jjanmarine3
Active member
My vote goes for upgraded Big Boys too.
4-8-8-8-4 huge boy
- Thread starter madara123
- Start date
My vote goes for upgraded Big Boys too.
@pdkoester:
I've got to comment on your 'photo':
In high school, a friend of mine showed me a picture of a Canadian Pacific 2-10-10-6 'Ohio Type', which also had a tender with two 4-axle trucks. At the end of the school day, he told me it was a fake. He told me how it was faked, but I vaguely remember it.
I'm 99.999999999999% certain that that is faked. I have an idea how to tell it is faked, but you have to look at the area around the rear two drive wheels.
I've got to comment on your 'photo':
In high school, a friend of mine showed me a picture of a Canadian Pacific 2-10-10-6 'Ohio Type', which also had a tender with two 4-axle trucks. At the end of the school day, he told me it was a fake. He told me how it was faked, but I vaguely remember it.
I'm 99.999999999999% certain that that is faked. I have an idea how to tell it is faked, but you have to look at the area around the rear two drive wheels.
Engineerkenny
New member
I know this has not much to do with this thread but on your website I had downloaded the AQ&M 30ng 4-8-4 and so I clicked on the link to the whistle and all it showed was a blank webpage with one tab that said "home" and there was nothing else but that and a picture of a house roof or something can you help me is that page not hosting any content I need the Sierra Railway #3 5 chime would it be on the download station and will I be able to find it anywhere?
Engineerkenny
New member
no way! that has to be fake WOW
64Warhorse
New member
LOL, yeah, it's a fake. Look at the number board at the front, and you can see the splice between the second and third sets of drivers. Not bad at all, though ... 
:wave: :hehe:
:wave: :hehe:cascaderailroad
New member
I would like to see a Trainz screenshot of the 4-8-8-8-4 Huge Boy ... I know someone has it, out there.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfjM5C3LzC8
https://www.google.com/search?q=4-8...09,d.dmg&fp=4e8f236c4e4ab29c&biw=1305&bih=687
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfjM5C3LzC8
https://www.google.com/search?q=4-8...09,d.dmg&fp=4e8f236c4e4ab29c&biw=1305&bih=687
Last edited:
I would like to see a Trainz screenshot of the 4-8-8-8-4 Huge Boy ... I know someone has it, out there.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfjM5C3LzC8
to cascaderailroad wow O_O does any1 have this for download i want to have this
cascaderailroad
New member
Even if I had it, I would only run it @ 10 times then take it off my route, as it looks ridiculous (and would "spread my rails" on my Horseshoe Curve route)... Bet you wish that you, had that ?
Well, my first glimpse of it being faked, was the background pole above the engine towards the cab... it was too close and too identical to the other one... then I looked at the piping and other equipment along the boiler, for identical configurations, could tell where it was duplicated... there's an identical bare spot on the ground too...
Get those bits fixed however, and it would be very convincing... excellent photoshop job as it is.
-- Smoov
If you look carefully you will see its a 2-4-6-8-10-12-4 (not absolutely certain about the last 4 - hard to see). Utterly fictitious of course and equally unworkable.
All simple articulated locos are designed to have a boiler and firebox large enough to produce steam for 4 cylinders (unless the design engineer had his head up his bum, lol).
The Erie triplex had a tendency to run out of steam since they added 2 more steam consuming cylinders but no additional steam producing capacity. The boiler and firebox remained the same size.
From what I see in the huge boy screenshots it appears the gent that made it understood and lengthened the boiler and firebox so (in Trainz theory) it made sufficient steam for the extra two cylinders.
The 2-4-6-8-1-12-4 doesn't have a snow balls chance in you know where of working as while it may have a longer boiler and firebox they are not nearly long enough to produce steam for 12 cylinders.
Could a real life huge boy have been built? I think so. Would it have been worth the effort - we will never know. Be fantastic to see it chug by wouldn't it.
Ben
All simple articulated locos are designed to have a boiler and firebox large enough to produce steam for 4 cylinders (unless the design engineer had his head up his bum, lol).
The Erie triplex had a tendency to run out of steam since they added 2 more steam consuming cylinders but no additional steam producing capacity. The boiler and firebox remained the same size.
From what I see in the huge boy screenshots it appears the gent that made it understood and lengthened the boiler and firebox so (in Trainz theory) it made sufficient steam for the extra two cylinders.
The 2-4-6-8-1-12-4 doesn't have a snow balls chance in you know where of working as while it may have a longer boiler and firebox they are not nearly long enough to produce steam for 12 cylinders.
