What's so special about Big Boys?

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by GP40-2

QUOTE: Originally posted by Old Timer

Anybody know how to get this back on topic?

All I see is a couple of guys trying to out-brain each other. I don't see either one making any particular points on it.

Old Timer

Exactly, that's why I done dealing with the Trainjunky on this subject. Besides, Oldtimer, everybody who knows anything about steam knows that the N&W's steam was far superior to anything the Union Pacific ran anyway.

Anybody want to start a Y6b thread???[:D]

Mathematics and theory aside, the BigBoys are pretty cool. And what makes it even more interesting is the fact that 8 survive.

And there's always someone talking about the possibity of restoring one. And even though its extremely unlikely and will probably never happen. Just the thought of it can get you excited about them again. Or is it just me?

GP40-2

A N&W thread sounds good, The J, A and Y5 to Y6b were excellent.

[Anonymous]

In what way was N&W's steam superior?
I've heard that UP used low quality coal, but other than that, Big Boy was built by alco, why would alco make intentionally inferior-quality locomotives for UP when they could make good ones for others?

[Anonymous]

Uhh-ohh: here we go again [:)][:D]!

[Anonymous]

In the words of numerious persons that have heard all this before. "There comes a time to let it rest." I remain respectfully yours to all members and readers, -----Piouslion

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by feltonhill

The grade from Portsmouth to Williamson on the N&W is descending westbound at about -0.016% for the first 100 miles (range - level to -0.058%), upgrade 0.30% at Kenova over the Ohio River and -0.012% for the last 30 miles or so into Portsmouth.

Train weight varied depending on the mix of 50-ton and 70-ton cars. At a train length of 160 cars, trailing weight would be about 12,000 to 15,000 tons. Ultimately, a single A was expected to haul 180 cars over the division, a trailing weight of up to 17,000 tons.

According to GP40-2's figures, a CW44AC could develop 4,305 DBHP. To match the A's performance, it would need between 5,300 and 5,400 DBHP, so it would not match a single A's performance overall. The GE's operating economy would obviously be much better.

Again according to GP40-2's figures, a CW60AC would have about 5,895 DBHP. This is beyond the range of an A in daily service.

I've found no data for an FEF-3 above 75 mph, so I don't know what it would do with any certainty. Existing information indicates that they were very capable performers in regular service and could reach their design speed (100-110mph) easily. However, they were not record-breakers in the DBHP department according to the small amount of test info available. Don't know why.

GP40-2's figures for the P42 indicate that it would develop 3,850 DBHP at 100 mph. This would be pretty rarified atmosphere for steam and is likely well beyond the range of an FEF-3. My guess is that an FEF-3 would develop about 2,500 to maybe 2,700 DBHP at 100.

Since I don't have access to much diesel information, I find the relatively high percentage of rated HP making it to drawbar HP unusual. I didn't think they were that efficient from prime mover to rear coupler.

I think the diesel numbers being thrown around are net traction HP which is elec power out of the main gen headed for the traction motors. You'd have to factor in losses in the traction motor and gear set plus some allowance for HP to move the loco itself.

My recollection is that the overall eff. from engine shaft into generator (traction HP) to drawbar is about 80%.

[Anonymous]

Traction effort is a physical value, so it can only be attributed to actual mechanical parts of the locomotive. You can't calculate tractive effort for the generator output, because electricity is not a mechanical force (at least not on the marco level).
Power on the other hand can be attributed to electricity. And usually the power used in calculations is prime mover power multiplied with efficiency of the entire locomotive (traction motor power loss included), so the figures of tractive effort are accurate if the right efficiency percentage is used.

Starting tractive effort is calculated from locomotive weight and adhesion, while the
continuous tractive effort is calculated from the maximum electrical flow that motors can tolerate (which gives you a certain minimum speed at full throtle).

So, the motors can tolerate a certain amount of electricity, which means they have to turn at least so much while full generator output is being fed into them.
That minimum turning speed gives minimum train rolling speed, which
combined with HP and efficiency gives a certain maximum continuous tractive effort.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by electro-ortcele

In what way was N&W's steam superior?
I've heard that UP used low quality coal, but other than that, Big Boy was built by alco, why would alco make intentionally inferior-quality locomotives for UP when they could make good ones for others?

