Jawn Henry was absolutely insane.. 600PSI Water Tube SHIP boiler. Driving a turbine providing electricity. It had AUTOMATIC boiler controls.. They built a freaking coal power plant on wheels. and of all the experimentals Jawn.. worked. Almost too well, it was infamous for doing things like pulling knuckles and even pulled a couple hoppers apart. It was put in Pusher service for that fact. It wasn't replicated because it cost a freaking fortune. But by god could the thing pull...
The Jawn had other issues as well. Tended to crack turbine blades if the operator changed power output demands too rapidly. Had problems with coal dust and water playing hell with the electronics. Very sensitive about water quality, and as you said, prohibitively expensive. None of these were insurmountable problems, but it came too late for other railroads to be interested so the money just wasn't there to refine the concept further. I should also note that the tractive effort rating provided by Hyce for the Jawn is off a bit. The operator's manual (which I have a reprint of) states continuous tractive effort at 10 mph at 144,000 lbs, and starting tractive effort at 175,000 lbs. Still respectable numbers to be sure and much higher than the Big Boy.
Long story short; the 4000 class isn’t the leader in any specific category (weight, length, horsepower, speed, etc), but it is perhaps the largest general purpose locomotive. Most other locomotives that beat the Big Boys categorically were designed to fulfill very niche roles on their home railroads and would not do well outside those roles. The Big Boys on the other hand, could get down on their knees and pound up a grade at 10-15 mph with tonnage, but then also pick up its rods on the flatlands and run 55-65 mph with that same tonnage.
The Alleghenies were also general purpose engines. Ugly as sin but they were designed for horsepower at speed. Although the C&O used them to haul coal trains up the sides of mountains at 15 they could and did pull fast freight at 45 to 55 and could have gone faster. They were really designed for fast freight even though they were absurdly heavy.
The way I learned it, (back in the 80s,) the Big Boy itself was a niche loco. It was built for relatively tight curves, pulling a lot of coal uphill on a tight mountain route. The Alleghenies presumably didn't have that restriction.
@@eekee6034 Don't know where you got your information from, but the 4000s were built specifically for service between Ogden and Green River, where they hauled mainly manifest trains and perishables (fruit blocks). Coal trains were not their assignments. The route does not have particularly tight curvature. The restricting factor on the size of the 4000s was the vertical clearance in the Aspen tunnel, east of Evanston, WY. In the intervening years the tunnel's height has been increased and now accommodates stack trains. It wasn't until they were bumped by diesels that they routinely ran east of Green River. They finished out their service lives on Sherman Hill, between Cheyenne and Laramie. During that time they would be run down to Denver, and occasionally to North Platte. They had to be turned on wyes at both terminals because there were no turntables to accommodate them there. Although they were cleared to run on main lines across the entire system from LA and Portland in the west to Council Bluffs and Kansas City in the east, they stayed on the original UP route between Ogden and Council Bluffs, except for the runs to Denver and a series of test runs between Salt Lake City and Milford, UT. That was oil fuel territory, so the 4000s had to be fueled with a clamshell bucket from hopper cars, the way coal burners on fan trips are done today.
talking about sisters of 4014, 4004, & 4012 needs to follow suit in restoration, big boys were so long that they had to have special 140ft turntables built for them to fit on,
It seems silly, but I think 1 reason that the Big Boy is so iconic as "The biggest" is due to it simply looking the part. No streamlining, the whole pilot assembly is massive, it has a lot of rough and tough looking external parts. Ect. It just looks like the designers said screw making it pretty and give me as much power as you can. Plus the name definitely helps.
I just finished my first day on the job as a rail car repair man, it’s amazing how much engineering and mechanical work goes into something as simple as a hopper car. Today I worked on getting all the hooper doors to close and lock properly and then started work on rust correction and patching. Lots of fun for those who enjoy hands on work and plenty of welding. Great for those who enjoy working outside. Has my name written all over it! Not to mention having the pleasure of watching trains go by all day.
just read ur msg mate and when ii was reading it i was thinking to my self what an amazing job i always wanted to work on the railways but my mother went very poorly wen i was quiet young 13 years old so i decided to look after her over 20 years i l ooked after her shes in peace now listen i am so happy for u that u love ur job working on the railways ur comment really stuck out at me godbless you sir
same here... my grandpa was a freight scheduler for the DM&IR RR, so of course I was a bit biased towards the Yellowstones... since I saw them growing up in the depots in Duluth and Two Harbors. It's hard to not be impressed by those absolute monsters. The one in the Duluth Depot is amazing, as you can climb into it and pretend to be running the auto-stoker (you didn't have to shovel coal on a Yellowstone, as if you could keep up by hand lol).
@chouseification nice to see love for the Yellowstones. I grew up with the Duluth Depot as well. My uncle, grandfather, and great grandfather worked at Clyde Iron who built the McGifferts that the Duluth Depot has on display.
people saying the big boy is the biggest forget about the russian 4-14-sometging i forgot as well as the belgian overkill 0-6-2+2-4-2-4-2+2-6-0 locomotive which was too powerful for our European couplings
The Russian loco you refer to,was like the steam turbine engines mentioned here, it rarely ran. Unlike the mechanical issues the ST machines, the Russian loco literally destroyed the rails it ran on.
the AA20 4-14-4 is the Largest Rigid frame loco made. considered a Failure in Russia for several reasons not it's own fault. it regularly tore apart the track it ran on because the Russian Mainline Rail size wasn't heavy enough to properly hold this monster up resulting in several derailments from wrecked Track. it was a notoriously rough riding loco very hard on it's operators from reciprocating occilation resulting from it's center of mass directly over the 4th driving axle. this caused an unnerving seesaw effect which didn't help the already overburdened track either.
Russian one had longest rigid frame. Compared to many articulated engines, he was pretty small (whole idea of it was to get powerful simple locomotive within low axle loads).
Essentially we are here because UP was the only railroad to put out a special documentary *specifically* for a locomotive (Last of the Giants) rather than a documentary about typical railroad operations in which UP could control the narrative. And from UP's perspective the 4000s were the biggest ever built (for their railroad).
The thing with engineering anything for a specific application is that you ideally want to know exactly what you want the machine to do, and then optimize it for that use. There are stronger, longer, heavier locomotives than Big Boy, of course, but to compare really any engine of similar principle between one another, when you get down to brass tacks, is an apples to oranges comparison. These machines were designed for a specific purpose, at a specific speed, in a specific environment with specific restrictions. To ask what’s the absolute fastest, or absolute strongest, or absolute anything abut any machine sort of loses the nuance of what actually matters. What actually matters, in this case to the railroad management, is what is the best locomotive for us. What is the strongest or fastest locomotive, for us, for our specific restrictions and requirements. One excellent example of this, in my opinion, is the Milwaukee Road’s Atlantic types for the Hiawatha. Almost every other railroad went for Pacifics, Hudsons, even Northerns for similar requirements, and yes, even the Milwaukee themselves ended up budging and buying Baltics (what they called Hudsons) later on. But what mattered most to the Milwaukee wasn’t ‘whats the strongest, fastest engine on the market right now’, it was ‘what is the best design for our needs and restrictions right now’, and it just so happens that a superpowered variant of the venerable Atlantic design happened to fit the bill.
I've always had issues with anyone listing the Jawn Henry as a "steam locomotive" in anything but the most general sense. It is, by definition, a Steam Turbine-Electric Locomotive (STEL), not a Steam Locomotive. How the turbine is operated doesn't actually matter in the classification. It falls under the same operating principles and in many ways has much more in common with the GTELs than a steam locomotive since the steam is not directly driving the drive axles. "Steam Locomotive" has always described what powers the driving axles, which is why the GTELs were "Gas Turbine-Electric" and most modern road engines are "Diesel-Electric".
Using your logic, a diesel-electric should simply be called an electric because that's what powers the axles. But they're not, they're called diesels because that's what makes the power. Using that far more common logic, what makes the power on the Jawn Henry and the M-1 for that matter? Steam.
@@davidrayner9832 So, I guess then since they are powered with high pressure steam turbines the US Navy’s entire fleet is steam aircraft carriers and steam submarines?
@@scottwendt9575 Diesel, when describing a locomotive, is short for diesel-electric so the ships and submarines would be steam-turbine-electric which you can say if you want to but most people would shorten it to steam-turbine or you could shorten it further to just steam. Any of those is OK.
One of the funniest things I've learned about Big Boys is that they have lighter axle loadings that N&W Js... **Theoretically** we can run it at Strasburg 😂
Widest steam locomotive was the Virginian 2-10-10-2s, which were just over 12 feet wide to accommodate their 48" low pressure cylinders. This is outside standard clearances so they had to be shipped to the Virginian with the cylinders, cabs and running boards removed and even then could only be shipped on higher than normal clearance routes. They also had the largest diameter boilers of any steam locomotives, the highest tractive effort of any successful steam locomotive, and the largest amount of evaporative heating surface of any steam locomotive. This is all despite being built in 1919, more than two decades before the Big Boys.
I should also note that the tractive effort number provided in this video is for compound operation. With their enormous boilers the 2-10-10-2s were normally run in simple for starting trains, and could produce 176,600 lbs of tractive effort when high pressure steam was sent to the huge front cylinders. Also I say highest tractive effort of any "successful" steam locomotive, because 10 of them were built and they operated for 25-30 years doing more milage than the Big Boys despite having a top speed of around 15 mph. The locomotives that exceeded them like the Virginian Triplex and Jawn Henry were one off experimental designs which were scrapped long before their designed service lives were over.
@@NorfKhazad A couple of points the N&W in 1917 brought into service the Y2 2-8-8-2 ,; with both tender boosters working produced 174,400 lbs tractive effort ,although the boiler could not sustain this for long periods of time ...fast forward to 1954 ;when the N&W had all the Y5 Y6 Y6a Y6b outshopped with 40 tons of scrap steel, lead and concrete onto the mainframes along with intercepting valves and extra [water]tenders , and reclassified Y6c with 310 lb b.p. they produced 190,000 lbs tractive effort in simple and were the most powerful locomotives ever in service except for 1 ! The Belgian quadruplex built in 1932 that produced 213,000 lbs tractive effort. The Nazis cut this loco into two seperate locos in 1943.
@@dennismitchell-h9s The Y5s and Y6s were upgraded to Y6Bs, the Y6C was proposed but never implemented. Some of the changes you mentioned (intercepting/reducing valve, added weight) were part of the Y6B upgrade program, but they never produced 190k pounds of tractive effort. I have never heard of this Belgian locomotive and I very much doubt it produced that level of tractive effort, if it even existed.
