Wall Street with the N&W. Equalling them before the PM acquisition doesn't cut it.

[timz reply] So we're agreed they did equal them until 1947?

Not at all. They NEVER equalled them. Check it out, TimZ.

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

QUOTE: Originally posted by Old Timer
GTM/TH is a measure of transportation efficiency, but the figures would have meant more as far as the power was concerned if the comparative engine weights and costs had been figured in. GTM/TH/$, if you will.

Apparently you've never tried to calculate GTM/TH/$. Try it.

[Anonymous]

Sayeth TimZ:

"QUOTE: Originally posted by Old Timer
C&O had one EB grade, maximum of 0.57%. N&W had three - Elkhorn (1.4% after 1950, 2.0% before), Alleghany (1.0%) and Blue Ridge (1.2%). N&W had far worse curvature to contend with.
N&W was clearly at a disadvantage eastward. Something over half their coal went west, and no obvious disadvantage there."

Depends on what period you're discussing. It wasn't always true, and the differences weren't all that much even when the westward movement was greater.

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).

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.

QUOTE: Originally posted by Old TimerCome on. C&O should have mopped up Wall Street with the N&W. Equalling them before the PM acquisition doesn't cut it.
So we're agreed they did equal them until 1947?

Not at all. They NEVER equalled them. Check it out, TimZ.

For Mr. Parks:

From about 1941 until they quit making steam locomotives you could hardly pick up a railroad trade journal - or TRAINS, for that matter, without seeing advertising by Alco featuring the 800s, Challengers and Big Boys, or by Lima featuring the 2-6-6-6s; even Baldwin got into the act occasionally, with SP cab forwards, etc.

These people were in business, at that time, to make money selling locomotives. N&W didn't do similar advertisements because they weren't in the locomotive building business. Everybody was talking Big Boys and Alleghenys, etc., but N&W had no spokesperson. It needed none. The people that it wanted to be happy were the stockholders, and believe me, those folks were ecstatic. So N&W's power got pretty much ignored. The "intelligentsia" was ooh'ing and aah'ing about the subjects of the ads, and that was where the ballyhoo came in. And it's been forty years after dieselization that somebody has come forth and said "what about the weights? What about the costs?" And some of the locomotives that looked really good all of a sudden didn't look so good any more, unless the analyst didn't care about anything except size and weight and drawbar horsepower, but that's really only half an analysis.

Post WWII, the two railroads neck and neck for the records for Gross Ton Miles per Train Hour were the UP and the N&W (not counting the one-commodity "conveyor belts" like DM&IR, B&LE and VGN). The UP did it with speed, of course; the N&W did it with a combination of speed and tonnage. The C&O wasn't close.

The point here is that the only way N&W could do it with their homely homemade stuff was if it was really better than the smart guys thought it was. GTM/TH is a measure of transportation efficiency, but the figures would have meant more as far as the power was concerned if the comparative engine weights and costs had been figured in. GTM/TH/$, if you will. Or even if you won't.

The GTM/TH figures are available - they've all been published for many years. Check them out.

Old Timer

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by ndbprr

As I said about 146 responses ago, "Never tell a man his wife is ugly or his engine choice is wrong".

[bow][bow][bow][bow]

I think that's the truest thing on this thread!

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by BigJim
But since you started this feud;

QUOTE: Y6b wouldn't be much good at hauling express reefer blocks

Exactly how stupid are you? A locomotive doesn't care what kind of tonnage is coupled behind it. A Y6 could haul a reefer as well as a passenger car.

Three points:
1.) I didn't mean to start any feud, nor do I believe I did. I posted some Big Boy and Y6b specs, and that's all. This has become pretty much what I had hoped it wouldn't.

2.) I'm sorry, but I cannot give you an exact answer of how stupid I am, just an approximation [:D].

3.) Please note that I stated "express" refer blocks. I never said that a Y6b was slow and ponderous, but lets just say that I wouldn't want to stand next to a Mallet with 58" drivers going 70 mph. A Big Boy, on the other hand, I would feel comfortable with.

