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.   

@Norton posted:

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

I think that is a very good analogy. The other thing is the tourist railroads don't exactly exert their engines either, in large part because of where they operate, they aren't running a full consist of heavyweight passenger cars at 60MPH or the like either , they run a relatively small string of coaches at pretty low speeds (in part because the track they operate on isn't all that long or built for that kind of speed, at least IME).

@bigkid posted:

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*

Dear Bigkid,

From the perspective you've given, I agree with you 100%.

If this simply an oversized show then it is what it is and no further discussion is needed.

My initial view point is from a an engineer's perspective not a railfan.  A fully restored machine should be able to preform its intended design function without any Band-Aids being applied.    I saw these excursions with the aid of a diesel as a band aid.   Thus the question arose - as to why?

Has the helper for insurance purposes.  As in written insurance policy?

my take is this.  Ed statement to me is nothing but fluff.  Just my opinion on what I’ve read here and other forums.

1. the Big Boy is a fuel hog and to conserve on the trips from town to town the diesels assists.

2.  The conversion to oil wasn’t as successful as we were led to believe.  Statements made by Ed’s crew in 2019 says the big boy is easy to fire.  Really, because it’s being pushed maybe? Hot Water has stated here the challenger was a bear to fire. You telling me the big boy would be easier?  I find that hard to believe as a arm chair rail fan.

what ever the reason, as stated above, the big boy is a good PR moving billboard for the railroad.   I’m sure Ed has orders from the top to keep cost down.  A diesel would accomplish that.

@Allegheny 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.   

I think you are confusing two things here. We know 4014 was designed as a heavy freight hauler designed to pull long, heavy freight trains over steep grades, and it did what it was supposed to. You are assuming that 4014 as it now exists is incapable of pulling long trains by itself or it 'needs' a diesel helper to be able to do what it does, and therein I think is the problem, it could very well be a false assumption.

I doubt that they are using a diesel because 4014 is a slug, was badly built, you name it, is a 'disney engine' as one person I saw on another place call it (ie looks like a steam engine, run by a diesel, like at Disney parks). When they got it running again they were rushing it to get to the 150th anniversary of the transcontinental railroad, and there I could see them needing a diesel as a backup, it likely had glitches and issues (I have rebuilt plenty of cars over the years, which are infinitely less complicated then this beast, and there are always post build issues no matter how carefully you do it).

I am no expert on steam engines, but I have read enough about them that I know their cost/mile was pretty high when in revenue service. When 4014 and the rest were pulling those huge trains, they needed a lot of maintenance to say the least, pulling long freight trains at speed on grades taxes the engine (true of any engine, of course). That cost was offset from the revenue they made, and especially during WWII with Coal an essential fuel they were likely getting top dollar for their loads, so the cost of maintaining this kind of running was paid for.  Maybe some of the people who have worked for railroads can chime in, but I can remember reading where the maintenance cost between a diesel and a steam engine was a pretty big ratio, it is why steam disappeared (along with mu allowing one train crew to operate multiple engines, etc).

4014 today is a show piece, someone else mentioned a rare sports car like a Ferrari Daytona convertible (be still my heart!), you aren't going to take something that is worth many millions of dollars and put it in a vintage race or drive it as a daily driver and you do it to preserve it. While I can sympathize with people who complain cars like this were made to be driven, I also understand why someone with something that cost them a million bucks to restore and is worth like 5 million would not want to take it out and 'tear it up', too.

4014 is not in revenue service and if running a diesel in the consist can save it wear and tear, extending its life, it makes sense they would do it. Like the Ferrari, auto nuts moan all the time that the great sports cars are not driven like they should be, that they sit in air conditioned garages and the like, and I sympathize with that. Train nuts want to see 4014 recreate the past, they want to see it proudly operating all by itself pulling a large train and of course I would love to see that, but it isn't going to happen. If running a diesel means that 4014 requires less maintenance , that parts last longer, it breaks down less, it can run for x years before needing major work instead of x/2, they are going to do it given corporate reality.I have no inside knowledge of UP steam, how it is budgeted, it is likely a line on the 10k under advertising and promotional costs. But I would lay pretty good odds that it is operating under pretty tight budgets these days, the fact that UP is not running its other engine(s) says a lot (not sure how many operating engines it has).

