UP Big Boy Restoration

That certainly makes sense from a fueling standpoint.  I know that with the conversion they will be removing the stoker,stoker motor(s),blast plate, jets, grate area and such but my question is what is done in terms of drafting?   Are there changes that need to be made to the firebox for this?

Chris

the driver wheelbase of 844 is 22'. but doesn't the rigid wheelbase of a four wheel pilot truck locomotive extend forward to the pilot truck pivot?

Wow... this is starting to sound like the railroad version of Jurassic Park!  Unfortunately, the engine I would love to see in action the most would have to be a new build (PRR T1 Duplex).  I must admit, I have wondered what kind of reception a restored UP gas-turbine would get, on account of their tremendous noise!

The thoughts of a Big Boy back in operation are exciting!  Hopefully it will be able to visit Austin!  Both 844 and 3985 have been here, so I think the trackage would be just fine (I'm thinking about those really sharp curves into and out of downtown).

Aaron

The Turbine noise is part of the appeal...smoke too!  As for a scratch built PRR T1, we could just feed the blueprints into the right computer...and print it up!

No.

there must be a whole lot of lateral movement built into the pilot truck then.  in live steam gauges, most 4-8-4's require a 50' minimum radius while a nearly similar driver wheelbase Berkshire can typically turn a 36 - 40' radius curve.

Not lateral movement as in wheel & axle lateral, however the "centering device" design of the two axle Engine Truck, is what forces the engine frame over to the left or right when entering curves. Also remember that the Engine truck is able to swivel on its center bearing and is equalized through the spring rigging, to the test of the wheels on a steam locomotive. Thus, the Engine Truck is NOT part of a 4-8-4s "ridged wheel base".

A fire pan would need to be installed in the floor of the firebox; dampers would need to be installed, firebrick installed; new firebox door with peephole for sanding; up in the smokebox any netting or spark arresting gear could be removed, which would assist in draft; provisions made to be able to start the engine on air, if not already there.

"provisions made to be able to start the engine on air"

what does this mean?

Oil buring steam engines need steam to operate the oil burner (most importantly) and blower. If steam isn't available--as when the engine is cold--you use compressed air instead to operate these accessories until there's enough steam pressure to "switch over" to steam.

So there has to be some appuratus, like a Chicago fitting, that allows air to be run through the turret system.

This is a great site, especially when you hit the "Back" button at the bottom of the page

Please do not just copy and paste URL's here. Learn to use the LINK tool.

Great information, Thank you Steve.

Chris

Why not leave the loco on coal burning? Admittedly I can see the advantage of oil for easier refuelling, especially away from a depot. But we seem to do okay here in the UK

with coal burning. 

 As I understand coal is cheaper than oil would it be worth converting and losing the originality as well?

Nick

Challenger 3985 was converted to oil after sparks from her stack started trackside fires. That may be a factor in converting 4014 to oil.

UP runs these engines out west where it is usually very dry most of the year.

Fire is a significant problem. I'm sure there are plenty of regulations involved as well.

The line side fires the 3985 started were enough for UP to convert her to oil, and at this point the commonality between the engines and ease of fueling.....it only makes sense in regards to converting the 4014 also.

Chris

Thanks ReadingFan, that would make sense as you have larger unpopulated areas where those fires could get out of hand before any one reported them.

Out of interest was there a problem with line side fires back in the day, when steam was in everyday operation with UP?

Back in the day, the common use of coal burning locomotives for nearly a century meant that the right of way was well burned off, and stayed that way.  Now vegitation has grown up uncontrolled right along the tracks. Even now, Coal fired operators like Durango & Silverton, Cumbre's & Toltec, often follow their trains with a extinguisher equipped speedster during dry seasons.

Having been to the Sceptered Isles, I can see where this would not be a problem!

Wait Wait Wait.  Time out. I've been away from this forum for far too long aparently. Are we actually going to see 4014 AND 611 back in steam? Ive only been away for like 6 months. Really?  And links to 611 info?