Can someone answer this question for me? I'm not trying to make a discussion out of it, I just haven't heard this before, so I'd like to know what it's about

[nanaimo73]

QUOTE: Originally posted by electro-ortcele

Big Boy was built by Alco, why would Alco make intentionally inferior-quality locomotives for UP when they could make good ones for others?

Alco did not "make intentionally inferior-quality locomotives for UP", it was the design and not the construction that was the problem. N&W did a better job of designing their locomotives to do the jobs they wanted done.

If Old Timer has the time, I would enjoy reading his thoughts about the uses of the A class locomotives during the 1950s, and how the Big Boys would have made out on those runs using eastern coal.

[tree68]

QUOTE: Originally posted by electro-ortcele

QUOTE: Originally posted by electro-ortcele

In what way was N&W's steam superior?
I've heard that UP used low quality coal, but other than that, Big Boy was built by alco, why would alco make intentionally inferior-quality locomotives for UP when they could make good ones for others?

Can someone answer this question for me? I'm not trying to make a discussion out of it, I just haven't heard this before, so I'd like to know what it's about

The history of the railroads (and a lot of other things, for that matter) is full of locomotives that were ill-designed for their intended use, just as other locomotives filled the bill perfectly. I can't cite examples, but if you read some accounts of specific locomotives, you'll find them. Sometimes it was a case of ego or keeping up with the Joneses, sometimes it was just a case of poor planning or circumstance, sometimes it was a case of a subsidiary RR getting hand-me-downs from its parent. Even within a given railroad the same locomotive would work great in some areas and not in others.

I have no doubt that the locomotives of ALCo, Baldwin, etc, etc, were all of the highest quality (or some of them wouldn't still be around). As nanaimo73 said - it's a matter of whether the locomotives they built for the railroads would do the job the railroads wanted them to.

[jkubajakiii]

It's always the sheer size it. From what I heard, The Union Pacifc wanted a locomotive that can pull like a 2-8-8-4 Yellowstone, but can run fast like their own 4-6-6-4 Challengers. 25 of these new 4-8-8-4 locomotives were built just before the attack on Pearl Harbor. An American Locomotive Company employee chalk the name "Big Boy" on the side of No. 4000's tender, so the name stuck. The UP was so impressed with the design that additional Challengers to the roster were build to simular specs, abit 4 feet shorter. UP's own No. 3985 is an example of the latter part of the Challenger fleet.
The Big Boys were outnumbered by the entire Challenger fleet by more than 4 to 1. (The UP had 109 Challengers, I think.) But in the end, the Big Boys had the last laugh. Only one other Challenger still exist in a park/museum in North Platte, Newbraska. (The oil tank in No. 3977's tender is currently being used by 3985 after she's converted to burn oil.) 8 Big Boys are on display across the country, including Scranton, PA. (Steamtown) and one they tried to rebuild into operating condition in Dallas, Texas (Age of Steam Museum) for a movie, but it fell through.
Sure the N&W's 2-8-8-2 Y-6 class had more traction effort and more drawbar pull than the Big Boy, but these are drag locomotives. Their driver wheels have a smaller diamiter than the Big Boy. Plus the Norfork And Western is more of a mountain railroad the the Union Pacific ever was. The N&W drags all needed helpers becaue they have THREE summits between Norfork and the Ohio River Valley. All of which are in the 2.2% graden range. The UP Overland Route from Omaha, Newbraska and Ogden, Utah is the flattest railroad to the west! Sherman Hill may get a lot of attention, but it is hardly a speed bump! The Wasach Range on the Wyoming/Utah boarder has steeper grades, but they are well below 2%.
That's why the Big Boys (as well as the Challengers) can really haul! In fact, it been said if the Big Boy was used in the Midwest, like Illinois Central's Mainline Of Mid-America, at top speed could haul a train SIX MILES LONG! But I doubt we'll ever find out.
[{(-_-)}]

[feltonhill]

N&W's eastbound grades were 1.4% compensated North Fork to Elkhorn Tunnel after the line relocation ca 1950, 1.00% compensated Walton to Christiansburg, and 1.2% not compensated on Blue Ridge. These figures are from track charts.

