Why does the Big Boy need a diesel helper? The answer from Ed himself.

Thanks Gary for posting.  I don't see how this would be out of line.

I think most 80 year olds would agree that a little help from a friend is a good thing.

Thanks for posting this info. Can we also assume that the diesel is there for PTC?

Sounds reasonable to me, as someone who can only guess at what it takes to keep one of these beasts running. One of the reasons they replaced steam with diesel was the labor involved to keep steam engines going. Others who have worked on these engines, driven them in service, could very well have a different perspective.  Thing is I am just grateful the big boy is running at all and people get to experience it, how 'real' that is compared to what it did in its heyday doesn't matter to me all that much. Sure, would I love to see big boy pulling a long train up a grade as it did in the day, but then again, I also wish I could do what I did when I was younger, like spend 72 hours straight awake doing something or the like

Don't see anything out of line with this post at all.  It is UP's locomotive and they can operate it in any way they choose to.  The fact that they are willing to make the investment in mainline steam at all is a good thing for me.

Evidently the 4501, 2839, 2716, 611, 765, 261, 819, 4449, 1522, 614, and all the other main line steam crews have been dong it wrong all these years. 

What a crock.

UP should be applauded for spending the money to restore these locomotives to anything like working condition.  Seems like a pure labor of love that must be a big "loss leader" for them.   (Can't imagine their freight revenue is going up at all as a result of preserving this history).  And I never questioned why there was a modern diesel along for the runs.  Always assumed it was obvious: to cover if the steam engine(s) broke down, to help them up grades, to provide assistance with electric power to the passenger cars, etc.  

@Alec_6460 posted:

UP should be applauded for spending the money to restore these locomotives to anything like working condition.  Seems like a pure labor of love that must be a big "loss leader" for them.   (Can't imagine their freight revenue is going up at all as a result of preserving this history).  And I never questioned why there was a modern diesel along for the runs.  Always assumed it was obvious: to cover if the steam engine(s) broke down,

How would that help? Far more likely that the diesel would fail before the steam locomotive (as has happen many times in the past).

to help them up grades,

Not really. The real "help" from the diesel is going DOWN grades, i.e. dynamic brake.

to provide assistance with electric power to the passenger cars, etc.

No. Freight diesels are not able to provide "electric power" (referred to as HEP) to the passenger cars. There are Power Cars in the train, which provide the 480 volt three phase AC power throughout all the passenger cars.

I won't question Ed Dickens, that way this thread won't get deleted.

What I WOULD like to know is......

How in the world can an all volunteer operation like the FWRHS afford to run the **** out of the locomotive like they do?

I saw the Horseshoe Curve video, as well as 765 in person at 70MPH in my home state with 21 cars and no diesel.

How much wear/damage occurred during these runs?

"Racks and racks of  brake shoes, drivers, rods, roller bearings.....? "  It seems foolish to waste the precious donated money.

@Rich Melvin

How about taking each of Eds points above as they would or wouldn't apply to the 765 and its crew ?

@Joey posted:

Evidently the 4501, 2839, 2716, 611, 765, 261, 819, 4449, 1522, 614, and all the other main line steam crews have been dong it wrong all these years. 

What a crock.

Not necessarily. How many of those engines go on the kind of trips that the Big Boy is doing? I realize that some of the engines you mention have done long trips, but I seem to recall that with the 765 when they were going over mountains they had diesels to be able to used dynamic braking (and I am going from memory on that).  All I am saying is you have to compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges, that's all. Not to mention that long distance steam train runs these days are getting to be more and more rare, things like 765 going over Horseshoe curve aren't going to happen from what I understand because few if any mainline railroads will allow steam.

