Steam & Excursion > The Big Boy

Come on, whats so special about the Big Boy other than it's the last remaining engine under steam.
Lot's of RR's had malley's. Some ogly, some not. And the big ones were all close in weight and length.
But there was only one " Cab in Front" You tell me that wasn't the most unique engine in the USA.
OK, I'll agree that maybe the Camelbacks were tied with the "back up malleys" but the Camelbacks
were an eyesore! The the later Cab in Fronts  pulled Varnish on a daily basis .The Big Boys didn't.
The Cab in Fronts could send back boiler steam to keep you warm too.
And damn good looking. (the later ones)
Now the big boy was better looking than most other malleys, I'll admit that.
But what about those SP 2-8-8-4's that were coal burners.
In a honest comparison those loco's were a tad better appearing than the Big Boys.
And remember the SP steam had a Hollywood ancestry: movie screen good looks.
The Big Boys would never past the Screen Test!

Trolling on the River... . <G>

Victor

Hmmm.... sometimes it's fun to post stuff after lots of cocktails AC, keep in mind there's a handy "delete thread' type thing you can click in the morning once you re-read your nonsense, just make sure you hit it before too many people see it!

Cheers, Dave

YES!

The AC-9s, 2-8-8-4 were some of Lima's BEST!
And the later Cab-Forwards were some of Baldwin's better-looking products ...
And, Yes, the Daylights are incomparable

However, Big Boy did a wonderful job at its intended service and district.
It could easily have been a poor performer,  But, real care by Alco & UP,
in design and engineering combined so that the 4-8-8-4 was a powerful
steamer --- coal fired.

WM bought new 4-6-6-4 engines from Baldwin that couldn't produce 
steam in the quantities that Alco's 4-6-6-4, that it sold to many 
customers ---- outside of UP!  WM's 4-6-6-4s didn't last long ---
they couldn't pull much, and were more costly to maintain,
than their replacement diesels.

In a sister order, Baldwin's 4-8-4s that it built for WM were 
wonderful performers, and had a longer useful life.

Diesels gave the RRs the benefit of being able to maintained by only
4 or 5 labor crafts, instead of 12 or more labor crafts used to keep
steamers operational.   Railroads could save money in the roundhouse,
as well as in the back-office.  A smaller labor force meant fewer
accountants could get the work done..

Hourly Labor rates, for RRs skyrocketed after WW2, and the biggest
chunk was the IRS withholding ( for the entire labor force, whether
Union members  or not) that had to be sent to Washington, every 90-days.  
For a RR like PRR, that was a HUGE chunk of money, every 90 days.

That withholding which would have gone to IRS, now stayed
on the books in the profit column.  That was a BIG savings in cash!

So, reducing labor head-count numbers materially saved money
for the RRs in multiple ways.   But, the true benefits of lower
labor costs only really shown, when RRs stopped using steam,
all together.

The sooner RRs totally dieselized. the quicker they became
 more profitable --- the easy way.
The wise ones, dieselized as fast as they could!

​W.



 



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/05/23 17:59 by wcamp1472.

ApproachCircuit Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Come on, whats so special about the Big Boy other
> than it's the last remaining engine under steam.
> Lot's of RR's had malley's. Some ogly, some not.
> And the big ones were all close in weight and
> length.
> But there was only one " Cab in Front" You tell me
> that wasn't the most unique engine in the USA.
> OK, I'll agree that maybe the Camelbacks were tied
> with the "back up malleys" but the Camelbacks
> were an eyesore! The the later Cab in Fronts
>  pulled Varnish on a daily basis .The Big Boys
> didn't.
> The Cab in Fronts could send back boiler steam to
> keep you warm too.
> And damn good looking. (the later ones)
> Now the big boy was better looking than most other
> malleys, I'll admit that.
> But what about those SP 2-8-8-4's that were coal
> burners.
> In a honest comparison those loco's were a tad
> better appearing than the Big Boys.
> And remember the SP steam had a Hollywood
> ancestry: movie screen good looks.
> The Big Boys would never past the Screen Test!

My personal opinion is that cab forwards are literally ugly enough to make the proverbial freight train take the dirt road, and who cares whether certain engines didn't haul passenger trains? The utter and complete fascination with all things passenger train has always been kind of lost on me. I don't dislike passengers trains ( I LOVE EMD E units) but I don't like them any more than I like a good time freight. The ONLY way I would waste my time photographing a current Amtrak train was if it passed by where I already was.

Posted from iPhone



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/04/23 05:11 by junctiontower.