Re: BB actually moving a 5.5 or 6-mile train, see Old Timer's post 28 Nov 05 at 00:11:48 and my post 28 Nov 05 at 21:40:19. No sense plowing old ground.

As far as discussing N&W's steam power, Y6's or otherwise, how about someone starting a separate thread.

[BigJim]

How about you so called "Big Boy" junkies cough up some ACTUAL tonnage ratings and track speed limits from "Employee Timetables", and some gradients from track charts and then we can get down to some REAL comparisons and I bet you will find your precious little "Big Boy" wasn't so big after all.
Y6 Forever

[GP40-2]

QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd

QUOTE: Originally posted by feltonhill

The grade from Portsmouth to Williamson on the N&W is descending westbound at about -0.016% for the first 100 miles (range - level to -0.058%), upgrade 0.30% at Kenova over the Ohio River and -0.012% for the last 30 miles or so into Portsmouth.

Train weight varied depending on the mix of 50-ton and 70-ton cars. At a train length of 160 cars, trailing weight would be about 12,000 to 15,000 tons. Ultimately, a single A was expected to haul 180 cars over the division, a trailing weight of up to 17,000 tons.

According to GP40-2's figures, a CW44AC could develop 4,305 DBHP. To match the A's performance, it would need between 5,300 and 5,400 DBHP, so it would not match a single A's performance overall. The GE's operating economy would obviously be much better.

Again according to GP40-2's figures, a CW60AC would have about 5,895 DBHP. This is beyond the range of an A in daily service.

I've found no data for an FEF-3 above 75 mph, so I don't know what it would do with any certainty. Existing information indicates that they were very capable performers in regular service and could reach their design speed (100-110mph) easily. However, they were not record-breakers in the DBHP department according to the small amount of test info available. Don't know why.

GP40-2's figures for the P42 indicate that it would develop 3,850 DBHP at 100 mph. This would be pretty rarified atmosphere for steam and is likely well beyond the range of an FEF-3. My guess is that an FEF-3 would develop about 2,500 to maybe 2,700 DBHP at 100.

Since I don't have access to much diesel information, I find the relatively high percentage of rated HP making it to drawbar HP unusual. I didn't think they were that efficient from prime mover to rear coupler.

I think the diesel numbers being thrown around are net traction HP which is elec power out of the main gen headed for the traction motors. You'd have to factor in losses in the traction motor and gear set plus some allowance for HP to move the loco itself.

My recollection is that the overall eff. from engine shaft into generator (traction HP) to drawbar is about 80%.

Try in the neighborhood of 93% to 96% of the actual crankshaft horsepower for the latest designs. Even the orginal EMD FT's were 82% to 84% efficient, and that was with using unsophiscated DC generators/ DC traction motors.

Nominal Horsepower rating is the minimum HP available to the alternator. This is a conservative number, and actual crankshaft HP into the alternator is usually several hundred HP higher than the Nominal rating.

Currently I am not a liberty to discuss the latest tests on the new ES44DC's, but they have eye popping efficiency from crankshift to drawbar, especially for DC traction motors.

[Anonymous]

Okay, this is rapidly going to break down about Big Boy vs. Y6b. I noticed that Mr. Jim the Big lives in Roanoke, Virgina (small home town bias perhaps???).

I suspect we are seeing Western railfans vs. Eastern railfans here [:)].

In defense of the Big Boys, a Y6b wouldn't be much good at hauling express reefer blocks, but a Big Boy could do a respectable job of hauling N&W coal trains.

Dear Mr. Jim the Big,
When your car/truck/SUV/Hummer gets hit at the crossing by a Big Boy at 50 mph, I think you'll agree that it's a big engine [:)].

To compare cold hard numbers:
A Big Boy weighed nearly 1.2 million pounds; a Y6b weighed 961,500,

A Big Boy put out 135,375 lbs. of tractive effort, a Y6b put out 152,206 lbs. simple, but was quickly reduced to 126,838 lbs. compound,

A Big Boy was 132' 10" long, a Y6b was 114' 10.5" long.

Given the choice for largest, I'll go with the Big Boy. Best is of course debatable.