Put it this way, I suspect the guys who rebuilt this beast would love to see it pulling cars by itself, would love to see it pulling a huge freight consist, you don't work on steam engines cause it is a hot job, you do it because you love doing it. Dickens , for whatever he is or isn't as a person, isn't doing this because he is making a fortune, he and his team are doing it because they love doing it, the way his predecessor did. They have pride in what they have done and I would bet there were probably some pretty big arguments about Big Boy operating with a diesel (in large part because the steam team probably knew they would get the kind of criticism they have, that big boy needed a push, it wasn't really operating, etc) but corporate matters won out *shrug*. If it were truly built badly in 2019, given they had a year with like no activity, they could have corrected the mistakes and run it without a diesel; the fact that 2 years later they are running the same way tells me it was this is the way they were told to run it, likely because with the budget they have they couldn't routinely operate the way they seem to be now. 

It would be interesting if there is ever a competitor to the scale of the UP steam program, if the Daylight engine or some of the others can do long trips, do a lot of trips, how they will be run, I suspect you might see a lot of the same thing.

As an aside, my interest in UP began a few years ago when 1943 the Spirit of UP came through town. Furthered by seeing 4141 in its Air Force 1 colors. I have never seen a train headed by either one that wasn’t backed up by another diesel. Is that because neither can pull the train by itself, just for backup if needed, or company policy?

Pete

@Dominic Mazoch posted:

Has the helper for insurance purposes.  As in written insurance policy?

No.

@bigkid posted:

I doubt that they are using a diesel because 4014 is a slug, was badly built, you name it, is a 'disney engine' as one person I saw on another place call it (ie looks like a steam engine, run by a diesel, like at Disney parks).

This is off topic, but Disney operates one of the largest fleets of actual steam-operated locomotives in the world (17 total).

I would imagine that part of the need to reduce wear and tear on the Big Boy, as previously noted, results from the length of its tours (in thousands of miles), significantly more than most other restored steam engines cover on their tours. The Big Boy roams the West, and distances to cover are far greater than those east of the Mississippi.

Another factor that must drive the need to reduce wear and tear is the fact that it makes so many stops on its tours. On its 2019 tour it made 32 stops just in Texas! I don't know how many total stops and starts it made during that tour, but all of these stops and starts must contribute to a lot of additional wear on the engine. That's a lot of braking, and a lot of starts from stops.

Also, whenever I saw the Challenger and the 844, they had a diesel in their consists as well. So all this aiming at something unique about the Big Boy operations seems a bit off-target. Ask UP why it uses diesels on ALL of it's steams engines, not just the 4014. Apparently, that's how the UP operates its steam programs for their long distance tours, and clearly they feel there's a need to do it that way on their railroad.

@breezinup posted:

I would imagine that part of the need to reduce wear and tear on the Big Boy, as previously noted, results from the length of its tours (in thousands of miles), significantly more than most other restored steam engines cover on their tours. The Big Boy roams the West, and distances to cover are far greater than those east of the Mississippi.

Another factor that must drive the need to reduce wear and tear is the fact that it makes so many stops on its tours. On its 2019 tour it made 32 stops just in Texas! I don't know how many total stops and starts it made during that tour, but all of these stops and starts must contribute to a lot of additional wear on the engine. That's a lot of braking, and a lot of starts from stops.

For what its worth, the brakes are NOT used on a steam locomotive, unless it is running light, i.e. all by itself. The brakes on the train perform the "stopping". Concerning starts, generally only the Engineer's arms are involved.

Breezinup, your mileage and start/stop arguments don't hold up.

• N&W 611 ran tens of thousands of miles on NS when their steam program was active. Same for N&W 1218.
• SP 4449 ran all the way from Portland, Oregon to Owosso, Michigan and back in 2009.
• The 4449 also traveled almost the entire United States on the Freedom Train back in 1976.
• 614 ran thousands of miles in service on the Chessie Safety Express in 1980 and 81.
• 2101 ran thousands of miles on the Chessie Steam Special in 1978 and 1979.
• NKP 765 ran over 3,000 miles in 2014 and more than 4,000 miles in 2015.

The 4014 is not running any more miles than most of the other main line steam locomotives have run in the past.

@Hot Water posted:

For what its worth, the brakes are NOT used on a steam locomotive, unless it is running light, i.e. all by itself. The brakes on the train perform the "stopping".

