i never knew a big boy wrecked !!!


Big Boy history

UP 4005 was also the only one converted to oil with the thought of going through to LA, California. The firebox was designed for coal and was not successful burning oil so was converted back to coal.

I have Athearn's model of 4005, unfortunately, with less of an hour on track.




Armchair

http://armchairmodeling.blogspot.com
 
Armchair said:
UP 4005 was also the only one converted to oil with the thought of going through to LA, California. The firebox was designed for coal and was not successful burning oil so was converted back to coal.
Click to expand...



they didnt go back & duplicate the design that the challangers used , but if they did it too would have been successful :cool:

As an experiment, Locomotive #4005 was converted to burn oil, but unlike a similar effort with the Challenger types, this was not successful, and the locomotive was soon changed back to coal. The cited reason for this failure was the use of a single burner, which created unsatisfactory and uneven heating in the Big Boy's large firebox. It is unknown why multiple burners were not employed, though with dieselization in full swing after 1945 the company probably lost interest in further development of steam
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Isn't part of the reason that the big boys didn't burn oil efficiently was the day-to-day running speeds were less than it was designed for? Oil burning with higher drafting (add a blower in the smokebox?) or some additive to the oil might have helped. They were also using double stacks instead of one big stack too.
 
Cjcrescent said:
Sounds like the "problem" with C&O's Allegheny. They were rarely run at any speed approaching their true potential.
Click to expand...
that was the problem with some of the superpower applications , the railroads never put them on the routes they would excel at , hence the rapid doom :(
 
Yeah, teh C&O management structure didn't communicate very well. The H8's were capable of pulling a whole bunch of hoppers but C&O had medium to short sidings. Those H8's were designed after N&W's A class but bigger, and heavier, but with less TE! 110200 vs 127000. N&W had motive power designed for the curvature and grades they had, and constantly improved the track, grades and curves to allow their engines to perform to the max. A's as time freight engines were going at 85mph+ their J's at near 100mph. The Y6's were designed for max starting TE, which is why they designed the manual intercepting valve so the engineers could add a little more steam to the low pressure cylinders for more HP at starting. By 1952, with the new valves, 16 tons of lead added to the front engine frame and some mods to the valve gear timing, they could produce 170000lbs of TE. They had a top speed of only about 60 mph, but mostly went between 0-45mph. The designs shared big fireboxes, easy drafting, roller bearings, and big stacks with the right exhaust nozzles.
 
I have often wondered, imagine what they could do with todays technoligy , use better insulation on the boiler so no heat escapes witch cuts down on fuel.
design a way to put the adhesion system that are on diesels & adapt to steam,also all Automated Systems for water levels! & monitor fuel consumption for longevity & steam would be very tempting to use.

THE maintaince level would drop to be competitive with diesels , I KNOW I KNOW IM DREAMING but i would love to see an effort made in that direction ;)
 
Insulation was OK back then, it was heat lost going up the stack. Feedwater heaters took advantage of some of that.

Factor of adhesion is a byproduct of weight on drivers and diameter of drivers and number of drivers.
Modern loco's use computers to control slip.

N&W and other had 'automatic' loco's in the mid 1950's. (N&W M2 modified).

Longevity just means carrying more fuel and LOTS MORE water. Look at the Ace 3000 from the early 1980's.
 
Y3a said:
Insulation was OK back then, it was heat lost going up the stack. Feedwater heaters took advantage of some of that.

Factor of adhesion is a byproduct of weight on drivers and diameter of drivers and number of drivers.
Modern loco's use computers to control slip.

N&W and other had 'automatic' loco's in the mid 1950's. (N&W M2 modified).

Longevity just means carrying more fuel and LOTS MORE water. Look at the Ace 3000 from the early 1980's.
Click to expand...
yes i remember the ACE project but i still feel if they wanted to invest, the efficency of a new steam loco with the standard arrangment would be 1000% better . they could even put a camera upfront with a screen mounted in the cab for forward visablity, alas the grand canyon railroad did most of what im talking about & still shelved them for diesels. like they say" there is nothing more romantic then a lost cause :eek:
 
blackz28 said:
I have often wondered, imagine what they could do with todays technoligy , use better insulation on the boiler so no heat escapes witch cuts down on fuel.
design a way to put the adhesion system that are on diesels & adapt to steam,also all Automated Systems for water levels! & monitor fuel consumption for longevity & steam would be very tempting to use.

THE maintaince level would drop to be competitive with diesels , I KNOW I KNOW IM DREAMING but i would love to see an effort made in that direction ;)
Click to expand...
I remember an article about something like that. It wasn't today's technology but it applied the new technology at the time it was written. I believe the article title was something like "Did we give up on steam too soon." But I also recall from the article that the steam locomotives shown looked a whole lot more like the UP Turbines and N&W John Henry than they did a Big Boy.

A huge issue to the western roads wasn't the fuel cost but the problem of getting water. That is why Santa Fe rushed the new diesels to the deserts of Arizona and New Mexico. The Durango and Silverton train has to stop for water 2 or 3 times in the short distance between those two towns. It would be an enormous cost to re-introduce the water infrastructure needed to run steam locomotives.
 
Iron Horseman said:
I remember an article about something like that. It wasn't today's technology but it applied the new technology at the time it was written. I believe the article title was something like "Did we give up on steam too soon." But I also recall from the article that the steam locomotives shown looked a whole lot more like the UP Turbines and N&W John Henry than they did a Big Boy.

A huge issue to the western roads wasn't the fuel cost but the problem of getting water. That is why Santa Fe rushed the new diesels to the deserts of Arizona and New Mexico. The Durango and Silverton train has to stop for water 2 or 3 times in the short distance between those two towns. It would be an enormous cost to re-introduce the water infrastructure needed to run steam locomotives.
Click to expand...
the issue your talking about is aug 1974 trains article yes i have had it forever lol yea i agree diesel in the desert , but steam everywhere else ;)
 
blackz28 said:
that was the problem with some of the superpower applications , the railroads never put them on the routes they would excel at , hence the rapid doom :(
Click to expand...

The crews didn't run the Allegheny properly to "get even" with management. The engineers got paid based on the weight of the locomotive they drove. The Allegheny's official weight was less than it actually weighed and the crews figured this out. They ran the Allegheny poorly to cost the C&O more money and sued the company for back pay for not paying them for driving a heavier locomotive. C&O paid out to the crews and sued Lima to recover their loses.

It was a big mess.

The Big Boys of UP were run as effeciently as they could for the train they were pulling.

The trouble with all these late giants is the diesel was taking over.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.



Back
Top