Well, if Mr. Dickens can't pry the 4014 out of California, the 4004 is right across the street in Holiday Park there in Cheyenne!

that would be alot closer to home=less cost to transport it=the saving cost can be used tords the restoration for the bigboy..

Funny, THAT is exactly what a LOT of us are wondering! Just think:

1) No non-profit rail enthusiast group to deal with. Just the city of Cheyenne, which is obviously a BIG "Union Pacific town", which has a terrific history with the 4000 class locomotives.

2) Much less "movement costs" to get 4004 out of Holiday Park, and tow her literally across the main line to the steam shop.

3) Absolutely NO "involvement" with BNSF Railway trying to tow 4014 up Cajon Pass, which is one of the busiest sections of main line in the entire west!

With regards to the flood that 4004 was subjected to in 1985, what possible damage could it have sustained that is potentially unknown and could be extremely expensive to rectify.  I was specifically thinking of damage to journals/bearings on engine and tender, water that may have got into the cylinders etc, etc.

Regards,

Neil

From the description I have seen of the 4004 it sounds like it is in car worse shape (missing parts, firebox welded shut) and it was flooded. Perhaps they feel the 4014 is that more restore-able?

RE: Water damage to the 4004.

 While most seem to run around with their hair on fire when they see pictures of the 4004 partially submerged, few seem to realize that with a roller bearing, the bearing 'houses' are SEALED.

 IIRC, a recent and thorough inspection of the 4004 revealed that little water was found in the opened bearing houses and that most if not all the bearings, races and all, were in good shape.

DV

The 4004 was inspected by a professional "Steam Contractor" a few years ago, and discovered that ABSOLUTELY NO DAMAGE has occurred to ANY of the roller bearings, from the engine truck to the the tender journals. The cylinders would be "gone through" anyway during any sort of overhaul on ANY steam locomotive.

HW,

I can understand being able to check the rod bearings etc but how would they have checked the main journals and I assume white metal bearings on the drivers axles?

Also there has to be something fundamentally wrong with 4004 in relation to 4014, so does anyone have an inkling as to what they may be?

Neil

1) The contractor's crew crawled under the 4004 and inspected each drive axle roller bering by removing the inspection AND drain plugs on the sealed journals. Very little, if any water drained out. The use of optical "bore scopes" can be used effectively in closed environments, such as internal combustion diesel engine cylinders, in order to visually inspect rollers and races.

2) No, there is nothing really "fundamentally wrong" with ANY of the UP 4000 class steam locomotives. Plus the maintenance and operating records are available for EVERY individual 4000, so it sure would seem logical to select the 4004, which does NOT come with little or NO baggage!

The Big Boy at Steamtown (4012) is the favorite of the 5-year-old grandson of our church organist, so I hope that one is considered.

Logistically, 4004 seems a better choice, but it would be great to see the 4012 in service. 

Just like the 4014 in California, the 4012 would come with too much baggage, plus she is VERY far, and MANY railroad interchanges, away. 

I don't think UP wants to get involved with the park service over getting 4012 back, and the decades in VT and PA I'd bet she is in the worst shape of any of the candidates.

This Chapter in CA seems to have it's head up you know what.  Surprised that UP hasn't walked away yet or have they?

Maybe slightly off topic, and probably addressed in another Bigboy thread(sorry I couldnt find it),will bridges hold up under the weight of a Bigboy? I remember Steve Lee saying in a Pentrex? video that a Bigboy will probably never run again. And bridges were one of the reasons.

Bridges on the main lines would be the least of the concerns. Curves and separation between adjacent tracks on curves will be an issue.

Odd, only recent word from the club, not from Union Pacific.  To the, the quiet says a lot..........

I think folks should stop posting on this topic until there is real info on the subject. We have been through all this before. Just My opinion.

You don't think that an official letter from the actual owners of the 4014 to their membership is relevant??

what about the up 4018 in texas at a fairgrounds.it was going to be used for a movie.

Please do not put anything in this post to get rich mad again and just put info every one wants to know.  Maybe then it can stay here and update all of us on what is going on.  Just my opinion as I do not see anything on facebook anymore about it.

Being a newbie, and a Steamtown supporter, I find this thread very informative.  Thanks.  I don't think they would want 4012 if they took a good look.  It's had a hard life; sad to say.

Ron

Actually the 4018 was NEVER going to be used in ANY movie. That whole "project" was a scam by a specific individual, who eventually "disappeared" with all the money that was raised. Neither the UP, nor the BN EVER agreed to even move the 4018, let alone operate it. Darned shame what happened there.

