What's so special about Big Boys?

[Bob-Fryml]

During Thanksgiving weekend I spent a couple of hours at the RailsWest Museum in Council Bluffs, Iowa. It's located in the old Rock Island / Milwaukee Road joint passenger station, a short ways south of downtown, and also includes a rather nicely done HO club layout.

During Saturday's operating session the club ran a freight train pulled by a Union Pacific Challenger (4-6-6-4) and a U.P. "mail train" (2-R.P.O.s + 3-mail storage cars + 2-coaches) pulled by a Big Boy (4-8-8-4). The Challenger looked pretty impressive with its consist, just like U.P. 3985 does in real life; but, there was something about that extra set of drivers on the Big Boy model that made it really stand out. Whether it's 3.5mm-to-the-foot or 12-inches-to-the-foot scale, a moving Big Boy is a PRETTY IMPRESSIVE MACHINE!

[Anonymous]

Expanding on what Jamie said, the Big Boys were SUPERBLY counterbalanced machines. I don't know about the Alleghenies.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by erikthered

The largest train ever pulled was not behind a Big Boy- it was behind diesel power.

The train was in Australia, and TRAINS had a picture of part of it. Not sure why the Australians put it all together, but I'm sure there was a reason for it.

Erik

Heaviest, but not longest [:)].

[AztecEagle]

Well,They Were Some Big Honkin'Steamers,That's Fer Sure.

[Anonymous]

The largest train ever pulled was not behind a Big Boy- it was behind diesel power.

The train was in Australia, and TRAINS had a picture of part of it. Not sure why the Australians put it all together, but I'm sure there was a reason for it.

Erik

[jeaton]

I have come to the conclusion that the argument over which of the big power was "best" will end only on the day that one of each will be brought to some good location and tested under a variety of conditions. That would be a good time to put each model on a long track scale to find wich was heaviest and take accurate measurements of the size. At the same time, a committee of engineers and firemen could rate the cabs for best seats, best forward vision and best ergonomics.

Then we could get to the real controversy-Was big steam the way for railroads to go?

Meanwhile-Argue On!!

[Modelcar]

....WWII effort was a combined effort from all directions and not having {one}, of the contributors probably would not have been a deciding factor of winning or losing. We're just glad we had them all....and the people, the way everyone rallied to do what was needed to be done....I remember as a young boy {Scout}...even getting out of school to help collect in Paper and metal collection drives to the point we made large piles of it in the center of our little town at the collection point, etc.....So, we're glad we had Big Boy, but it was just one of the massive efforts....

As stated several times above....The discussion of biggest, most powerful, and all the rest is too far in back of us and will be never be settled. We're glad we had them all....

[Anonymous]

Ok, lets supose you have a train of 5.5 miles long.
That's 8.8km , or 8800 meters.
Let's say you have bigger cars that are 20m long, that's 440 cars.
Let's say each car has 60 tons loaded. That's 26400 tons.

The rolling resistance on horisontal terrain is about 5 lbs per ton.
So you'd have to apply a force of 132000 lbs to keep that train at your desired speed.

If you used diesels, then the amount of HP required would be: (force in lbs)x(speed)/375 and that's about diesel 22880 hp on the drawbar

When it comes to steamers, they act differently. The are able to sustain their starting tractive effort for a long range of speeds.
Big boy already had a starting tractive effort greater than 132000lbs that is required for this, but I don't think it could keep it up to 65mph

If Big boy could keep its starting tractive effort up to 65mph (which I doubt, but I don't know for sure), then it could indeed pull a train 5.5 miles long at 65mph.

But even if it couldn't, it could do the same at lower speeds.
Steamers have constant force as oposed to electrical transmision locomotives that have contant hp but changing( falling) force.


In other words, as incredible as it may sound at first, a steamer could pull much more load for the same hp because it could keep its starting tractive effort for a long range of speeds, and didn't have a minimum continuous tractive effort.

The reason why a single diesel can't pull 5.5. miles long trains, is not because it is too weak, but because the required trative effort could only be reached at lowers speeds which are forbiden for a DC traction locomotive because the motors would burn up.

