Specifications for Class H-8 Allegheny Wheel Arrangement: 2-6-6-6 Length: 125' - 8" Drivers: 67" dia. Weight on Drivers: 504,010 lbs lbs Locomotive Weight: 775,330 lbs * Tender Weight: 431,710 lbs Locomotive & Tender Weight: 1,207,040 lbs Grate Area: 135 sq ft Cylinders: (4) 22.5" dia. x 33" stroke Boiler Pressure: 260 psi Tractive Effort: 110,200 lbs Tender Capacity: 25,000 gals. of water and 25 tons of coal. UP: Union Pacific 4-8-8-4 Wheel arrangement NOTE: Some used "4-8-8-4 1" and "4-8-8-4 2" to distinguish between the first and second classes of Big Boys. 68: 68 inch drivers 23 3/4 - 23 3/4: Cylinder diameters (front and rear) 32: Piston stroke 540: 540,000 pounds of weight on drivers woo woo woo: woo woo woo type stoker Compare the 2: Weight on Drivers: 504,010 lbs lbs (Allegheny) 540,000 pounds of weight on drivers (Big Boy) 68 inch drivers (Big Boy) Drivers: 67" dia. (Allegheny) Weight: 1,208,000 lbs (Big Boy) Weight: 775,330 lbs - estimated to be 778,500 lbs (Allegheny) So in reality the Big Boy triumphs, truely the king of the rails. Bigger and more meaner than the Alleghany!
Just one other thing to remember: The Allegheny was heavier as a locomotive than the Big Boy and the Weight on each driver was about 10,000 lbs more. However, the Big Boy was 8ft longer and with tender 200,000 lbs heavier. Some people suggest that the Allegheny outperformed the Class A----I just don't see how with a much lower TE. Seems to me that the Big Boy was better engineered because it used 1,300 HP less and had a smaller firebox but was able to get 13,000 more TE lbs and was able to have a higher top speed. Big Boy wins every time. A better comparison is between the Challenger, Class A, and Allegheny. A better comparison for the Big Boy might be some of the 2-8-8-4s. The Allegheny Locomotive weight 775,330 Weight on drivers 471,000 Weight on each driver 78,500 The Big Boy Locomotive weight 772,250 Weight on drivers 545,200 Weight on each driver 68,150 [ 04 August 2001: Message edited by: bnsf4354 ]</p>
Guys, I'm truly sorry for this but.... You's still aren't getting the point!!!!!!! About the Allegheny and the Big Boy....... Reason for the differences are as follows.. The Big Boy was built to run at high speeds and have no slippage..... The Allegheny was built to run at low speed with great tonnage to achive power to pull mountains and steep grades on ever twisting curves, where the Big Boy was on a landscape that was nearly straight track and had no worry of sharp curves!!! Where the Big Boy had to have alot of weight on the drivers to keep the wheels in contact with the rail to get a high TE! Where the Allegheny went slow to pull on grades and had the weight on the drive wheels for the TE, and to have a high HP to get a train to speed! This is why they are so different. Its not that hard to understand if you think about it. They both served 2 completely different jobs for 2 completely different railroads... I mean think of the grade that the Big Boy worked on and the ones the Allegheny worked on. A HUGH difference and the reason stands for this simple reason. They were made to do 2 different jobs by the railroad that owned them! See???? Its not that same if they woulda been owned by the same railroad one wanted fast high speed frieght and needed a suffiecant loco to pull at high speeds.. UP Big Boy.... The other wanted a lugger.. To haul tonage up steep mountain grades and on ever twisting curves.. The C&O Allegheny..... This is the true facts.. Guys please think of the differeces between the two loco's and where they were located and what their purpose was.. Then you may see what i'm getting at. Its like 2 kids arguing over this and not one is right.. those loco's were both great loco's because they were made for 2 completely different jobs on 2 completely different landscapes. How you can compare them back to back I do not know. They weren't ment to run that way and for that purpose...... The Challenger was a fast freight loco too..... but once its speed and power was seen by the railroads that owned them they were perfect for passenger as well as freight use! The way you all are comparing the Big Boys and the Alleghenies, are like putting up a Shay against a 2-8-2 rod loco!!!! NO comparision at all...I rest my case... Although I will own any one of them at any given time... I mean they were suffiecent to the jobs they were built to do and done it well.... You can't compare them because they were not built to do the exact same jobs..... But where built to do 2 completely different jobs on 2 completely different landscapes... [ 05 August 2001: Message edited by: 7600EM_1 ]</p>
