Union Pacific Big Boy VS Norfolk & Western Y6B, Who Wins?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 23 พ.ย. 2023
- This video introduces you to the Norfolk and Western's Y6B heavy freight steam locomotive. A performance comparison is made with the Union Pacific Big Boy to determine which locomotive could best the other and come out on top. Watch the video to learn which of them prevails.
Support Us at nickelplatelimited.etsy.com - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
Comparisons like this can be fun, but can also be misleading. The Y6b and the Big Boy were distinctly different machines designed with different operating objectives. The Big Boy was designed to be a mainline fast freight engine. Y6b’s were designed to lug heavy trains over steep grades with fairly tight curvature. Y6’s worked as pushers, head end helpers, shifters and as mainline power in the mountains. A Y6 would never satisfy the UP’s quest for speed over Sherman Hill, but a Big Boy would never satisfy the N&W’s demand for versatility and lugging power on the mountain grades. Thanks for the entertaining video! 👍
Though yes a great video I agree that you can't compare the two. Both were built for two completely different purposes. And arguably the norfolk and western had steeper grades and sharper curves than the UP
@machinist1879 I'm inclined to agree; for every reason you stated. They were purpose-built locomotives, and they definitely served those purposes.
Well, not arguably, they did ;) Thanks for the comment
Again, all for fun..not reality.
@@TheRailroadCrossing-SteamPower👍👍👍
Some of us old river counters sometimes forget about the fun
I agree with those who state that they were both built for different purposes. Of course I'm biased for the Y6B, because I'm from Williamson and my dad worked for the N&W at the Williamson coal yard from the early 50's till 1980.
The Y6B was built specifically for multi purpose use in the Appalachian coal fields between Williamson and Roanoke and all the mountain coal towns on the line. Top speed was 50, but that was enough for the grades and tight curves. The faster class A's typically handled the coal and freight trains west beyond Williamson and east beyond Lynchburg.
The Y6B went wherever it was called, but it was truly an Appalachian coal field workhorse.
I've thought about comparing them to horses, where the Big Boy was a champion thoroughbred (sorry NS), strong and fast and the Y6B was more of the original purpose of the Clydesdales, a very strong draught horse, pulling the heavier loads at fitting speeds.
You just don't find Clydesdales winning the Tripple Crown....., but they do have their own place.
Both were great but very different designs. Big Boy was built for speed on flat open terrain and steady grades, the Y6B was built for slow, knockout draggout freights in much more challenging terrains where you would be going up a steep grade just as fast as you came off another. Living in the Appalachian mountains where these beasts roamed it’s amazing to me how much brute force they could put out. The A Class seems far more suited to what the UPs Challengers and Big Boys were built to do, although they could pull some serious tonnage themselves
Yeah, just a fun exercise. Thanks for the comment!
An article in the November 1991 issue of Trains told about "supped up" versions of both the N&W A and Y class locomotives in the mid to late 1950s. The Y6"C" as it was informally called, had its boiler presser raised to 315 psi. It could run in simple articulated mode which put the 315 psi stream directly into the large low pressure cylinders up front. The locomotive would go back into compound mode once the train got rolling. The locomotive also had a booster turbine installed in the rear truck. It was reported to have had over 170 pounds of tractive effort which was not approached until the SD70MAC appeared over 30 years later and an apples to oranges comparison. I have never heard about these modified N&W locomotives since. As part of the story, the article discussed a trial of four EMD F units on the N&W at that that time. N&W did not put in any orders in for the EMD product after the trial which may say something about how four "covered wagons" faired against one of the N&W "hotrods" in various applications.
Great stuff! I have a N & W source book coming tomorrow.. Perhaps it'll have this C version you mentioned. If so, it's gonna warrant it's own video. (I can hear it now in the comments... "There's no Y6C") I have had some spec issues with my pubs not agreeing on N & W designs. I cant wait to roll out some more N & W vids once I get it.