This whole thing has been a public relations disaster from day one. It is a textbook example of how NOT to announce a project like this. Because of that, the California organization that owns the locomotive has zero credibility with me and I have absolutely zero confidence that this will happen. It's a foamer pipe dream.

People who think otherwise don't make me mad. They make me chuckle.

Rose-colored glasses never fit me very well. 

Rich, I think this could totally happen, but I'm betting against it.

Thanks for posting the update Gary I appreciate it. 

     Now as someone who knows nothing about these kind of discussions I would think that from a corporate stand point that the UP would be a bit PO'd by now at the spilling of information to those not party to the talks.  I don't know if Pomona is trying to gain support for or raise outrage against the idea but at any rate it's becoming a PR headache for UP IMHO.  That said yes, I am all for this..I never thought I would get to experience a 4000 operating and I hope I get to see it, and that others everywhere get to see it as well.

     So lets say they choose the 4004 and there are many more mechanical issues to solve is there anything that can not be remanufactured or obtained as needed?  And yes I know all it takes is money but I really am interested to know if anything is just flat out not replaceable?

The Union Pacific has no right to be upset about this story getting out. I would think they would have totally expected it. Clubs hold no power over their members. Corporations hold total power over their employees. The fact that everyone knows that they are pursuing this deal makes no difference. 

From what has been said previously, the final proposal has to be voted on by the members.

My dad said this to me a number of times:

As you go through life my son, whatever be your goal,

keep your eye upon the doughnut, and not upon the hole.

This isn't about who said what when, this is about the UP trying to acquire a big boy.

Chris, for money, they can do anything. And for enough money, they could build a new one from scratch. It just wouldn't have the history.

Actually they couldn't "build a new one from scratch" since the huge foundry industry is gone in this country. Those "new from scratch" steam locomotives completed or under construction in Great Briton are bar frames, and NOT the huge one piece cast steel engine beds with cast integral cylinders, used on the bigger, more modern steam locomotives in the U.S..

Does any country have the capability to do these one piece castings?

In the PRR era, there was a proposal to build a "GG2", but the proposal did not go through because PRR could not get the cast frames.  Or so I have read/heard.  And this was way before the 1960's!

And one other situation.  UP does have rights on Cajon.  But BNSF OWNS the tracks.  They will not let a steamer there because of the traffic.  Hence, I don't thing a BB movement would be permitted, even by UP.  So, drag the thing via the Coast, or the Loop, then Donner? 

A steam excursion perhaps, but the 4014 would be dead in tow.  I don't see how that would impact traffic over Cajon if it was tucked in with a freight heading east.  Unless there are clearance problems, or if a mechanical failure occurs enroute.

China and India both have long established foundry industries, but nothing on the scale of, say General Steel Castings that was in Granite City, IL. The one piece cast frames of U.S. steam locomotives where actually poured in the pits of the foundry floors. Besides, I don't think that either China nor India could produce the high quality, one piece engine bed castings, of say a New York Central Hudson, anyway. 

Please forgive me for getting off topic but how are modern diesel locomotive frames built?

Chris,

There is NO WAY that 4014 would be placed "dead in tow" in a freight train. ANY move of a 400o class locomotive would have to be a special move with a diesel in the lead, then probably the 4014, then the steam crew's support car/cars, and then another diesel in DPU mode on the rear. Remember that the 4014 will probably have NO AIR BRAKES, will thus have to have at least one diesel unit on the point, and at least one DPU on the rear.

One of the things speculated on is "why?"  Though the 150th Golden Spike anniversary has been primarily mentioned, the reason may be simpler and more practical.

In operating USN steam plants, the Navy had a rule of 3: one in overhaul/drydock, one in work ups, and one on station.  UP currently has 2 steamers, and has experienced significant periods where neither was available for various public relations operations.  Having a 3rd would give them far better availability,  allowing more overall hours to be run between FRA mandated down times.  

UP is serious about its steam.  Its not the PR stunt that other lines have perceived steam to be.  Thus UP may have determined it wants/needs a viable, 100% available fleet to achieve its long range goals.

FWIW.  Interesting to watch in any case.

Fabricated out of thick steel plates and "T" beams. Diesel frames are certainly NOT big long castings. The bottom plate alone of, say an EMD SD45 or SD70MAC is over 3 inches thick.

Good question, though.

To be correct, UP has really now has only one steam locomotive, #844. No work has been done on Challenger 3985, since it operated in 2010.

Logic would dictate that the Challenger should be returned to service prior to ANY thoughts of restoring/rebuilding a 4000 class locomotive. Besides, the 3985 will go in many more locations than a 4000!