[jchnhtfd]

The UP 4-8-8-4's had two advantages over most of the oppostion, although the debate about 'biggest', 'best' or what have you will rage forever...

First, and possibly most important, the had excellent PR. Union Pacific, then as now, was aware of the possibilities of PR, and used it. So the Big Boy had a nice high profile.

Second, from the engineering standpoint, they did have an advantage: the front engine hinging and equalization was definetly superior to other articulateds, with the exception of the Challengers, which had much the same system. This meant they were a lot more stable at higher speeds -- not that they were necessarily able to go faster, but that they were considerably more likely to go faster on the track...

[Anonymous]

Steve Lee of the UP steam program said on a videotape that Big Boy was capable of starting a 5 1/2 mile long freight train. He didn't say it ever had started one. In other words, its starting tractive effort of 135,375 pounds was enough to start a 5 1/2 mile train.

As far as pulling it 65 MPH - - - well, my friend, go figure out how many cars would be in a 5 1/2 mile train, and figure the tonnage of such a train. Then get your horsepower formulas out and see how much drawbar pull it would take to haul such tonnage 65 MPH on level track. I don't have the material in front of me right now - I've got it in my library - but I'm betting that it would take probably 4 Big Boys quadruple-headed to get 5 1/2 miles of train up to 65 MPH and hold it there.

And Daniel, what makes you think that the Allegheny wouldn't run as fast as Big Boy without damaging itself or the track? There was only one inch difference in the driving wheel diameter, and in spite of what you might hear the four-wheel lead truck wasn't of any extra benefit until speeds of, oh, say, 80 MPH were reached, which were beyond the requirements of either locomotive.

And traintownofcowee, what makes you think that our American butts would have been whooped without the "bigboy" (sic)? Do you have any factual evidence upon which to base such a statement?

If the Santa Fe hadn't had EMD FTs, we'd have been in more trouble than we would have with UP without Big Boys, but we'd still have won in the end.

Old Timer

[Anonymous]

Ahh, GP40-2, my old nemesis about Big Boys [:)].

You probably remember this from awhile ago. To be perfectly honest, the stuff about the 5-1/2 mile train is from a book whose title I will get tommorrow.

You might be right about that post-starting tractive effort, but you couldn't take the H-8 at the speeds a Big Boy went without either severely damaging thet track or derailing.

The 7-mile train bit I believe I got off of www.steamlocomotive.com, though I'm not sure.

By the way, there are a number of different figures floating around for drawbar horsepower on a Yellowstone and Big Boy. Guess what? The most reliable figures I could find for BOTH was 6000 HP!

Cordially yours,
Daniel Parks

[Anonymous]

Daniel: Have you been visiting the West slope of Rabun Gap to many times or did you hollar to much from Coleman Mountian and not get an answer? Espeefoamer gave you good support on this one as far as he could and as a fellow native of the GA/NC hills to another, I will say this about this thread and topic. - - - Let it alone. - - - PL

[GP40-2]

Trainjunky29, man where do you come up with all that crap? Honestly, I don't think I could make up that much stuff if I was smoking weed and tripping on LSD at the same time.

"Routinely pulled 5 1/2 mile long trains at 65 MPH" yea, right--would love to see that.

How old are you; 10 maybe 11 ???

"No locomotive had greater tractive effort and horsepower" I guess you meanstarting tractive effort, because the Allegheny did have greater tractive effort at speed than the Big Boy. However, even if you did mean starting tractive effort you still are not right because the DM&IR 2-8-8-4 M4's had both greater starting tractive effort and greater horsepower than the Big Boys.

[bobwilcox]

Daniel-They also pulled more green fruit blocks through Sherman than an Allegahney ever did.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by espeefoamer

One could debate all day long about whether the Big Boy or Alleghenney was larger,had more horsepower or tractive effort,but the Big Boy was the only 4-8-8-4 [8D].

Your reputation as the voice of high iron reason and tractive peacemaking remains secure - - - -My Compliments - PL

[espeefoamer]

One could debate all day long about whether the Big Boy or Alleghenney was larger,had more horsepower or tractive effort,but the Big Boy was the only 4-8-8-4 [8D].

[Anonymous]

Can you tell me a bit more about this longest train ever?
When and where was it, and where did you hear that?