Could a real life huge boy have been built? I think so. Would it have been worth the effort - we will never know. Be fantastic to see it chug by wouldn't it.
Ben
jacksonbarno
Alco Spoken Here
With all of that pounding on the rails, it would have really messed up track!
As I'm sure you are aware the engines on an articulated can and often go in and out of sync and that's with 2 sets of drivers and cylinders. This abomination with 6 pairs would be far worse. When out of sync possibly quite smooth but when in sync they would act like 2 beyond gigantic cylinders and pound the rails to smithereens, lol.
Then there is the demand for steam on the boiler. When all are out of sync the demand is almost continuous but smooth. When in sync the demand is gigantic and probably would cause the boiler to expand and contract as the cylinders went chug all at the same time. A normal locos boiler might do the same thing but at such a small amount as not to be significant. This thing would stress the boiler beyond all safety levels. Instant metal fatigue, lol.
Ben
Then there is the demand for steam on the boiler. When all are out of sync the demand is almost continuous but smooth. When in sync the demand is gigantic and probably would cause the boiler to expand and contract as the cylinders went chug all at the same time. A normal locos boiler might do the same thing but at such a small amount as not to be significant. This thing would stress the boiler beyond all safety levels. Instant metal fatigue, lol.
Ben
Baldwin built one 2-8-8-8-4, a Mallet-type for the Virginian Railway in 1916. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2-8-8-8-4). Its real problem was the boiler couldn't produce enough steam to run it. They also built two 'Triplex' 2-8-8-8-2 locos. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triplex_(locomotive).
Bob Weber
Bob Weber
The triplexes had another shortcoming. Reducing tractive effort.
In the US all non tank engines (articulateds included) had fuel and water carried in separate tenders. Weight on the drivers didn't change as fuel and water were consumed. The triplexes had the 3rd set of drivers and cylinders under the tender. As fuel and water were consumed weight on those drivers decreased thus decreasing the tractive effort developed by that set of drivers and cylinders.
What it could pull with a full load of fuel and water it might not be able to pull as fuel and water was consumed. Dispatchers should of course realize this and not base train tonnage on a full load of fuel and water but a half load and better yet an almost empty tender. Tank engines are designed this way or course but I wonder if they thought about it for the triplex.
Garratts are subject to slowly reducing tractive effort too as all their fuel and water is carried on the drivers. A shortcoming in theory but one more then made up for the increase in agility.
The huge boy above has a separate tender so isn't subject to this shortcoming.
Ben
In the US all non tank engines (articulateds included) had fuel and water carried in separate tenders. Weight on the drivers didn't change as fuel and water were consumed. The triplexes had the 3rd set of drivers and cylinders under the tender. As fuel and water were consumed weight on those drivers decreased thus decreasing the tractive effort developed by that set of drivers and cylinders.
What it could pull with a full load of fuel and water it might not be able to pull as fuel and water was consumed. Dispatchers should of course realize this and not base train tonnage on a full load of fuel and water but a half load and better yet an almost empty tender. Tank engines are designed this way or course but I wonder if they thought about it for the triplex.
Garratts are subject to slowly reducing tractive effort too as all their fuel and water is carried on the drivers. A shortcoming in theory but one more then made up for the increase in agility.
The huge boy above has a separate tender so isn't subject to this shortcoming.
Ben
http://www.douglas-self.com/MUSEUM/LOCOLOCO/hex/hex.htm
not the huge boy, but something more fun. it's like a combo of insanity from UP/ALCO + SAR/Beyer, Peacok. 'no, bigger, BIGGER!'
not the huge boy, but something more fun. it's like a combo of insanity from UP/ALCO + SAR/Beyer, Peacok. 'no, bigger, BIGGER!'
By bankers I assume you mean pushers and yes your right. In that service the reduction in tractive effort probably didn't cause much of a problem.
Tender capacity was reduced by the design itself. Those drivers are considerably larger in diameter then normal tender bogey wheels.
I've seen both a HO and O scale version of the triplex. Darned impressive to say the least.
Paulz Trainz USA offers one as payware.
Ben
Tender capacity was reduced by the design itself. Those drivers are considerably larger in diameter then normal tender bogey wheels.
I've seen both a HO and O scale version of the triplex. Darned impressive to say the least.
Paulz Trainz USA offers one as payware.
Ben
BLACKWATCH
Mechanical Engineer
But in reality, as this topic proves ...................................... BIGGEST ain't always best.