Other thing is the UP is a commercial railroad running steam, and I realize non profits have huge limitations on spending, when you are dealing with corporate America running a good will effort like the big boy, they are going to put pressure to save every dime and nickel, beancounters I swear are toilet trained at gunpoint.......so what he says makes sense.  Lot cheaper prob to replace parts on a diesel then it is an 80 year old steam engine, any load you can take off the steam engine makes sense. Is it 'pure'? Put it this way, if any of those other engines was being run by a real, class 1 railroad that is a public company I would bet pretty good money you would see the same thing (if any class 1 actually starts up a steam program again....)

@RickO posted:

@@Rich Melvin

How in the world can an all volunteer operation like the FWRHS afford to run the **** out of the locomotive like they do?

The 765 crew is not afraid of their locomotive.

How about taking each of Eds points above as they would or wouldn't apply to the 765 and its crew ?

I would love to, but I think I'll stay out of this one.

@RickO posted:

I won't question Ed Dickens, that way this thread won't get deleted.

What I WOULD like to know is......

How in the world can an all volunteer operation like the FWRHS afford to run the **** out of the locomotive like they do?

I saw the Horseshoe Curve video, as well as 765 in person at 70MPH in my home state with 21 cars and no diesel.

How much wear/damage occurred during these runs?

"Racks and racks of  brake shoes, drivers, rods, roller bearings.....? "  It seems foolish to waste the precious donated money.

@Rich Melvin

How about taking each of Eds points above as they would or wouldn't apply to the 765 and its crew ?

Excellent!  Plus, the previous UP Steam Crew didn't have similar concerns, all the while maintaining and operating 8444/844 and 3985. The "all volunteer" crew of SP 4449 hasn't had such "issues" all through the 1975, 1976 & 1977 tour of the American Freedom Train (with only a 4 man paid engine crew, and a number of volunteers), plus continued operations since 1981.

Ed's afraid of that locomotive for some reason.

@RickO posted:

I won't question Ed Dickens, that way this thread won't get deleted.

What I WOULD like to know is......

How in the world can an all volunteer operation like the FWRHS afford to run the **** out of the locomotive like they do?

I saw the Horseshoe Curve video, as well as 765 in person at 70MPH in my home state with 21 cars and no diesel.

How much wear/damage occurred during these runs?

"Racks and racks of  brake shoes, drivers, rods, roller bearings.....? "  It seems foolish to waste the precious donated money.

@Rich Melvin

How about taking each of Eds points above as they would or wouldn't apply to the 765 and its crew ?

My only comment is that the FWRHS is not a corporation, it has no stockholders, it is a non profit train organization. While it obviously has limitations on funding, non profits can pretty much do what they want as long as it doesn't violate tax law and their board is okay with doing it. They don't have fiduciary responsibility to stockholders and if they have the money to run without diesels and can do it, more power to them. Ed Dickens has to answer to corporate beancounters and executives who likely already are not all that thrilled by the steam program (would love to know the inside story about who the rabbis are that keep this going against the finance MBAs, the shareholder relations people who have to deal with hedge funds and other 'activist' investors).  Knowing how cheap corporations are, how insane they are with the littlest cost, Dickens response makes a lot of sense, he needs to really maximize what he has to be able to do as much as they do I would bet. Ed Dickens budget gets shot, Big Boy stays home. FWRHS runs low on funds, they fund raise to get more money, it is a very different beast (not saying a non profit has unlimited funds, saying a non profit is all people dedicated to keeping their engine going, the Big Boy and steam on the UP is at siege constantly against the corporate beancounters who have no soul and no goal other than to raise the price of UP stock.

@bigkid posted:

Ed Dickens budget gets shot, Big Boy stays home. FWRHS runs low on funds, they fund raise to get more money, it is a very different beast (not saying a non profit has unlimited funds, saying a non profit is all people dedicated to keeping their engine going, the Big Boy and steam on the UP is at siege constantly against the corporate beancounters who have no soul and no goal other than to raise the price of UP stock.

Ok. Fair enough. However, if it is up to the bean counters. It seems it would have been far more cost effective to keep 3985 running than completely rebuild 4014 from the ground up.

