Skip to main content

Originally Posted by Gilly@N&W:

The whole Big Boy aura does get real old, real fast. It's the whole....

 

  • Built by Union Pacific specifically for Sherman Hill...

 

Gilly

Actually the 4000 class locomotives were designed and built for the Wasatch Mountains eastward out of Ogden Utah. The 4000s were not reassigned to Cheyenne until well after WWII. Another key factor was, they were designed and built to burn Wyoming "Hanna" Coal, and even the great & powerful N&W nor C&O steam locomotives would burn THAT CRAP!

This kind of...uh____________contest, cracks me up.  It is like who drives the biggest

V-8 gas hog...I have seen a Big Boy, years ago, at Steamtown in Vermont, but haven't

bothered to seek one out since, even when nearby.  I might buy a model of one of the big Rio Grande articulateds, if 3rd Rail made one, but really want a very small one.  And I am not sure the biggest, heaviest, highest capacity, most powerful, longest, shiniest?, biggest coal and water guzzler question has been settled, if that was important, given various criteria that could be considered.

Hot Water

 

I stand corrected on the Wasatch Mountains part. And you make a good point about the quality of the coal they burned. That certainly accounts for the cavernous fire box. The point I was trying to make is as good as the Big Boy was, it wasn't at the "Top of the Chart" in each every quantitative category.  

 

If N&W had been forced to burn the Wyoming coal rather than Bituminous, I'm confident that their engines would have been very different. 

 

Gilly

Last edited by Gilly@N&W
Originally Posted by Gilly@N&W:

The point I was trying to make is as good as the Big Boy was, it wasn't at the "Top of the Chart" in each every quantitative category.  

 

 

Gilly

Well, I'm not familiar with the chart you are referring to, but on the UP the 400o class locomotives were certainly much easier to fire than the coal fired 3900 class Challengers, the were actually one of the most reliable classes of motive power on the UP, and every Engineer and Fireman I ever talked to stated, to a man, that the 4000s were the best steaming and performing class on the UP! That is good enough for me.

When comparing the N&W Y classes, keep in mind that the Y2 / Y3 engines were a completely different animal from the much later Y6 / Y6b types.  The bar frames on the older engines were a major pain, plus the limited speed capacity. Smaller grate areas meant they would suffer more from lousy western coal.  The Pocahontas roads had plenty of good water and awesome coal to feed these beasts...for sure.  A major point in their success with steam in the long haul.

Wow, this thread just took off like a scalded jackrabbit in a direction of its own!

 

For the record, this whole Big Boy thread is interesting but  . . . an example of what I said in my opening post. It's big, glamourous, and gets attention.  Certainly it deserves it . . . The Big Boy? Yeah, I love it.  Sherman Hill- Wasatch Front - it did both pretty well - better than anything else that used steam, anyway, and apparently it was a really good version of what it was, and I think it was king of the hill, personally (Sherman and others, too).  

 

But my original question was about what I suppose could be called the unsung heroes of railroad businesses, the most economical to run, easiest to maintain, every-day workhorses that no one ever talks about.  What were the best moneymakers for the railroads?  I hear the Consolidated mentioned more than any other, and I tend to agree . . . 

Originally Posted by Lee Willis:

But my original question was about what I suppose could be called the unsung heroes of railroad businesses, the most economical to run, easiest to maintain, every-day workhorses that no one ever talks about.  What were the best moneymakers for the railroads?  I hear the Consolidated mentioned more than any other, and I tend to agree . . . 

There really is no "best." 

 

The ONLY time steam locomotives were a moneymaker for the railroads was when they were out on the road.  Park 'em at the engine terminal or in the shop and they cost the railroad money.

 

Steam locomotives are, by their very nature are expensive, maintenance intensive beasts.  The railroads literally had armies of men (skilled and unskilled) to do the maintenance 24/7.  The shop labor would be an expense spread out over the roster.  EVERY locomotive cycled through the shops at one time for another for major or minor work, let alone any running repairs.

 

The old rule of thumb for a steam locomotive was two hours in the shop for every hour running.

 

No two trains were alike, whether scheduled or unscheduled.  So it also all depends on tonnage, terrain, type of service, fuel, water, weather and skill of the engineer and fireman.  A flatland railroad might get off a little bit easier than a mountain railroad, but not by much I'd wager.