Hillcrest Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hmmm.... sometimes it's fun to post stuff after
> lots of cocktails AC, keep in mind there's a handy
> "delete thread' type thing you can click in the
> morning once you re-read your nonsense, just make
> sure you hit it before too many people see it!
>
> Cheers, Dave

Oh ywa I have done that nursing one of those the next morning and done just that on Sunday. Hmm guess this is just another try at keeping his other Big Boy rant going, moving on now will keep the author noted and skip them going forward. HO HUM



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/04/23 06:40 by BAB.

Your confusing me !
isn't a Big-Boy a 4-8-8-4 AAR configuration ?
I think the  Cab-Ahead is a 4-8-8-2 AAR configuration.

Apples to sour grapes ?

just to see the humour
Original

Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious.

There, I said it.
(I just wanted to make as much sense as the original OP)

Posted from iPhone

ApproachCircuit Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Come on, whats so special about the Big Boy other
> than it's the last remaining engine under steam.
> Lot's of RR's had malley's. Some ogly, some not.
> And the big ones were all close in weight and
> length.
> But there was only one " Cab in Front" You tell me
> that wasn't the most unique engine in the USA.
> OK, I'll agree that maybe the Camelbacks were tied
> with the "back up malleys" but the Camelbacks
> were an eyesore! The the later Cab in Fronts
>  pulled Varnish on a daily basis .The Big Boys
> didn't.
> The Cab in Fronts could send back boiler steam to
> keep you warm too.
> And damn good looking. (the later ones)
> Now the big boy was better looking than most other
> malleys, I'll admit that.
> But what about those SP 2-8-8-4's that were coal
> burners.
> In a honest comparison those loco's were a tad
> better appearing than the Big Boys.
> And remember the SP steam had a Hollywood
> ancestry: movie screen good looks.
> The Big Boys would never past the Screen Test!

It's all a matter of preference. Some people think Camelbacks have a distinctive, great look. Some people think the SP articulateds look like an abomination. Most of them running around backwards and the rest(except the Verde Tunnel and Smelter mallets) trying to look streamlined?Preposterous! Others think the UP's 4664 classes look like Babyface Big Boys with an overbite.

Rest assured I'd go see ANY of them if they were in my quarter of the country, though.

Posted from Android

SP AC12's routinely hauled passengers, as a child I rode several times on those trains. I remember the last days of the AC12s
in helper service out of Colton, they were still impressive. But what I missed and wish I had, was to see an AC9 run, to me that was
the epitome of modern steam. 

Out 



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/04/23 21:26 by callum_out.

original Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Your confusing me !
> isn't a Big-Boy a 4-8-8-4 AAR configuration ?
> I think the  Cab-Ahead is a 4-8-8-2 AAR
> configuration.
>
> Apples to sour grapes ?
>
> just to see the humour
> Original

Hopefully, there's no confusion between the Cab Forwards (4-8-8-2) and the AC-9s (2-8-8-4), which weren't Cab Forwards. Wes in his reply mentioned both, in an unconfusing way.
 

santafe199 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious.
>
> There, I said it.
> (I just wanted to make as much sense as the
> original OP)
>
> Posted from iPhone

Success!

MWPerkins

Posted from Android

cchan006 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> original Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Your confusing me !
> > isn't a Big-Boy a 4-8-8-4 AAR configuration ?
> > I think the  Cab-Ahead is a 4-8-8-2 AAR
> > configuration.
> >
> > Apples to sour grapes ?
> >
> > just to see the humour
> > Original
>
> Hopefully, there's no confusion between the Cab
> Forwards (4-8-8-2) and the AC-9s (2-8-8-4), which
> weren't Cab Forwards. Wes in his reply mentioned
> both, in an unconfusing way.
>  

Well isn't an AC-9 an AC-10 that was turned around so it could burn coal? 

The AC10s were built by Baldwin and the AC9s built by Lima. They were both simple articulated locomtives, just about
where the similarity ends.

Out 

callum_out Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The AC10s were built by Baldwin and the AC9s built
> by Lima. They were both simple articulated
> locomtives, just about
> where the similarity ends.
>
> Out 

But the AC-9's were "conventional" locomotives because they burned coal, right?

They were "conventional" because the smokebox was 
at the front of the locomotive, and the cab was next to the tender.

Cab-forewords, as the name implies, were 'flopped' with the
smokebox next to the tender,

Long locos, with conventionally
configured boilers, were deadly in long tunnels and the. SP 'snow-sheds' .  