I applogize, but I do not have any tonnage ratings, test results, etc., nor do I pretend to. I just got out of a "debate" with GP40-2, and with Christmas coming and all, I don't particularly want to get into another one.

Sincerely,
Daniel Parks

[BigJim]

QUOTE: Okay, this is rapidly going to break down about Big Boy vs. Y6b.

trainjunky29,
It just goes to show you some people don't read what is written. I said nothing about a Big Boy/Y6b feud. I said show me some certain facts and figures, tonnage ratings and track grades (that you have yet to provide), and then we can compare locomotives (anyones locomotives).

But since you started this feud;

QUOTE: Y6b wouldn't be much good at hauling express reefer blocks

Exactly how stupid are you? A locomotive doesn't care what kind of tonnage is coupled behind it. A Y6 could haul a reefer as well as a passenger car.

And don't believe all of that bull about a Y6 being slow and ponderous. I don't know what idiot started that rumor. I guess it's like fentonhill said..."the first one published wins". Sure they were made to haul the heavy stuff, but they could also run very well at 50+.

[germanium]

Speaking from a United Kingdom perspective, what really impresses me is, as one commentator once put it, "The majesty of steam" when hard at work on a steep grade with a long freight drag. You can "chew the fat" over the relative statistics until "the cows come home", but I for one would have given much to have visited the U.S. and seen these giants in their prime, whoever operated them, something which I alas, was unable to do.

[ndbprr]

As I said about 146 responses ago, "Never tell a man his wife is ugly or his engine choice is wrong".

[timz]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Old Timer

Given C&O's topography, it should have done far better than to equal N&W on the ton-miles/operating costs basis.

Could be.

QUOTE: Originally posted by Old Timer
C&O had one EB grade, maximum of 0.57%. N&W had three - Elkhorn (1.4% after 1950, 2.0% before), Alleghany (1.0%) and Blue Ridge (1.2%). N&W had far worse curvature to contend with.

N&W was clearly at a disadvantage eastward. Something over half their coal went west, and no obvious disadvantage there.

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).

Which intelligentsia is that?

QUOTE: Originally posted by Old TimerCome on. C&O should have mopped up Wall Street with the N&W. Equalling them before the PM acquisition doesn't cut it.

So we're agreed they did equal them until 1947?

[Anonymous]

I'm getting the feeling that some here think that if it was N&W, it was Neat and Wondrous, if it was UP it was Useless and Pathetic. Once again, East vs. West.

They were all good locomotives, at or near the peak of locomotive technology for their day, and as I have said before, they will all demolish a car parked on the tracks, without a second thought.

Put me on the long lever on the right side of either, and I won't complain [:)].

Sincerely,
Daniel Parks

[Anonymous]

I don't mean any disrespect, but this is what I'm getting here:

The C&O should have been able to do better than the N&W, since the N&W had bad motive power. At the same time, N&W motive power is the best the world has ever seen.

Sincerely,
Daniel Parks

[Anonymous]

Quoth TimZ about the C&O:

"That's what counts for the stockholders. For the fans, what counts is work done per dollar. We can't compare individual locomotive classes on that basis, but just dividing total ton-miles by total operating costs C&O equalled N&W until 1947 when C&O added the PM."

You miss the point, TimZ. Given C&O's topography, it should have done far better than to equal N&W on the ton-miles/operating costs basis.

C&O had one EB grade, maximum of 0.57%. N&W had three - Elkhorn (1.4% after 1950, 2.0% before), Alleghany (1.0%) and Blue Ridge (1.2%). N&W had far worse curvature to contend with.

And doesn't C&O's power count for anything? 40 T1 2-10-4s? 60 2-6-6-6s? 90 2-8-4s? How much more fashionable could you get? 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).