In actuality, there was no Y6c. The monikers of Y6c and A1 were the conclusions of that particular article’s writer, not the N&W. The test engine used on the Pocahontas District in competition against the EMD demonstrator was Y6b #2197 which was brand new at that time (1952). The “booster” on Y6b’s was not a truck mounted device, but a new valve feature designed by the N&W engineering dept. The valve which was controlled by the engineer added a “boost” of fresh boiler steam to the feed pipe going to the low pressure cylinders. The booster valve was used in compound operation during demand for high tractive effort such as the climb up Elkhorn grade. The booster valves were later added as standard equipment on all Y6’s as they were shopped. The “new” valve raised peak hp of the Y6b to 5,600 at approximately 25mph. The valve pipe can be seen in pictures along the lower edge of the boiler just above the engineer’s side high pressure cylinder. IIRC, the 1952 Y6b’s were the first to get the new “booster” valves. They were BEASTS!!!
@@machinist1879 Interesting, I would not have put it past the Norfolk and Western to come up with something like this Y6C derived from a Y6B. They were so enthusiastic for steam locomotives and were willing to go to great lengths to extend it's legacy for as long as possible. But modifying a Y6B as you describe makes just as much sense. I personally never heard of a Y6C, or read about one.. But was certainly intrigued by the possibility of it. Thanks for the info as always!
Great video. A point to remember is that a steam locomotive is a direct drive engine. The horse power is not the same throught its speed range like a diesel. The Y6bs made there power at a much lower speed than a bigboy. A example is the C&O 2-6-6-6 which made more HP the most HP power of all piston steam locomotves , but C&O put them on slow coal drags were they could not make that power at this they could not pull more coal than the Simple 2-8-8-2 that they replaced.I seem to remember a good article called picking off the criples in trains mag years ago that explained this. The point is on the N&W grades with a heavy train the bigboy's lower tractive effect and bigger drivers might not let it make it's higher HP and then struggle to pull the same heavy tonnege as a single Y6.This also applies to the DM&IR 2-8-8-4s which could make there HP at slower speeds than The. Bigboy for pulling heavy ore trains on big grades.
PRR Q2s had the highest Horsepower of all steam locomotives at 7800hp a unit.
That may be so, while extremely important, HP is only one critical factor of performance and capability
For many large modern steamers with high drivers the problem was that there maximum horsepower was nearly unusable in regular service. When you’re using a locomotive that reaches its peak horsepower at 50mph to pull freight trains regularly at 30mph you’re probably wasting quite a bit of fuel. This made many impressive steam monsters easy prey to be replaced by first generation diesels.
Not probably wasting a lot of fuel.. You ARE wasting a lot of fuel, and that's absolutely correct, that's why diesel was able to rather easily take over. That and the infrastructure that it took to maintain steam along the lines was overly cost prohibitive. One thing that I've been mulling over recently, was what if you kept the boiler fired with a cheap fuel that's in abundance nowadays, like sayyy natural gas?? Would steam be viable once again?? Because the problem is the actual fossil fuel availability world wide is going the way of the dodo.. And the railroads are going to have a major problem in the next 30-40 years. Steam was so much more powerful in the 40's... I cant help but wonder in todays world if they wouldnt be viable again using a fuel source like NG.
