First Imported "Big Steam"?

[ScaleCraft]

That has always been a charmer. I may do one like that after I do the Dockside - as in a long time from now.

Dave - does Skookum run under steam?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjD29D8o02w

Short answer-yes.

[Jay Criswell]

My understanding is, Jimmy Booth was the engineer, for at least some, if not all, of it. Guess it's a case of, when O Scale simply won't do.

Jay

[E7]

Need to be more specific, less Dave (ScaleCraft) claims his 2-4-4-2 as big. How about "twelve drivers (articulated) or eight drivers (non-articulated)". And, again, to avoid a trap, this is a necessary but not sufficient requirement. Not many would claim an 0-8-0 "big steam". But there are exceptions everywhere.

I think it's easier to use the KISS principle, because there will invariably be odd ball exceptions pop up, and in the end, it's all pretty much OPINION! If, for example, Dave wants to call Skookum "BIG", it works for me. Looking at the pics, I wouldn't call it small! The 8 drivers thing is easy, and works pretty well, even for articulateds. Maybe we could start an admission poll, and everything that qualifies gets "Big Boy" painted on the boiler door.

Rich

[ScaleCraft]

That ain't what I said.

Jimmy said about big steam: "I would say just about any articulated would count based just on size."
Whereupon I said: "good thing you said "just about any articulated"...."

Never said the Little River 2-4-4-2 was big. It's TINY. Doesn't count as "big steam".

[bob turner]

Well, at least we are posting.

[rex desilets]

Howzabout we just go with weight of the prototype and avoid theological arguments?

[R.K. Maroon]

Howzabout we just go with weight of the prototype and avoid theological arguments?

Good one, Rex

I was describing the concept of a "rivet counter" to my wife once and she said, "Good grief, it's not a religion". To which I responded, "Oh, but it is"

So, along those lines, let's skip the mainstream stuff and go straight to the occult. I say we go by weight of the model:



Bob's right on this one: A Mountain can certainly be big steam.

[bob turner]

I have some 0-6-0s with huge slugs of brass in the boiler. I will weigh one for you. Isn't it like 1 AM in Dallas?

[rex desilets]

Howzabout we just go with weight of the prototype and avoid theological arguments?

Good one, Rex

I was describing the concept of a "rivet counter" to my wife once and she said, "Good grief, it's not a religion". To which I responded, "Oh, but it is"

So, along those lines, let's skip the mainstream stuff and go straight to the occult. I say we go by weight of the model:



Bob's right on this one: A Mountain can certainly be big steam.

Of course trains and models thereof are a religion. My wife knows this, my extended family and numerous friends know this.
When I take my current favorite loco to the Club, a 3rd Rail PRR M-1a/b, and hook it up to a string of PRR hoppers, I say "who's a good boy" and off it goes.
The problem with model weight is that it gives the edge to those guys who can load up a model with tungsten. No, it should be how heavy the real thing was. YMMV.

[R.K. Maroon]

The problem with model weight is that it gives the edge to those guys who can load up a model with tungsten. No, it should be how heavy the real thing was.

I agree, of course -- I was just riffing on the theological theme that you introduced.

So I will venture a number. Since I suggested the Lima Superpower Berkshires as the threshold to "big steam", I will stick with that. The Berkshire was named for the performance of the first example of a Lima 2-8-4 on the Boston and Albany in the Berkshire mountains. This locomotive weighed just under 400,000 lbs sans tender, so I will run that weight up the flagpole and see if anybody salutes.

Jim

[E7]

I'm not playing that game. Too complicated. You want to have to look up engine weights every time there is a discussion.....what a PITA! Take the Whyte notation draw the line of demarcation at Berkshire on through to the Triplex and be done with it.

Rich

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whyte_notation

[bob turner]

No need for rules here - "big" is relative, and subject to opinion. Yes need for photos of what you think is "big."

[E7]

No need for rules here - "big" is relative, and subject to opinion. Yes need for photos of what you think is "big."

Not that good of an idea....pictures can be deceptive. For an accurate comparison the pics should be taken from the same point of reference....good luck on that one

Then consider the photo storage limits on this board.....

[R.K. Maroon]

OK -- maybe we should all just agree that we all have "big steam", if you know what I mean, and leave it at that.

Wait...can I say that here and get away with it? I'll guess we'll see.

[E7]

Works for me Jim. A couple other pitfalls for the suggestions thus far: copyright issues on pictures (unless you want to use links), and what's bigger, a ton of feathers or a ton of gold? That's an obtuse way of saying weight can be deceptive size wise. I still think the Whyte classification is best if we have to delineate it (size).....except maybe for the kajillion names for the 4-8-4

Rich

PS: If we could have just got that "Big Boy" guy to chalk up more locos we could have had medium boys and small boys, and the dreaded "Little Boy"....scary stuff.