UP Big Boy Restoration

1994 was 20 years ago, things change in 20 years.

 

Either way, none of that changes the fact that they are restoring one.  While all the logistics may dictate the hows and wheres, the facts are in on one part of the equation.

I wonder how much of the "This Old House" syndrome will manifest itself with the restoration?

 

1)Unexpected damage/problems turn up

2)It's going to cost more than budgeted

3)It's going to take longer than expected

 

Rusty

I don't know Mr. Kratville, but this sounds like it was written by someone doesn't know much about steam.

From what I understand, The replacement for the Big Boy exchange is going to be a Tunnel Motor and a caboose.

Just like I asked a few pages back.  You are going to spend all this money on this Public Relation tool and be limited on where it can go why bother???  I'd rather see 3895 restored. 

 

So I'll ask again, Other and what Mr. Lee said in the video where else can you run BB???

I wonder: Motive power has only gotten bigger in the last 20 years.  And it's routine now to see 4 or more locomotives heading some of these trains, particulary those Powder river Coal units.  I know UP has upgraded and strengthened roadbeds and bridges on its Missouri River line here in MO several times in the last decade.  Perhaps we have a convergance of cabability here . . .

All of these things, probably. It seems practically everything is like that, from doing home remodeling to building roads to building aircraft carriers to building social programs, and countless etc. It's in the nature of things. You can estimate and analyze, but until you turn the rock over, you really don't know what's going to come crawling out. Lots of hidden surprises always await!           

I know this is just Wikipedia but they list the dash-9 as weighing 425,000 pounds so three of then would be 1,275,000,  right around what the bigboy weighs. I could not find what the ES44's weigh.  you almost never seen one diesel engine  I do not see an issue.

Could be, I just remember when they were putting the flyover in the the Commuter rail that it was going to affect the Wye and a lot of the old timers were up in arms, I didn't see how it would, but oh well.

The Fluyover did cover up a big part of the old roundhouse foundations though. I use to be able to walk out there and get an idea how big it was.

William Kratville is the author of many books on steam locomotives, including UP's 800's, Challengers, and 4-12-2's.  I would assume he in knowledgeable about steam locomotives.

 

Stuart

 

That's all well and good, but from what you posted, it just sounds like he may not have a good understanding of steam locomotive operation. He's basically describing a crown sheet failure.

And what is the total length of three Dash-9's compared to a BB and what is the axle loadings of the Dash-9's compared to the BB?

 

I would have thought the Dash- 9's axle loadings are going to be less

An ES44 is about the same weight.. 208-210 tons depending on AC vs DC units. They are 73' long

Totally different calculations with trying to compare 3 diesels with 1 steam engine, as far as weight distribution, which is a major determinative factor.

 

Three Dash 9s are going to be about 220' in length, with the weight distributed pretty much throughout the entire length, and fairly evenly on 36 wheels over that length.

 

The BB is only 132' in length including the tender; the engine itself is 85' long, only 12' longer than a Dash 9. The wheelbase of each set of drivers on the BB is just 18.75 feet. So both sets of drivers with about 4' between them gives a total driver wheelbase of only a little over 41', and the weight on drive wheels on a BB spread over that 41' is 545,000 pounds, the vast majority of the total engine weight (excluding tender) of 762,000 lbs.. And obviously the total weight of the BB, including tender, is also compressed over a much shorter length than it is with the three diesels.

 

So the weight isn't distributed over a longer distance, or evenly on the wheels, as it is with three diesels. With the Big Boy, with the weight being compressed within a much shorter length, it puts far more stress on track, switches, shorter bridges, etc. Even on longer bridges, there's a maximum weight allowed between supports, and the Big Boy could exceed that in certain cases.

Lets not forget axle loads either.  A ES44 at 425,000lbs =  a max axle load of 70,833lbs per axle vs. a Big Boys max axle load of 67,800lbs.  As for the weight on the drivers that comes out to 67,500lbs. per axle. Weight difference between the 3985 and 4014 is approx. 126,000lbs engine& tender combined.  And the 4014 is about 11' longer than the 3985.

 

Chris

I hate to throw water on your parade, but a standard 4-axle, 286,000 pound freight car has heavier axle loadings than the Big Boy or an ES44. 286,000 pounds over four axles is 71,500 pounds per axle. And a 4-axle, 315,000 pound car (yes...they are out there) carries 78,750 pounds per axle.

 

The Big Boy does not pose the weight issue that many of you seem to think it does. A string of loaded 315,000 pound coal hoppers presents a heavier bridge load than the Big Boy or an ES44.

