UP Big Boy Restoration

 I would have to wonder the same.  For the condition to exist like that, the problem would seem to lend itself to either fuel type.

I understand a fair amount of metallurgy and fatigue, etc, just trying to get a better grasp of steam power generation.

Also is there a common grade of steel used in this application both for the crown sheet and bolts or does it differ quite a bit?  I would have to believe that it would at least be narrowed down to certain grades which lend themselves better to heating and cooling in the required temperature ranges.

I guess what I am getting to is what exactly was the cause of this particular failure and/or these types in general.  I am having a hard time grasping the raining down part due to the temperature of the water and the temperature inside the fire box itself.  Is it really to such a degree as to put out the fire?  How exactly is the oil burned, basically a pan or other apparatus?

During operations...

Originally Posted by TexasSP:

The problem presented itself because there was a high concentration of heat energy from the oil burner in a small area of the crown. That was the cause of this particular failure.

Coal will not do that because the fire is spread out over the entire fire bed.

To me, this just doesn't pass the smell test. Admittedly I work with a firebox about 4 foot square. But the principles in small oil burners and larger ones are the same: The burner, placed in the front of the firebox, very near the bottom, directs a jet of atomized oil toward the rear of the firebox, where it encounters firebrick which lines the sides of the firebox all the way around. The flame splits and wraps around the firebox, moving now towards the flue sheet. As it does so, it basically fills the box with flame (when opened all the way up). The flame doesn't come near the crownsheet on our little engine, with a distance of only about five feet from the burner to the crownsheet.

I cannot see how flame in a larger burner--in a proportionally-larger firebox--would behave any differently, to the extent that a tropical storm ensues.

So then was the issue more the design of the oil burner versus the oil itself?

All oil burners operate pretty much the same, with some differences in design. They all use a jet of steam to atomize the oil into a fine mist that allows combustion to take place; some mix the steam and oil outside the burner body, some do the mixing inside the burner (sorta like the same difference in airbrushes). But the effect should be pretty much the same--an easily controllable flame that can fill the firebox when required.

Rich,

Thanks for the spec sheet it clears up that issue. Although it is important to spread the weight over as many axles as possible to reduce constraints on the track it still doesn't alleviate a weight problem with bridges etc.or.....?

As I mentioned in an earlier post the weight of the BB engine is about 1.75 x's more than the Dash-9 for the same given length so are bridges designed to carry a set weight over a given length as I can't see axle loadings being the primary factor in the design.

Thank you for the explanation.  The picture in my mind is becoming clearer.

Sure. He's a drawing of a burner that may help:

Here are the specs off UP's site for the 4014 with regards to weight in working order...and the 3985's just for comparison.

http://www.up.com/aboutup/spec...comotives/4014.shtml

http://www.up.com/aboutup/spec...comotives/3985.shtml

          4014         

Leading (engine truck) 97,000lbs.         

Drivers          540,000lbs.         

Trailing           125,000lbs.         

Tender           427,500lbs.  

          3985

Leading (engine truck)   102,300lbs

Drivers          404,000lbs

Trailing           121,600lbs

Tender          446,000lbs       

Chris 

Forgive me, but I'm getting this mental image of Rich Melvin jumping up and down, yelling "REMAIN CALM! ALL IS WELL! REMAIN CALM!"

(Those not instantly getting this reference are directed to watch "Animal House")

LOL.....  Ya know the thing is that the UP has considered all the things that are being discussed here and I am sure they would not have proceeded with anything if there were any doubts about successfully operating the 4014.

Chris

Ho hum.. I'm not impressed. Now, if they get it running, run it to the east coast and grab the "A". Then maybe run up to Michigan and grab that allegheny, swing down to St Louis and pickup that y6. Then drag them ALL back to Cheyenne to be rebuilt.....NOW I'm impressed.

A question about #4014.

Does it currently have a open or enclosed cab?

Thanks

Joe

Dont forget 844,3985 and 9000.  Then put them all together for a photo Run By.

You know, it would be cool if a "heritage" line was built somewhere specifically for running large mainline steam (and early diesel/electric) locos, kind of like Britain's Great Central Railway.

It has an all weather cab as the 3985 and 844 have...(folding doors). 

Chris

If you want to see 4014 up close and personal, look at this video.

