What's so special about Big Boys?

[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]

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

[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]

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" [:)]

[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 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]

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

Old Timer

[waltersrails]

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

[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.

[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.

[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]

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]

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]

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

[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 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.

[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

[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.

[Anonymous]

Old Timer

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

Andy Smith

[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]

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

[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]

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

[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.

[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.

[wallyworld]

it is big

[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.)

[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.

[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?

[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