Fun with Big Boys

Regarding the article on Blueline’s Big Boy in the August issue, I appreciate the information about the BLI Blueline version. I particularly am pleased to see the improvement in sound quality and continued excellent slow speed operation. I do, however, have to note a few errors regarding the prototype. The article notes: “They wanted a machine that was best for what it was designed to do, and that was to bust Sherman Hill in Wyoming.” Actually, Big Boy was designed to “bust” the Wahsatch Mountain grade between Ogden, UT, and Wahsatch, WY. The Big Boys operated from 1941– 1948 from Ogden, Utah, to Green River, Wyoming, about 63 miles of grades [25 miles of 1.14 percent ruling ] followed by 110 miles of relatively level running including 2 short stretches of 0.82 percent. In 1948, due primarily to plans to dieselize the western divisions, the introduction of turbines, and because Big Boy shopping was performed at Cheyenne, UP moved the Big Boy fleet to Cheyenne from where they operated west to Green River. This time they were to surmount the 24 miles of Sherman Hill’s westbound 1.55 percent ruling grade and then run 277 miles to Green River, again seeing only a few instances of 0.82 percent grades. It is believed that the locomotives were to be called Wahsatch types but the words “Big Boy” scrawled on the smoke box front end caught on instead. One of the reasons why the engines were designed for the Wahsatch grade was the need to move perishable trains from CA at relatively high speed across the 110 miles from Wahsatch to Green River after climbing the grade. In other words, UP was looking for an engine that could both lug and run.

As to weight, it does appear that some Allegheny 2-6-6-6 engines were heavier, probably engines 1600 – 1609 which appear to have weighed 778,000 lbs. These 10 exceeded specifications and subsequent engines in the class weighed from 771,300 lbs to 751,830 lbs compared to Big Boy 4000 – 4019’s 762,000 lbs and 4020 – 4024’s 772,250 lbs. One of the problems with this information is that the first Allegheny engines were grossly overweight which resulted in a lawsuit being generated by C&O against builder Lima. Railroads were always concerned with engine weight — particularly axle loading — because of the detrimental effect on track. One of the advantages of an articulated, 8-axled locomotive was its ability to spread the weight on drivers over 8 axles instead of 6 which the 2-6-6-6 was saddled with. Axle loading on the heaviest Allegheny was an appalling 86,000 lbs while Big Boy’s was only 68,150 lbs. The full advantage of the 8-axled design is realized when one notes that Big Boy’s total weight on drivers was 545,200 lbs compared to the Allegheny’s 507,000 lbs. Weight on drivers, of course, was necessary in order to avoid slipping when tractive force was applied. The larger weight on drivers allowed Big Boy to utilize 135,000 lbs of starting tractive effort against the Allegheny’s 110,200 lbs.

The article claims that the N&W class “A” “posted” faster speeds. I doubt this, although setting speed records was not a goal of the Big Boy...or class “A”. Big Boy did have a 2-axled pony truck which would normally provide a smoother ride at speed than a one axle one which the “A” had. Essentially, a Big Boy is a Challenger multiplied by 1.22. I followed Challenger 3985 in Nevada at 85 mph and it pulled away from me. I’m not too sure I’d want to ride class “A” 1218 at 85 mph.

Mike Brock
Merritt Island, FL

Thanks for writing, Mike. I stand corrected about the Wahsatch Mountain. Meanwhile, of the Big Three — Class A, Allegheny, and Big Boy — I have no favorite because I love all three. I draw from several sources, especially Eugene Huddleston’s World’s Greatest Steam Locomotives. He reveals some of the design problems faced in each one. I’ve also seen other accounts of all three. The A Class was known to take a section of the Powhatan Arrow and keep it on schedule. The other two rarely — if ever — had passenger duties. Not that they couldn’t have managed and kept the schedules; they just didn’t.

Each machine was erected by a different builder; the Big Boy by Alco, the Allegheny by Lima, and the Class A by N&W’s shops. Different design philosophies were employed on practically every part. Probably the most important thing the Big Boy had going for it was publicity. Between a Time Magazine cover and other excursions into the average man’s consciousness, the UP 4-8-8-4 rose to a spectacular level of popularity. Small wonder the Big Boy has outsold models of the Class A and the Allegheny by a huge margin.
I guess all that’s left for us to conceivably ride is the Challenger 3985. No other mainline articulated steam locomotives remain operable. Still, if they brought Class A 1218 out of retirement and wanted to open her up to 85 on a good, smooth tangent, I’d like the cab ride! —John

Where are those Flexible buses?

As a kid growing up in San Francisco, I enjoyed riding the Municipal Railway buses and streetcars. My favorite fleet vehicles included the Mack 38-1/2 C-47-DT numbered 2000 – 2660, and the 1969 Flexible “New Look” numbered 4000 – 4009. Do you know if any of the diecast manufacturers, Corgi, Matchbox, Minichamps, etc. plan to issue models of the Mack or Flexible models? I would appreciate any help you could give me.

Richard Soto Hernandez
Eureka, CA

Supports Blue Box kits

I am writing in support of kits like Athearn Blue Box. I can’t afford RTR cars on a fixed income. Detail is great but will not hold up to handling. I believe the manufacturers are pricing themselves out of a job and us out of a hobby.

Larry Bottoms
Lincoln, AR

Project DCC question