And where were these bean counters all those years when 3985 and 844 where operated as they were designed to do?

3985 spent some time near my house south of Chicago  running 60+ mph back in 1994. What is so special about the 4014 trip that hasn't already been done?

There is no fundraiser for 765 that remotely can touch the wallet of the UP RR.

@RickO posted:

Ok. Fair enough. However, if it is up to the bean counters. It seems it would have been far more cost effective to keep 3985 running than completely rebuild 4014 from the ground up.

The primary purpose of the UP steam program is public relations. The UP brass decided (very correctly, as it turned out) that putting a Big Boy on the line would boost public relations returns to the max, far more than the 3985 would.

The Big Boys are legendary and known to a large group of the public, and indeed the crowds that turn out for the Big Boy far exceed those who turn out for any other steam engine. For what the UP sees is the purpose of their steam program, 4014 is far more cost effective than keeping 3985 active. And don't forget, 3985 was in need of a major overhaul when the decision was made to restore 4014. That money was able to be put toward toward the restoration of 4014.

@breezinup posted:

The primary purpose of the UP steam program is public relations. The UP brass decided (very correctly, as it turned out) that putting a Big Boy on the line would boost public relations returns to the max, far more than the 3985 would.

The Big Boys are legendary and known to a large group of the public, and indeed the crowds that turn out for the Big Boy far exceed those who turn out for any other steam engine. For what the UP sees is the purpose of their steam program, 4014 is far more cost effective than keeping 3985 active. And don't forget, 3985 was in need of a major overhaul when the decision was made to restore 4014. That money was able to be put toward toward the restoration of 4014.

But wouldn't it have been cheaper to rebuild 3985 ? Don't get me wrong I'm glad they restored 4014.

I would agree with those who indicated that the crews who operate a steam program for a corporation have a far different set of considerations than those who operate in an independent volunteer organization. With a corporation in command, watching expenses, including doing everything possible to preserve the engines and reduce operating costs, is paramount to the steam crew. As soon as someone in the corporate office deems the operation too expensive, and the "return on investment" inadequate, the plug will be pulled. Volunteer organizations don't have that hanging over their heads.

@breezinup posted:

The primary purpose of the UP steam program is public relations. The UP brass decided (very correctly, as it turned out) that putting a Big Boy on the line would boost public relations returns to the max, far more than the 3985 would.

Hogwash! Every place the 3985 went, the vast majority of the visiting public thought IT was a "Big Boy". I can't tell you how many times , while on display, we had to explain what a "Challenger" was as compared to a "Big Boy".

The Big Boys are legendary and known to a large group of the public, and indeed the crowds that turn out for the Big Boy far exceed those who turn out for any other steam engine.

Really?

For what the UP sees is the purpose of their steam program, 4014 is far more cost effective than keeping 3985 active.

More hogwash.

And don't forget, 3985 was in need of a major overhaul when the decision was made to restore 4014.

Totally untrue! You have been listening to the current manager way too much. The 3985 was still 2 years away from the FRA mandated 15 year recertification. She was NOT "in need of a major overhaul"!!!!!

That money was able to be put toward toward the restoration of 4014.

Again, more bs!

I am duly impressed it only took 8 hours from the original post for the Ed haters to show up and devolve the topic with their usual horse crap.

Is it really that difficult to let interested people read about these things without interjecting your negative thoughts on EVERY SINGLE UP Steam Program thread?  Apparently it is, as the exact people I knew would show up and post, did.

@feet posted:

But wouldn't it have been cheaper to rebuild 3985 ? Don't get me wrong I'm glad they restored 4014.

Probably, I'd guess. But the whole point of the earlier comment was to say that putting the 4014 in operation likely would return a greater dividend because of its appeal to the public, and the whole point of the steam program is public relations. Therefore the UP management determined that it was worth the investment to renovate 4014. Given what a smashing success the operation of 4014 has been, it appears that their judgment was entirely correct.

