Found this posted on a rail fan Facebook page today. I assume they are talking about the red light above the headlight, although I never thought of that as a Mars light. Wonder if it came off for repairs
We followed 844 yesterday and to the railfan's surprise - THERE IS NO LONGER A MARS HEADLIGHT! Yes, the "iconic" mars headlight was taken off. The engine has the original look she did when she came onto the railroad. We will post a picture once we find a good shot and clean up it's resolution.
Replies sorted oldest to newest
I saw an excellent video posted on Train Orders, of 844 departing Pine Bluffs on Monday June 10, which was he first day out of Cheyenne, enroute to the College World Series event in Omaha. It sure looked like the red Mars Warning light was still mounted above the headlight.
For what it's worth, ANY product the was manufactured by the Mars Signal Light Co. was, and has always been, referred to as a Mars Light.
Yes it is gone, but also I noticed the DDA40X is is behind it, very cool
Sure enough, the red Mars Warning Signal Light is gone! They took it off while in Omaha at the College World Series display.
Certainly seems odd that they would remove the Red Mars light, since the UP began installing them about 1946, and if the current manager is trying to "back date" poor 844, he has a LOT of work to do yet. Most importantly, the FEF-3 class locomotives were built with the Sellers Exhaust Steam Injector system, and 844 didn't receive her Worthington type SA Feedwater Heater system until AFTER 1954. Thus "removal of the Mars Light" is inappropriate!
Yes it is gone, but also I noticed the DDA40X is is behind it, very cool
The DDA40X went with 844 to Omaha. It seems that 844 no longer EVER operates without a diesel behind her!
I just went downstairs and I can confirm, it's still there.
I just went downstairs and I can confirm, it's still there.
Grab the cutters
Since we are talking Mars lights, how does the 3rd Rail Mars light function on their UP FEF? Wrong forum, I know...
Thanks.
Since we are talking Mars lights, how does the 3rd Rail Mars light function on their UP FEF? Wrong forum, I know...
Thanks.
Well, yes wrong forum, but as I recall, mine turns red, when you place the model into reverse. Obviously not like the real locomotives, but it looks OK.
Yes it is gone, but also I noticed the DDA40X is is behind it, very cool
The DDA40X went with 844 to Omaha. It seems that 844 no longer EVER operates without a diesel behind her!
When the 844 was in Bloomington, CA last year and I got a change to talk to the crews one reason are the FRA rules about having a back-up to the steam but the most important to the crews was the ability to use the braking power of the diesels to save wear and tear on the 844.
When the 844 was in Bloomington, CA last year and I got a change to talk to the crews one reason are the FRA rules about having a back-up to the steam
That is simply NOT TRUE! I'm sorry someone on "the crew" told you that, but in reality the FRA could care less about a "back-up" for ANY steam locomotive operating in the U.S., nor does the FRA have any "rules" such as that. For example, how would that explanation fit the Cumbres & Toltec Scenic RR or the Durango & Silverton RR, both of which are 100% steam?
Yes it is nice to have a diesel behind the steam locomotive for dynamic brake help on very long down grades, but it certainly is NOT an FRA requirement for THAT either.
When the 844 was in Bloomington, CA last year and I got a change to talk to the crews one reason are the FRA rules about having a back-up to the steam
That is simply NOT TRUE! I'm sorry someone on "the crew" told you that, but in reality the FRA could care less about a "back-up" for ANY steam locomotive operating in the U.S., nor does the FRA have any "rules" such as that. For example, how would that explanation fit the Cumbres & Toltec Scenic RR or the Durango & Silverton RR, both of which are 100% steam?
Yes it is nice to have a diesel behind the steam locomotive for dynamic brake help on very long down grades, but it certainly is NOT an FRA requirement for THAT either.
Strange because the 3751 is required to have a diesel behind according to those guys when they run it into San Bernardino. Maybe it is just because?
As far as the brakes, no the crew just said it was nice to have the diesel for the braking to save the wear and tear on the 844.
Strange because the 3751 is required to have a diesel behind according to those guys when they run it into San Bernardino. Maybe it is just because?
As far as the brakes, no the crew just said it was nice to have the diesel for the braking to save the wear and tear on the 844.
1) The 3751 absolutely MUST have an Amtrak diesel behind them for two reasons: A) the Amtrak diesel provides the 480volt, three phase AC Head End Power for any and all passenger cars behind, and B) the 3751 runs their trips under Amtrak in order to have Amtrak liability insurance (otherwise the BNSF would NEVER allow the trips). In fact, the same scenario is how SP 4449, and Milwaukee Road 261 operate THEIR excursions, i.e. under Amtrak.
