Talk:Union Pacific Big Boy

Need to add a criticisms section
I have a fairly recent issue of Trains magazine that includes an intelligently written article arguing that most 'superpower' steam was more about marketing hype than anything else, and that many later steam locomotives were poorly chosen for the tasks they had to perform. It included criticism of the UP Big Boys. In essence, the argument is that by building an 80 mph locomotive when a 60 mph one would have done (given that the service requirement was for only 60 mph) the UP let hype and publicity overwhelm good sense. A locomotive built for a 60 mph top speed would have a horsepower curve that would have delivered more real power and tractive effort at the speeds that the Big Boys really operated at. The UP sacrificed low-speed lugging ability for a top speed ability they never needed.

Another criticism of the Big Boy was its use of an exhaust steam injector instead of a feedwater heater. The exhaust steam injector is more efficient in its steam utilisation than the feedwater heater, but it does not heat the water nearly as much and in the end is less efficient overall. In addition, the crews hated the exhaust steam injector and generally did not use it, using only the regular injector instead.

I'll add these to the article, but I think it needs more reorganisation first than I have time to do right now. &mdash;Morven 20:45, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

In response to "Morven" who cites the "Trains" magazine article:

While there may be something to say in connection with the designing of what could be said to be "an 80 mph engine for 60 mph service" I don't believe the author was addressing the correct aspects of the design. Not having the design data at hand, I very seriously doubt the mechanical engineers at American Locomotive Co. and UP's headquarters "Mechanical Dept." did not have the operating conditions of the Wahsatch fully in mind when putting together the main proportions of the design of these locomotives. Having not seen this article for some years I can't recall it in detail, however if it fails to note that what is actually meant by "designing the engine for 80 mph" is in actuality designing for the forces present at that speed (meaning counterbalance and other forces), not the point at which maximum power was to be developed. Another example is the second and third series of UP's 4-8-4's, the 820-844 groups. They were designed for forces existing at 110 mph. Not that they regularly attained anything near that, merely the factor of mechanical safety. The result was engines with few failures such as broken frames, rods, etc.

Again, it's possible a case could be made that these engines could have moved more tonnage if equipped with 63" driving wheels or if certain other characteristics had been adjusted to one extent or another. However, any attempting to make such statements today are only writing in conjecture as no one alive today knows exactly what was in the minds of the men working on that project.  There is one thing which is certain:  Union Pacific was developing power with National Defense traffic in mind, and speed was of the essence.  A great deal of effort was put into the development of power which was going to be capable of high speeds.  This was a joint effort of UP and Alco engineers.  So, while someone may attempt to say these engines weren't optimized for this or that, they can only do so from the standpoint of looking at things outside the box.  Some of the finest locomotive design minds in the nation produced the late UP power and it's highly unlikely mistakes of the sort mentioned by the author of this "Trains" article were made.

Regarding the exhaust steam injector, I have spoken with four surviving Big Boy and Challenger engineers. Each has told me they suffered little trouble with the Elesco Type TP injector fitted to both 4000's and big Challengers. Nor were they familiar with claims that these units were any less reliable than other locomotive water feed appliances. However, each did say that they liked the feedwater heaters better. In addition, I don't believe it's generally understood just how much influence costs bore in the selection of appliances and other elements of locomotive design, purchase and operation on Union Pacific. More, the influence of salesmen and their acceptance in UP mechanical circles was a factor. I have seen correspondence indicating the exhaust steam injector was considerably less expensive than the Worthington S-type feedwater heaters. Personally, I have no doubt the combination of cost, relationships and possibly influences at Alco resulted in the use of the Elesco Type TP injectors. As important as the Big Boys were, I also have little doubt the engines would have been re-fitted with Worthington systems had the TP's performed to the point the engines were regularly using the Nathan 4000 live steam injectors. UP changed feed water arrangements on locos with great frequency.