@Hot Water posted:

The primary purpose of the UP steam program is public relations. The UP brass decided (very correctly, as it turned out) that putting a Big Boy on the line would boost public relations returns to the max, far more than the 3985 would.

Hogwash! Every place the 3985 went, the vast majority of the visiting public thought IT was a "Big Boy". I can't tell you how many times , while on display, we had to explain what a "Challenger" was as compared to a "Big Boy".

The fact that the Big Boy has far outdrawn the number of people who turned out for 3985 belie your point.

@EscapeRocks posted:

I am duly impressed it only took 8 hours from the original post for the Ed haters to show up and devolve the topic with their usual horse crap.

Obviously you have never had to work with, nor for him.

Is it really that difficult to let interested people read about these things without interjecting your negative thoughts on EVERY SINGLE UP Steam Program thread?  Apparently it is, as the exact people I knew would show up and post, did.

@EscapeRocks posted:

I am duly impressed it only took 8 hours from the original post for the Ed haters to show up and devolve the topic with their usual horse crap.

Is it really that difficult to let interested people read about these things without interjecting your negative thoughts on EVERY SINGLE UP Steam Program thread?  Apparently it is, as the exact people I knew would show up and post, did.

No one said they hated Ed. I merely wondered about the severe level of maintenance he stated the bigboy would need if not help along by the diesel, and how would "smaller steam programs" manage the damage.

Its hard to have an interesting conversation when we can't hear both sides without one getting defensive. We can have point, counterpoint interaction and remain civil. I think a few of us already have.

In fact. There isn't much interesting about this thread because those who have the extensive knowledge and experience with steam locomotive operation have chosen not to expand on those statements Ed made.  They are aware that those that support the UP Steam program and Ed, may get offended.

At the end of the day. Like it or not. When 4014 hit the rails for the first time in 2019. Rich Melvin mentioned he was "not interested in seeing 4014 pushed around by a diesel".

It appears, for the most part, from Ed Dickens own statements. Rich was right.

@Hot Water posted:

Obviously you have never had to work with him, nor for him.

I have seen a lot of animosity towards Ed from the railfan community not just on this forum but on another forum as well. Could you expand on why there is this dislike of Ed Dickens? Is part of it possibly due to the fact that he replaced Steve Lee who to my knowledge was very well liked in the railfan community?

1. What about 4014 using fuel?  Is it a fuel hog?
2. How about using a 6900 diesel as the ultimate helper!  (Never happen!)

@RickO posted:

No one said they hated Ed. I merely wondered about the severe level of maintenance he stated the bigboy would need if not help along by the diesel, and how would "smaller steam programs" manage the damage.

I wondered about that myself.  If the Big Boy has to be treated like a China doll, perhaps the restoration was lacking in some manner.

Granted, operating a steam locomotive in the 21st century isn't a walk in the park, but the "smaller steam programs" seem to manage pretty well with far less resources than what's provided by the UP.

Rusty

I have not been around long in this conversation; however everytime it comes up it is the same 4014 haters. Please leave it alone, you come across as childish. Seems a lot of people enjoy this locomotive and because no one thought to let you make the decisions regarding how it is displayed or operated as an historical artifact, you get all cranky. Please be aware as to how you come across.

I guess I may be wrong but you anti 4014 chest beaters, maybe you should  go find your own project and leave these people who are doing what they think as right alone. Your opion pales as many watch and hear yesterdays whistle while that locomotive passes regardless of your fading voice.

@Rusty Traque posted:

I wondered about that myself.  If the Big Boy has to be treated like a China doll, perhaps the restoration was lacking in some manner.

Rusty

Honestly, it’s like so many other topics - MTH tooling, Atlas, Legacy, blah - if you want to go on a ride behind the Big Boy, go for it!  If something about the ride bums you out, don’t.

In my humble opinion, it sounds to me Ed is spinning a great yarn and not addressing the real underlying issue why the Diesel is really there.