 

This information is in agreement with an article written by Steve Lee for a special "American Locomotive Company 100 Years" issue of Trains magazine in September 2001.  Mr. Lee wrote an excellent 6 page article about the (Alco-built) UP Big Boys titled Size Matters.  In it, he writes,

 

"Several changes were made in an effort to lower operating costs.  The 4005 was converted to oil fuel in December 1946.  It steamed well, but could not carry enough fuel to consistently make it from one oil tank to the next, because oil tanks were fewer and farther between than coal chutes."

 

It should be pointed out that there was a strike by bituminous coal miners in 1946 that lasted several months and had a crippling effect on industrial production until it was resolved in late 1946/early 1947.  Once the strike ended and coal supply restrictions eased, there was understandably less urgency for the UP to develop alternative fuel sources for its locomotive fleet, especially when road infrastructure didn't support the use of oil as easily as coal.  Given these facts, 4005's conversion back to coal is not surprising, but the whole episode has created a sort of mythology that a 4000 cannot be successfully fired on oil.

 

One last point on the whole oil/coal subject as it relates to Big Boy restoration/operation is that steam locomotives consume fuel and water in rough proportion to their power output.  So while a Big Boy climbing Sherman Hill with 4,000 tons of freight in tow might guzzle fuel oil (or coal) relentlessly, that same locomotive would have less thirst pulling a relatively light load of fan trip passenger cars on more moderate grades.

 

The Lee article also talks about how the Big Boys were turned on wyes when they traveled outside their normal territory to such places as Denver and North Platte.  That few 135 ft turntables exist seems to be a fact that dooms the operation of 4014 in the minds of many naysayers, yet 844 and 3985 have steamed for decades all over the United States and I doubt they have been turned on steam era turntables when it was necessary to turn them.

 

I find it curious that even in the face of the UP announcement, there are still naysayers on various message boards insisting that this thing won't happen.  

thanks Rich!!

Thanks Rich...I was trying to point out that the axle loadings for the 4000's were not as bad as some think...I guess I didn't type it that way....  My mistake.  But thanks for the information Rich.

 

Chris

Speaking of modern freight car axle loadings, when the Strasburg Rail Road decided last winter to build a freight loading/unloading facility north of the parking lot and across from the enginehouse, the curve at Lehman Place Junction had to be widened and "the Strasburg's one and only [wooden] bridge" replaced with a concrete bridge.

That's because those freight cars are heavier than the locomotives.

 

That is too funny.I forgot all about Glum.I used to watch that show when I was a kid.

Dan

I guess, though, a question is not how heavy you can make the load, but how heavy can it be before travel routes are restricted.

 

I suppose there are bridges that won't support a string of 315,000 pound hoppers, for example, and also loads of this weight can only operate on select routes with certain types of heavy rail. I know that around here, the railroads have been putting in heavier rail in some areas in recent years, because the existing rail wasn't heavy enough to support the increased capacity railcars now in service.

 

That's the question - will the BB be restricted to certain routes due to its weight (even if its axle loads are less than whatever). I don't know - maybe that's not much of a limiting factor, as perhaps the wheelbase is.

A crown sheet failure is when there is no water on the crown sheet.  It proceeds to overheat and soften until the pressure in the boiler ruptures it.  What happened in 4005 was not a crown sheet failure as there was water on the crown sheet.  The hot spots caused individual leaks, but the crown sheet held fast.

 

Stuart

 

Well I'm sure like with anything else the Union Pacific will look into that and probably proceed a bit differently with newer technology.... or older technology just may be implemented a bit differently.  I personally am interested to see just how they go about doing it it should prove to be a pretty interesting process.  And as for the 3985 time will tell.... I don't believe that they would give up 3985 for any reason.... we will just have to wait and see what happens with that as well.  I think it would be a pretty amazing sight to see the 3985 4014 double heading.... boy I hope.

Chris

Maybe Rich can answer this. When I drove semi's we had a thing called Bridge Length. Basically the Rear tractor axle had to at least a certain distance from the front trailer axle. If it was closer we had to carry less per axle

 

So while the per axle load is less on a 4000 than modern diesels, it seems that it is concentrated in one area (the drivers) where a modern diesel has it spread out and concentrated on either end. Is there such a weight limit on the RR.

As for the tracks and bridges today handling the 4000? Seems track today is a lot heavier per foot and bridges built a lot stronger than those of old. I think they can handle it

The fact that there were alleged leaks in the crownsheet definitely is a HUGE problem, and I suspect an engine in such a condition would not be allowed to operate. Also, with the water being well over 400 degrees, I would think it was not falling at such a rate as to almost put out the fire. Water at that temperature tends to turn to steam rather quickly. And the notion that a burner was creating such hot spots above the flame simply does not ring true, either--unless it was pointed straight up.