2) Use of the trailing diesel in dynamic brake does NOT save "wear and tear" on 844. The use of dynamic brake on down grades saves "wear and tear" on the PASSENGER CAR BRAKES. The air brakes are NOT, and had better never be, used on the steam locomotive, for fear of overheating the driver tires!
The air brakes are NOT, and had better never be, used on the steam locomotive, for fear of overheating the driver tires!
For what it's worth, Dickens seems to have avoided this risk by cutting out the driver brakes on the 844...leaving ONLY the trailing truck brakes on the locomotive. Watch any recent video of a cab ride on the 844; Dickens doesn't completely bail off the locomotive brakes after making a set...
DV
Wow she sure looks different....
Chris
Is it possible the red light was not working, and had to be removed according to FRA rega?
Can UP get Supt. S. Lee back?
>> It seems that 844 no longer EVER operates without a diesel behind her!
Back in the great fantrip days we used to wonder if an auxiliary water tender could be disguised as a baggage car. Now I wonder if the backup diesel could be disguised as an auxiliary tender!
Wouldn't be too hard with one of those Amtrak units.
...one reason are the FRA rules about having a back-up to the steam but the most important to the crews was the ability to use the braking power of the diesels to save wear and tear on the 844.
Where do you guys come up with this nonsense?
There are no FRA rules about having a diesel behind a steam locomotive! NKP 765 has made several moves on NS without a diesel in recent years. The diesel is there at the convenience of the railroad. The FRA has ZERO jurisdiction about things like this.
More nonsense. When operating a steam locomotive over the road, the locomotive brakes are NEVER used until the train has stopped. The train is "stretch braked" in order to keep all the slack under control in the train. In other words, the brakes are applied on the train, but the engine brake is purposely prevented from applying by bailing it off. The locomotive pulls against the brakes, keeping the slack stretched and makes a very smooth stop with the throttle. An engineer using the engine brake to stop a train is going to give his passengers a VERY rough ride...rough enough to possibly injure people.
In addition, as Hot Water pointed out, there is also the danger of overheating the driver tires by using the engine brakes while moving. The engine brake on a steam locomotive simply was not intended to be used while the engine is moving, unless it is just a slow speed light engine move in the yard or something like that.
If this is true, this IS something the FRA would like to know about...because it is against the rules to do this! The brakes MUST be operative on a locomotive.
I would also have ask exactly what "risk" is being eliminated by cutting out the driver brakes? That whole concept makes no sense.
Hey Rich, time for 765 to put the Mars light back on?
Doubt it because I believe it was a medical related retirement and from what common friends have told me he is having way too much fun being Grandpa
If this is true, this IS something the FRA would like to know about...because it is against the rules to do this! The brakes MUST be operative on a locomotive.
I would also have ask exactly what "risk" is being eliminated by cutting out the driver brakes? That whole concept makes no sense.
Rich,
I'm assuming because of the short and light trains pulled behind the engine, Dickens must be attempting to 'create' more braking power, WITHOUT overheating the driver tires.
If I understand correctly, there is a feature with the 8ET air system to cut out the driver brake cylinders, while every other brake cylinder operates as normal.
Folks that 'know chocolate', please chime in!
DV
Rich,
These are same folks that do NOT live Realville like you and I do and they eat Chopped Liver for dinner.
(...a dish NOT served in Realville!)
Perhaps these are guys that are NOT RR professionals. They, myself included, are not UP on all the RR terminology, rules, and regulations.
It's very difficult to see people being ridiculed for not knowing. There are ways of correcting mis-information without being condescending. Whether intentional or not is certainly can be discouraging to people.
Some of you guys are a wealth of information and I learn a lot. I also almost away feel like I maybe I shouldn't have asked because it was a bother or stupid.
One fella's opinion - all current big steam locomotives look best with their Mars lights on (261, 844 and 765). Mars lights were put on for safety in the '50's and added to the "all-business look" of these locomotives. Leave 'em on, even if they don't wag! Also, for many of us, we cut our eye teeth on steam in the '50's - these locomotives look sort of naked, sort of bland, without their Mars lights.
While we all have our opinions on what we like ect. I prefer to leave this stuff up to the folks who are actually operating the locomotive. I am just happy they are operating.
Chris
Perhaps these are guys that are NOT RR professionals. They, myself included, are not UP on all the RR terminology, rules, and regulations.