Just going by what Ed said in his statement.

"Consider the standard passenger train operating during the steam era. The passenger cars rarely traveled over several hundred miles before they were inspected by the eyes and experienced hands of well equipped Carmen. They changed out worn brake shoes and attended to the servicing needs of the train. When we go out into the field, we do not bring additional staff for this purpose. Trust me, without dynamic braking you will grind the brake material down rapidly considering how many stops we are making each day."

It appears he does use brakes.

@breezinup posted:

It appears he does use brakes.

Yes...the brakes on the CARS, not the brakes on the locomotive. It's called "stretch braking."

You never use the independent brake on a steam locomotive unless your are running "light" (engine only.)

@breezinup posted:

Just going by what Ed said in his statement.

"Consider the standard passenger train operating during the steam era.

Well, he's comparing apples and walnuts! This is no longer the "steam era", and current passenger cars, as well as freight cars, no longer cast iron brake shoes. The entire UP executive passenger car fleet are all equipped with disc-brakes, which had non-metallic brake pads, and are VERY easy to replace when on the road. Such replacements, are NOT there responsibility of the 4014 steam crew, but are handled by the one or two men accompanying the passenger equipment, who also take care of all the air condition and 480 volt power throughout the train.

The passenger cars rarely traveled over several hundred miles before they were inspected by the eyes and experienced hands of well equipped Carmen. They changed out worn brake shoes and attended to the servicing needs of the train. When we go out into the field, we do not bring additional staff for this purpose.

He's fibbing again! There are ALWAYS representatives from the UP passenger car Heritage Fleet Dept. that accompany those cars.

Trust me, without dynamic braking you will grind the brake material down rapidly considering how many stops we are making each day."

Sort of, but you can NOT stop a train with just one diesel unit in dynamic brake. Besides, the MU'ed diesel unit is part of the steam locomotive consist, and when the train brakes are applied, the locomotive independent brakes are "bailed off", so ONLY the air brakes on the passenger cars stop the train. Stretch braking is also the smoothest way to stop the passenger train.

It appears he does use brakes.

Not on the locomotive, he doesn't!!!!!!

Just my opinion but, trying to explain how these big excursion operations work to a toy train guy, and then have him argue about it, is becoming tedious.

I'm know you're correct, given your expertise. Always of interest getting an inside look at steam operations.

Regardless, the fact that 4014 has a diesel in its consist is apparently not unique in the UP steam program. As I mentioned before, when I saw the Challenger before (twice), it had a diesel in its consist. The 4014, which I also saw twice, had a diesel one of the times. So 4014 is not unique, and clearly the UP has used diesels with all its steam engines, not just the 4014. It appears they prefer doing it that way, for reasons they apparently feel are justified, whatever they are.

Incidentally, Steve Lee was at the throttle the times I saw the Challenger, long before Ed Dickens came on board, so the policy isn't something Ed Dickens came up with.

Some here seem to be calling out Ed for this decision but how do we know its not UP administration. Might they be concerned 4014 would break down and spoil the celebration? AFAIK UP is only Class 1 railroad that still owns and operates steam engines. N&W was ready to scrap 611 and 1218 before they were saved. Who’s left? Tourist railroads can call their own shots.

Pete

Brake shoes don't wear out as quickly as Ed would have you believe.  If that was the case look how many brake shoes or pads, if disc brakes, would have to be replaced on freight cars after a run.

@breezinup posted:

I'm sure you're correct, given your expertise. Always of interest getting an inside look at steam operations.

Regardless, the fact that 4014 has a diesel in its consist is apparently not unique in the UP steam program. As I mentioned before,

"....whenever I saw the Challenger and the 844, they had a diesel in their consists as well. So all this aiming at something unique about the Big Boy operations seems a bit off-target. Ask UP why it has used diesels with ALL of its steam engines, not just the 4014, at least on its long-distance tours. Apparently, that's how the UP operates its steam program, so it seems they feel there's a need to do it that way on their railroad."

I hav no idea who made THAT quote, but I can't tell you how many trips I made with the UP Steam Crew (prior to September 2010), and there was absolutely NO DIESEL in the consist. Virtually ALL trips with either 844 or 3985 to locations such as Chicago, Minneapolis - St Paul, Kansas City, St Louis, Houston, and other eastern or southern locations on the UP system did not require any diesel dynamic braking assistance. Only those long western state moves, with the long and steep mountain grades had diesel dynamic brake assistance.