Some of his remarks may have an element of truth, but I personally believe its a matter of trust in the restoration work or some element of its operation that is his real concern.

If that massive engine can't handle the set of cars its pulling then the name "Big Boy" should be erased from the front of that engine and then the locomotive cutup for scrap.  That machine most likely isn't using even 30% of its capabilities to pull those passenger cars.   

The Big Boy consist consists of  (1) Steam Locomotive, (2) Auxiliary Water Cars, (1) Diesel Loco, (1) Tool car, (1) Support car, (2) Baggage cars, (8) various passenger/dinning type cars.  Totaling:  (15) Cars/units

Now tell me why this engine really requires a diesel to do its braking or grade work pulling this short train vs. what it was originally designed to do in its day of a 5.5 mile long train weighing 3,600 tons?

(Please see the Big Boys spec's below)

The Nonprofit railroads routinely operate their locomotives without a diesel.   How is that possible?  Don't they have similar concerns, especially pulling a consist of equal or greater number of cars and at times over grades?   It doesn't seem right to me because it simply doesn't add up.

The logic given is similar to someone stating that their Ford V10 Excursion which had its engine overhauled needs an Explorer attached to it to pull a trailer size of 3,000 lbs when the V10 Excursion has a trailer tow rating of 11,000 lbs.

Additionally, The tourist railroads don't have lots of money to causally squander by operating their locomotive in an inefficient manner.  Every donated dollar counts in these operations.   These operations often have a very difficult time raising money for projects.

Recall how many such restoration projects have folded well into the restoration due to funds being insufficient to support the balance of the restoration costs.

======================================================================

Big Boy Capabilities/Specifications:

Theoretically, the Big Boy could pull a train 5.5 miles (8.9 km) long on flat ground from a standing start.  In practice, the engine routinely pulled over 100 cars.

It had a maximum power capacity of more than 6,000 horsepower and could haul a 3,600-ton train unassisted up the Wasatch Mountain grade. Pulling freight on level track, it could achieve a speed of 70 miles (112 km) per hour.

Consist:

Union Pacific 4014 Steam Locomotive
UP Water Car Jim Adams
UP Water Car Joe Jordan
UP Helper Diesel Locomotive
UP Tool Car Art Lockman
UP Support Car Howard Fogg
UP Baggage Car Lynn Nystrom
UP Baggage Car Pony Express
Car 1 - Colorado Eagle (Museum Special)
Car 2 – Challenger (Museum Special)
Car 3 – Promontory (Experience Car)
Car 4 - Omaha (Private Party)
Car 5 - UP Power Car 2066
Car 6 - Walter Dean (Private Party)
Car 7 - City of Denver (Private Party)
Car 8 - Kenefick (Private Party)

Sources:  https://www.britannica.com/edi...edia-Britannica/4419

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_Pacific_Big_Boy

https://uptraintix.com/consist.html

https://letstowthat.com/what-i...of-a-ford-excursion/

Mr. Allegheny,

Seriously if this wonderful historical locomotive cannot prove itself capable; you would have it cut up into scrap; really???  I don't know who Ed is, but you realize you are saying he is not honest??? Of course you must have proof. I mean you dont just say that in public about someone without proof.

I consider the mighty battleship USS Missouri on display in Pearl Harbor. I hope they don't scrap her because she can no longer perform as she once did?

Some people are doing their best to preserve this magnificent part of railroad history, why if it doesn't meet your expectations should it be scrapped??  Is there something personal in this argument I am missing?

@Fast Mail posted:

Mr. Allegheny,

Seriously if this wonderful historical locomotive cannot prove itself capable; you would have it cut up into scrap; really???  I don't know who Ed is, but you realize you are saying he is not honest??? Of course you must have proof. I mean you dont just say that in public about someone without proof.

I consider the mighty battleship USS Missouri on display in Pearl Harbor. I hope they don't scrap her because she can no longer perform as she once did?

