Steam & Excursion > Big Boy Tonnage Ratings

I remember reading somewhere, Kratville, I think, that a 4000 would haul 6000 tons over the #3 track between Cheyenne and Laramie westbound, and 4000 tons over the the #1-2 route, or "over the top," as the UP old head guys would say.
I'm sure this rating was based on 40-50 foot cars with the old-fashioned plain (brass) journals. My question is what would be the modern rating, given all roller bearings with their greeater rollability? I'm sure there are variables, such as car lengths, articulation, and whatnot, but can any of you engineering types weigh in on this?
Thanks in advance.

Brian Black
Retired SP/UP Conductor
Castle Rock, CO

tehachcond Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I remember reading somewhere, Kratville, I think,
> that a 4000 would haul 6000 tons over the #3 track
> between Cheyenne and Laramie westbound, and 4000
> tons over the the #1-2 route, or "over the top,"
> as the UP old head guys would say.
> I'm sure this rating was based on 40-50 foot
> cars with the old-fashioned plain (brass)
> journals. My question is what would be the modern
> rating, given all roller bearings with their
> greeater rollability? I'm sure there are
> variables, such as car lengths, articulation, and
> whatnot, but can any of you engineering types
> weigh in on this?
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Brian Black
> Retired SP/UP Conductor
> Castle Rock, CO

Not to mention how hard the wind was blowing, etc.

UPHS sells a reprint of the 1948 employee timetables
that show the ratings.

You have to keep in mind that those ratings were for
all it could move, and usually at a VERY slow speed.

At least, when going uphill.

Don't know if it was on this board or another but, there was a lengthy discussion regarding if any engine call haul more weight with roller bearings on the cars vs bronz bearings. So one who had some engineering credentials basically said it would not make any difference, that weight was weight.

tehachcond Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I remember reading somewhere, Kratville, I think,
> that a 4000 would haul 6000 tons over the #3 track
> between Cheyenne and Laramie westbound, and 4000
> tons over the the #1-2 route, or "over the top,"
> as the UP old head guys would say.
> I'm sure this rating was based on 40-50 foot
> cars with the old-fashioned plain (brass)
> journals. My question is what would be the modern
> rating, given all roller bearings with their
> greeater rollability? I'm sure there are
> variables, such as car lengths, articulation, and
> whatnot, but can any of you engineering types
> weigh in on this?
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Brian Black
> Retired SP/UP Conductor
> Castle Rock, CO

I can't recall any studies being done with this issue. There is little doubt though that roller bearings are going to roll with far less resistance then the old friction bearings. With friction bearings the entire journal brass is resting between oil and the axle. With roller bearings there is spaces between the bearings creating less friction. I know just from pushing trucks around in the shop there is a world of difference between roller and friction bearings and how difficult the friction bearings are to get rolling especially if they have been sitting for any period of time. You also have to remember cars were shorter back then adding much more resistance when it came to traveling through S curves. A modern 10,000 ton 100 car coal train today would probably take perhaps 160 older gondolas from the 1940's to equal the same hauling capacity.

No matter anyway you look at it tonnage is still tonnage. 1 ton back in the 40's is still the same weight as it is now. So the steam locomotives will always have the greater bragging rights because they were hauling great tonnage's using more cars, on jointed rail, with friction bearings. I think it is safe to say if we did hook up a 160 car, 10,000 ton, coal train with friction bearings, and run it up the Moffat route, on jointed rail, it would likely take 12 locomotives to get it up there.

Tomas Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A modern 10,000 ton 100 car coal train today would
> probably take perhaps 160 older gondolas from the
> 1940's to equal the same hauling capacity.

A "modern" 100-car coal train would weigh 14,300 tons.
Today's coal cars gross 286,000 pounds (143 tons) each.

> I think it is safe to say if we did hook up a 160 car,
> 10,000 ton, coal train with friction bearings, and
> run it up the Moffat route, on jointed rail, it
> would likely take 12 locomotives to get it up
> there.