Incidentally, Steve Lee was at the throttle the times I saw the Challenger.

Correct. Steve retired an the end of December, 2010. However, Steve was not the only Engineer on either 844 or 3985, and when we doubleheaded 844 with 3985, Steve was always the Engineer on the lead locomotive, i.e. 844 (at least during the 17 years I worked with them).

@Norton posted:

Some here seem to be calling out Ed for this decision but how do we know its not UP administration.

That's a lot of the reasoning.

Might they be concerned 4014 would break down and spoil the celebration?

The track record of "break-downs" is far worse on their diesels than the steam locomotives.

AFAIK UP is only Class 1 railroad that still owns and operates steam engines. N&W was ready to scrap 611 and 1218 before they were saved.

Not true.

Who’s left?

Rather than "own" their own steam locomotive/locomotives, the BNSF Railway has opted to contract for different steam locomotives, whenever they deemed it appropriate.

Tourist railroads can call their own shots.

Pete

@Hot Water posted:

That's a lot of the reasoning.

You are implying you know differently. If so who did make the decision to add a diesel to the consist.

Pete

@Hot Water posted:

Only those long western state moves, with the long and steep mountain grades had diesel dynamic brake assistance.

Well, OK, so that's the reason diesel helpers are used, or at least part of it. And indeed 4014 has been making long western state moves.

@breezinup posted:

Well, OK, so that's the reason diesel helpers are used, or at least part of it. And indeed 4014 has been making long western state moves.

Yet,,,,,,,,,,there is STILL the diesel/diesels even when it came to Chicago, Milwaukee, Minneapolis - St. Paul, plus all the way down through the southwest.

I don't pretend to understand the inner workings of the UP program, but when the 844 came to Phoenix in 2011, it had the SP heritage SD70 in the consist. 

@GG1 4877 posted:

I don't pretend to understand the inner workings of the UP program, but when the 844 came to Phoenix in 2011, it had the SP heritage SD70 in the consist.

Note that that was after Steve Lee had retired.

In 1993 when the Challenger excursion stopped in my hometown of Villa Grove, IL, the Challenger was the sole locomotive.

An eon before PTC.

@vash44 posted:

In 1993 when the Challenger excursion stopped in my hometown of Villa Grove, IL, the Challenger was the sole locomotive.

An eon before PTC.

Same when she came thru Seymour, IN.

@vash44 posted:

In 1993 when the Challenger excursion stopped in my hometown of Villa Grove, IL, the Challenger was the sole locomotive.

An eon before PTC.

UP 3985? Before I became interested in steam, but I've read about those days. Such a cool story and a great engine, with Bob Kreiger and the guys fixing her up, freedom running her.  Sure wish that's how the situation was now.

BTW, Bob is an officer with UP's Historical Society. If you want any actual facts about UP Steam Shop and its engines, Bob's a really friendly guy to ask.

I just try to get some enjoyment out of what is available today. I leave the complaining and criticizing to others.

@breezinup posted:

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.

Having had a lot of experience with management of large corporations in my career, I'd say that these active steam engines are really from the chief executive level.  I has nothing to do with what those who don't understand the costs of a railroad refer to as "bean counters". 

In the UP case, John Kenefick was a rail fan.  That was obvious when I was interviewed by him at the NYC in 1959.  He made a decision that preserving steam was a good thing to do.  Same with a few other railroad chief executives.

The costs are trivial in the context of a big railroad today.  It's all about whter it's what the man at the top believes.

Malcolm Laughlin

A couple of thoughts…

1. When I saw NKP 765 at The Horseshoe Curve, it had a diesel behind her.  So what’s the big deal if UP puts one behind 4014?
2. All this talk about saving money… taking a diesel out of revenue service can’t help the bottom line.
3. Maybe the diesel is a junker from that big line of stored units in the desert? If so, then I doubt they use it for reliability reasons.
4. Running a steam locomotive seems like hard work.  Something my father and grandfather did.  This generation doesn’t seem to like that too much.  Maybe having the diesel around lets them be lazy… and sit in an A/C’d cab?
5. My guess is UP wanted to milk the steam nostalgia now, cause once 1361 and 5550 are done, no one is going to care about a tired old freight locomotive.

j/k

After seeing all three UP steamers, 4014 is my least favorite.  844 and 3985 seemed to say SPEED. 4014 looks like a 3900 with too many wheels, and looks clumsy while running.