 

Old 97 may be a real peach one day, sipping water and nibbling coal, easing on down the road, but give her a bad load of coal or water and she becomes a real dog that might not even make it to the next station.  Overload her, then sit and wait for the helper to come or split the train.  Add in wet rails from rain or snow and any so-called economies begin to disappear.  A clogged lubricator line en route could cause some real damage.

 

Rusty

While the following statement from that "TABLE" is for the most part correct...

quote:
In 1952, the Norfolk & Western ran several tests. These tests compared a four- unit F7 consist against a modified class A (2-6-6-4 number 1239) and later a modified class Y6b (2-8-8-2 number 2197). Several modifications were made to 2197 which made it different from the other Y6b locomotives. These modifications included a "booster valve", a new "intercepting/reducing valve" which increased its drawbar horsepower by 26% and its drawbar tractive effort by 15%. An article in the November 1991 issue of TRAINS titled N&W's Secret Weapons goes into more detail about these tests. The author of this article nicknamed the modified 2197 a "Y6c".

...it is also very misleading.

 

The N&W developed "External Reducing Valve/Booster Valve" first of all to correct sticking problems with the internal reducing valve which was mounted inside the high pressure cylinder saddle, making it subject to extremely high temperatures creating lubrication problems. Mounting the reducing valve to the outside and in its own housing seems to have corrected this problem.

 

The "Booster" part of this piece provided a certain amount of live steam at a reduced pressure in order to add heat to the high pressure exhaust going up to drive the low pressure cylinders when the locomotive was working in compound (and compound only). The additional power that this heat helped produce, while working in compound, caused slipping problems with the front engine. This was solved by adding lead weight to the front frame which in turn increased tractive effort. 

 

N&W referred to the booster equipped Y5 & Y6 classes as "Improved" and it was noted in the employee timetables as such. Once they were all updated, the Y5, Y6, Y6a & Y6b were all rated the same. Despite what LeMassena tries to tell you, there never ever was a "Y6c".

Last edited by Big Jim
Originally Posted by Lee Willis:

 

But my original question was about what I suppose could be called the unsung heroes of railroad businesses, the most economical to run, easiest to maintain, every-day workhorses that no one ever talks about.  What were the best moneymakers for the railroads?  . 

Before I started mucking around with the Big Boys threads ( and I apologize to everyone for starting that whole mess); I stand on my original answer to your question:

 

The N&W Y6b.

 

Gilly

Last edited by Gilly@N&W

Switchers and low monthly mileage drag locomotives cannot post the economic numbers that mainline power can. As a matter of fact, many railroads considered switchers as a user of income and not a generator of income, although they are obviously a necessity. Therefore, a smaller or older engine such as a 4-4-0, a 2-8-0 or a Mike probably can't make the cut. So that leaves the larger mainline power, and the ranking should reward high monthly mileages and the ability to achieve GTM/train hour, a measure of horsepower and productivity.

The engine should be trouble free, and broadly applied by more than one railroad, i.e. a standardized design if you will. An engine type that has been compared economically with a diesel of the period and tied or won should also be on the list. So that list is pretty small....

-a Lima Berkshire used by NKP, C&O, P-M, etc was a standardized design, in spite of differences in weight and minor construction details. The NKP Berk also was tested vs. diesels and about matched them economically.

-a NYC Niagara, while it was a design unique to NYC, economically outperformed a 3 unit E7 set on the RR, and set world records for both monthly mileage and availability, and also overhaul interval, so that has to be on the list.

-The N&W three engine test also put up good numbers, although three different engine types were necessary due to the N&W terrain and the fact that the RR narrowly optimized each design for specific assignments.

-you might also make a case for the use by three different western railroads of 4-6-6-4 Challenger type locomotives, although their specs differ by quite a bit. I am not aware of a comparison test of any Challenger type with a diesel, however.

-the "non standardization" of "mountain power" in the east is a footnote to this question. B&O used 2-8-8-4's, PRR used 2-10-4's, Clinchfield used 4-6-6-4's, D&H used 4-6-6-4's of a different design, C&O used 2-6-6-6's, and N&W used Y's. I think that is why each RR has its own fans.....

 

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×
×