@@TheRailroadCrossing-SteamPower Natural gas to power a full size mainline steam locomotive is a terrible idea, because when you run a steam locomotive you need fuel with the most BTUs (British Thermal Units, a measurement of heat per unit of fuel) crammed into it you can get, which would be the thickest and heaviest oil you can find, something that won't even flow efficently until you heat it to over 150 degrees fahrenheit. But the biggest reason we can't run steam is the downtime steam locomotives need, a diesel most likely won't even see the shop more than twice a year, but steam locomotives have to be shut down, washed out and inspected every 30 service days, and completely torn apart and rebuilt every 1,472 service days, not quite 5 years. Then there's also the diversity in design purpose of steam locomotives, modern freight diesels tend to be either 4 axle or 6 axle, 6 axle is the heavy mainline stuff, 4 axle is almost everything else, but steam locomotives you have everything from your little 0-6-0 switchers to your big power meant to pull the weight of the world (metaphorically). Another big issue is that many parts on a steam locomotive has to be custom made partially for that reason, different purposes, different tolerances, and all of them wear differently over time, this is why you'll often hear the old heads talk about steam locomotives all having their own unique personalities, even if they're the same class. On diesels something may just bolt right up on all 200 of the same type, but not necessarily true for steam locomotives. There's a man in the land down under who's toying with the idea of wood fired steam power in the 21st century being comparable to small diesels, (Mackwell locomotive works if you're curious) but most likely what'll happen is the american railroads will be forced tooth and nail by congress to electrify. I know this rant got very off topic from the fuel question but I figured more knowledge isn't always a bad thing :)
Tractive effort pulls trains not horsepower.
Tractive effort allows a locomotive to apply it's maximum weight (adhesion) to the rails before the wheels begin to slip. Slippage equals bog down if not a stall. Only the "Virginian" could potentially match the Y6B in simple tractive effort.
However, there is a business saying that applied as much then as it does now, "Time is money" Which is exactly why a locomotive like the "Virginian" didnt survive despite t's mighty tractive effort. See, a Virginian could only do a grade as discussed in the video at 8 mph. A Y6B 20-25 mph, Big Boy 30-35mph. N & W frequently provided helper locomotives, if not a doubleheader in pulling these huge freights over grades, even with the Y6B. That was in the name of speed. The more motive power you use comes with additional cost. Big Boy was designed to be the pinnacle of Steam Locomotives and it was indeed that. It took two Y6Bs to match or exceed Big Boys speed. Big Boy was designed to pull these freights SOLO.. thus also cutting cost. In doing so Big Boy was faster to substantially faster depending on the grade. So, I respectfully disagree with your notion. Thank you for the comment!! :)
Both measurements have a time and place, tractive effort is better for steam locomotives, and horsepower is the measurement used for diesels, there's a TH-camr called 'Hyce' that did an in depth video on this topic, but it ultimately boils down to the way the power is applied.
For preservation, it should also be noted that a single Y3A (2050) is also preserved at the Illinois Railway Museum.
I was just there recently. I saw it :)
@@TheRailroadCrossing-SteamPower It is a great place to visit. I have been there many times.
@@DJG4040 I didnt like everything so crammed into the barns so much.. But I did have a great look at things regardless. Steamtown in Scranton is my personal favorite
At Least TWO images you show on this video are NOT " Y6" locomotives They are Norfolk and Western Class "A" Locomotives , But Very impressive as they are as well : )
Yes you are correct Walter, Not quite enough imagery available for Y6 in my vault without pushing copyrights... So I opted to maintain the "feel" of the class by utilizing other N&W mallets where needed. Tis what it tis 🙂 Being new, I didnt want to tick anyone off right away... Great start that would be 😇
@TheRailroadCrossing-wc5gx hey
No problem ! I have been a Railroading fan for over 60 years ! My grandfather was a steam locomotive Engineer for the New York Central RR. N&W railroad is still one of my Favorites However :)
Keep up the Good Work
I enjoyed your video even with its hiccups :)
Take Care
Walter ~
@@Wilett614 Ah!! Well then I should think a Hudson video is needed sooner than later. :)
@@TheRailroadCrossing-SteamPower sounds GOOD! 😁
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.
th-cam.com/video/C0wmvZTyFYs/w-d-xo.htmlsi=hnwXtmt-IN5wOD9c
I feel the need to correct 2 errors that really bugged me in the Y6 portion of the video: 1. when talking about the cylinder dimensions, it was said "these *produced* a steam pressure of 300 lbs..." cylinders don't generate steam, the use it. and 2. "while utilizing *walshaerts valve gears..." N&W rarely used walshaerts if at all, they Y6s used baker valve gear (also valve gear is not plural unless you're talking about multiple types), the critical difference is that walshaerts using a sliding die block in an expansion link to change the valve timing and direction of travel, baker valve gear uses all pin joints and a hanging radius bar and reverse yoke.