Some people are doing their best to preserve this magnificent part of railroad history, why if it doesn't meet your expectations should it be scrapped??  Is there something personal in this argument I am missing?

Fast Mail,

The only thing missing is you missed the sarcasm in my posting.  The point is, if a machine designed in 1940  to pull a 5.5 mile long train weighing 3,600 Tons, today can't pull a 15 car consist without the assistance of a diesel, then something is very wrong.   

Other railroads with locomotives with much less capacity are doing it night and day and pulling longer consists without a diesel attached.

Just think about it in those terms alone.

No one is saying his speaking points aren't valid as they certainly may be.   If this were a much smaller engine I may agree with everything stated.

But this is supposedly, one of the largest and most powerful engines ever built.   

If so why isn't it living up to its legacy and instead is being treated like a 2-4-0?

@Fast Mail posted:

Mr. Allegheny,

Seriously if this wonderful historical locomotive cannot prove itself capable; you would have it cut up into scrap; really???  I don't know who Ed is, but you realize you are saying he is not honest??? Of course you must have proof. I mean you dont just say that in public about someone without proof.

I consider the mighty battleship USS Missouri on display in Pearl Harbor. I hope they don't scrap her because she can no longer perform as she once did?

Some people are doing their best to preserve this magnificent part of railroad history, why if it doesn't meet your expectations should it be scrapped??  Is there something personal in this argument I am missing?

I think you are taking his statement out of context.

My interpretation of his statement is: If the big boys aren't strong enough to handle 12 lightweight passenger cars, then why/how did they gain a reputation as strong pullers? If they weren't successful as strong pullers they why were they preserved in the first place? (Essentially he is playing devils advocate).

Again, not trying to put words in Allegheny's mouth; just providing my interpretation.

From what I have heard over the years, the issue people have with Ed is that his statements on how to restore/operate a steam locomotive are not consistent with other groups that have successfully restored/operate locomotives. Essentially, he is dogmatic where other groups are pragmatic.

*Edit: Saw Allegheny replied before I finished typing my post.

@Rusty Traque posted:

I wondered about that myself.  If the Big Boy has to be treated like a China doll, perhaps the restoration was lacking in some manner.

Granted, operating a steam locomotive in the 21st century isn't a walk in the park, but the "smaller steam programs" seem to manage pretty well with far less resources than what's provided by the UP.

Rusty

Obviously we only know what Ed Dickens has said and what some of those familiar with steam have said. One thing to keep in mind is that a lot of the steam programs, especially these days, run engines over short excursion runs (and again this is just my observation/opinion). I realize that the 4014 is not pulling anywhere near its capacity in terms of load, either, but it is doing routine long distance journeys which most steam engines these days are not doing.  Another thing to think about, with smaller groups they are mostly or all volunteer (I am sure they hire experts when they need to, there are skills they may not have), and that saves a lot of money. UP steam are employees with benefits, that costs a lot.....

I suspect the real answer is that by using a diesel the UP is stretching out their dollars very thin IMO, they are getting the most bang for the buck they can. With other steam engines like the 765, even as a non profit they are providing a service that centers around steam tourist runs, the focus is the engine. 4014 is not really in the business of providing tourist rides (though I seem to recall they did offer some sort of ability to ride a coach pulled by it), it is a 'representative' of the UP, a marketing device, and as such it has a different purpose. If 4014 was expected to bring in direct revenue, like a tourist or museum engine, they might do it differently (and again, just my thoughts, looking at it from a business model), but as a PR service with no tourist revenue to offset the cost, it kind of makes sense to use a diesel to try and cut down costs (spitting on my beancounter hat and burning it) given there is no revenue offset there.