Y6b information from http://spec.lib.vt.edu/testdata/nw/locomotives/nw18.html

Sincerely,
Daniel Parks

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by GP40-2

QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd

QUOTE: Originally posted by feltonhill

The grade from Portsmouth to Williamson on the N&W is descending westbound at about -0.016% for the first 100 miles (range - level to -0.058%), upgrade 0.30% at Kenova over the Ohio River and -0.012% for the last 30 miles or so into Portsmouth.

Train weight varied depending on the mix of 50-ton and 70-ton cars. At a train length of 160 cars, trailing weight would be about 12,000 to 15,000 tons. Ultimately, a single A was expected to haul 180 cars over the division, a trailing weight of up to 17,000 tons.

According to GP40-2's figures, a CW44AC could develop 4,305 DBHP. To match the A's performance, it would need between 5,300 and 5,400 DBHP, so it would not match a single A's performance overall. The GE's operating economy would obviously be much better.

Again according to GP40-2's figures, a CW60AC would have about 5,895 DBHP. This is beyond the range of an A in daily service.

I've found no data for an FEF-3 above 75 mph, so I don't know what it would do with any certainty. Existing information indicates that they were very capable performers in regular service and could reach their design speed (100-110mph) easily. However, they were not record-breakers in the DBHP department according to the small amount of test info available. Don't know why.

GP40-2's figures for the P42 indicate that it would develop 3,850 DBHP at 100 mph. This would be pretty rarified atmosphere for steam and is likely well beyond the range of an FEF-3. My guess is that an FEF-3 would develop about 2,500 to maybe 2,700 DBHP at 100.

Since I don't have access to much diesel information, I find the relatively high percentage of rated HP making it to drawbar HP unusual. I didn't think they were that efficient from prime mover to rear coupler.

I think the diesel numbers being thrown around are net traction HP which is elec power out of the main gen headed for the traction motors. You'd have to factor in losses in the traction motor and gear set plus some allowance for HP to move the loco itself.

My recollection is that the overall eff. from engine shaft into generator (traction HP) to drawbar is about 80%.

Try in the neighborhood of 93% to 96% of the actual crankshaft horsepower for the latest designs. Even the orginal EMD FT's were 82% to 84% efficient, and that was with using unsophiscated DC generators/ DC traction motors.

Nominal Horsepower rating is the minimum HP available to the alternator. This is a conservative number, and actual crankshaft HP into the alternator is usually several hundred HP higher than the Nominal rating.

Currently I am not a liberty to discuss the latest tests on the new ES44DC's, but they have eye popping efficiency from crankshift to drawbar, especially for DC traction motors.

Of course, to compare this to a steamer you would have to take into account the efficiency of the prime mover--"chemical horsepower" in vs. drawbar horsepower out.

Internal combustion engines are much better than boilers, but they have never been great.

Sincerely,
Daniel Parks

[Anonymous]

In the Kalmbach book "Steam Glory" there is a story about N&W's Y6 which includes comparison tables with Lima's 2-6-6-6s and UPs 4-8-8-4s.

There are numerous books out about N&W locomotives. Arguably the best is "N&W - Giant of Steam" by Col. Lewis I. Jeffries which is about to be reissued in a much expanded version by the N&W HS. Those interested can also be enlightened by volumes 2, 3 and 4 of Louis Newton's "Rails Remembered". Newton had a hands-on relationship with N&W steam matched by few, today. There is a book out on the class A which, I understand, is being expanded for a second edition which will be published by the N&W HS.

A new thread about the Y6 will not plow any new ground for N&W enthusiasts and will irritate steam fans of other railroads.

Where N&W excelled was designing locomotives to develop their maximum horsepower in the speed range where the locomotive was expected to spend most of its time. The Y6 maxed out at 25 MPH; when you're hauling heavy tonnage uphill, that maximum is ideal, and neither Big Boy or the Allegheny would be comfortable - or economical - doing it (even if they could handle N&W's curvature). To this add in the fact that both the Big Boy and the Allegheny outweighed the Y6 by about 140 or 150 thousand pounds, and were both more expensive, and you can appreciate the Y6 better. As far as Gross Ton Miles per Train Hour per Dollar, neither can touch the Y6 in any service.