Also, I won't touch on why this wasn't a great comparison because other comments already cover it, but when making a comparison, its generally a good idea to compare locomotives that were designed for a similar purpose in similar conditions, or comparisons don't even have to be locomotives, they can be something like different valve gear mechanisms as mentioned in my previous paragraph.
Yep I heard that.. Apparently I wrote it wrong in the scripting.. It should have said total steam pressure was 300 psi...Not sure how I rolled it in with the cylinders.. maybe script writing at 1 am in the morning... who knows. On the valve gears.. I have a new reference book from the N&W due here tomorrow and The valve gears I wanted to check out. Because, the source books that I used, one from 1970 said Walshaerts were used..but didnt say if it was the Y6, A or B..because they were all grouped in the same write up.. Im guessing that if they were, it was the Y6 being that the class would have been new then and perhaps NW didnt have a better in house solution yet. The other source was from 1991 and didnt mention Walshaerts at all. So obviously I went went the 1970 pub. But as I said, I will have a N & W source pub tomorrow and I will find the answer.. It's why I havent done any other N & W loco's since this one, because the pub's that I have dont seem to jive all of the time when it comes to them. (I thumbed through 4 other books out of curiosity just now and they arent completely consistent on N & W locos either, one mentioned walshaerts on the A) N & W is my favorite railroad, BTW... Good catch on the steam pressure.
@@TheRailroadCrossing-SteamPower something I’d recommend when you’re researching is on top of consulting the books, go look at old photographs, I’ve never seen a photo of a mainline N&W locomotive equipped with walshaerts, public libraries in the former N&W and Virginian regions are a great resource
@@awildjared1396 Still waiting on the mail to get my N & W pub. Will let you know what I find once I get it.
Baker Valve gear... There I have it!
Or the huge articulated steam locomotives that the DM&IR used.
Yellowstone is going to be a near future video. 😁
Question
What about the C&O Allegheny 2-6-6-6. Wasn’t that heavier that the big boy?
Yes indeed it was.. By some 8,000 lbs. Big Boys reign as the heaviest was short lived. U.P. loves to claim that now, in modern times and I think some confuse that with BB being the heaviest of all time. It's kinda like the Enterprise CVN 65 Vs. Nimitz debate... Enterprise was 12 feet longer, But Nimitz was some 12k tons heavier.. Some say the Enterprise is the biggest ever..others the Nimitz.. (now Ford)
No! It wasn't!
@@floydrandol2731 Correct!
Nice stuff. It's worth noting that the Y6b tractive effort you quote is running simple, and isn't a reasonable comparrison in day to day service.
That's correct.. Simple it was ;)
Operating a Y6b in simple mode was usually employed for starting heavy trains. As the speed increased and the demand for maximum tractive effort decreased the locomotive would be switched over to compound operation. IIRC, the compound tractive effort of a Y6b is about 132,000 lbs. Y6b’s were serious engines. Two of them could start a 100 car loaded coal train on Christiansburg Mountain on wet rail.
@@machinist1879 Good Stuff!
@@machinist1879 They may very well have been the Supreme expression of the type.
I appreciate the effort but this is not a good comparison. The Big Boy was a FAST Freight locomotive. The Y6B was a DRAG freight locomotive. The Y6B would outpull the Big Boy. The Big Boy is much faster. A better locomotive from the N&W to compare it to would be the N&W A Class. That was the N&W's heavyweight fast freight locomotive.