@@NorfKhazad Look up quadruplex locomotives it actually existed but was far too powerful for the Belgian railways of the time a 2-6-0+ 4-4-2+2-4-4+ 0-6-2.1driver 2 x firemen .
Thats the one I was trying to remember, they actually outpowered the Big Boy in raw tractive effort, but they couldn't get past 15mph or so because the boiler despite its size couldn't provide enough steam. This primarily because they were 20 years earlier and boiler technology didn't have pressures as high.
One must wonder… who gave Union Pacific, PRR, and N&W unrestricted access to the whiskey? All jokes aside, I think the Big Boy is the best of the largest locomotives, but the PRR Q2s were the best of the ridged frame locomotives.
@whispofwords2590, well, if they had fixed the poppet valve problem and built and rebuilt right of ways to be like the Lackawanna cutoff, then it could have been a high speed steam locomotive. And yes, I mean actual high-speed rail.
It's really sad that none of those other big choochoos still exist. Guess nobody was worried about preservation back in those days and just wanted the metal. Cool video as always Hyce!
Thank God that two Alleghenies *and* a Y6b still exist. While I'd love to see them all restored to operating condition, the fact that they're preserved is excellent.
The Challenger still exists. Just not put on tour anymore. Still in the UP's museum. A friend and I did a rail chase from Nevada state line down the Feather river Canyon when it came out to the Rail Fair in Old Sacramento in the late 80s. Also ran up to Klamath Falls to meet the incoming the Shasta Daylight steamer and chased it all the way to Sacramento.
Hmm...I'm not familiar enough with some of those eastern engines, but I think part of the reason the Big Boy stands out (besides excellent publicity on UP's part) was the fact that it was not only large and powerful, but could also move fast. The Big Boys were reportedly tested at up to 80 mph, although its optimum speed was much lower; looking at the list of stronger engines, most of them look like engines designed to slog heavy trains at low speeds. Its size limited its operating territory, but the Big Boy was a much more general-purpose locomotive than the others. And a "world's biggest engine" that can roar by at 60-70 mph with a long string of cars sounds more impressive than one that trudges by at 20mph with a long string of cars.
Oh certainly. I'm not saying the big boy was not the most capable thing around, I'm just saying if you claim it's the biggest of all time you're not right. Lol
And then there's the clearly most superior engine at the opposite end of the size spectrum....Montezuma! Your big boy can haul a train a mile long but can it fit in a carry on?
Big boy was listed as the world's largest "production " steam locomotive, not "THE" largest steam locomotive. Several publications acknowledge this fact, however rule out the others due to their short and limited existence, considering them experimental or concept locomotives rather than real service units. Hope this helps 😊
The Big Boy is an awesome locomotive, and I never in my life thought I would see one that large restored. Locally, we compare it to the Missabe Yellowstones. They were about 100 feet apart when yhe Big Boy visited the Duluth museum. Truth be told, they overlap a lot in statistics. Big Boy has more boiler horsepower and top speed. Yellowstone has less horsepower and lower top speed, but more tractive effort. Big Boy is slightly longer because it was designed to burn low BTU western coal compared to the Missabe's eastern coal, thus it has a bigger firebox. Both were designed to do different things. Big Boy was designed to pull trains in mountains at relatively high speeds. Yellowstone was designed to pull endlessly long ore trains at very low speeds. Both were awesome locomotives, and I am very fortunate to see one of them running.
Remember that the classification "Yellowstone" was from the Northern Pacific's classes of steam monsters that originated the name, running heavy main line freights over the NP's undulating profile across North Dakota and along the Yellowstone River for much of their main line. They were a well developed class as witnessed by the NP's four classes of 2-8-8-4s, Z-5 throughZ-8, comprising more than 50 units. But when the NP dieselized, they leaned into it and never looked back. By 1959, all the Zs were gone. Management had no desire to look back on steam and preferred to be seen as a modern progressive road that was eager to embrace the larger high horsepower diesels that came along. Only smaller steam engines were given to communities along the line. Even the historic Timken locomotive was cut up, against the wishes of many.
Do you mean the triplex 2-10-10-10-2? Or did they make a duplex decapod? At any rate the triplex was a hot garbage engine. She couldn't really go above, like, 8MPH. But, it was really, REALLY hard to slow her down from 8MPH at max beans. Something like 115k lbs tractive. I know they served for some banking duties for a bit but then were broken apart and made into decapods I believe.
If you see the promotional material UP puts out talking/showing its Big Boys, there are no disclaimers or comparisons shown. They just say the biggest and expect everyone to accept it. Show me different UP if you will?
I think the one headline you flashed up at the beginning of the video actually puts it well with "Largest Successful Steam Locomotive". That seems like a neat enough way to exclude some of the weirdo prototypes.
Awesome video Hyce! A little something to add though, the first class of UP Big Boys, the 4-8-8-4-1’s, which 4014 is a part of, weighed 762,000 lbs. The first batch of C&O Alleghenies weighed 771,300 lbs.
What i mention to people more often is that the Challengers and Big Boys for the most part were the railroads having their cake and eating it to. What i mean by that is theyre some of if bot the fastest Articulated steam engines ever produced because of what the UP needed at the time. East Coast or just mountain railroad articulated steam engines needed raw tractive effort over speed where as Big Boy and Challengers beeded to go hogh speed over long distances. So its a very well rounded Articulated steam engine when you look at its contempoaries for the day. Its a great engine but at times is i think just a bit overrated for what people think about it in general. But those are just my thoughts thank you for this lovely video Hyce.
@@commissarcarl17007987 AT THE COUPLER BEFORE POWER TO MOVE ITSELF ,, WHICH WOULD INDICATE JUST UNDER 7500 HP ---- RIGHT THERE WITH THE ALLEGHENY .. AVAILABLE FOR WORKING
Hey, just to say, it would be very nice to have metric conversions written at least a few times, for your rail fans from the other side of the ocean who loves your trains 😊 not asking to use them orally, just write them Still, the big boy is quite a huge beast, would love to see it
i remember reading somewhere that the whole reason the Big Boys were kinda unimpressive in these straight up comparisons was because a lot of the monsters in the east were built for long grueling coal drags through the mountains while Big Boys were meant to tackle the rolling hills of the Midwest with fairly though not as heavy trains at a reasonable click to account for…all the plains. different engines for different jobs ofc. though, im not quite sure how correct this is and would appreciate input.
Mark you're a great educator. Could listen to you talk about trains for hours (I mean, I literally do). You're really good at communicating ideas clearly and without getting deep into jargon and when you do you've been great about explaining it.
I feel like people say this because its sorta the jack of all trades, as it has big stats in every catagory, whilst others would be the biggest in all the other catagorys, there would be a catagory where it has average measurments
Agreed. Most of these were specialists in a given area. The big boy could do all of them but not quite as well. That isn’t a bad thing. The interesting thing to me about American railroading is that almost every Giant class one had their own form of giant superpower locomotive to haul a huge amount of tonnage at various different speeds. The C&O had their Alleghenys, the Pennsy had giant duplex freight locomotives. The DM&I and B&O had their Yellowstones. SP had cab forwards. The N&W had their steam giants. Etc. Maybe instead of fighting over what was the best, we should celebrate what we managed to save from this era of railroading.
That PRR with long tender is a I1sa class 2-10-0 pulling a 210F82 tender. The 210F82 tender is a 21,000 gallon tender with some 21 tons of coal, on a pair of 8 wheel tenders with a modern 3 person doghouse. When fully loaded, it would have outweighed the I1 by about 80,000 pounds. The I1 was known as a monster locomotive from the drag freight era and was nicknamed the Hippo
I always learn something new on this channel. Did you meet Ed Dickens while you were here in Carson City? I was surprised to learn while standing there talking to him that he wasn’t just allowed to run the Big Boy sometimes, he RUNS THE PROGRAM.
I’ve seen the 4017 in Green Bay, WI. Impeccable machines. Even though they are far from the largest, still glad that we have eight of them around, god forbid one that runs. Will forever be a symbol of American superpower steam days
Hi Mark, thanks for this great learning moment. I liked how you contextualized Big Boy with both technical and historical information. You answered some questions I had about fabulous Big Boy by defining what “big” for a choo choo really can mean. I so appreciate these wonderful learning videos, thanks again for making it and as always cheers to you Professor!
The DM&IR 2-8-8-4 Yellowstone has always been a personal favorite of mine, but even I acknowledge the Big Boy is way more practical outside of the Yellowstone's niche of hauling heavy iron ore. Really cool video!
Have climbed over H8's and Big Boy's. Both are impressive machines! An interesting side note or two. The big boy boiler would fit inside the H8(sans the firebox)and the. C&O never realized the full potential of the H8s! Really enjoy your videos!
Did you take into consideration any of the big Garretts from South Africa? Some of those are VERY long, and quite powerful, too. One thing about the Big Boys was how WELL they worked. Many of the other engines were failures for different reasons - from being extremely complicated (like many Duplex engines), to excessive maintenance, to not having the steam capacity to make use of their power.
I was thinking about Garret engines too, but don't remember anything specific about them. Isn't the Big Boy itself classified as a Garret as it has one boiler over two sets of driving wheels.
I've heard it described as the largest by wheel arrangement too (I guess because of the fact that its a 4-8-8-4), which also isn't technically correct because the Virginian had some 2-10-10-2s that were actually decent from what I've heard and not cursed like the ones the Santa Fe had lol
I have always known that there have been locomotives out there that were bigger, longer, heavier, more wheel arrangement, more tractive effort ect than Big Boy. But all of them for one reason or another were not very successful. So I always assumed that when everyone says Big Boy is the biggest it is because it is the biggest engine that is/was successful.
I remember seeing the one they had at the Green Bay museum many years ago, big boy indeed big. Remember taking a picture of all the valves and such inside its cab.
Fantastic video. Here in Bulgaria we operated a fleet of tank locomotives made for the Bulgarian State Railways which were called class 46 or in other words 2-12-4T which were supposedly the most powerful tank locos ever operated in Europe. One of them is still in running order.
Yeah it and the T1 plus their plan to fully electrify before the 1930s ICC reported them to the 1930s IRS for tax evasion to fund it, makes me think they were dreaming the same high speed and frequency dream that the Japanese National Railway was having at the same time with Shinkansen. They might have been intended as steam high speed operators until electrification was complete. Hell, to a certain degree they were at least that time period's equivalent because they were usually right below the Shinkansen 0 series normal speed bases on the schedule they were keeping.
@@timothystamm3200 isn’t that what everyone dreamed of though? Everyone was looking to the future and potential for electrification. If the T1s had Walshaerts valve gear and/or had been 4 cylinder compound 4-8-4s with a better exhaust arrangement, I do see a potential to use steam as a temporary high speed solution.