 * it's a pity the second commentator didn't indent his contribution. In any event, both commentators are largely correct.  It seems UP's thinking during the design phase was that the Big Boys should be able to take fruit blocks as far as North Platte or even Omaha, which would have required speeds in the 40-60mph range.  Designing for 80mph would be a reasonable margin of safety.  Since they were actually used almost exclusively on mountain divisions at speeds around 20mph, Morven makes a valid critisism that UP should have designed the engines for the service they were used in, with a much lower maximum speed.  The second commentator is incorrect in saying UP was designing for "National Defense" traffic; it is clear the Big Boys were designed to move fruit blocks (i.e. trains of refrigerator cars), since that was a very profitable traffic which did not allow slow, drag-freight style operation in the mountains.


 * they are likewise largely correct with regard to the exhaust steam injector. It is correct that it was much less expensive than a feedwater heater; UP for some reason chose to be cheap.  And while they weren't unreliable, they don't work while the engine is standing (by design); I think many crews simply got in the habit of using the injector which always worked (Kratville alludes to the issues with the exhaust steam injector in his book).  The lack of a feedwater heater is part of the reason why the Big Boy was considered a poor steaming locomotive, as compared with the C&O H8 and the N&W A (the main reason, of course, was the shallow firebox design).  It is possible UP might have added feedwater heaters later, but it's unlikely; Jabbelmann seems to have disliked them (the later Challengers also lacked feedwater heaters).

BIG BOY TV SHOW
In the 1950's there was a TV Show called "Big Boy." I understand that UP participated in filming and there was quite a lot of footage taken and a company called "Pentrex" has recently put a DVD out about it.

Unsupportable comments
There are a couple of unsupportable statements:

"Their performance in moving a huge volume of war material throughout WWII was repeatedly cited and the Big Boys are generally acclaimed as having made a huge contribution to the war effort."

Strictly that may be correct if they are acclaimed. However, there were only 25 of them! The Germans built 7000+ Kriegsloks. 25 locos did not make a huge contribution to the war effort.

Secondly: "However, in overall performance and reliability, among all the "heavy iron" prototypes the Big Boys were unsurpassed."

The article is honest in flagging that it is difficult to identify a category in which the Big Boys can be called the "largest" loco. However, the performance and reliability claim needs some susbtantiation to move beyond a subjective view.

I stumbled upon this page having been sent a picture of the museum display notice for 4006 which claims this achieved 1,064,625 miles by retirement in 1961, the highest for the class. To me, this seems extraordinarily low, perhaps 60,000 per annum and undermines the statements above.Crantock (talk) 21:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Comparisons
OK, I agree that this article may not be the best place for the material below. It seemed to me, however, that since the biggest, heaviest, etc. issue constantly comes up in any discussion of Big Boy, that this article might be a good place for it. It certainly refutes a variety of claims made both here and at other large locomotive articles. I also also reject the comment that it's a "steaming non encyclopedic pile of original research". Aside from that being on the bare edge of civility, certainly everything below is documented and the principal points are supported by quotes from an expert.. . . . Jim. . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 17:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Please thoroughly review WP:NOT and WP:OR, and remember that Wikipedia is also NOT the Guinness Book of World Records. Wuh  Wuz  Dat  18:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Where's the OR? Each of the facts stated below is documented. It isn't WP:OR to say that 1,104,200 pounds is heavier than 1,066,100 if both numbers are documented. The fundamental conclusions are supported by quotes from an expert.
 * As for the Guinness Book, true, Wikipedia is not Guinness, but we have an awful lot of articles that compare longest, highest, biggest:
 * Extreme points of the United States (and 68 other countries)
 * List of tallest buildings in the world
 * List of world's longest ships
 * List of highest mountains
 * List of longest consumer road vehicles
 * List of heaviest bells


 * Would you object to a List of the largest steam locomotives? . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 19:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Here is the section in question: Comparisons

The text states that all except numbers 4005 4006 and 4017 are in the open without protection from the elements. This is untrue. I live about 5 miles from 4006, and can attest that even though this locomotive has been covered in several coats of heavy paint to protect it from the elements, it too, is sitting out in the open with no overhead protection. There are some locomotives at this museum that sit under protective cover, but there are also a lot that are out in the open at this museum (St. Louis, MO). —Preceding unsigned comment added by MJKeller568 (talk • contribs) 14:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

It is widely debated whether the Big Boy was the largest steam locomotive ever built. Weight, length, horsepower and tractive effort are all categories in which a locomotive can be ranked, and in each of them a locomotive "larger" than a Big Boy might be found.

