I red about the existence of 8 Big Boy Locomotives. Giving the Locomotive number and her Location. Non of them were mentioned at the Smithsonian Institute Museum in DC! That one may possibly be the 9th. existing Big Boy Locomotive.
Restoring a Big Boy certainly isn't for Volunteer Organizations! It'll take a Business Venture with big bucks to undertake this accomplishment!
Someone mentioned the Drive Wheels on a Big Boy being smaller that the Drive Wheels on a Challenger. Remember, The Challenger was an intermediate Locomotive that worked in a lesser HP role to the Big Boy. It couldn't pull as heavy a freight as the Big Boy, BUT, it could move freight faster. Bigger Drive Wheels were found on Passenger Locomotives for greater speed. Horse power of a Locomotive can be found by the shorter Drive Wheels, and/or the Crank points for the Drivers being closer to the Flange of the Drive Wheel for longer strokes with greater power. More HP, meant that the Locomotive may not run as fast but it could pull greater tonnage!
Big Boy Locomotives were about Might, not so much as for speed. You can also determine the Strength of a Locomotive by the size of the Tender. More Strength called for greater water and fuel consumption.
The Articulate Design of the Challenger and Big Boy fed steam to the Rear Pistons ONLY. The vented steam from these Rear Pistons fed the Larger Pistons in the Front, (Articulating Truck) Pistons. This kept the steam consumption during heavy throttling manageable for the long halls.
Trapper

UP 4-6-6-4s and 4-8-8-4s were simple articulateds, not compounds. On each type, all four cylinders are the same size.

Let's be specific: there is no Big Boy at the Smithsonian. Never has been as far as I know. Eight still exist. They are:

* 4004 at Cheyenne, WY
* 4005 at Denver, CO
* 4006 at Kirkwood, MO
* 4012 at Scranton, PA
* 4014 at Pomona, CA
* 4017 at Green Bay, WI
* 4018 at Dallas, TX
* 4023 at Omaha, NE



All it takes to restore any locomotive is cubic money. Volunteer or business makes no real difference if the money is in place.



The difference in diameter was one (1) inch. 69" for the Challenger, 68" for the Big Boy. Hardly enough to make any significant difference.



Horsepower of a locomotive has absolutely nothing to do with the size of the driving wheels.



No question that the Big Boy was a powerful locomotive. Alco documents and the Union Pacific both list the Challenger's top speed as 70 mph and the Big Boy's top speed as 80 mph. In other words, the big boy, with its one inch smaller drivers was faster than the Challenger.



This is utter nonsense, I'm afraid. Both the Challenger and Big Boy were simple articulateds, not compounds, their front and rear cylinders were of identical size and fed steam directly from the throttle.

The one at the Smithsonian is submerged in the Potomac.

They brought it there by submarine!

Seen 'em all, except the 4017 in Green Bay, and the Smithsonian, in the quarry.

I'm not so sure how the size of the tender equates to a steam locomotive's strength. No matter what the fuel space in the tender is designed for (coal, oil, wood), steam locomotives really run on dollars- And even if you had the funding, where would you run it?

(Where in the Potomac? I'm planning on going to Cumberland later in July, and will look around-)

The tender does not in any way indicate the strength of the locomotive but how far it can travel. a good example of this is a comparison of American and British locomotives. American locomotives had to travel extremely long distances, cross country and through harsh terrain thus locomotives had to have larger tenders. British Locomotive on the other hand where equally as strong as their American counterparts but due to terrain and and smaller country, the locomotives where not required to have larger tenders.

This made my day.

BrassPhoenix, I'm well aware of relationship of the size of a locomotive's tender to it's range, vs. the locomotive's strength. I was merely pointing out one of the many fallacies in "Trapper's" original post.

Quite a bit of misinformation in the original post, but most of the errors are the type that can have a basis in incomplete fact rather than fantasy.

Now before we consign the ninth Big Boy to join the 141, the last T-1, and a B6b to be named later to the care of Master Mechanic Nemo. I would ask Trapper where this information comes from. It strikes me as possible that they could be from a reference compiled by someone who has not yet learned the difference between compound and simple locomotives.

It also strikes me as possible that since the Union Pacific has long had a national reach that an offer to the Smithsonian could have been made or at least contemplated. After all, there really was a fifth D&H PA.

Trapper?

GME

Edited to remove a spurious 'from'.

To me, the original post looks like a compilation of misinformation from the various foam-oriented boards.

Sadly, some of the statements are not that far off from what I heard from a docent at a museum where one is located. In that tour, about nine years ago, the docent the pointed to the DD40AX nearby and said that the locomotive's nickname was "The Birthday Boy".

I think Trapper is trolling us.

EDM sorry my post was meant as a way to back you up.

This thread hurts my brain.

As soon as I saw this thread pop up, I rolled my eyes and hoped that everyone would ignore it.

Perhaps this one is a fine candidate for deletion?