Come on. C&O should have mopped up Wall Street with the N&W. Equalling them before the PM acquisition doesn't cut it.

Old Timer

[Anonymous]

Quoth GP40-2:

"The DM&IR M3/M4 produced its maximum HP at approx. 45MPH."

I wonder how much of the operating time of these engines was spent at or above this maximum horsepower speed, if indeed it was that high. I suspect not, because horsepower curves peaking at 40-50MPH were found on locomotives with higher drivers - 67-72". The Big Boy, Allegheny and N&W A all produced maximum horsepower in the low 40s. I suspect that the 63"-drivered M3/M4 2-8-8-4s developed their maximum horsepower at a lower speed - in the neighborhood of 35 MPH.

Considering that most of the DM&IR loaded movement was actually downhill, which placed most of the strain on the engine's two air pumps, with the engine not producing much, if any, horsepower, and that the uphill movement was with empties, one is given to wonder about the GTM/TH/$ achievements of these engines.

Anybody got any figures?

Old Timer

[GP40-2]

UP829 said:

"A more interesting Y6 comparison would be to other 2-8-8-2's and 2-8-8-4's designed to haul heavy trains at lower speeds and here I suspect the Y6 does just fine."

I'd be careful about equating all Yellowstones with slow speed power/service.

The DM&IR M3/M4 produced its maximum HP at approx. 45MPH.

The SP Cab Fowards (backwards running Yellowstones) were used in high speed service.

The B&O EM1 was used in both express frieght service and passenger service at speeds up to 80 MPH.

[timz]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Old Timer

Allegheny fans - I'll give you a clue. C&O didn't even come close....And with all that, they were never in the profit-making league with N&W.

That's what counts. Always did. Always will.

That's what counts for the stockholders. For the fans, what counts is work done per dollar. We can't compare individual locomotive classes on that basis, but just dividing total ton-miles by total operating costs C&O equalled N&W until 1947 when C&O added the PM.

Of course, "work done" isn't measured in ton-miles, it's measured in horsepower-hours, or foot-pounds-- but those stats don't exist. A given number of ton-miles on N&W likely does require more work than on C&O; question is, how much?

[Anonymous]

Dear Old Timer,
While tender weight doesn't count for tractive effort, it does come into play when we are just trying to find "largest." No railroad ever wanted the largest (though the published when they had it). The "largest" award is strictly one railfans care about.

On the internet and in books, there are so many contradictory specifications that when you see something official-looking, you go with it. I appologize if the above specifications were innacurate.

Once again, we are seeing N&W fans versus UP fans.

Sincerely,
Daniel Parks

[Anonymous]

Again, the Big Boy was designed and used as a fast freight locomotive, essentially a Challenger on steroids. Besides the 25 Big Boys and 108 Challengers, UP's most forgotten articulateds were the 2-8-8-0's. These were originally built as compounds with starting TE ratings of between 121,000 and 128,000 pounds and had 57"drivers. 67 of these were rebuilt and simpled shortly before the war and remained in service well into the 50s.

Comparing a Y6b to a Big Boy or Allegheny is like comparing a 2-10-2 to a 4-8-4, in many cases the 2-10-2 will pull more but they're very different locos designed for very different jobs. Even N&W used it's very fine class A 2-6-6-4's for fast freight. These simple articulateds were essentially Challengers with a 2 wheel lead truck and 70" drivers. A more interesting Y6 comparison would be to other 2-8-8-2's and 2-8-8-4's designed to haul heavy trains at lower speeds and here I suspect the Y6 does just fine.

Many of the so-called misused steam locos were acquired during the war when diesels were unavailable and the railroads were short of power. Once diesels did become available, they ended up in service they weren't really designed for. When UP dieselized all of it's passenger trains, the nearly new 4-8-4's ended up pulling freight across Nebraska and fortunately one survived in service to this day. I really enjoyed seeing 3985 when it was in Chicago and if someone were to restore a Y6b, I'd be just as quick to see and hear it as well.