Hey, I totally agree with what you're saying. But, in all actuality, the N&W did it right. When designing their locos, of course for their needs...excuse me quoting from a book but,..."All N&W 's modern power was designed to operate on the far side of the horsepower curve; in other words, the horsepower curve of the loco peaked at a speed very near that at which the loco was going to spend most of it's time working. The N&W thus got the benifit of all the horsepower the loco was capable of delivering. Take the Y-6 2-8-8-2 for example: it spent the bulk of it's time lugging heavy tonnage up grade at speeds between 15 and 25 miles per hour. Almost alone among mountain railroads, the N&W thought it was folly to haul heavy freight trains at those speeds with locos whose horsepower curve peaked between 40 and 45 miles per hour. Noteable roads that thought otherwise were the Santa Fe, which used 74' drivered 2-10-4s in mountain service, and the C&O and the Union Pacific, which used 67" and 68" drivered simple articulateds. ALL these locos delivered their maximum horsepower at more than 40 miles per hour, but lugged tonnage at speeds between 15 and 25 miles per hour on grades. When they were operating at their maximum horsepower speeds it was down grade when throttles were closed. Operated in that manner, those locos NEVER got the oppurtunity to deliver the horsepower for which their owners had paid." Just my two cents, but, I'll agree, they all looked nice doing it either way.
UP was running longer and heavier consists than C&O and had straighter lines to do it on. I think we all GET IT, but were just going through a philosophical comparison as if each could be run on the same track. The H-8 obviously could get a train moving quicker and maintain that speed easier, but it could not pull a train near as long as the Big Boy----as you say EM1, C&O didn't want to pull those kind of trains, but rather pull shorter/lighter trains more quickly through the rolling terrain. Part of this whole argument stems from Lima's assertion that the Allegheny was the finest articulated ever made----our contention is that the numbers do not back up the statement----if they wanted to say that it was the finest articulated ever made for C&O than OK, but not overall. I too, would probably take the Class A over the Allegheny, but I don't know as much about the needs of each railroad as each company did back then----so what do I know. The point is that each railroad got what they wanted--to do the jobs that they needed to be done----case closed, but it sure is fun to run the numbers----helps us all become a bit more familiar with those wonderful machines. [ 05 August 2001: Message edited by: bnsf4354 ]</p>
I hate to butt in, but would'nt it be a whole lot different if the Allegheny switched with the Big Boy. I'm pretty sure the Big Boy could pull a 3 mile train in the mountains and the Allegheny coulkd come close to pulling a 5 mile train in the plains.
The 2-6-6-6 was never used for its design potential, so there has never been a true comparison able to be made. The BigBoy was specifically designed to pull heavy freight in the mountains at 40 or more miles per hour, and up to 70 on flat land, and yes it could start and pull a string of loaded cars five miles long, and did several times during the War. The 2-6-6-6 was specifically designed to pull heavy coal loads up over winding twisty mountain rails at speeds up to 40, but was restricted to much lower speeds, which reduced its performance. Both engines were almost equal except for weight on drivers/ trackive effort thing. With eight drivers instead of six, the weight per axel is not going to match. Which was more powerful depends upon relative to what? Neither was comparable to the other by design.
I love it! It's great to see all this intrest. As a side note to all this, I agree, yes everyone had diffrent needs, and it's fun comparing. IF anyone has ever seen the 614 video called "The Phoenix Engine, 614 on the C&O" is a great example of high inched drivers battling out mountains it wasn't designed for. To see 614 on Sandpatch and 17 Mile grade with the Chessie Steam Special is great. The cameramen pace 614 up 17 Mile grade in a car next to the tracks. 614 is on her hands and knees, actually leaning side to side slugging it out. Truely awesome footage to be seen!