I did, in fact, go down a rabbit hole of these other locomotives you mentioned, so thank you for this video. I certainly learned some new things. Like the S1 being an absolute chad.
Great video as always Hyce. One question I have that might make an interesting video, Why are most American steam locomotives black. Not that there is anything wrong with that all of my favorite locomotives are big black hunks of USA steam and steel, and I'm sure most people watching this channel love a nice Big Black Choo-choo (sorry). In all seriousness locomotives with a fancy livery like CNJ's blue comet or the Boston and Maine's Paul Revere and Flying Yankee pacifics seem to be the exception with the rule being all or mostly black all the time. Meanwhile in other places like the UK most of their steam is done up in fancy reds, blues and greens. Why is that? Were American companies just cheap and black was the least expensive color or was there some other reason for this coloring? Also when we transitioned to diesel, railroads got a lot more colorful with every diesel getting a livery representing the company they worked for, what triggered this change? I'm curious to know the theory behind the coloring of locomotives.
I’d imagine it comes down to maintenance, while the British steam locomotives are colorful, I’d imagine they are at least a pain in the behind to paint. Not that you don’t have to do that with black coloring, but the less time spent on the boiler the better. Like Hyce, I don’t have a concrete reason, but I think that would play a large part. We had colorful locomotives when we considered it worth it (4449, 611, 490). Our steam locomotives got pretty big sometimes and I’d imagine it would be a pain to paint a big boy or an Allegheny in a British paint scheme.
@@Hyce777 That surprises me; I find black shows up light-coloured dirt something awful. Perhaps that's because I live in Britain where we get Saharan sand coming down with the rain. I can see how coal dust would be less trouble on black. :) Lots of British locos were black in perhaps all the places coal dust would collect, and then some. At my local roundhouse, there's only one engine without large black areas, and it's a tiny 0-4-0.
My best guess, the biggest locomotive is one of those articulated giants built for hauling long trains or one of those weird giant one off experimental locomotives.
@@organbuilder272 you don't say? Oh gosh you are such an observational genius. Who could have known that an articulated locomotive was articulated? You should get a noble prize for your improvement of society.
One thing that people forget, the reason for these big locomotives was an effort by the railroads to decrease labor costs. Instead of having many shorter trains pulled by a crew, or a longer train pulled by two locomotives, each with their own crew, you could just hire one crew to haul a much longer or heavier train. But I am sure that seeing the Big Boy steam past in front of you must be a site to behold.
If you havent, (which is probable cause your sheer lack of time) Id love for you to go down the rabbit hole on the N&W Y6s. Absolutely fascinating engines. Thanks for the reminder that the Jawn Henry was a thing. lol.
Well, Alco actually built 25 4000 series _Big Boy_ locomotives and they lasted in service until 1959. That meant they were reasonably reliable and only the advantages of diesel-electric locomotives relegated them to retirement. Arguably, they were were largest locomotives that were actually successful in revenue service.
In the context of this video, I don't really understand why one should need other units when the point mainly is to make comparisons in which case sticking to one unit system is much easier to follow. Even though today's world is largely metric, we should still honour all units of measurements especially when we are discussing historic accounts. Just my opinion of course, but all that said here you go: WIDTH- 1:48 Big Boy = 3.35 m 1:50 491 = 3.20 m WEIGHT- 2:29 Big Boy loco + tender = 548,279.78 kg 2:55 Big Boy loco = 350,286.71 kg 3:02 Jawn Henry loco = 371,038.56 kg 3:05 Virginian loco = 382,065.39 kg 3:06 Erie loco = 386,936.97 kg 3:08 M-1 loco = 388,275.07 kg OVERALL LENGTH- 3:24 Big Boy = 40.47 m 3:41 PRR S1 = 42.74 m 4:07 Jawn Henry = 49.11 m POWER OUTPUT- 5:17 Big Boy = 4,697 kW @ 66 km/h 5:38 Allegheny = 5,592 kW 6:09 PRR S1 = 5,249 kW @ 161 km/h TRACTIVE EFFORT- 6:47 Jawn Henry = 800 kN 6:47 Y6b (with booster) = 756.2 kN 6:47 Virginian triplex = 739.74 kN 6:48 Virginian 2-10-10-2 = 654.78 kN 6:48 PRR 2-8-8-0 = 744.3 kN 6:48 GN 2-8-8-2 = 722.72 kN 6:49 Erie triplex = 711.72 kN 6:49 NP 2-8-8-4 = 708.74 kN 6:49 Y6b (early) = 677.05 kN 6:50 WP 2-8-8-2 (with booster) = 671.68 kN 6:50 GN 2-8-8-2 again? = 649.13 kN 6:50 DM&IR 2-8-8-4 = 623.16 kN 6:51 WP 2-8-8-2 = 610.18 kN 6:51 Big Boy = 602.18 kN
@@Azchk It is true that it would not be absolutely necessary to transfer the dimensions and information from the American system to metric ones, taking into account that most of the locomotives discussed come from US planning and production. but it makes it easier for the international audience to follow the video and content. That's why including the values without commas would be enough to create a rough guide, at least for the dimensions of the vehicles. Tractive effort is an abstract for most people outside the engineering and Physics community, or the real hardcore train-fans
The big boy has always been kinda weird in that it was designed for huge fast freight service but it was actually used in that capacity and was also extremely good at long haul freight drags as well. It was a very well rounded locomotive. The Alleghenys were also fast freight engines but ended up as coal draggers and werent as good. The big boy did what it was designed to do well bery well and operated outside its design parameters very well. But it wasnt the best in terms of fulfillment of their designed purposes. The S1 and the Y6s were still better at the purposes for which they were built however big boy did better at things outside of its design parameters
The only reason why today's locomotives are smaller is that you don't need a big boiler, and thus you are more flexible by adding more locomotives, all centrally controlled from a single cab instead of one big engine. But still, there are the MTAB IORE at 150" total length.
At least a few Challengers still exist. Big Boy turned out to not be the most economical either. It was designed to haul freight over the Rockies with the idea that it could haul longer trains. But 3 Challengers could easily pull the same as 2 Big Boys and the 3 Challengers would use less fuel and the water as the 2 Big Boys for the same job. The Big Boys were the "great big experiment", and that's where the excitement lies.
...You're forgetting the cost of three locomotive crews vs only two in that comparison. Compared to the cost of the crew running the engine's, fuel and water were cheap, especially back then. By that metric, the 4000 class actually were fairly economical, given the entire point of these large engines was to run longer trains with fewer crews.
To me steam is fascinating , no matter how big or how small it might be . For the people that ran and worked on them ,they were just bigger tools for the trade . I'm told even the Reading RR here in PA ran articulated "2-8-8-2's I think" , for big coal drags ,what a site that would have been to see . That being said, would love to see one of the SP Cab Forwards run,but, think there's only 1 left ,so that will more than likely never happen ..... Great Content Mark ...
I think rather than trying to qualify what a "normal" steam loco is we should instead consider what a successful locomotive type means. To me this means the locomotive being able to do its job effectively, resulting in a production run of locomotives that made it out of the prototype phase without significant faults.
I thought up a fictional 4-10-10-6 locomotive once (simple articulated), and I just did the math, it outputs just SHY of 200,000 pound-force in tractive effort (the exact amount is 199,920 pound-force) it also uses the same boiler width as the Virginian AE class 2-10-10-2 (and now that Im thinking about it, how much would this 4-10-10-6 weigh?)
Why stop there? Why not weld a couple 4-12-2 types together and make a 4-12-12-6? Not sure how many cyclinders it ought to have--four, five, six? All you'd need would be railroad with no curves and turnouts a quarter of a mile long. I always thought that would be fun fantasy loco to model in HO scale . . .
@@CSXP408x Well, very roughly speaking, a Big Boy 4-8-8-4 (minus the tender) is a bit more than half again as heavy than the heaviest 4-8-4s. A 4-12-2 (minus the tender) weighs in at a just under 500,000 lbs, comparable to a heavy 4-8-4. So, I figure a 4-12-12-6 might weigh upwards of 750,000 plus some extra for the 6-wheel trailing trunk vs. the 2 wheels of the original. Maybe 775,00 to 800,000 lbs for the loco alone, i.e. comparable to a Big Boy or Allegheny, or a little more, but not drastically more?
From MN myself and toured Colorado and the fantastic narrow gauge railroads. You always have great info. Much appreciated and hope to meet someday. GTO guy here to.
How did Santa Fe’s “Double Decapod” compare? Although it failed miserably, that had to be larger than the “Big Boy”. As memory serves, the Santa Fe’s 2-10-10-2 had an articulated boiler. The Santa Fe wound up rebuilding these into 2 , 2-10-0’s with the addition of cabs, fire boxes, smoke boxes etc to each half as necessary. If successful, they would have outclassed the “Big Boy”.
I unfortunately did not learn anything this time and thats fine. I have a feeling they only say its the biggest purely for the headline of worlds biggest, its catchy, and in your face.
I'm an old farm boy that likes steam as well. Farmers would get together and have tractor pulls to brag about their tractors. The conditions of the staged pulls was never ideal. Some tractors did better than others. The real test was in the fields doing the jobs they were designed for. Which ones could dig their toenails and get through the tough spots was the real test. Todays tractor pulls are for show and you won't see any of them out in the field working 10 hour days. Big Boys field was the mountains between Cheyenne and Ogden where they slugged it out on a daily basis.
The S1 is simply too large to make sense rebuilding. The T1 can actually maneuver around the same tracks a large northern or a 2-8-4 can. The S1? I wouldn’t think so.
Although Big Boy is the most biggest now that still exist, the Y6A 2156 is NOW the strongest steam locomotive that still exist. Just putting it out there
It’s important to mention that the Big Boys and mallets were built for two different purposes. The former for hauling faster loads over long distances through vast deserts, the layers for slower moves in often more densely populated regions than that of Wyoming, Utah, and Colorado where the Big Boys worked. Still what they were capable of is hard to beat, even by simple articulateds built for fast freights Also those lengthy ones were turbines. And the S1 tenderless was shorter than a tenderless big boy
Big respect that UP brought back the Big Boy. I know the Big Boy isn't a record holder, but for me the Big Boy is the best allrounder, also the Challenger. They made the one thing very good for what they made for.
I always heard the Big Boy is considering the "biggest" based on being a 4-8-8-4 which is considering the largest successful wheel arrangement as far a conventional locomotives go.