[Anonymous]

But Big Boys are the largest:
Firstly, in the arena of size, I do not dispute the fact that the Big Boy engine itself weighed less than the Allegheny. However, the Big Boy with tender weighed appreciably more than the Allegheny. Furthermore, and even more importantly, the Big Boys had the greater adhesive weight (weight of the locomotive supported on the driving wheels), in part because the firebox was suppoted over the last two driving axles in addition to the four wheel trailing truck. Why this greater adhesive weight is relevant is that the adhesive weight affects the factor of adhesion, giving the 4000 class more "grip" on the rails. And don't think that locomotives as large as the 4000 class and Allegheny didn't have wheel slippage: they did, and I can prove it. Furthermore, the Big Boys were larger in other ways: they were longer, and more.
Secondly, in the area of pulling power, I of course acknowledge the Allegheny's greater horse-power. But let us not forget that the Big Boys had a much greater tractive effort. And while there were some locomotives with greater tractive effort, no locomotive had greater tractive effort and horse-power.
However, railroads have locomotives to pull trains, not to brag about having the largest locomotive. As such, we should pay even more attention to the Big Boy's and Allegheny's perforance and service than their basic specifications. The 4000 class locomotives were very reliable, and were very efficient and relatively inexpensive to operate and maintain for locomotives of their immensity. Of course, those who wi***o detract from the Big Boy's legacy point out that they burned up to 12 tons of coal per hour and used thousands of gallons of water in the course of a run. But what they conveniently omit is what a cost savings these beloved 4-8-8-4s were to the Uncle Pete. The largest locomotive of all time probably saved the Union Pacific millions of dollars by eliminating the crew costs of double heading, the extra maintenance costs of many helper locomotives, and the time lost in the turning and servicing of these helpers. At the time that the Big Boys were being scrapped, a Union Pacific employee said "these locomotives don't owe this railroad a thing," to paraphrase him.
And then let us also account for the 4000 class's legacy and reputation. What other locomotive has routinely hauled five and one-half mile long trains at speeds exceeding 65 miles per hour? And of course we all know of these locomotives literally shaking the ground as they passed. Don't believe me? Get the Pentrex video on the Big Boys: it has footage where the ground shook so much the camera shook as well! And of course, the world's longest train of all time was pulled by dobleheading Big Boys-7 and 1/2 miles of train, although we sadly cannot prove it.
I hope I have demonstrated to you that the Big Boys really were superior. I encourage all Union Pacific fans, all supporters of the Big boys, and anyone else who agrees with me to post here stating so--especially those of you with Big Boy in your screen names. I am of course not saying that the Allegheny type locomotives should be ignored, only that the Big Boys be given the title they have certainly earned in the past 60 years.

Sincerely,
Daniel Parks

[Anonymous]

Daniel:Your confidence is an inspiration to us all, a bit overly optimistic, but inspiring just the same.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by piouslion

QUOTE: Originally posted by cuddlyjools

The only answer now would be an H8, Y6b and a Big Boy head to Head over the same conditions and see who was top dog. It's a shame that non are in a operating condtition but if anyone ever came up with a scheme where this was going to be done and needed contributions, i'd put $100 in.

http://julian-sprott.fotopic.net

That's the easy part, finding a qualified shop with available space, qualified operators,track time and space, and a very understanding benevelant railroad officer with a since of humor. Then mabe something like what you're talking about might happen. Good luck.

Yeah, but money can fix all of that [:)]!

Get volunteers to do at least some of the job.

Sincerely,
Daniel Parks

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by cuddlyjools

The only answer now would be an H8, Y6b and a Big Boy head to Head over the same conditions and see who was top dog. It's a shame that non are in a operating condtition but if anyone ever came up with a scheme where this was going to be done and needed contributions, i'd put $100 in.

http://julian-sprott.fotopic.net

That's the easy part, finding a qualified shop with available space, qualified operators,track time and space, and a very understanding benevelant railroad officer with a since of humor. Then mabe something like what you're talking about might happen. Good luck.