In both cases the steam engine is 'the show', but in the case of a tourist engine or a museum engine the show is for paying customers, with 4014 it is a free show. my analogy is you watch a program on Amazon Prime or Netflix it doesn't have commercials because you paid for it; Broadcast TV has commercials because you get it for free (and that actually sort of works in my mind, 4014 in a sense is a working advertisement for the UP). The 4014 in corporate speak as an asset falls under the heading of "goodwill", doesn't add dollars directly to the bottom line but is designed to make the corporation look like a 'good player' or a 'good citizen'. Beancounters will say "doesn't make a dollar of revenue", but the thing is, down the road it can pay off. If public opinion because of UP 4014 sees them a little less the corporate behemoth and rather the company that kept cool steam engines going, if some sort of bad PR happens or if they get into a regulatory fight that involves congress, having that goodwill can help, it has for other companies in the past (not a steam engine, I mean other things they did to make themselves appear to be a solid citizen, etc)

@Allegheny posted:

Fast Mail,

The only thing missing is you missed the sarcasm in my posting.  The point is, if a machine designed in 1940  to pull a 5.5 mile long train

Come now! Even trains today, with DPU diesels aren't "5.5 mile long Train".

weighing 3,600 Tons,

Actually a single UP 4000 was rated at 3800 tons (on #1 or #2 track) on Sherman Hill. Also, contrary to all the period advertising & hype, the UP 4000s were NOT capable of 80 MPH!

today can't pull a 15 car consist without the assistance of a diesel, then something is very wrong.

Good point.

Other railroads with locomotives with much less capacity are doing it night and day and pulling longer consists without a diesel attached.

To be fair, excursions operated under the Amtrak insurance umbrella, required an Amtrak diesel in order to supply HEP (480 volt, three phase AC) for the passenger cars.

Just think about it in those terms alone.

No one is saying his speaking points aren't valid as they certainly may be.   If this were a much smaller engine I may agree with everything stated.

But this is supposedly, one of the largest and most powerful engines ever built.   

If so why isn't it living up to its legacy and instead is being treated like a 2-4-0?

This thread is great reading. I can see there’s lots of high maintenance to these big steamers, lots of moving parts… Thank you all for your participation. Happy Railroading Everyone

The salient point for me is using a diesel to reduce maintenance on the passenger cars. I can appreciate someone not wanting to abuse something they spent a lot of time and money in its restoration. Anyone who has restored a classic car, in particular a classic sports car are they going to take their $10 million Ferrari 250 GT to a race course and drive it 10-10ths mixing up with a few dozen other vehicles and possibly turning it into scrap? They don't have to prove to anyone else but themselves how capable the vehicle is or their driving skills.

Pete

@Allegheny posted:

In my humble opinion, it sounds to me Ed is spinning a great yarn and not addressing the real underlying issue why the Diesel is really there.

Some of his remarks may have an element of truth, but I personally believe its a matter of trust in the restoration work or some element of its operation that is his real concern.

If that massive engine can't handle the set of cars its pulling then the name "Big Boy" should be erased from the front of that engine and then the locomotive cutup for scrap.  That machine most likely isn't using even 30% of its capabilities to pull those passenger cars.   

The Big Boy consist consists of  (1) Steam Locomotive, (2) Auxiliary Water Cars, (1) Diesel Loco, (1) Tool car, (1) Support car, (2) Baggage cars, (8) various passenger/dinning type cars.  Totaling:  (15) Cars/units

Now tell me why this engine really requires a diesel to do its braking or grade work pulling this short train vs. what it was originally designed to do in its day of a 5.5 mile long train weighing 3,600 tons?

(Please see the Big Boys spec's below)

The Nonprofit railroads routinely operate their locomotives without a diesel.   How is that possible?  Don't they have similar concerns, especially pulling a consist of equal or greater number of cars and at times over grades?   It doesn't seem right to me because it simply doesn't add up.

The logic given is similar to someone stating that their Ford V10 Excursion which had its engine overhauled needs an Explorer attached to it to pull a trailer size of 3,000 lbs when the V10 Excursion has a trailer tow rating of 11,000 lbs.