Thank you sir for your analysis. I very much like the Big Boy and I will say as you did that 4014 Big Boy is a great example of a humongous steam engine that IS in service TODAY. But there were by numerous measurements bigger steam locomotives. So thank you again for your video.
It's all apples and oranges, very hard to compare, because each railroad had their own special needs. Being from a Norfolk and Western railroad town and family, I'm certainly partial to the N&W's articulateds. With the Big Boy, there were 30 made? The UP had 241 articulateds total in their history. So during the 40's and 50's, when you got to see a Big Boy, it would have been a treat. And is still today! With the N&W, their territory was probably less than a fifth of the UP's and yet, there were over 450 articulateds of the various Y, A, Z classes, many of which operated well into the 50's. So, if you lived by the N&W tracks, especially in the Appalachian coal fields, the A's and the Y's were at least an hourly occurrence. They were the primary road workhorses 24/7, 365 days a year, hauling freight and coal through Appalachia. They weren't just a special, rare occurrence. On mountain roads, you got to know them intimately, because they blocked your road on the hundreds of railroad crossings with hundreds of cars..... Anyway I think if there was a comparison of railroads who's "biggest" lifeblood was the articulateds, the N&W would win hands down. WATCH N&W ARTICULATEDS: ua-cam.com/video/C0wmvZTyFYs/v-deo.htmlsi=hnwXtmt-IN5wOD9c
An interesting point about the N&W articulated Locos is that, in the main, they were built in house and improved over the years, whereas other railway companies used contractors, Baldwin, Lima et al. The genesis of the Y classes from Y1 to the ultimate Y6s shows how the N&W took steam technology to a pinnacle which, aided by modern service facilities, showed just what steam could achieve!
I applaud you for bringing this out to viewers! Apart from locomotives, in life, there are also many other subjects that people need to be told the true facts. It will bring us to better understanding in the way life is.
As a teen I saw and read about this unique steam engine that was being built that looked much like the diesels. It was the Jawn Henry Norfolk and Western 2300. I wondered why I never saw any of them and never heard anymore about it. It was in Popular Mechanic magazine/book. Thanks for mentioning it.
As the largest steam locomotives go, Big Boy 4014 is not alone in active service. The Western Maryland Scenic Railroad 1309 is a 2-6-6-2 class H-6. It has been in excursion service since 2021. Made in 1949 for the C&O, it was the last steam locomotive built by Baldwin. If you have not seen it in operation, there are a number of videos featuring the 1309 on UA-cam. Her whistle needs to be heard to be appreciated.
The way I see it, it is the biggest "mass" produced locomotive, as it had more than a handful and it has not only stationary examples but one still opperational, compared to the s1 being a 1 of 1 with it having been scrapped
A few points: 1: The power differences between the Big boy and other lsrge locomotives likely lie within the error bars for power measurements at the time. 2: Most engines that beat the Big boy on tractive effirt also have very low factors of adhesion suggesting that they might mostly spin their wheels 3: Loading gauge, axle loading and generally similar technology is why there are a number of locos of similar size and power. Big boy is one of the later ones abd one of the more successful.
You know you forgot. The Black Diamond black diamond was a passenger train and go a 120 mile an hour. I remembered as a kid as we used to take it from weighing New York down the tongue kennick Pennsylvania. And it was a fast train is probably one of the bigger trees that had a lot of power.
There are three production locomotives that are in the class of the BIG BOY, the key word is production, UP bought 25 BIGBOY's. there were 88 Allegany/Blue Ridge Locomotives, and there were 18 DMIR Yellowstone locomotives. they were all 6000+ Horse power from the 2 drive engines. The Allegany got a Horse power boost with the Steam turbines in the 3 axle firebox truck. Big Boy was known as the largest because of two factors, First the PR department at UP advertised it as such, Second: they operated next to the US 30, the Lincoln Highway where it was filmed pulling long trains at high speed across the Great Basin Desert. Yellowstone's hauled heavy loads of Iron ore through the northern Minnesota forest, Allegany/Blue Ridge were pulling Coal in the New River Valley canyon and filming was limited to short sections at much slower speeds. The Y6B was a stronger pulling engine but the size of it's drivers limited the speed and therefore the horse power.
The horsepower was limited by the size of the firebox and boiler, not the drivers. This locomotive was designed to generate stupendous tractive effort at speeds of 25-30 mph, the maximum safe speed for superheavyweight coal trains in that mountainous terrain. For that service 5000 boiler horsepower was plenty. It could make 50 mph with a light load without shaking too much, and if Norfolk and Western had so wished they could have built it with a bigger firebox and boiler to run that fast with a heavy train in places where the terrain would allow it. What they did was build locomotives that were more efficient than a Big Boy or Allegheny would have been in that slow coal drag service. When the Alleghenies were running in such service on the competing Chesapeake and Ohio, their additional boiler horsepower capability was being wasted. One of my fellow model railroad club members once said that N&W was the smartest in designing and operating big steam locomotives, and that C&O was clueless.
My wife and I got to see the Big Boy come thru Washington Missouri several years back. It was one of the most impressive machines I have ever had the pleasure of seeing.
Hyce, for your information here are reasons why Big Boy is the largest. It has the longest engine body of any reciprocating steam locomotive and is the heaviest reciprocating steam locomotive ever built
I would not call it world biggest in reference to historical trains. but labelling it as biggest Surviving... well, I still do NOT label this biggest. Just because the moniker big boy; was NEVER designed or built to be 'world biggest' at all. I was told Big Boy was built as experiment on articulation of two challenger components; with eye on addressing the rail curves within western mountain pass-lines. Test result proved Big Boy could handle mountain rail curves so well, more was ordered with same construction plan. I wonder which big boy number is the prototype engine?
I remember a remark from a guide at the Forney Museum in Denver about the "Big Boy" on display there. He said that that locomotive was too big for railroads in the eastern US. I let the remark pass. I used to work for the B&O and have distant memories of steam on the N&W pulling trains up the Scioto River valley from Portsmouth, Ohio. I wasn't certain, but both the B&O, N&W and other eastern rails had some impressive large articulates in x-8-8-x configurations, such as "Yellowstones." Could the "Big Boy" have been used in the curvy hilly rails in n the eastern US?
An important fact that most people seem to forget when they’re comparing the big boy With the other large steam locomotives, Is that the big boy has relatively large drivers For freight locomotive at 68in Because it was built for speed. So if you were to replace those drivers With sizes more common like 63 to 65in Then You probably could get A lot more tractive effort maybe like 150k. But of course, top speed would go down With those small drivers.
The S1 was the Predecessor to the T1 locomotive which turned out to be an incredible marvel of engineering, easily one of the most powerful locomotive designs for its size.
I remember as a teenager visiting the fair park rail museum in Dallas Tx had a cab forward steam loco and the big boy. the keeper made it clear that the cab forward was actually longer than the big boy and that has stuck with me ever since.
It’s one of the Heaviest and Largest Successful Locomotives. Yes there were some Experimental that may have exceeded it in some way. Big Boy would make the top six in numerous categories. Big Boy is the King of Steam.
Jawn Henry was absolutely insane.. 600PSI Water Tube SHIP boiler. Driving a turbine providing electricity. It had AUTOMATIC boiler controls.. They built a freaking coal power plant on wheels. and of all the experimentals Jawn.. worked. Almost too well, it was infamous for doing things like pulling knuckles and even pulled a couple hoppers apart. It was put in Pusher service for that fact. It wasn't replicated because it cost a freaking fortune. But by god could the thing pull...
Good Lord. That thing was rad.
Wow.
The Jawn had other issues as well. Tended to crack turbine blades if the operator changed power output demands too rapidly. Had problems with coal dust and water playing hell with the electronics. Very sensitive about water quality, and as you said, prohibitively expensive. None of these were insurmountable problems, but it came too late for other railroads to be interested so the money just wasn't there to refine the concept further.
I should also note that the tractive effort rating provided by Hyce for the Jawn is off a bit. The operator's manual (which I have a reprint of) states continuous tractive effort at 10 mph at 144,000 lbs, and starting tractive effort at 175,000 lbs. Still respectable numbers to be sure and much higher than the Big Boy.
@@NorfKhazad Shame that at least one part wasn't preserved
@@NorfKhazad So Jawn Henry was essentially the equivalent of some variant of SD70?
Long story short; the 4000 class isn’t the leader in any specific category (weight, length, horsepower, speed, etc), but it is perhaps the largest general purpose locomotive. Most other locomotives that beat the Big Boys categorically were designed to fulfill very niche roles on their home railroads and would not do well outside those roles. The Big Boys on the other hand, could get down on their knees and pound up a grade at 10-15 mph with tonnage, but then also pick up its rods on the flatlands and run 55-65 mph with that same tonnage.
The Alleghenies were also general purpose engines. Ugly as sin but they were designed for horsepower at speed. Although the C&O used them to haul coal trains up the sides of mountains at 15 they could and did pull fast freight at 45 to 55 and could have gone faster. They were really designed for fast freight even though they were absurdly heavy.
Very true. The big boys are excellent locomotives..
The way I learned it, (back in the 80s,) the Big Boy itself was a niche loco. It was built for relatively tight curves, pulling a lot of coal uphill on a tight mountain route. The Alleghenies presumably didn't have that restriction.
@@eekee6034 Don't know where you got your information from, but the 4000s were built specifically for service between Ogden and Green River, where they hauled mainly manifest trains and perishables (fruit blocks). Coal trains were not their assignments. The route does not have particularly tight curvature. The restricting factor on the size of the 4000s was the vertical clearance in the Aspen tunnel, east of Evanston, WY. In the intervening years the tunnel's height has been increased and now accommodates stack trains.
It wasn't until they were bumped by diesels that they routinely ran east of Green River. They finished out their service lives on Sherman Hill, between Cheyenne and Laramie. During that time they would be run down to Denver, and occasionally to North Platte. They had to be turned on wyes at both terminals because there were no turntables to accommodate them there.
Although they were cleared to run on main lines across the entire system from LA and Portland in the west to Council Bluffs and Kansas City in the east, they stayed on the original UP route between Ogden and Council Bluffs, except for the runs to Denver and a series of test runs between Salt Lake City and Milford, UT. That was oil fuel territory, so the 4000s had to be fueled with a clamshell bucket from hopper cars, the way coal burners on fan trips are done today.
The Big Boys were the largest mass-produced locomotives, I believe.
I’ve always said this: “4014 and her sisters are the largest surviving steam locomotives in existence”
even then they're probably not.
Def not largest surviving. Largest operating right now? Sure
talking about sisters of 4014, 4004, & 4012 needs to follow suit in restoration, big boys were so long that they had to have special 140ft turntables built for them to fit on,
Is it sister or brother when it comes to the big boys, they’re called big BOYS.