I am having a problem understanding how you would get a crown sheet failure unless there was a water level issue.  If the water level is okay, it would reason that the crown sheet could only warp at best, but this would be more likely due to rapid cooling of the crown sheet or extremely uneven heating.  Of course it would seem that the uneven heating type issue would be more prevalent under coal power versus oil.  It would also seem that if you got a crown sheet failure that the water would be so hot it would vaporize into steam almost immediately upon release.

 

That said, there has been quite an advancement in steels, alloying, processing, and testing over the past 60 years which come into play and make these issues much less likely.  The fact now that the entire assembly can be ultrasonically viewed and checked for imperfections and potential problem areas changes the game quite a bit.  While steam locomotives have been a thing of the past, steam processing and generation has come a long way as well.

 

The fundamentals of the 4014 may stay the same but it can gain quite a bit from the advancements of the last half century.  I have faith the the UP has weighed in all these facts and calculated the varying scenarios and associated risks.  I would also weigh in the amount of effort I have seen just locally with the UP upgrading their mainlines and support systems that it is probably more feasible now than when Steve Lee originally addressed this 20 years ago.  I would venture to guess that he had a big part in this coming to fruition.

 

In the end much of what has made up this thread has been assumptions, including my own, about all of the ins and outs of the project.

What you are talking about is the bridge's "E-rating." That is a number that is calculated based upon the length of the span, its construction materials and a few other engineering factors that I don't know the details because I am not a bridge engineer. However, the end result was an "E Rating" number that designated how much weight a bridge could handle.

 

Many years ago a rating of E60 was considered a heavy bridge and a Big Boy could safely pass over an E60 bridge. Today most main line bridges are being built to an E80 rating. But remember, a string of 315,000 pound loaded coal hoppers put more stresses on the bridges than the Big Boy does.

 

 

There was no outright failure of the crown sheet. That would have been a catastrophic event that would have killed people.

 

Because the heat from the single burner was concentrated in one relatively small spot on the crown, it set up thermal stresses in the sheet that caused the staybolts to leak badly. That was the failure mode.

I don't fully understand how you work out axle loadings on an engine and would appreciate if someone can explain it for me.

 

With the discussion about the BB and the axle loadings, on the engine only, it has been quoted as being about 67,000lb. I can see how that figure is derived roughly as the engine weight alone is about 762,000lb and divide it by 12 axles and this comes out at 63,500lb.  But does this actually mean that the drivers share equally the weight as do the front and rear four wheel trucks?

 

What I also find intriguing is that it has been quoted that a Dash-9 has a length of 73ft which is probably close enough to its own wheelbase which also mirrors the BB's wheelbase at 72'.  But here is where I find it difficult to understand, with both these engines wheelbases (not tender of BB) being near enough equal in length, the Dash-9 weighs 425,000lb and the BB engine weighs 762,000lb, so I would have thought that the axle loadings of the BB would vary for drivers/and front and rear trucks as the mass of the BB is more over the 2 sets of drivers than the font/rear trucks.

 

Am I looking too deep into all of this or is there a simple explanation?

 

Looking forward to someones explanation as to how it is all worked out.

Of course that makes sense, but still would not cause a raining down of water as far as I can see.  (I understand Rich that you did not make that statement, just pointing it out).

 

I believe these are all things that could be corrected easily enough.  I would venture to guess that a lot of the internals will be new and very possibly upgraded materials when finished.  Just a hunch.

 

As far as the loads, I just don't see it being an issue.  When I worked for a steel company, we shipped round bar on flat beds which when loaded, weighed much more than the BB.

 

I would be interested to know WHAT all they are doing for the restoration at this point, that part really piques my interest.

 

good one, banjo!

Does ELB stand for Elizabeth?

>>I'm hoping for a tripleheader someday<<

 

Can only imagine what a BB, Challenger, FEF and #9000 in a quadrupple header would look and sound like. 

Someday I hope to recreate it on a Lionel layout.

Joe  

Heck lets restore a UP Turbine while they are at it and make a real cacophony !

I have seen steam locomotive fireboxes with so many leaking staybolts that the firebox looked like a tropical rain forest.

 

Lots of leaking bolts could indeed "...cause a raining down of water..." in the firebox.

Rich,

Would that condition exist during operation or during a backshop inspection?

Yes...almost equal.

 

Here's NKP 765's axle loading diagram: (click on the image and it will enlarge)

 

 

Note that the driving axles only carry slightly more pounds per axle than the pony and trailing truck axles.