But that is me.  At least UP has steam running.

@rplst8 posted:

1. When I saw NKP 765 at The Horseshoe Curve, it had a diesel behind her.  So what’s the big deal if UP puts one behind 4014?
   The 765 has had a diesel behind her for only two reasons:
   
   1) To stretch the coal mileage on long deadhead moves.
   
   2) When additional power was needed to maintain the operating schedule. This is why the diesel was there on the Horseshoe Curve trips. The 765 could have handled the train around the curve by herself, but not at a speed that would have been sufficient to meet the operating schedule. Even with the diesel behind her, the 765 was worked hard on those trips, with the diesel being used only enough to keep the speed where it needed to be. I know...I was there...with the CEO of the railroad (Wick Moorman) sitting right behind me.
   
   
   Note where the throttle lever is. When it's all the way back by my shoulder like that, it is wide open. The diesel behind the tender is in Run 4 - half throttle.
   
   
2. All this talk about saving money… taking a diesel out of revenue service can’t help the bottom line.
   There are thousands of unused diesel locomotives in storage around the country, on all the major railroads. This is not a factor at all.
   
   
3. Maybe the diesel is a junker from that big line of stored units in the desert? If so, then I doubt they use it for reliability reasons.
   You're not serious, are you? The diesel units being used are first-line units.
   
   
4. Running a steam locomotive seems like hard work.  Something my father and grandfather did.  This generation doesn’t seem to like that too much.  Maybe having the diesel around lets them be lazy… and sit in an A/C’d cab?
   This makes no sense at all. The steam crew still has to work in the steam locomotive cab.

@Rich Melvin posted:

 

• All this talk about saving money… taking a diesel out of revenue service can’t help the bottom line.
  There are thousands of unused diesel locomotives in storage around the country, on all the major railroads. This is not a factor at all.
  
  
• Maybe the diesel is a junker from that big line of stored units in the desert? If so, then I doubt they use it for reliability reasons.
  You're not serious, are you? The diesel units being used are first-line units.

Rich,

Thanks for your reply, and the photo. Very cool.  My post was mostly tongue-in-cheek and were addressed to the UP's steam operations, but your responses beg the question...

At over $1 million a pop, that's a lot of money sitting out there in the desert on UP's storage line, so why can't they properly fund their steam program?  They have the money to buy new locomotives, but yet they have hundreds or thousands just sitting?

Seems odd.

A video I shot onThe Curve in 2013.  What it doesn't show is everyone got out and had to push!  LOL!  Just kidding.

@rplst8 posted:

At over $1 million a pop, that's a lot of money sitting out there in the desert on UP's storage line, so why can't they properly fund their steam program?  They have the money to buy new locomotives, but yet they have hundreds or thousands just sitting?

All the Class 1 railroads have power stored. It's a combination of business levels being down and the movement to PSR, Precision Scheduled Railroading. PSR has allowed the railroads to get a bit more efficient, so less power is needed.

@rplst8 posted:

Rich,

Thanks for your reply, and the photo. Very cool.  My post was mostly tongue-in-cheek and were addressed to the UP's steam operations, but your responses beg the question...

At over $1 million a pop, that's a lot of money sitting out there in the desert on UP's storage line, so why can't they properly fund their steam program?  They have the money to buy new locomotives, but yet they have hundreds or thousands just sitting?

Seems odd.

I think like some you are confusing two very different things. As Rich noted in a prior post and in another one below, the UP has those engines sitting idle because they don't need them at the moment. They bought those engines likely based on traffic levels they anticipated (and keep in mind that kind of capital spending is often done long term, if you anticipate X volume levels in 5 years and think you will need Y engines due to some engines being retired and then extra volume, you will buy them in anticipation (plus I assume that with engines they are built to order, you don't go to the GE Engine lot and say "I'll take that one" *lol*

One article I read on that said that part of it is PSR, that with the way they do shipments now they didn't need that many engines, the other is that demand for key products has been down, especially oil during covid (that might pick up a bit with demand for oil sky high at the moment).