Good for you bubb
It seems silly, but I think 1 reason that the Big Boy is so iconic as "The biggest" is due to it simply looking the part. No streamlining, the whole pilot assembly is massive, it has a lot of rough and tough looking external parts. Ect. It just looks like the designers said screw making it pretty and give me as much power as you can. Plus the name definitely helps.
And the locomotive without its tender is considerably larger than the S1 without its tender
I just finished my first day on the job as a rail car repair man, it’s amazing how much engineering and mechanical work goes into something as simple as a hopper car. Today I worked on getting all the hooper doors to close and lock properly and then started work on rust correction and patching. Lots of fun for those who enjoy hands on work and plenty of welding. Great for those who enjoy working outside. Has my name written all over it! Not to mention having the pleasure of watching trains go by all day.
My Dad was a Carmen for 16 years and loved it.
just read ur msg mate and when ii was reading it i was thinking to my self what an amazing job i always wanted to work on the railways but my mother went very poorly wen i was quiet young 13 years old so i decided to look after her over 20 years i l ooked after her shes in peace now listen i am so happy for u that u love ur job working on the railways ur comment really stuck out at me godbless you sir
Ive seen Big Boys and Ive seen DM&IR Yellowstones. Both are incredible locomotives but damn the Yellowstones are chunky iron movers and I love them.
same here... my grandpa was a freight scheduler for the DM&IR RR, so of course I was a bit biased towards the Yellowstones... since I saw them growing up in the depots in Duluth and Two Harbors. It's hard to not be impressed by those absolute monsters. The one in the Duluth Depot is amazing, as you can climb into it and pretend to be running the auto-stoker (you didn't have to shovel coal on a Yellowstone, as if you could keep up by hand lol).
Three Yelliwstones survive, and at least one Allegheny...all just as powerful, if not more.
@chouseification nice to see love for the Yellowstones. I grew up with the Duluth Depot as well. My uncle, grandfather, and great grandfather worked at Clyde Iron who built the McGifferts that the Duluth Depot has on display.
I hope they restore them ( Yellow stones ) and bring them back to life. So people can see our rail road history !
😢@@chouseification
people saying the big boy is the biggest forget about the russian 4-14-sometging i forgot as well as the belgian overkill 0-6-2+2-4-2-4-2+2-6-0 locomotive which was too powerful for our European couplings
The quadraplex was a Belgian locomotive, don't blame the Netherlands for that
@@Yorie1234We're such a small country, we got to overcompensate somewhere 😅
The Russian loco you refer to,was like the steam turbine engines mentioned here, it rarely ran. Unlike the mechanical issues the ST machines, the Russian loco literally destroyed the rails it ran on.
the AA20 4-14-4 is the Largest Rigid frame loco made.
considered a Failure in Russia for several reasons not it's own fault.
it regularly tore apart the track it ran on because the Russian Mainline Rail size wasn't heavy enough to properly hold this monster up resulting in several derailments from wrecked Track. it was a notoriously rough riding loco very hard on it's operators from reciprocating occilation resulting from it's center of mass directly over the 4th driving axle. this caused an unnerving seesaw effect which didn't help the already overburdened track either.
Russian one had longest rigid frame. Compared to many articulated engines, he was pretty small (whole idea of it was to get powerful simple locomotive within low axle loads).
Essentially we are here because UP was the only railroad to put out a special documentary *specifically* for a locomotive (Last of the Giants) rather than a documentary about typical railroad operations in which UP could control the narrative. And from UP's perspective the 4000s were the biggest ever built (for their railroad).
This is going to be controversial...
It shouldn't be that a controversial big boy was never the biggest and it may now be the biggest still running.
@@ybunnygurl it was always perceived as the biggest
Lol
Hell yes it is
Wasn't expecting it to be, lol.
The thing with engineering anything for a specific application is that you ideally want to know exactly what you want the machine to do, and then optimize it for that use. There are stronger, longer, heavier locomotives than Big Boy, of course, but to compare really any engine of similar principle between one another, when you get down to brass tacks, is an apples to oranges comparison. These machines were designed for a specific purpose, at a specific speed, in a specific environment with specific restrictions. To ask what’s the absolute fastest, or absolute strongest, or absolute anything abut any machine sort of loses the nuance of what actually matters. What actually matters, in this case to the railroad management, is what is the best locomotive for us. What is the strongest or fastest locomotive, for us, for our specific restrictions and requirements.
One excellent example of this, in my opinion, is the Milwaukee Road’s Atlantic types for the Hiawatha. Almost every other railroad went for Pacifics, Hudsons, even Northerns for similar requirements, and yes, even the Milwaukee themselves ended up budging and buying Baltics (what they called Hudsons) later on. But what mattered most to the Milwaukee wasn’t ‘whats the strongest, fastest engine on the market right now’, it was ‘what is the best design for our needs and restrictions right now’, and it just so happens that a superpowered variant of the venerable Atlantic design happened to fit the bill.
Agreed. I’ve already said my thoughts about the subject, but there is more to locomotive design than just what is the biggest and the fastest.
I've always had issues with anyone listing the Jawn Henry as a "steam locomotive" in anything but the most general sense. It is, by definition, a Steam Turbine-Electric Locomotive (STEL), not a Steam Locomotive. How the turbine is operated doesn't actually matter in the classification. It falls under the same operating principles and in many ways has much more in common with the GTELs than a steam locomotive since the steam is not directly driving the drive axles. "Steam Locomotive" has always described what powers the driving axles, which is why the GTELs were "Gas Turbine-Electric" and most modern road engines are "Diesel-Electric".
Agreed! The Jawn Henry isn’t anymore a steam locomotive than the Arleigh Burke, or for that matter the Nimitz, are steam ships!
Using your logic, a diesel-electric should simply be called an electric because that's what powers the axles. But they're not, they're called diesels because that's what makes the power. Using that far more common logic, what makes the power on the Jawn Henry and the M-1 for that matter? Steam.
@@davidrayner9832 So, I guess then since they are powered with high pressure steam turbines the US Navy’s entire fleet is steam aircraft carriers and steam submarines?
@@scottwendt9575 Diesel, when describing a locomotive, is short for diesel-electric so the ships and submarines would be steam-turbine-electric which you can say if you want to but most people would shorten it to steam-turbine or you could shorten it further to just steam. Any of those is OK.
One of the funniest things I've learned about Big Boys is that they have lighter axle loadings that N&W Js...
**Theoretically** we can run it at Strasburg 😂
That's hysterical! I did temp work as a train cleaner for a summer at Strasburg, and it would be hilarious to see an articulated run there
RESTORE IT AND RUN IT AT STRASBURG
lmao welp time to start a penitition
Oh god that’s the foamer apocalypse dear lord
@@bobross4449 shush, money for the prr museum's restorations too, and the real foamer apocalypse would be 1225
Widest steam locomotive was the Virginian 2-10-10-2s, which were just over 12 feet wide to accommodate their 48" low pressure cylinders. This is outside standard clearances so they had to be shipped to the Virginian with the cylinders, cabs and running boards removed and even then could only be shipped on higher than normal clearance routes. They also had the largest diameter boilers of any steam locomotives, the highest tractive effort of any successful steam locomotive, and the largest amount of evaporative heating surface of any steam locomotive. This is all despite being built in 1919, more than two decades before the Big Boys.
I should also note that the tractive effort number provided in this video is for compound operation. With their enormous boilers the 2-10-10-2s were normally run in simple for starting trains, and could produce 176,600 lbs of tractive effort when high pressure steam was sent to the huge front cylinders. Also I say highest tractive effort of any "successful" steam locomotive, because 10 of them were built and they operated for 25-30 years doing more milage than the Big Boys despite having a top speed of around 15 mph. The locomotives that exceeded them like the Virginian Triplex and Jawn Henry were one off experimental designs which were scrapped long before their designed service lives were over.
@@NorfKhazad A couple of points the N&W in 1917 brought into service the Y2 2-8-8-2 ,; with both tender boosters working produced 174,400 lbs tractive effort ,although the boiler could not sustain this for long periods of time ...fast forward to 1954 ;when the N&W had all the Y5 Y6 Y6a Y6b outshopped with 40 tons of scrap steel, lead and concrete onto the mainframes along with intercepting valves and extra [water]tenders , and reclassified Y6c with 310 lb b.p. they produced 190,000 lbs tractive effort in simple and were the most powerful locomotives ever in service except for 1 ! The Belgian quadruplex built in 1932 that produced 213,000 lbs tractive effort. The Nazis cut this loco into two seperate locos in 1943.
@@dennismitchell-h9s The Y5s and Y6s were upgraded to Y6Bs, the Y6C was proposed but never implemented. Some of the changes you mentioned (intercepting/reducing valve, added weight) were part of the Y6B upgrade program, but they never produced 190k pounds of tractive effort. I have never heard of this Belgian locomotive and I very much doubt it produced that level of tractive effort, if it even existed.
@@NorfKhazad Look up quadruplex locomotives it actually existed but was far too powerful for the Belgian railways of the time a 2-6-0+ 4-4-2+2-4-4+ 0-6-2.1driver 2 x firemen .
Thats the one I was trying to remember, they actually outpowered the Big Boy in raw tractive effort, but they couldn't get past 15mph or so because the boiler despite its size couldn't provide enough steam. This primarily because they were 20 years earlier and boiler technology didn't have pressures as high.
One must wonder… who gave Union Pacific, PRR, and N&W unrestricted access to the whiskey? All jokes aside, I think the Big Boy is the best of the largest locomotives, but the PRR Q2s were the best of the ridged frame locomotives.
Yellowstone?
I believe that you mean rigid frame locomotives.
I mean it worked ig..except for what the Pennsy. No idea how they thought the S1 would be practical..or any of the other weird duplexes.
@@whispofwords2590The T1 and Q2 worked just fine tbh. Just too late.
@whispofwords2590, well, if they had fixed the poppet valve problem and built and rebuilt right of ways to be like the Lackawanna cutoff, then it could have been a high speed steam locomotive. And yes, I mean actual high-speed rail.
It's really sad that none of those other big choochoos still exist. Guess nobody was worried about preservation back in those days and just wanted the metal. Cool video as always Hyce!
So what we need is crowd funded restoration projects here?
There's still two Alleghenies left
There is still a Y6b
Thank God that two Alleghenies *and* a Y6b still exist. While I'd love to see them all restored to operating condition, the fact that they're preserved is excellent.