Without a tender, the Big Boy is longest. Its boiler is the smallest of the five listed below; in fact, its nominal size is half that of the Virginian AE. It often asserted that the H-8 Allegheny was somewhat heavier than a Big Boy, but a comparison of weights from the same sources show that this is not correct. Alfred Bruce, Director of Steam Locomotive Engineering at Alco and, therefore, an authoritative source says, "[Big Boys] are still the heaviest steam locomotives in the world today [1952] with reciprocating pistons and direct-rod drive."

While it is true that the Norfolk and Western Y6bs had a higher tractive force while operating in single expansion mode, they were designed as compounds and operated single only while starting. In normal operation, the Erie Triplexes actually had the highest tractive force of any steam locomotive ever built, but were not successful because their grates were too small. Bruce says of them, "These locomotives exerted the maximum tractive force (160,000 lb compound) over short periods ever exerted by a steam locomotive with reciprocating pistons, but they were soon retired from active service." The Virginian Class AE 2-10-10-2s, however, had a tractive force of 147000 lbf while operating in their normal, compound, mode, so they win the crown for highest tractive force (they had 175000 lbf when operating in single expansion mode}}.

Sustained horsepower is hard to measure in a steam locomotive, and even harder to compare, because it depends, among other things, on both altitude and quality of fuel. The Big Boys were handicapped in both of these, but given that they had roughly fifty percent more grate area than three of the others, it's likely that only the C&O H-8s were near them in horsepower. It's a question that could only be answered if one of each were put in front of a dynamometer car at the same altitude using the same fuel. This is not likely since none of the surviving examples of either are operable.

Therefore, it is fair to say that Big Boys are the longest and heaviest steam locomotives of all time. They did not have the highest tractive effort and they were either first or second in horsepower.

As the figures below illustrate, it's important to have comparable numbers, preferably from the same source. Big Boys and H-8s carried around 250000 lb of coal and water in their tenders and around 75000 lb of water in their boilers, so there's a 325000 lb difference between their weights, dry and empty on the scales at the factory, and fully loaded for a run.


 * "it is fair to say that Big Boys are the longest and heaviest steam locomotives of all time."


 * It's fair, but that doesn't mean it's right. The 4-8-8-4 may have been the longest reciprocating steam locomotive, as long as we don't include the tender. It certainly wasn't the longest including the tender, and engine-only it may have been shorter than the C&O and N&W turbines.


 * As for heaviest: no reason to assume Bruce was an authority on how much the 2-6-6-6s weighed. Why should he be?


 * As for OR: hard to see why anyone would think it's an issue here. Tim Zukas (talk) 23:31, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * By the way: notice that the TE figures you give for the compounds aren't calculated by the same formula. As I recall 2-10-10-2 compound TE is around 135,000 lb if you use the same formula as N&W did. Tim Zukas (talk) 23:36, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * there's a lot of tricky things with a comparison table like this. For instance, Big Boy is shown as having a 150 sq ft firebox, which is accurate.  But the front 30" were blocked off by a brick wall, because the stoker couldn't throw coal that far.  The actual grate area, per Kratville, was 108 sq ft.  This is very close to the N&W A, 101 sq ft grate, and much less than the C&O H-8, which had 135 sq ft grate area.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.229.227.37 (talk) 20:45, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Better Pictures?
Can we get some better pictures of this train? Neither of these pictures shows a side view of the train which is necessary for appreciating it. You can't see the double set of wheels or anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.71.94.227 (talk) 13:51, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Three of four shots are from the exact same angle, and so all but one of those three do the reader no good. 98.102.149.62 (talk) 14:03, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I suspect with the tour of 2019 there will be a lot of better pics available. I have a few from today (11-6-2019) but will wait to upload. FB and the rest of the WWW is absolutely flooded with pics, some are very suitable for this article. Ken (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:50, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Big Boy Return to service?
This article says maybe!

Union Pacific studying Big Boy restoration project Trains Magazine

Anyone want to add this to the page?