In any event business is always a kind of guessing game, sometimes you guess right (okay, or your analysis failed to take into account......), other times you over or underestimate, it happens.

The steam program is not mainline business, it is not a revenue generator directly (it generates Goodwill that can in turn help the bottom line or help where public opinion is important). Spending 1 million bucks on an engine to pull trains is tied to revenue and profit, it is from the capital budget directly tied to rail operations. The steam program is likely under marketing and PR and customer relations, it is very different.  It isn't like someone said "Oh, I spent 1 million on a new engine, let's take it from the steam budget". Rather when they budgeted both long term and for the fiscal year, they allocated money to the programs, likely on a priority basis. So their capital budget would take precedence involved with running the trains along with 'support' infrastructure (office staff, office buildings, IT not involved with train control likely, etc).

The steam program of course has its own budget, but it in turn is a line item in another budget. When you plan in an area, you usually have MBO's you want to accomplish (call it goals), so Ed and the PR and Marketing flunkies figure out a proposed use of Big boy or other units in the fleet. So if they figure out we are gong to do 3 trips in 2021, they budget for it, then figure out an overall budget that includes non event related things, like the cost of maintaining the roundhouse, personnel, insurance, all those things. Sure, many of these are paid for by 'corporate" UP (the roundhouse costs for example, insurance, payroll, materials, etc) but they are 'charged' to the steam program.  With all that they come up with a proposed overall budget, run it up the flagpole, and duck and hope no one shoots back..(well okay, I exaggerate; they no longer shoot back, they send sarcastic emails).  The PR/Marketing department will likely have an overall budget pool given to them by corporate coming out of the CFOs office and the steam budget will be allocated out of that (it really depends on how UP budgets; I am not an accountant or financial person, and every company has its own way of doing budgets. Usually they project revenues for the next year, project costs based on MBO's on a corporate level ad work from there).

That million dollar engine is way removed from the steam program when it comes to budgets, that kind of thing is decided far apart from each other. when they decide capital spending it can affect the PR budget which in turn would affect the steam program, but it is many steps removed.

And again the answer is that the steam program is not aligned with corporate revenue generation or operations so its budget is going to be limited...and yes, if the PR department gets its budget slashed because they were allocated less, or the company goes through a rough patch, the steam program would lose allocated money.

It is why what Ed said made sense to me. If by using a diesel he and his bosses figure they can get 3 trips in instead of 2 for the same money, they will go for it.

For those saying "This is a CEO level thing", you are both right and wrong. I am sure the CEO of the company is aware of the steam program, but they aren't going to be intimately involved with it either. a CEO is like the president of the US, it is really the office of the CEO, while they do of course make final decisions on things, and if his minions come to him and say "you know, we are running into a bind and we need more pencils in accounting and green eyeshades, why don't we kill the steam program, it is a frill", the CEO will be involved (more likely, the PR department will extol the virtues of the steam program, the CFO office will call it a frill the company doesn't need, and the CEO will decide).

On the other hand, I doubt very much the CEO is involved in the steam operations budget, this isn't a private family run company. They might be the final decision maker if they are deciding whether to keep it or not, but in running a company 95% of the decisions don't involve the CEO (might even be more). This is where the beancounters come in, they analyze cost data coming out of the steam program, and if it is running above budgeted figures they will squawk. If Ed says "we have been running Big Boy and decided to give a big show with it pulling a 5 mile train upgrade at speed" and it ends up requiring 30 grand in costs to maintain the engine and such as a result, they will squawk, believe me, and they would take that out of some other element of the budget to keep costs in line.

About the only way a capital expenditure, like the 1 million dollar engine, would affect the steam program would be if in a given year, let's say, the UP is contracted to buy x engines, and revenue is down, they may slash the PR budget which would slash the steam budget (along with other ones, like swithing from 2 ply toilet paper to 1 to save money). Actually those engines sitting there idle could cause them to slash the steam budget, if the cost of inventorying those engines is large enough (and I don't have the foggiest notion what it costs to have an engine sitting idle), it could cause a ripple down to the steam program.

@MartyE posted:

A video I shot onThe Curve in 2013.  What it doesn't show is everyone got out and had to push!  LOL!  Just kidding.

wait a minute is that two diesels pushing the 765???