The Challenger still exists. Just not put on tour anymore. Still in the UP's museum. A friend and I did a rail chase from Nevada state line down the Feather river Canyon when it came out to the Rail Fair in Old Sacramento in the late 80s. Also ran up to Klamath Falls to meet the incoming the Shasta Daylight steamer and chased it all the way to Sacramento.
Hmm...I'm not familiar enough with some of those eastern engines, but I think part of the reason the Big Boy stands out (besides excellent publicity on UP's part) was the fact that it was not only large and powerful, but could also move fast. The Big Boys were reportedly tested at up to 80 mph, although its optimum speed was much lower; looking at the list of stronger engines, most of them look like engines designed to slog heavy trains at low speeds. Its size limited its operating territory, but the Big Boy was a much more general-purpose locomotive than the others. And a "world's biggest engine" that can roar by at 60-70 mph with a long string of cars sounds more impressive than one that trudges by at 20mph with a long string of cars.
The Allegheny's regularly hauled 140-160 car loaded coal trains and merchandise trains at 45 mph, so these two are certainly in a league of their own
Oh certainly. I'm not saying the big boy was not the most capable thing around, I'm just saying if you claim it's the biggest of all time you're not right. Lol
And then there's the clearly most superior engine at the opposite end of the size spectrum....Montezuma! Your big boy can haul a train a mile long but can it fit in a carry on?
See, that's the beauty. Lol
If you could fit it in a carry on, could you put it in a plane? Lol.
@@Stooltoad5017Then it would be the fastest loco ever.
We should start listing locomotive top speed by Mach number lol
@@SnakebitSTI does pieces from explosions count?
Big boy was listed as the world's largest "production " steam locomotive, not "THE" largest steam locomotive. Several publications acknowledge this fact, however rule out the others due to their short and limited existence, considering them experimental or concept locomotives rather than real service units. Hope this helps 😊
Justice for the Allegheny!
The Big Boy is an awesome locomotive, and I never in my life thought I would see one that large restored.
Locally, we compare it to the Missabe Yellowstones. They were about 100 feet apart when yhe Big Boy visited the Duluth museum.
Truth be told, they overlap a lot in statistics. Big Boy has more boiler horsepower and top speed. Yellowstone has less horsepower and lower top speed, but more tractive effort. Big Boy is slightly longer because it was designed to burn low BTU western coal compared to the Missabe's eastern coal, thus it has a bigger firebox.
Both were designed to do different things. Big Boy was designed to pull trains in mountains at relatively high speeds. Yellowstone was designed to pull endlessly long ore trains at very low speeds.
Both were awesome locomotives, and I am very fortunate to see one of them running.
Remember that the classification "Yellowstone" was from the Northern Pacific's classes of steam monsters that originated the name, running heavy main line freights over the NP's undulating profile across North Dakota and along the Yellowstone River for much of their main line. They were a well developed class as witnessed by the NP's four classes of 2-8-8-4s, Z-5 throughZ-8, comprising more than 50 units. But when the NP dieselized, they leaned into it and never looked back. By 1959, all the Zs were gone. Management had no desire to look back on steam and preferred to be seen as a modern progressive road that was eager to embrace the larger high horsepower diesels that came along. Only smaller steam engines were given to communities along the line. Even the historic Timken locomotive was cut up, against the wishes of many.
I locomotive I'd love to see Run is the C&O Alleghany, I've seen them in person, Truly astounding piece of machinery.
Norfolk and Western y6b for the win. Normal locomotive meant to haul coal trains. Such an awesome engine.
Remember the Virginian 2-10-10-2 which have ALL THE POWER. Edit: I'm writing this when it was published at 6 minutes
and was actually the biggest steam locomotive ever built
But didn’t have as much power as a yellowstone
Do you mean the triplex 2-10-10-10-2? Or did they make a duplex decapod?
At any rate the triplex was a hot garbage engine. She couldn't really go above, like, 8MPH. But, it was really, REALLY hard to slow her down from 8MPH at max beans. Something like 115k lbs tractive. I know they served for some banking duties for a bit but then were broken apart and made into decapods I believe.
@@NashRailfan in mallet form ya but in simple mode it's more power than the Yellowstones
@@IsaacBaxter Yellowstones are Yellowstones.. there are no variations (except SP).. all are 2-8-8-4’s, or for SP, 4-8-8-2 (cab forwards)
Funny how people argue about this. I just say that it’s the largest OPERATIONAL locomotive.
If you see the promotional material UP puts out talking/showing its Big Boys, there are no disclaimers or comparisons shown. They just say the biggest and expect everyone to accept it. Show me different UP if you will?
The Yellowstone’s are stronger and I think the PRR S1s were larger. Not sure though
I think the one headline you flashed up at the beginning of the video actually puts it well with "Largest Successful Steam Locomotive". That seems like a neat enough way to exclude some of the weirdo prototypes.
Awesome video Hyce!
A little something to add though, the first class of UP Big Boys, the 4-8-8-4-1’s, which 4014 is a part of, weighed 762,000 lbs. The first batch of C&O Alleghenies weighed 771,300 lbs.
What i mention to people more often is that the Challengers and Big Boys for the most part were the railroads having their cake and eating it to. What i mean by that is theyre some of if bot the fastest Articulated steam engines ever produced because of what the UP needed at the time. East Coast or just mountain railroad articulated steam engines needed raw tractive effort over speed where as Big Boy and Challengers beeded to go hogh speed over long distances. So its a very well rounded Articulated steam engine when you look at its contempoaries for the day. Its a great engine but at times is i think just a bit overrated for what people think about it in general. But those are just my thoughts thank you for this lovely video Hyce.
I love that you showed the Q2 in the thumbnail and then didn't mention it in spite of putting out 7,987 peak HP.
indicated, drawbar is 6645.
I missed that in my narrative and Wings & Strings got it for the thumbnail. Bonkers.
@@commissarcarl17007987 AT THE COUPLER BEFORE POWER TO MOVE ITSELF ,, WHICH WOULD INDICATE JUST UNDER 7500 HP ----
RIGHT THERE WITH THE ALLEGHENY .. AVAILABLE FOR WORKING
They were unsuccessful. A waste of money.
Those were the most thirsty steam locomotives I've seen reports on, consuming a whopping 16,600 gallons of water an hour.
"Medium Boy"
"Larger than average lad"
"Tremendous Terry"
“Sizeable Sally”
Blossoming Benjamin
Mid Marvin
Hey, just to say, it would be very nice to have metric conversions written at least a few times, for your rail fans from the other side of the ocean who loves your trains 😊 not asking to use them orally, just write them
Still, the big boy is quite a huge beast, would love to see it
i remember reading somewhere that the whole reason the Big Boys were kinda unimpressive in these straight up comparisons was because a lot of the monsters in the east were built for long grueling coal drags through the mountains while Big Boys were meant to tackle the rolling hills of the Midwest with fairly though not as heavy trains at a reasonable click to account for…all the plains. different engines for different jobs ofc. though, im not quite sure how correct this is and would appreciate input.
Mark you're a great educator. Could listen to you talk about trains for hours (I mean, I literally do). You're really good at communicating ideas clearly and without getting deep into jargon and when you do you've been great about explaining it.
largest surviving does not mean largest ever but people confuse the two
I feel like people say this because its sorta the jack of all trades, as it has big stats in every catagory, whilst others would be the biggest in all the other catagorys, there would be a catagory where it has average measurments
Agreed. Most of these were specialists in a given area. The big boy could do all of them but not quite as well. That isn’t a bad thing. The interesting thing to me about American railroading is that almost every Giant class one had their own form of giant superpower locomotive to haul a huge amount of tonnage at various different speeds. The C&O had their Alleghenys, the Pennsy had giant duplex freight locomotives. The DM&I and B&O had their Yellowstones. SP had cab forwards. The N&W had their steam giants. Etc. Maybe instead of fighting over what was the best, we should celebrate what we managed to save from this era of railroading.
Even a passing mention of the Virginian AE Class of 2-10-10-2s makes me happy. So obscure, but just so neat.
That PRR with long tender is a I1sa class 2-10-0 pulling a 210F82 tender. The 210F82 tender is a 21,000 gallon tender with some 21 tons of coal, on a pair of 8 wheel tenders with a modern 3 person doghouse. When fully loaded, it would have outweighed the I1 by about 80,000 pounds. The I1 was known as a monster locomotive from the drag freight era and was nicknamed the Hippo
I always learn something new on this channel. Did you meet Ed Dickens while you were here in Carson City? I was surprised to learn while standing there talking to him that he wasn’t just allowed to run the Big Boy sometimes, he RUNS THE PROGRAM.
I've met Ed a few times. He's great.
I’ve seen the 4017 in Green Bay, WI. Impeccable machines. Even though they are far from the largest, still glad that we have eight of them around, god forbid one that runs. Will forever be a symbol of American superpower steam days
Hi Mark, thanks for this great learning moment. I liked how you contextualized Big Boy with both technical and historical information. You answered some questions I had about fabulous Big Boy by defining what “big” for a choo choo really can mean. I so appreciate these wonderful learning videos, thanks again for making it and as always cheers to you Professor!
The DM&IR 2-8-8-4 Yellowstone has always been a personal favorite of mine, but even I acknowledge the Big Boy is way more practical outside of the Yellowstone's niche of hauling heavy iron ore. Really cool video!
I always knew Big Boy wasn't the biggest. But I didn't know they were that low on the boards.
Have climbed over H8's and Big Boy's. Both are impressive machines! An interesting side note or two.
The big boy boiler would fit inside the H8(sans the firebox)and the. C&O never realized the full potential of the H8s!
Really enjoy your videos!
Did you take into consideration any of the big Garretts from South Africa? Some of those are VERY long, and quite powerful, too.
One thing about the Big Boys was how WELL they worked. Many of the other engines were failures for different reasons - from being extremely complicated (like many Duplex engines), to excessive maintenance, to not having the steam capacity to make use of their power.
Yes, I've heard it said of the Big Boys--exaggerating a tad--that you all you have to do is put warm water in them and they go!
I was thinking about Garret engines too, but don't remember anything specific about them. Isn't the Big Boy itself classified as a Garret as it has one boiler over two sets of driving wheels.
@@eekee6034The Big Boy is not a Garret. Only the first set of drivers swivels. The boiler sits on the second pair like other articulateds.
@@Stooltoad5017 Ah, I see. Thanks.