[traintownofcowee]

Without the bigboys our American butts would've gotten whooped big time.
Bigboys had almost unlimited power at the time. People were even wondering,"how much power did those things have?" Obviously the "Cenntenial" locomotives were big, the challengers were big, the Garatts in Africa were big, and so were the bigboys.
There were many big locomotives, but the bigboy had something very specail. Was it the name? The size? The weight? The power? You decide. But in "engli***erms" the bigboy was and still is a very wonderful train.

C U ALL L8TER!!!
[:)][8D][:D][^][:P][;)][X-)][%-)][(-D][swg][:)]
[bow][{(-_-)}][#welcome][#ditto][#ditto]

[Anonymous]

The only answer now would be an H8, Y6b and a Big Boy head to Head over the same conditions and see who was top dog. It's a shame that non are in a operating condtition but if anyone ever came up with a scheme where this was going to be done and needed contributions, i'd put $100 in.

http://julian-sprott.fotopic.net

[bobwilcox]

The UP put on a agressive public relations campaign during the War. The said it was the biggest locomotive often and loud. Since I always beleve what a read in the papers it must be true.

[canazar]

QUOTE: Originally posted by BaltACD

Educuate yourselves

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

Well, I just did. Great site. Lots of good info for a relative newbie like myself. Thanks for that link[8D]

[feltonhill]

Steamlocomotive.com is an interesting website and a good place to find a lot of info in one place. However, for Tractive Effort and Horsepower it is has some problems with accuracy. Some examples:

PRR S1 rated at 7,200 DBHP. Maximum documented was about 5,300 DBHP. 1200 tons at 100 mph doesn’t support the figure because that level of performance doesn’t require that much DBHP. 3,500 DBHP would be more like it on level tangent track

NYC's S1b developed 6,680 IHP at 85 mph. 5,050 DBHP was developed at 63 mph, not 85 mph. Maximum IHP and DBHP never occur at the same speed. This is documented in extensive test results

PRR T1 6,110 DBHP is actually LDBHP measured on the Altoona test plant. It’s not at the rear of the tender. This is also documented in extensive test results

N&W J 6,000 IHP was never measured based on surviving test reports. N&W didn’t put much stock in IHP, only DBHP

N&W Y6b 170,000 lbs starting TE in simple. Booster valve is irrelevant when starting. (See N&W Giant of Steam by L. I. Jeffries, second edition available in a week or two)

N&W A 6,800 DBHP at 38 mph. Incorrect. The author over-estimated the grade by a factor of 10 (see Nov 1991 and May 1992 Trains, and extensive rebuttals in N&W Historical Society’s magazine The Arrow May/June 1994 and Jan/Feb 1998)

N&W Y6b 5,600 DBHP operating in simple. No, it was operating in compound at 25 mph. It could not sustain simple operation at that speed. Booster valve also not used to achieve this figure (see Jeffries’ book)

There’s more but I think you get the drift. It’s a good idea to get educated, but don’t believe everything you see on the net or any place else. Read and evaluate independently from several sources or risk being misled. Locomotive performance evaluation is very difficult to do on a consistent basis.

[MJ4562]

Tell a lie loud enough and long enough and people will believe it's true. I'm not saying anyone lied, just that perception is often mistaken for truth. The Big Boy was a huge and impressive locomotive by any standard. It may not have been the biggest of the giant steamers but for whatever reason it received the most attention by the press.

Since few people other than rail enthusiasts really care about the facts of which was actually bigger or more powerful the legend becomes fact in popular culture. Things like that have a way of perpetuating themselves until someone comes along and dispells the myth.

[BaltACD]

QUOTE: Originally posted by milmat1

Can't believe no-one said "TWO BOILERS!!""

Because there weren't....one boiler, two articulated engines.

[Anonymous]

Can't believe no-one said "TWO BOILERS!!""

[edbenton]

Considering what the Big Boys did during WW2 they were impressive. Now the Allegahany's of the C&O were larger and heavier , but they were not used right. If they had been used in a high speed freight service then let the dogs loose. I for one like the Alleganhy's over the Big-Boy. At least the Alleghany's had a feedwater heater the Big Boy only have a live steam injectorwhich cost it probaly 10-15 % in steaming capacity. Still for what they did they were special.