Fires started by trains have created huge disasters in the region where I live.  Here's a link to just one:

http://blogs2.startribune.com/.../oldnews/archives/45

Kent in SD

Rich was using that thing that seems to be so rare today, logic, when he declared we would never see a Big Boy under live steam...

Logic, it seems to me, would be that the best wheel arrangement the UP had, the 4-6-6-4 Challengers, would be the engine to run. She (the 3985), can go anywhere the 844 and 4014 cannot go.

Ed Mullan

UP's 4-6-6-4 were changed from coal to oil within their working lifetimes depending on which fuel was available.  But the oil conversion of the 4-8-8-4 did not work then.  What has improved to make it work now.

With 4014, UP would have bragging rights.However, most people SEEING THE LOCOMPTIVE would not know the difference between 844, 3985, or 4014.  In fact, I would bet somebosy would complain why the engine is not painted blue with Mars light type eyes!

And UP seems to have an issue within the Steam Team.  To me, getting the right chemistry with the support group should restored first before restoring a BB.

From what I've read about the one time UP tried oil firing a Big Boy it was done as a half-hearted attempt.  They installed a single oil burner unit, found it didn't work that well, and gave up, instead of experimenting further to make it work correctly.

Stuart

If you gentlemen would read Hot Water's post all the way back on Page 3, you would see that the Big Boy DID steam well on oil.

quote:

and it certainly was NOT unsuccessful!

I guess it depends on how you read that statement.

It must have been successful given that...

quote:

 Some of the old head Engineers out of the Cheyenne pool, with Fireman dates back in the late 1940s, stated that the 4005 steamed exceptionally well after conversion to bunker C fuel oil.

...but, unsuccessful in that...

quote:

the oil "oil burning 4000 class" test proposal was canceled since the 4005 used such an enormous amount of oil, that one could barely make it between locomotive servicing facilities.

I would have thought that someone in the MP Dept. would have slid the slide rule and made arrangements for the tenders to carry sufficient fuel.

Perhaps they did and decided the effort was not worth the costs.

Rusty

Where's Ed Bagley when you need him ???? 

You can check this out...http://fireup611.org/ or if you are on facebook try this link also....https://www.facebook.com/Fireup611#!/Fireup611

Chris

It sure would be nice to see another American streamlined steam loco in operation.  I believe SP 4449 is the only other one, right?

The 3985 visited Utah while still coal fired. The newspaper headline on it's departure was along the lines of "Firefighters happily bid farewell to steam engine"  It caused numerous small fires all along northern UT. I was told by others that the  Utah state fire marshal basically told it not to come back while coal fired

Lotsa good stuff happening lately. WELCOME BACK!

The 4449 is semi streamlined....and is currently undergoing her mandated 15 year FRA inspection.

With regards to the move of 4014, what would be the speed that she can be moved safely? 

Chris

Chris,  I always looked at the wheel/rail interface as an analog function.  It is not at what speed is it safe and what speed is it not safe, it is a matter of being safer and less safe.

I think the Wye that Steve talks about in Ogden was removed

I based my statement that the oil fired 4005 was unsuccessful on what was written by William Kratville in his book on the Big Boys.  On page 39 he wrote "From a steaming standpoint, the 4005 steamed better than any oil burning power UP men had seen on any road.  However, the single burner caused spot heating on the huge crown sheet which in turn, caused it to leak.  Every trip was the same - when you looked in the firebox it was just like a rainstorm, with water pouring down so fast that it almost extinguished the fire!"

Stuart

is Steve Lee still with UP?

Given the lack of information on this part of the deal, I'm wondering if it isn't 3985.

Bob

Chris, I looked at Ogden, with Google Earth, and the wye looks like it's still in place.

No, he retired in 2011.

Chris

So that's why he went to Omaha in 2005 and pleaded with the U.P. brass to let him have 4023 for restoration??