I’m extremely happy that Y6As got a moment in the spotlight. Thank you my friend
I've heard it described as the largest by wheel arrangement too (I guess because of the fact that its a 4-8-8-4), which also isn't technically correct because the Virginian had some 2-10-10-2s that were actually decent from what I've heard and not cursed like the ones the Santa Fe had lol
Yeah it doesn't win that really nor does that really make sense as a category imo lol
I have always known that there have been locomotives out there that were bigger, longer, heavier, more wheel arrangement, more tractive effort ect than Big Boy. But all of them for one reason or another were not very successful. So I always assumed that when everyone says Big Boy is the biggest it is because it is the biggest engine that is/was successful.
Jeremy Clarkson will be happy to hear about these engines with Speed and Power
I remember seeing the one they had at the Green Bay museum many years ago, big boy indeed big. Remember taking a picture of all the valves and such inside its cab.
Big Boy is big but not the biggest boy.
Fantastic video. Here in Bulgaria we operated a fleet of tank locomotives made for the Bulgarian State Railways which were called class 46 or in other words 2-12-4T which were supposedly the most powerful tank locos ever operated in Europe. One of them is still in running order.
Or as we polish like to call them :big chonky tank engini
The Pennsylvania Railroad S1 has 7,200 WHAT at 100 miles per hour? Jeez!
Yeah it and the T1 plus their plan to fully electrify before the 1930s ICC reported them to the 1930s IRS for tax evasion to fund it, makes me think they were dreaming the same high speed and frequency dream that the Japanese National Railway was having at the same time with Shinkansen. They might have been intended as steam high speed operators until electrification was complete. Hell, to a certain degree they were at least that time period's equivalent because they were usually right below the Shinkansen 0 series normal speed bases on the schedule they were keeping.
@@timothystamm3200 *long whistle*
Isn't that the one they're trying to build a modern copy of?
@@ReggieArford I don't know.
@@timothystamm3200 isn’t that what everyone dreamed of though? Everyone was looking to the future and potential for electrification. If the T1s had Walshaerts valve gear and/or had been 4 cylinder compound 4-8-4s with a better exhaust arrangement, I do see a potential to use steam as a temporary high speed solution.
I did, in fact, go down a rabbit hole of these other locomotives you mentioned, so thank you for this video. I certainly learned some new things. Like the S1 being an absolute chad.
Big boy: you dare challenge me mortal. A God of Steam.
Great video as always Hyce.
One question I have that might make an interesting video, Why are most American steam locomotives black. Not that there is anything wrong with that all of my favorite locomotives are big black hunks of USA steam and steel, and I'm sure most people watching this channel love a nice Big Black Choo-choo (sorry). In all seriousness locomotives with a fancy livery like CNJ's blue comet or the Boston and Maine's Paul Revere and Flying Yankee pacifics seem to be the exception with the rule being all or mostly black all the time. Meanwhile in other places like the UK most of their steam is done up in fancy reds, blues and greens. Why is that? Were American companies just cheap and black was the least expensive color or was there some other reason for this coloring? Also when we transitioned to diesel, railroads got a lot more colorful with every diesel getting a livery representing the company they worked for, what triggered this change? I'm curious to know the theory behind the coloring of locomotives.
Black definitely is the easiest to... Hide the dirt. Lol. I'll have to consult with the historians about the precise reason why.
I’d imagine it comes down to maintenance, while the British steam locomotives are colorful, I’d imagine they are at least a pain in the behind to paint. Not that you don’t have to do that with black coloring, but the less time spent on the boiler the better. Like Hyce, I don’t have a concrete reason, but I think that would play a large part. We had colorful locomotives when we considered it worth it (4449, 611, 490). Our steam locomotives got pretty big sometimes and I’d imagine it would be a pain to paint a big boy or an Allegheny in a British paint scheme.
@@Hyce777 That surprises me; I find black shows up light-coloured dirt something awful. Perhaps that's because I live in Britain where we get Saharan sand coming down with the rain. I can see how coal dust would be less trouble on black. :) Lots of British locos were black in perhaps all the places coal dust would collect, and then some. At my local roundhouse, there's only one engine without large black areas, and it's a tiny 0-4-0.
I've seen 4014 in person, It was large..
But it was more longer more than tall.
(this might be obvious)
My best guess, the biggest locomotive is one of those articulated giants built for hauling long trains or one of those weird giant one off experimental locomotives.
Do you have the slightest idea how little that narrows it down?! XD
@@WEM2016 yes
Big Boy is one of those articulated giants.
@@organbuilder272 you don't say? Oh gosh you are such an observational genius. Who could have known that an articulated locomotive was articulated? You should get a noble prize for your improvement of society.
One thing that people forget, the reason for these big locomotives was an effort by the railroads to decrease labor costs. Instead of having many shorter trains pulled by a crew, or a longer train pulled by two locomotives, each with their own crew, you could just hire one crew to haul a much longer or heavier train. But I am sure that seeing the Big Boy steam past in front of you must be a site to behold.
If you havent, (which is probable cause your sheer lack of time) Id love for you to go down the rabbit hole on the N&W Y6s. Absolutely fascinating engines.
Thanks for the reminder that the Jawn Henry was a thing. lol.
yea 2156 is pretty much forgotten, shame too because it's a beautiful machine that deserves better.
@@danielkapp9468And 2156 was among the Y6as that were upgraded to nearly (or completely, not entirely sure) match the Y6b.
The Y class engines had their roots in USRA designs from WWI, N&W just made lots of improvements...........
Oh what I would give for the John Henry to have been preserved. That thing is a UNIT
most expensive maybe? big *budget* boy
Well, Alco actually built 25 4000 series _Big Boy_ locomotives and they lasted in service until 1959. That meant they were reasonably reliable and only the advantages of diesel-electric locomotives relegated them to retirement. Arguably, they were were largest locomotives that were actually successful in revenue service.
Ayo Hyce
As a viewer from the Metric world I'd really appreciate the inclusion of the converted units
I really should've done that. My apologies.
In the context of this video, I don't really understand why one should need other units when the point mainly is to make comparisons in which case sticking to one unit system is much easier to follow. Even though today's world is largely metric, we should still honour all units of measurements especially when we are discussing historic accounts. Just my opinion of course, but all that said here you go:
WIDTH-
1:48 Big Boy = 3.35 m
1:50 491 = 3.20 m
WEIGHT-
2:29 Big Boy loco + tender = 548,279.78 kg
2:55 Big Boy loco = 350,286.71 kg
3:02 Jawn Henry loco = 371,038.56 kg
3:05 Virginian loco = 382,065.39 kg
3:06 Erie loco = 386,936.97 kg
3:08 M-1 loco = 388,275.07 kg
OVERALL LENGTH-
3:24 Big Boy = 40.47 m
3:41 PRR S1 = 42.74 m
4:07 Jawn Henry = 49.11 m
POWER OUTPUT-
5:17 Big Boy = 4,697 kW @ 66 km/h
5:38 Allegheny = 5,592 kW
6:09 PRR S1 = 5,249 kW @ 161 km/h
TRACTIVE EFFORT-
6:47 Jawn Henry = 800 kN
6:47 Y6b (with booster) = 756.2 kN
6:47 Virginian triplex = 739.74 kN
6:48 Virginian 2-10-10-2 = 654.78 kN
6:48 PRR 2-8-8-0 = 744.3 kN
6:48 GN 2-8-8-2 = 722.72 kN
6:49 Erie triplex = 711.72 kN
6:49 NP 2-8-8-4 = 708.74 kN
6:49 Y6b (early) = 677.05 kN
6:50 WP 2-8-8-2 (with booster) = 671.68 kN
6:50 GN 2-8-8-2 again? = 649.13 kN
6:50 DM&IR 2-8-8-4 = 623.16 kN
6:51 WP 2-8-8-2 = 610.18 kN
6:51 Big Boy = 602.18 kN
@@Azchk
It is true that it would not be absolutely necessary to transfer the dimensions and information from the American system to metric ones, taking into account that most of the locomotives discussed come from US planning and production.
but it makes it easier for the international audience to follow the video and content. That's why including the values without commas would be enough to create a rough guide, at least for the dimensions of the vehicles.
Tractive effort is an abstract for most people outside the engineering and Physics community, or the real hardcore train-fans
The big boy has always been kinda weird in that it was designed for huge fast freight service but it was actually used in that capacity and was also extremely good at long haul freight drags as well. It was a very well rounded locomotive. The Alleghenys were also fast freight engines but ended up as coal draggers and werent as good. The big boy did what it was designed to do well bery well and operated outside its design parameters very well. But it wasnt the best in terms of fulfillment of their designed purposes. The S1 and the Y6s were still better at the purposes for which they were built however big boy did better at things outside of its design parameters
The only reason why today's locomotives are smaller is that you don't need a big boiler, and thus you are more flexible by adding more locomotives, all centrally controlled from a single cab instead of one big engine. But still, there are the MTAB IORE at 150" total length.
At least a few Challengers still exist. Big Boy turned out to not be the most economical either. It was designed to haul freight over the Rockies with the idea that it could haul longer trains. But 3 Challengers could easily pull the same as 2 Big Boys and the 3 Challengers would use less fuel and the water as the 2 Big Boys for the same job. The Big Boys were the "great big experiment", and that's where the excitement lies.
...You're forgetting the cost of three locomotive crews vs only two in that comparison. Compared to the cost of the crew running the engine's, fuel and water were cheap, especially back then. By that metric, the 4000 class actually were fairly economical, given the entire point of these large engines was to run longer trains with fewer crews.
To me steam is fascinating , no matter how big or how small it might be . For the people that ran and worked on them ,they were just bigger tools for the trade . I'm told even the Reading RR here in PA ran articulated "2-8-8-2's I think" , for big coal drags ,what a site that would have been to see .
That being said, would love to see one of the SP Cab Forwards run,but, think there's only 1 left ,so that will more than likely never happen .....
Great Content Mark ...
I think rather than trying to qualify what a "normal" steam loco is we should instead consider what a successful locomotive type means. To me this means the locomotive being able to do its job effectively, resulting in a production run of locomotives that made it out of the prototype phase without significant faults.
I thought up a fictional 4-10-10-6 locomotive once (simple articulated), and I just did the math, it outputs just SHY of 200,000 pound-force in tractive effort (the exact amount is 199,920 pound-force) it also uses the same boiler width as the Virginian AE class 2-10-10-2 (and now that Im thinking about it, how much would this 4-10-10-6 weigh?)
Why stop there? Why not weld a couple 4-12-2 types together and make a 4-12-12-6? Not sure how many cyclinders it ought to have--four, five, six? All you'd need would be railroad with no curves and turnouts a quarter of a mile long. I always thought that would be fun fantasy loco to model in HO scale . . .
@@jaysverrisson1536 Still, just how much would the darn thing weigh?