It's very difficult to see people being ridiculed for not knowing. There are ways of correcting mis-information without being condescending. Whether intentional or not is certainly can be discouraging to people.
Some of you guys are a wealth of information and I learn a lot. I also almost away feel like I maybe I shouldn't have asked because it was a bother or stupid.
Then why do so many of you, who admittedly REALLY DON"T KNOW, make such "statements of fact", instead of actually asking a question? Such as the discussion begun by Mr. Captaincog, where in he made statements, rather than saying what he was told by a crew member, and then ask, or question, whether such information was indeed true, or some BS put out by some who was supposedly on the UP steam crew.
If a poster admits right up-front that he really doesn't know nor understand, such and such, these topics tend to go a LOT SMOOTHER!
If this is true, this IS something the FRA would like to know about...because it is against the rules to do this! The brakes MUST be operative on a locomotive.
I would also have ask exactly what "risk" is being eliminated by cutting out the driver brakes? That whole concept makes no sense.
Rich,
Both the SP GS class 4-8-4s and the UP FEF class 4-8-4s had/have a large cut-out cock for cutting out the brake cylinders on the drivers ONLY. Thus, during heavy braking on VERY LONG down grades, the Engineer could close this "mountain cock" with the toe of his boot, and then gain additional braking effort from the trailing truck AND the tender brakes.
The Southern Pacific even went so far as to specify brake shoes & rigging on the ENGINE TRUCKS of all their GS Class 4-8-4s and MT class 4-8-2 locomotives, due their extreme mountain grades. The Southern Pacific even went so far as to have water spay "wheel cooling systems" installed on their 4-8-4s, in order to keep the locomotive's wheels from overheating.
Thanks, Jack.
As a "flatlander" (there aren't many mountains on the NKP!) I learned something new today.
Thanks, Jack.
As a "flatlander" (there aren't many mountains on the NKP!) I learned something new today.
Me too, I'd never heard of such a thing. Wonder if any mountain railroads here in the east had them?
Perhaps these are guys that are NOT RR professionals. They, myself included, are not UP on all the RR terminology, rules, and regulations.
It's very difficult to see people being ridiculed for not knowing. There are ways of correcting mis-information without being condescending. Whether intentional or not is certainly can be discouraging to people.
Some of you guys are a wealth of information and I learn a lot. I also almost away feel like I maybe I shouldn't have asked because it was a bother or stupid.
Then why do so many of you, who admittedly REALLY DON"T KNOW, make such "statements of fact", instead of actually asking a question? Such as the discussion begun by Mr. Captaincog, where in he made statements, rather than saying what he was told by a crew member, and then ask, or question, whether such information was indeed true, or some BS put out by some who was supposedly on the UP steam crew.
If a poster admits right up-front that he really doesn't know nor understand, such and such, these topics tend to go a LOT SMOOTHER!
Re-reading my original post I realize that what I thought that I had typed versus what I did does look misleading. My intention was simply to relay what I was told and not anything else. I work very hard and do not live in an unrealistic world but apparently I need to be banned from the entire forum since I clearly have made a mistake and I was trying to learn. The very mistakes and angst I have generated I am truly sorry for and I sincerely apologize for wasting everyone's time to this matter.
I realize I deserve the harshest punishment possible.
Thank you.!..
Jeff
20 lash ups with a wet noodle will do.
This is 844 as it came through Kearney last Friday. Definitely a different look for sure.
Thanks, Jack.
As a "flatlander" (there aren't many mountains on the NKP!) I learned something new today.
Me too, I'd never heard of such a thing. Wonder if any mountain railroads here in the east had them?
Pretty sure some of them did. WM 734 at the Western Maryland Scenic has one, and I don't think it was on during the LS&I days.
Kevin
I realize I deserve the harshest punishment possible.
YOU CERTAINLY DO!
You will have to write the words "I will never use the word "lashup" in any of my posts!" 10,000 times...on one piece of toilet paper...using a Sharpie. 
Jack and I both have a low "nonsense" tolerance when it comes to mis-information about 12-inch-to-the-foot scale railroading. Sometimes we may react a bit to strongly, because we are disappointed that this kind of "nonsense" gets promulgated as gospel...by people who should know better.
This is 844 as it came through Kearney last Friday. Definitely a different look for sure.
Wonder what it would look like without the elephant ears?
Oh Lordy, I can't decide which way I like it better! Not so with the NKP Berk, or most other locos. Maybe I'll form an opinion later, but 'til then, all I can do is shrug my shoulders!
She would look like this......
Access to this requires an OGR Forum Supporting Membership