I kinda doubt that the Big Boy would even run correctly in the east on the terrain and degree of track curves being its wheel base length was so long! It never make the curves even at a slow speed being it was so long and really tight curves it would never happen. It was just made to run the straights and gradual curves of the west not the east.... Watash I know you can back up what i'm about to say.. But anyway the articulation wouldn't let it! It would forse thing to the limit and alot of bad things the railroad would experience! The articulation on those loco's was to swing no more then 18 inches on the line up of the walkways if anymore you sure were pushing the issue! If it made it and done that and was successfull, you may be told to not do it again and know better to have done it twice! That loco was just to big for the eastern terrain!!!!! And one other thing to think of is the fact of small bore tunnels in the east. I don't think the big boy would have cleared them!!!!
Yeah, I think it would be funny to watch a big boy trying to climb Sandpatch. Whew, what a sight that would be. Speaking of articulateds, i just got Lifelikes P2K Y3. Found it for a nice price on Ebay, still can't wait until Dec. though for that Allegheney.
Jeff, Wouldn't happen to know where I can get a Rivarrosi Vanderbuilt tender???? A tank tender??? I need one do do a custom loco i'm modeling from a 2-8-8-2 Rivarossi Y6b. I plan to make it an EL class loco by the B&O. And all the B&O's EL class loco's had Vanderbuilt tenders, this loco came with the big welded square tender! I would happily trade a Rivarossi "Centapede" UP ex. Challenger tender for a Rivarossi Vanderbuilt so I can finish up this project! Anyone have one and interested??? If so drop me a few lines in e-mail at: yellowstone10@hotmail.com And i'll be in contact ASAP on it...
Jeff I started to out bid you on that engine, but I was afraid you would throw a rock at me! HA! [ 07 August 2001: Message edited by: watash ]</p>
Check on Ebay, I saw a Rivarossi 2-8-8-2, one of the older ones that had a Vandy tender. Look up HO scale on there, I went through 154 pages of stuff until I found what I was looking for. You're sure to find one there, along with other great stuff. Some people are hesitant about it, but, I've never had a problem. I first started using Ebay to buy Dale Earnhardt diecasts a couple years back, the P2K engine I bought was the first engine I've bought off Ebay. I got it before it went online to bid for. Great deal.
I guess that the Big Boy was about 9 ft longer than the Allegheny. If it wasn't for the articulated restrictions on swinging it might have worked on the east since 4-8-4s ran it fine, but I do not have the knowledge or experience that others here have about that subjest so I will have to defer to them on this one. I have reconfirmed that the Allegheny should start to arrive in the US about November. Whoever reserves their's for the best price ought to post it so the rest can get in on it. I have one reserved for $350.....anyone do any better yet?
That's a good price, I've seen it for the same elsewhere. Where did you get that N&W J gif from, it rocks!
Here is the direct URL for the N&W J class you asked about. http://www.trainweb.org/railmation/rrgifs/locomotive/nw_jclass_r2.gif Just copy this and place it in your profile signature as an image and it will work just like my Big Boy does. I just love the steam coming out of it! Hey Fitz, can you contact the guy who made the Big Boy and ask him to see about getting us an Allegheny and a Class A? Those would be way cool.
Any of you all have a photo of Allegheny 1633? I have 1628,1630,1632, and 1635, but no 1633. I would like to get one so we can compare the details to the RIV pre-production version.
Here are two photos for you all to review. The first is of Phase 2 #1620-44. Keeping in mind that the RIV will be #1633 perhaps the firebox detail is more accurate than I had assumed. Big difference between the two. The second is of the phase 3 version of the Allegheny #1645-59.
You must be on line also, Thanks for that link. http://www.trainweb.org/railmation/rrgifs/locomotive/nw_jclass_r2.gif[/IMG]
To 7600EM_1, Go to Ebay, type in list number, 1624859448188-99, a new Riv. 2-8-8-2 in B&O scheme, with Vandy tender.