I enjoyed all the detail.  Thanks for posting.

There is a lot of work there.  Glad it is not my project.  I wounder if the pistons are still in the cylinders?

I had a nice discussion today with a technical adviser to the UP steam program.

A few notes based on based on what I've read just glancing through 6 pages of posts.

1. The BB will be oil fired.  Actually it will be a sort of homemade #5 oil, which is a blend of #2 fuel oil and used diesel lubricating oil.  UP has been using this years with great success.

2 . UP has been welding all staybolts inside the firebox since the 40's so if water was raining down inside a firebox it would be a significant problem.

3.  the first concern with moving the engine is the condition of the roller bearings.  In addition to flushing the oil in the bearings some folks from Timken will likely be involved to help evaluate the bearings before and after the move. It is possible that up to half the bearings may need replaced by the time the engine reaches Cheyenne.  If all the bearings can be saved it could shave a year off the restoration time. 

4. the oil burner itself will be based on the same one used in the 3985.

I hope this helps clear some things up and or offers some food for thought.  I personally think its amazing that a commercial enterprise such as the UP would be willing to put hard money behind such an ambitious project.

This will be fun to watch.

Some great information there, thank you.  The UP will definetely do it right, nut by nut and bolt by bolt. It will be an awesome sight to say the least.  They will sure have there hands full with the work but boy the payoff.

Chris  

Inside the tender:

Looking into the tender from the cab 

Standing in the tender looking towards the cab

Standing between the tender and the cab

Great photos.  I'm curious, has the 4014 been moved forward/backward at all over the years? 

Chris

I had never noticed the chain drive on the reverser for the front drivers.  That looks like it's be interesting to see in operation.

That "chain drive" operates the mechanical lubricator. It has nothing to do with the operation of the valve gear.

The chain drive for each mechanical lubricator was unique. It was applied after the original setup didn't hold up in service. Some photos show it; others don't.

A mechanical lubricator is operated by a rod attached to the valve gear. As the rod moves back and forth, the rod turns a rachet wheel on the lubricator and pumps oil to bearings.

Each lubricator on a Big Boy had two rods. One was attached to the back of the reverse yoke above the pivot point (axle). The other end was attached to a Y-shaped part bolted at the bottom so it could move back and forth. A long horizontal rod was attached to the outer "leg" of the "Y." That rod operated the lubricator.

This setup didn't hold up well. An enclosed chain drive was attached to the end of the pivot point (axle) of the reverse yoke. The other end was attached to the ratchet wheel of the lubricator. As the chain moved back and forth, the ratchet wheel pumped oil to the bearings.

I suspect the chain drive was enclosed to keep out sand, cinders, dust, grit, and dirt. The sprocket wheel on each lubricator was exposed, probably to make maintenance (and replacement) easier. 

Did the 4014 ever have trombone-style radiators on both sides of its pilot deck?  Thanks.

In the above video, there appears to be a tank/hotwater heater piped to the engine?

Yes. All of the first order of 4000 class locomotives came with those cooling coils on either side of the pilot deck. They second order of 4000s came with the enclosed radiator assembly on the front of the pilot deck, and all previous 4000s were up-graded to the better air cooling system. Thus, after about 1946, all the 4000 class locomotives look the same on the front end.

That is an air reservoir that the museum use so that people can "ring the bell" and "blow the whistle". It has nothing really to do with the locomotive.

Here's some close ups of what they are working with as far as just externally. I took all these a couple years ago.

I have a bunch of the inside of the cab if anyone wants me to post them.

The BB4014 was last moved in 1989 when the entire exhibit was moved from the far end of the parking lot to our current location.  Temp track was put down and each unit was rolled on the track for about 1/2 mile.

In the last photo, it was interesting to see the steam line connection.  Someone must have had passenger operation in mind.

She sure looks pretty good considering the years that have passed.

UP4014- Thanks for the information.

Chris

As I recall on the one of the Big Boy video's, it was mentioned that the 4000's had steam heat lines so they could be pressed into passenger service if needed.

Rusty

It's the hidden stuff that matters--not necessarily the external surfaces.

I can tell you one thing, UP will be keeping a level III ultrasonic technician very busy with that beast.

Absolutely...and there are gonna be plenty of hidden surprises...

Chris