Additionally, The tourist railroads don't have lots of money to causally squander by operating their locomotive in an inefficient manner.  Every donated dollar counts in these operations.   These operations often have a very difficult time raising money for projects.

Recall how many such restoration projects have folded well into the restoration due to funds being insufficient to support the balance of the restoration costs.

======================================================================

Big Boy Capabilities/Specifications:

Theoretically, the Big Boy could pull a train 5.5 miles (8.9 km) long on flat ground from a standing start.  In practice, the engine routinely pulled over 100 cars.

It had a maximum power capacity of more than 6,000 horsepower and could haul a 3,600-ton train unassisted up the Wasatch Mountain grade. Pulling freight on level track, it could achieve a speed of 70 miles (112 km) per hour.

Performance figures
Maximum speed	80 mph (130 km/h)
Power output	5,500–6,290 hp (4,100–4,690 kW) @ 41 mph (Drawbar)
Tractive effort	135,375 lbf (602.18 kN)
Factor of adh.	3.99 (4884-1) 4.02 (4884-2)

Consist:

Union Pacific 4014 Steam Locomotive
UP Water Car Jim Adams
UP Water Car Joe Jordan
UP Helper Diesel Locomotive
UP Tool Car Art Lockman
UP Support Car Howard Fogg
UP Baggage Car Lynn Nystrom
UP Baggage Car Pony Express
Car 1 - Colorado Eagle (Museum Special)
Car 2 – Challenger (Museum Special)
Car 3 – Promontory (Experience Car)
Car 4 - Omaha (Private Party)
Car 5 - UP Power Car 2066
Car 6 - Walter Dean (Private Party)
Car 7 - City of Denver (Private Party)
Car 8 - Kenefick (Private Party)

Sources:  https://www.britannica.com/edi...edia-Britannica/4419

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_Pacific_Big_Boy

https://uptraintix.com/consist.html

https://letstowthat.com/what-i...of-a-ford-excursion/

Well thought out, but you are looking at this from the view of a rail fan or as if 4014 is in revenue service. In a sense, tourist railroads and museum roads are in revenue service, they are selling the restored engine via rides. Sure, non profits have to squeeze every dollar out of their operations but with a tourist railroad people want to be pulled by a steam engine. Friend of mine was involved with one of the operations here in NJ that runs (or ran, IDK if they are still doing it) steam, and when they ran a diesel bc the steam engine was down for maintenance or whatnot, their typical ridership dropped.

4014 is not in revenue service, it is a rolling billboard for the UP, and the fact is that people come to see the engine, see it steaming and its whistle blowing and the like, the people with kids gathered at a stop, people stopping by the side of the road, don't care about dynamic braking or if 4014 is 'really' pulling the train, they see the smoke, they see the drivers going, they hear the whistle and they are happy. They don't care because they don't know..and UP knows that. If running with a diesel gets them more miles between parts changes and the like, there is real value in doing that given its role. Rail enthusiasts who know these things aren't a concern to UP basically.

This to me is kind of like Broadway mavens, who when you say you saw and liked a show that had been running a while, they say "That is not the real show, you should have seen it with X playing the lead" or rock snobs when you mention you like some group and they sneer "They are so commercial, that isn't real rock and roll".....*lol*

@Hot Water posted:

Hello Hot Water,

I am not simply making up any of the figures I quoted.  Please click the links I posted and you'll see that I directly lifted them from that respective sight.   If they are incorrect then that site should be notified. The performance figures came from the Wikipedia site.

You noted that today trains aren't 5.5 miles long, this may be very true, but in age of steam this was the case as these locomotive were created for that very purpose.   These were work horses designed to do a very specific job to pull as many heavily laden cars as possible.   Whether it was 5.5 miles long or 4.5 or anything else in-between isn't the issue.

What is the issue why would this massive locomotive need a helper given it's designed capabilities?

In another posting one OGR member posted noted that in reality it's about saving the passenger car brakes.  If that is the real reason - then there isn't any further discussion required.