@@CSXP408x Well, very roughly speaking, a Big Boy 4-8-8-4 (minus the tender) is a bit more than half again as heavy than the heaviest 4-8-4s. A 4-12-2 (minus the tender) weighs in at a just under 500,000 lbs, comparable to a heavy 4-8-4. So, I figure a 4-12-12-6 might weigh upwards of 750,000 plus some extra for the 6-wheel trailing trunk vs. the 2 wheels of the original. Maybe 775,00 to 800,000 lbs for the loco alone, i.e. comparable to a Big Boy or Allegheny, or a little more, but not drastically more?
From MN myself and toured Colorado and the fantastic narrow gauge railroads. You always have great info. Much appreciated and hope to meet someday. GTO guy here to.
How did Santa Fe’s “Double Decapod” compare? Although it failed miserably, that had to be larger than the “Big Boy”. As memory serves, the Santa Fe’s 2-10-10-2 had an articulated boiler. The Santa Fe wound up rebuilding these into 2 , 2-10-0’s with the addition of cabs, fire boxes, smoke boxes etc to each half as necessary. If successful, they would have outclassed the “Big Boy”.
I unfortunately did not learn anything this time and thats fine. I have a feeling they only say its the biggest purely for the headline of worlds biggest, its catchy, and in your face.
This is definitely the weirdest yet the most interesting video that won't add anything in my life, I love it
I'm an old farm boy that likes steam as well.
Farmers would get together and have tractor pulls to brag about their tractors. The conditions of the staged pulls was never ideal. Some tractors did better than others.
The real test was in the fields doing the jobs they were designed for. Which ones could dig their toenails and get through the tough spots was the real test.
Todays tractor pulls are for show and you won't see any of them out in the field working 10 hour days.
Big Boys field was the mountains between Cheyenne and Ogden where they slugged it out on a daily basis.
We need to start a trust to rebuild the S1. I hope the T1 trust is successful so it can prove we can build a locomotive again.
The S1 is simply too large to make sense rebuilding. The T1 can actually maneuver around the same tracks a large northern or a 2-8-4 can. The S1? I wouldn’t think so.
@@Stooltoad5017 build a special track in the desert
@@rapcreeperproductions3269 That’s a tad more complex than you’re giving it credit for. Besides, a desert isn’t a great environment for an S1.
What I cannot figure out is "Y" the railroads did not use the N&W Y as a base for high traction effort steam engines?
Although Big Boy is the most biggest now that still exist, the Y6A 2156 is NOW the strongest steam locomotive that still exist. Just putting it out there
It’s important to mention that the Big Boys and mallets were built for two different purposes. The former for hauling faster loads over long distances through vast deserts, the layers for slower moves in often more densely populated regions than that of Wyoming, Utah, and Colorado where the Big Boys worked. Still what they were capable of is hard to beat, even by simple articulateds built for fast freights
Also those lengthy ones were turbines. And the S1 tenderless was shorter than a tenderless big boy
Many other steam locomotive before Big Boy was more powerful than Big Boy, like the Triplex.
Big respect that UP brought back the Big Boy. I know the Big Boy isn't a record holder, but for me the Big Boy is the best allrounder, also the Challenger. They made the one thing very good for what they made for.
I always heard the Big Boy is considering the "biggest" based on being a 4-8-8-4 which is considering the largest successful wheel arrangement as far a conventional locomotives go.
some garrets had 4-8-4+4-8-4, but carried fuel & water.
Thank you sir for your analysis. I very much like the Big Boy and I will say as you did that 4014 Big Boy is a great example of a humongous steam engine that IS in service TODAY. But there were by numerous measurements bigger steam locomotives. So thank you again for your video.
It's all apples and oranges, very hard to compare, because each railroad had their own special needs. Being from a Norfolk and Western railroad town and family, I'm certainly partial to the N&W's articulateds. With the Big Boy, there were 30 made? The UP had 241 articulateds total in their history. So during the 40's and 50's, when you got to see a Big Boy, it would have been a treat. And is still today!
With the N&W, their territory was probably less than a fifth of the UP's and yet, there were over 450 articulateds of the various Y, A, Z classes, many of which operated well into the 50's. So, if you lived by the N&W tracks, especially in the Appalachian coal fields, the A's and the Y's were at least an hourly occurrence. They were the primary road workhorses 24/7, 365 days a year, hauling freight and coal through Appalachia. They weren't just a special, rare occurrence.
On mountain roads, you got to know them intimately, because they blocked your road on the hundreds of railroad crossings with hundreds of cars.....
Anyway I think if there was a comparison of railroads who's "biggest" lifeblood was the articulateds, the N&W would win hands down.
WATCH N&W ARTICULATEDS:
ua-cam.com/video/C0wmvZTyFYs/v-deo.htmlsi=hnwXtmt-IN5wOD9c
An interesting point about the N&W articulated Locos is that, in the main, they were built in house and improved over the years, whereas other railway companies used contractors, Baldwin, Lima et al.
The genesis of the Y classes from Y1 to the ultimate Y6s shows how the N&W took steam technology to a pinnacle which, aided by modern service facilities, showed just what steam could achieve!
I applaud you for bringing this out to viewers! Apart from locomotives, in life, there are also many other subjects that people need to be told the true facts. It will bring us to better understanding in the way life is.
As a teen I saw and read about this unique steam engine that was being built that looked much like the diesels. It was the Jawn Henry Norfolk and Western 2300. I wondered why I never saw any of them and never heard anymore about it. It was in Popular Mechanic magazine/book. Thanks for mentioning it.
The fact that The Big Boy survives and still runs today must mean something...
As the largest steam locomotives go, Big Boy 4014 is not alone in active service. The Western Maryland Scenic Railroad 1309 is a 2-6-6-2 class H-6. It has been in excursion service since 2021. Made in 1949 for the C&O, it was the last steam locomotive built by Baldwin. If you have not seen it in operation, there are a number of videos featuring the 1309 on UA-cam. Her whistle needs to be heard to be appreciated.
The way I see it, it is the biggest "mass" produced locomotive, as it had more than a handful and it has not only stationary examples but one still opperational, compared to the s1 being a 1 of 1 with it having been scrapped
A few points: 1: The power differences between the Big boy and other lsrge locomotives likely lie within the error bars for power measurements at the time. 2: Most engines that beat the Big boy on tractive effirt also have very low factors of adhesion suggesting that they might mostly spin their wheels 3: Loading gauge, axle loading and generally similar technology is why there are a number of locos of similar size and power. Big boy is one of the later ones abd one of the more successful.
You know you forgot. The Black Diamond black diamond was a passenger train and go a 120 mile an hour.
I remembered as a kid as we used to take it from weighing New York down the tongue kennick Pennsylvania. And it was a fast train is probably one of the bigger trees that had a lot of power.
There are three production locomotives that are in the class of the BIG BOY, the key word is production, UP bought 25 BIGBOY's. there were 88 Allegany/Blue Ridge Locomotives, and there were 18 DMIR Yellowstone locomotives. they were all 6000+ Horse power from the 2 drive engines. The Allegany got a Horse power boost with the Steam turbines in the 3 axle firebox truck. Big Boy was known as the largest because of two factors, First the PR department at UP advertised it as such, Second: they operated next to the US 30, the Lincoln Highway where it was filmed pulling long trains at high speed across the Great Basin Desert. Yellowstone's hauled heavy loads of Iron ore through the northern Minnesota forest, Allegany/Blue Ridge were pulling Coal in the New River Valley canyon and filming was limited to short sections at much slower speeds. The Y6B was a stronger pulling engine but the size of it's drivers limited the speed and therefore the horse power.
The horsepower was limited by the size of the firebox and boiler, not the drivers. This locomotive was designed to generate stupendous tractive effort at speeds of 25-30 mph, the maximum safe speed for superheavyweight coal trains in that mountainous terrain. For that service 5000 boiler horsepower was plenty. It could make 50 mph with a light load without shaking too much, and if Norfolk and Western had so wished they could have built it with a bigger firebox and boiler to run that fast with a heavy train in places where the terrain would allow it. What they did was build locomotives that were more efficient than a Big Boy or Allegheny would have been in that slow coal drag service. When the Alleghenies were running in such service on the competing Chesapeake and Ohio, their additional boiler horsepower capability was being wasted.
One of my fellow model railroad club members once said that N&W was the smartest in designing and operating big steam locomotives, and that C&O was clueless.
My wife and I got to see the Big Boy come thru Washington Missouri several years back. It was one of the most impressive machines I have ever had the pleasure of seeing.
Hyce, for your information here are reasons why Big Boy is the largest. It has the longest engine body of any reciprocating steam locomotive and is the heaviest reciprocating steam locomotive ever built
I would not call it world biggest in reference to historical trains. but labelling it as biggest Surviving... well, I still do NOT label this biggest. Just because the moniker big boy; was NEVER designed or built to be 'world biggest' at all.
I was told Big Boy was built as experiment on articulation of two challenger components; with eye on addressing the rail curves within western mountain pass-lines. Test result proved Big Boy could handle mountain rail curves so well, more was ordered with same construction plan. I wonder which big boy number is the prototype engine?
I remember a remark from a guide at the Forney Museum in Denver about the "Big Boy" on display there. He said that that locomotive was too big for railroads in the eastern US. I let the remark pass. I used to work for the B&O and have distant memories of steam on the N&W pulling trains up the Scioto River valley from Portsmouth, Ohio. I wasn't certain, but both the B&O, N&W and other eastern rails had some impressive large articulates in x-8-8-x configurations, such as "Yellowstones."
Could the "Big Boy" have been used in the curvy hilly rails in n the eastern US?
I really felt like UP's 8080, the coal turbine abomination of an experimental locomotive it is was bigger than bigboy
The S1 shoots fireballs from its eyes and bolts of lightning from its arse. - William Wallace probably
An important fact that most people seem to forget when they’re comparing the big boy With the other large steam locomotives, Is that the big boy has relatively large drivers For freight locomotive at 68in Because it was built for speed. So if you were to replace those drivers With sizes more common like 63 to 65in Then You probably could get A lot more tractive effort maybe like 150k. But of course, top speed would go down With those small drivers.
The S1 was the Predecessor to the T1 locomotive which turned out to be an incredible marvel of engineering, easily one of the most powerful locomotive designs for its size.
I remember as a teenager visiting the fair park rail museum in Dallas Tx had a cab forward steam loco and the big boy. the keeper made it clear that the cab forward was actually longer than the big boy and that has stuck with me ever since.
It’s one of the Heaviest and Largest Successful Locomotives. Yes there were some Experimental that may have exceeded it in some way. Big Boy would make the top six in numerous categories. Big Boy is the King of Steam.