Hmmm. That would be a gross of only 126,000 pounds (63
tons) each. I don't know where you'd find cars that
small these days. Or back then, either. Maybe in the
1920's.

Probably 8 or 9 AC locomotives at most. With one crew
and no stops for fuel.

And how many steam locomotives would that take? And
crews? How many coal and water stops would they need
to make?

For that matter, did they ever try to run 160-car coal
trains over the Moffat in steam days?

hooking multiple steam locos together is not the same as MUing diesels. One of the reasons steam locos got so big is because when you hook more than one steam locos together you need a crew for each one. all the crews try to operate together. some were better at it than others. I've been told if the guys didn't work well together the advantage of the second locomotive was almost nil. If you will remember you seldom saw more than two steam locos on one train. the difficulty in coordinating all that was a big part of the reason. also remember radios weren't that common in those days. they did it all with whistle signals and watching the brake gauge. Unlike today a lot of what it took to run a loco was "feel" like using the "force". It took years for steam engineers to learn their craft. I venture to say someone could be taught to move a modern diesel inside of an hour. It took a lot longer to train someone to run a steam locomotive, and of course the big thing was doing it without blowing it up, or running it out of water, and a myriad of other details. didn't mean to ramble but it was another time and those of us under 80 probably don't really understand what it was really like.

Roller bearings would help her get the slack stretched, then it's guts and skill.If she starts it, she can pull it. On flat ground, a Big Boy could start a modern coal train and run with it for awhile.

I may be misremembering but I thought I read somewhere that the rolling resistance of plain bearings was actually less than roller bearings once up to speed and all warmed up. Could that be true? It was the starting forces where there was the tremendous difference, as well as maintenance and reliability.

filmteknik Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I may be misremembering but I thought I read
> somewhere that the rolling resistance of plain
> bearings was actually less than roller bearings
> once up to speed and all warmed up. Could that be
> true? It was the starting forces where there was
> the tremendous difference, as well as maintenance
> and reliability.

I was waiting for someone to bring this up.

Posted above we have another case of tomas not knowing what the devil he's talking about!

I remember the Engineering Department and Product Application Department at EMD had starting & rolling resistance charts/tables for plain bearing and roller bearing equipped freight cars. Believe it or not, the plain bearing equipped cars actually had LESS rolling resistance than the roller bearing equipped cars, ONCE THEY WERE ROLLING.

Yes, it was a bit more difficult to START cars with cold plain bearings, but once "up to speed and temperature, the rolling resistance was less than roller bearings.

Woo hoo! Thanks, Jack!

Steve

> There is little doubt though that roller
> bearings are going to roll with far less
> resistance then the old friction bearings.

Everyone agrees friction bearings are harder
to start. No one agrees they're harder to roll
once they're rolling and warmed up.

Supposedly C&O 2-10-4s handled... 13500 tons,
wasn't it? on the 0.2% upgrade to Columbus.
Suggests rolling resistance on level track
was around two pounds per ton.

> I remember reading somewhere, Kratville, I think,
> that a 4000 would haul 6000 tons over the #3 track
> between Cheyenne and Laramie westbound, and 4000
> tons over the the #1-2

Offhand guess: neither rating was that high. 4000
tons via Sherman would be fairly hopeless; 6000
tons via Harriman wouldn't be.

timz2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > I remember reading somewhere, Kratville, I
> think,
> > that a 4000 would haul 6000 tons over the #3
> track
> > between Cheyenne and Laramie westbound, and
> 4000
> > tons over the the #1-2
>
> Offhand guess: neither rating was that high. 4000
> tons via Sherman would be fairly hopeless; 6000
> tons via Harriman wouldn't be.

BUT...hauling that much, you'd have to take water at Emkay and Harriman and possibly again at either Dale Jct. or Red Buttes, and you'd have to take fuel at Harriman. Speed would not be much over 15-20 mph, if that much.