This was just a fun exercise with no real seriousness to it knowing full well the locomotives were built for different purposes. Very much like the Yamato versus the Iowa in naval warfare. Im a huge fan of the N&W from top to bottom. However, I do believe the Big Boy wins the pull over the Y6B. And I also believe the Y6B and the N&W in general are the better overall design and company. There is a recent video posted on here.. I think it's call Big Boy rescues a freight. It has 4014 pushing a stranded freight.. Initially 4014's drivers slip, but it recovers quickly and in short order has that stranded freight moving at 20-25 mph. We all know how long and heavy modern freights are... What the 80 year old 4014 did was nothing short of amazing and a testament of exactly how I figured (besides the math) the Big Boy wins the pull versus the y6b if such an event were to have occurred... Again, it's all fun..no seriousness to it.
The most important factor in these kinds of steam locomotives is not horsepower. Its tractive effort. Horsepower is meaningless, because it doesnt give an accurate representation of how much these engine can pull. Also, the bigger diameter wheels of the big boy would factor in on steeper grades more than you would think. As stated, these engines were designed and built for very different types of railroading. The n&w was more mountainous with steeper grades than that of the union pacific. The y6bs were designed to slow haul tonnage up steep grades, whereas the. Ig boy was designed to haul tonnage at higher speeds up more shallow grades.
TE vs HP always seems to be the hot debate in order of importance. Me, personally I give the HP the edge on less than 1.0 grades... Reality is TE, HP and Adhesion Weight are 1A, 1B, 1C... you need all three in order to have a complete locomotive. In doing these video's I have to omit a lot of relative info in order to keep the running time reasonable... So im glad you brought the drivers up.. You are absolutely correct.. On the NW grades Big Boys wheels would be a lot more prone to slipping... I.E. A lot of sand would have to be used... With that comes a lot more mechanical issues... Just so many things to consider in such a matchup like this scenario... Which is why the whole scenario isnt reality...but just fun do if it were presented as a one off competition... Otherwise, as designed, mechanically speaking, Big Boy would not stand the long term pounding on N & W grades.
@TheRailroadCrossing-wc5gx oh I completely understand, and I apologize if it seemed like I was trying to discredit the research you put into this vid. You make excellent points for both locomotives, and you are totally correct about the factor of adhesion playing a big role. Honestly, I had forgotten to add that into my comment, so cheers to you for bringing it up! I very much enjoyed watching, because in the end you're right, its a fun lite head to head co.petition that we wouldn't get to see in real life. Thank you for your content!
@@bear470 No, No, I take no offense in things being pointed out like this... It's what the comments are for. Because I do have to omit relative facts in all of my video's. Im getting better at which one's I put in and dont put in, I think, as I do each video. I really liked the driver comment you made... Case in point about BB drivers being prone to slipping on N & W grades is the very recent event that Big Boy rescued that 150 car freight on Blair Hill this year... In total..with it's own train of I think it's 15 cars today... That's a astonishing 165 car push and pull Big Boy did... Blair Hill is a 1.0 grade... guess what? Big Boy's drivers twice slipped before it got up to speed. (And I promise you that Union Pacific isnt using any sand these days for Big Boy) But in short order it looked to have that freight moving at 20 mph or better... This is something I dont think the Y6B could have done solo, or at best would really struggle with. This is where you take HP over TE... Again my opinion. In that rescue video, I looked closely at the #4015 diesel Big Boy had in tow to see if it was helping... I didnt see any exaggerated heat plumes coming from it.. So it definitely looks like it was all Big Boy on that rescue. (I also would not be surprised to learn some day that 4014 has some modern toys added to it that has added some extra sock to it over the original design) Otherwise, 165 car, solo, push and pull on a 1.0 grade, seems like a stretch for an 80 year old locomotive to pull off.. Even if the original design is complete with the big 3 performance keys as it was.
Good photos and explanation. But miss off the music. Sounds like a strangled cat.
See my newest video, you'll like it better
You got the wrong measurements,the Y6B was stronger
Big Boy for speed, Y6b for train weight. Different horses for different courses.
true, always true... Just a fun exercise of what if's, you know?
Steam engines are better 🇺🇸
Horrible music 😢
it's been modified in the later videos