By flopping the boiler, the crews got the fresh air, first.

Since the AC-9s were stoker-fed, there was no practical way to convey
the coal, from the tender, all the way to the firebox, if you tried a coal-burning 'cab-forward.

Running a heated oil pipe was easy to do, even though it ran the
length from the drawbars to the cab --- at the front..

​W.
 



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/05/23 19:20 by wcamp1472.

*Mallet

Mr. Hall is phishing with his tongue in his cheek! And as to calling every articulated a "mallet", t'aint so.

Out 

portlander Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> *Mallet

Remember that EVERY articulated on the Southern Pacific Railroad was referred to as a "Mallet" or "Malley" by the SP employees. At engine terminals there was even a "Mallet House".

For clarity of meaning …
Mallet was a name for
articulated, compound
engines originated by
French designer:
Anatole Mallet
( French: mal-lay’)

Over here they were so called
‘Malleys’…
Specifically, Malieys are configured
with articulated ( jointed) main frames, and use larger diameter
cylinders on the front engine..

The modern, best example of
Mallets were N&W Y-class
2-8-8-2 locomotives.

The final variant: Y6b engines
were modern, powerful coal haulers.
They could start a heavy train
sending live steam to all four
power cylinders…

However, the larger diameter
pistons of the front two ‘compound’
cylinders meant that full boiler
pressure of 300 psi would spin
the front drivers uncontrollably
too fast….. so, Anatole Mallet
used a pressure regulating
valve that reduces the live-steam
pressure going to the front
two cylinders to emulate the
pressure as if it was coming
from the steam exhausted by
the HP pistons.

Such live-steam (at reduced pressure) used when starting
has all four cylinders receiving
live steam … for starting…
( and can be used at track speeds
when the engineer wants more
power at the rails..)
Such direct use of steam at
the LP cylinders is called
running “simple “…..

Articulated Mallet locos, when
using steam for cruising, send
steam from the ( smaller diameter
pistons) forward to the larger
diameter, forward cylinders, for use a second time.

The larger pistons are powered by
steam at lowered pressure (from
the HP cylinders), the larger
diameter pistons exert the same
rotative force —- using the steam
at a proportionally lower pressure.
Both sets of drivers, when in “compound” exert an equal amount
tractive effort, with steam used twice!

“When used on articulated locos in this fashion they are members of
the Mallet class of engines.

An active mainline sample is
Western Maryland Scenic RR’s
ex-C&O #1309, 2-6-6-2.
It is a true Mallet loco.

Why the SP mechanical forces
called all their articulateds ‘Malleys’,
is particular to the SP.

Virtually NONE of their locos were
true Mallets. All used steam
once-and-done…. up the stack.

“Compounding” exists today
in modern, turbine-powered
engines used in commercial
airlines… The many stages of
turbine blades subjected to
the burning gases of the turbine
engine are successively larger
in diameter with each stage of
of the stacked turbine rotors.

The increasing diameter of the
rotor disks, at each stage, keeps the
reduced-pressure exerting the
same “rotational leverage”,
to the propeller-shaft —- all the
way down the many “stages of expansion” towards exhaust.

On internal views of the engine
you can see the expanding-diameter
turbine stages making the cone-shaped flame-path larger at the
exhaust, than at the first stages
closest to the burners’ flame path..

The force exerted at the tail pipe
is inconsequential in the modern
turbo-fan engines,

Modern, high performance military
fighter and attack aircraft DO use the high-velocity exhaust-powered engines that we commonly call ‘jet engines’,

But military transport aircraft
use the turbo-fan engines.

A turbo-fan engine is analogous
to the old ‘turbo-prop’ engines.
Except that instead of of four
propeller blades, the turbo-fan
uses hundreds of smaller blades
to pull the engines & airplane through the air.

The fan blades can be changed in pitch ( similar to propeller blades
that change pitch) to force air in the opposite direction —- as in braking, during landing—- when the ‘pitch’ of the fan blades is changed, and then provides a strong braking force…the shaft continues in the same rotational direction, but the fan blades are reversed in ‘pitch’..

I love to see the con-trails in the sky…
heat-engines “doing their thing”!

All because an Englishman named
Parsons developed the first steam turbines…

Later, in the 1930s, the steam turbine, was designed to burn oil directly against the turbine blades —- eliminating the need for a ‘boiler’…

They are all related, and are collectively called ‘heat engines’.

“Compounding” in the 21st century..

W.

Posted from iPhone



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 06/06/23 05:02 by wcamp1472.