Posted from Android

HotWater Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> filmteknik Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I may be misremembering but I thought I read
> > somewhere that the rolling resistance of plain
> > bearings was actually less than roller bearings
> > once up to speed and all warmed up. Could that
> be
> > true? It was the starting forces where there
> was
> > the tremendous difference, as well as
> maintenance
> > and reliability.
>
> I was waiting for someone to bring this up.
>
> Posted above we have another case of tomas not
> knowing what the devil he's talking about!
>
> I remember the Engineering Department and Product
> Application Department at EMD had starting &
> rolling resistance charts/tables for plain bearing
> and roller bearing equipped freight cars. Believe
> it or not, the plain bearing equipped cars
> actually had LESS rolling resistance than the
> roller bearing equipped cars, ONCE THEY WERE
> ROLLING.
>
> Yes, it was a bit more difficult to START cars
> with cold plain bearings, but once "up to speed
> and temperature, the rolling resistance was less
> than roller bearings.


Quite frankly Jack I could care less what you think of my opinions. If there was a way to block your responses I would gladly put that option to good use so I wouldn't have to glance at your nauseating posts. I frequently glance over any response with your name in it which is why I rarely respond to your almost always negative responses to what I and many others are saying about a particular topic.

So you claim you saw a chart comparing rail cars with plain bearings VS roller bearings and their rolling resistance? Fine back that up with something. I can claim I saw the same chart that said roller bearings were superior. Considering you never back up anything in here other than " I said it then it must be true", I am taking your opinion as not fact but opinion.

Not that I really give a hoot about this topic, I did see if I could find a credible claim to roller bearing verses plain bearings and I found in the 1941 edition of Time magazine....

"Roller bearings, said Timken's intrepid ad, would permit "one-speed" railroading (identical speeds for freight and passenger trains), would accelerate the whole defense program, save building many new cars. Other roller-bearing claims: 1) starting resistance reduced by 88%; 2) elimination of hotbox delay; 3) reduced maintenance costs".

It is also a very well established fact that the viscosity of oil is directly affected by temperature. Having a hundred car train (with friction bearings) sitting in the 10 degree cold in Wyoming is not going to move very easily.

Furthermore if the plain bearing (friction bearing) was equal or superior to the roller bearing, I would have expected some sort of modification, re-design, or re-development, of this bearing (at the minimum a sealed journal box)in the last 70 years. Surely if this bearing could save the railroads millions in rolling resistance (which is a massive expense)then I would expect at the very least a study either conducted by the railroads or the bearing manufacturers. About the only uses for plain bearings in this day and age is where tolerances are critical to moving parts such as engine crankshafts, and turbines.

So even the Timken ad only talks about starting resistance. A pretty strong clue that they were not superior in warmed-up rolling resistance. And while I am sorry I cannot provide you with the citation, I'm sure it was not the same source as Jack's internal EMD data. So unless you're calling us both liars, there's two sources plus what the roller bearing maker themselves imply with their ad. Case closed.

filmteknik Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So unless you're
> calling us both liars, there's two sources plus
> what the roller bearing maker themselves imply
> with their ad. Case closed.

Tomas usually starts crap like this but has nothing
but his opinions to back it up, whereas HotWater
and others who have actually accomplished things
and have a lot of hands-on experience are suddenly
idiots when they challenge his unfounded and nearly
always incorrect opinions. His fictitious train
weights are another example.

The guy will never learn. If you can't argue facts,
resort to insults and name calling.

I agree; case closed. Game, Set and Match to HotWater.

The 8/49 Spec Rules says 3250 tons Cheyenne
to Buford, 5800 tons on the 0.82% Laramie
to Sherman.

Realist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> The guy will never learn. If you can't argue
> facts,
> resort to insults and name calling.

Pretty interesting to read from a guy who frequently and relentlessly accuses of current UP steam program management of petty egoism.