B4Ctom1 (talk) 04:08, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

4018 is scheduled to move this weekend. Its location should be updated once it reaches its final location. http://www.museumoftheamericanrailroad.org/Frisco/TheBigMoveRollingStock.aspx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.77.120.37 (talk) 14:50, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

A citation for the 'Preservation' section
The 'Preservation' section is marked as needing a source. I think this article should serve nicely, but doing the actual editting is outside my wheelhouse.

http://trn.trains.com/Railroad%20Reference/Hot%20Spots/2012/12/Where%20are%20the%20Union%20Pacific%20Big%20Boys%20now.aspx

Benthatsme (talk) 22:08, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Big Boy #4005 Wreck of 1953/Edit Request 6/22/15
Could someone add a section on the article about Big Boy #4005's wreck on April 27, 1953? There's a link below me that will tell about the wreck and I will have a brief dissolution how the wrech as well.

On April 27, 1953, Union Pacific #4005 was pulling a fright train through southern Wyoming jumped the switch track at 50 miles per hour (MPH), throwing the engine onto its left side and derailing its tender and the first 18 freight cars of the 62-car train. Two people (the engineer and fireman) were killed insistently on impact, and the brakeman would later die in a hospital a few days later from his injuries. The cab of the locomotive was destroyed by the tender and the loads from the 18 derailed cars were littered everywhere! Scattered about the scene was the train’s load: tractors, dead hogs, typewriters, sewing machines, and other merchandise. Some domestic pigs that survived the wreck regained consciousness and with a terrific grunt would take off running through curious bystanders. After this incident, 4005 was repaired by Union Pacific at its Cheyenne facility. It is possible a different tender was used in the rebuilding. The Big Boy shows very little evidence of the wreck damage today. It was likely that the accident was caused either by the 500 ton locomotive going too fast over the switch or from the switch not being set properly. Here is the link. I hope it is souceful infomation: http://forneymuseum.org/News_BigBoyWreck.html --75.68.122.13 (talk) 13:53, 22 June 2015 (UTC)Jacob Chesley the Alternate Historian

I added the info about the accident to the article. However, I'm not sure how well I've made the section. Hopefully, someone can fix any mistake I made by accident. --75.68.122.13 (talk) 13:30, 6 August 2015 (UTC) Jacob Chesley the Alternate Historian

Surviving Tenders
So we have surviving tender numbers for all Big Boys except 4005. Rumor has it that the number fell off years ago, but someone else was able to figure it out. Does anyone know the story on 4005's current tender? Davidng913 (talk) 18:12, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Infobox photo
Fan Railer has changed the infobox photo to one that is, in my view, markedly inferior. It is much farther away from the locomotive and of lower quality. Fan Railer undid my revert with the edit summary "Opinion on quality is subjective; newer photos provide wider perspective and include visible stack exhaust. Not every photo needs to be taken 5 inches from the locomotive." Notwithstanding that the "5 inches away from the locomotive" part is nonsense, I am concerned that Fan Railer is attempting to add their own images regardless of if they are the best fit or not. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:34, 1 May 2023 (UTC)


 * It depends on a bunch of things. On many occasions, the photos he has taken are indeed of high quality and actually do provide a good view of the engine. But in other cases like this one, a pic of the whole train does not always work. Fan Railer is a good person, and many of the pictures he has uploaded are (mostly) of great quality, but sometimes what he chooses as a infobox picture is not the best. Just go with your gut and stand by what you believe and why you stand by it. But beware: his replies may be rough if you really piss him off. Davidng913 (talk) 15:44, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Big Boy is (Not) a Mallet
Okay, I don’t know why but Grachester says that the Big Boy is a Mallet. A Mallet is a compound articulated locomotive, not a simple articulated locomotive. Big Boy is simple articulated, not compound articulated therefore it is not a Mallet. Fact, not my opinion. Aitraintheeditorandgamer (talk) 10:08, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * He says that because the Big Boy is a Mallet articulated (as opposed to a Garrett or any of the other systems of articulation used with steam locomotives). It is, and has been for decades, common practice to call locomotives using the Mallet system of articulation "Mallets".  Your uneducated opinion is not fact.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.229.227.37 (talk) 19:32, 16 August 2023 (UTC)