The weight differential between the Big Boy and the Allegheny and N&W's 2-6-6-4 is even more atrocious, being in the neighborhood of a flat 100 tons (573,000 pounds for the A against an average of about 770,000 pounds for the Alleghenies and Big Boys). The Alleghenies averaged (for all 60 Alleghenies versus the 43 As) costing $100,000 more per engine and tender than the As. The cost figures used for the As - the first ten built in 1936-7 - were only slightly less than the first 4-6-6-4s Alco built for UP in 1936-7, so N&W's cost figures were not out of line.

When you want to compare anybody else's engines with N&W's, you might feel pretty good about it until you start to factor in weights and dollars. Then you lose.

N&W designed tenders better than most other folks, too, figured on the basis of empty weight to loaded weight.

The A would handle a 16,000 ton train of coal from Williamson to Portsmouth, 112 miles, nonstop in about 4 hours, turning in around 500,000 gross ton miles per train hour. If the A had to stop and start his train twice due to operating conditions (detouring around track work, or setting out a bad order car, or something), he'd still make it on a tender of coal (the A [auxiliary] tank increased water supply so that was no problem). I don't doubt that the Big Boy could make that run on a tank of coal, but if it had to stop and start the train twice (and starting and accelerating is where you burn it up) I'm not sure he could make it. I'm not sure the 2-6-6-6 could make it anyway, because his AMC designed tender didn't carry as much coal as did the A (figuring an A tank for both engines, just to keep water from being a factor). The Yellowstones? I don't think they could have made it on a tank of coal - not reliably. Cylinders too big, drivers too small, boiler pressure too low, which also militates against the 2-6-6-6.

Volume three of Newton's "Rails Remembered" contains records of test runs on N&W's Pocahontas Division with Y6bs with tonnage trains, which include fuel and water consumption figures, as well as GTM/TH. The value of compounding comes to light full force. He also has records of As on the Scioto Divison between Williamson and Portsmouth that may be enlightning. He was present for these tests and kept his own records.

To answer the question "what made N&W steam superior" the answer is that their power was designed by their own designers for the jobs at hand, without having any undesirable outside influence (need for an outside builder to try to sell more locomotives than actually needed to move the business, for instance) or any pet theories that wouldn't actually contribute to maximizing the profitability of the design. N&W made some mistakes in locomotive design early on, but was determined not to repeat them.

Remember - Alco and Baldwin and Lima were in the business of making money by selling locomotives, and if they could sell 25 69-inch drivered 4-6-6-4s to a mountain railroad that could actually move the business with, say, 18 or 20 lower-drivered 2-8-8-2s, they'd try their darnedest to sell the 25 Challengers. And they did, in cases like the Clinchfield, which bought 60 MPH Challengers for a railroad that only had about one stretch of track good for more than about 45 or 50. The Western Maryland is another example.

N&W was not in the business of making money building locomotives. They were in the business of economically building locomotives that would help them to make the most money running a railroad. Carrying gross income over to net was the name of the game, and paying dividends to the stockholders.

Go back to the years between the end of WWII and dieselization, and tell the forum how many railroads consistently beat them at those two items.

Allegheny fans - I'll give you a clue. C&O didn't even come close. Don't try to rationalize stuff like passenger losses and time freight losses; your arguments don't hold water. In an era where a railroad's potential profitability could be measured by the amount of coal business it had, C&O had more coal to haul than N&W and an easier railroad to haul it over; they had roundhouses full of the most fashionable steam motive power ever conceived by the mind and built by the hand of man; on the western haul they handled their coal all the way to Lake Erie while N&W (of that era) had to deliver its west coal to connections at Columbus. And with all that, they were never in the profit-making league with N&W.

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

Oh, and trainjunky29 - your weight figures include tender, and last I heard the tender didn't contribute to tractive effort. And Y6's tractive effort figures in its final form were 166,000 pounds simple, 132,000 compound.

Old Timer

[BigJim]

As I said Mr. Parks,
You show me something REAL, that means in Black & White from a UP Employee Timetable, not some fantasy in your own mind, and only THEN can we start to actually compare locos of different roads.

As for any single steam engine starting a 5 1/2 mile long train (on level track), and with all friction bearings ('cause remember that's what most of them were back in those days), never happen.

[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.

[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

[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?

[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.

[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

[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]

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]

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

[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?

[ndbprr]

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

[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.

[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+.

[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