The big boy made the exact same sound when going up the cajon pass and you said the diesel was doing all the work

So which is it?

@4014rider posted:

wait a minute is that two diesels pushing the 765???

Does it SOUND to you like 765 is being pushed?????   Also, the diesels are not roaring away either.

MartyE that was an excellent video. Thanks for sharing.

@4014rider posted:

wait a minute is that two diesels pushing the 765???

Did you read THIS?

Plus, Norfolk Southern put those two specific Heritage Units (PRR and Conrail ) on this train to pay homage to the history of the railroad we were running on.

Even with a diesel you can tell when the locomotive is working.

3751

4449

Even UP used to let 844 out without a diesel.

@RickO posted:

Ed said it was being pushed in the Facebook post at the beginning of the thread. He just watered it down with technical jargon.

The very fact he stated "the pressure vessel was leaking so bad" is a good indication that 4014 isn't up to the task.

Whether that's UP's fault or Ed's I guess could be debated next.

I wonder how it passed the hydro test ? The boiler should not be leaking at all.

@Rich Melvin posted:

All the Class 1 railroads have power stored. It's a combination of business levels being down and the movement to PSR, Precision Scheduled Railroading. PSR has allowed the railroads to get a bit more efficient, so less power is needed.

FWIW, this video was posted in 2017 and from some googling, UP didn't implement PSR until late 2018. 

I'm not saying you or anyone else is wrong - I'm just saying that I think UP has the coin to spend on the steam program, if they wanted.

@RickO posted:

The very fact he stated "the pressure vessel was leaking so bad" is a good indication that 4014 isn't up to the task.

I don't think that pressure vessel comment was about 4014. I think he was referring to some past event.

Looking at the 765 pulling the curve is amazing. In my opinion steam locomotives were way ahead of their time. The power coming from the two cylinders is hard to imagine. I agree that the diesels were hardly working and the 765 was doing most of the work. I’ve been to the curve once and when diesels are running, the deep thunder of the engines are overwhelming. I didn’t hear that in the video.

@Rich Melvin posted:

I don't think that pressure vessel comment was about 4014. I think he was referring to some past event.

Fair enough. I didn't realize Ed was referring to his overall experiences. I assumed he was specifically speaking related to 4014 on the road.

@RickO posted:

Fair enough. I didn't realize Ed was referring to his overall experiences. I assumed he was specifically speaking related to 4014 on the road.

One must be very careful relative to what he says from one year to the next. He loves to speak in "technobabble", which also tends to be fairly short on truths. Thus one of the main reasons that he does NOT participate in any of the steam locomotive technical organizations, such as the Mechanical Standards Committee (which includes representatives from FRA, and most all of the major steam operators).

@MartyE posted:

A video I shot onThe Curve in 2013.  What it doesn't show is everyone got out and had to push!  LOL!  Just kidding.

Marty:

Was this the Sunday or Monday trip? My youngest son, my sister and I were on the Saturday trip and there was a double stack on number three track as we went west around the curve. That rules out your video being shot on Saturday.

I also had in mind you rode the train the Saturday trip as I remember seeing you with your camera at the Lewistown station prior to boarding. In fact, you’re in my video I shot at the station as 765 was pulling up for boarding to begin.

Curt

I always assumed (wrongly I guess) that particular diesels (Amtrak, CSX, BNSF etc) were required for PTC information and/or responding to cab signals for the particular road, and to give a shove if necessary, otherwise they were just along for the deadhead ride.

@rrman posted:

I always assumed (wrongly I guess) that particular diesels (Amtrak, CSX, BNSF etc) were required for PTC information and/or responding to cab signals for the particular road, and to give a shove if necessary, otherwise they were just along for the deadhead ride.

Actually the Cab Signal equipment, as well as any PTC equipment, must installed be on the lead/controlling locomotive. That is why NKP 765 is herself equipped with the former PRR, now NS, Cab Signal & and Train Control system, and really doesn't require a diesel behind (except for long moves in order to stretch coal usage, as Rich has already explained).

On steam excursions operating under the Amtrak insurance umbrella, such as more recent SP 4449 trips, the Amtrak diesel provides HEP (480 volt three phase AC) for the passenger cars.

Currently, the UP is experimenting with a "remote" PTC system on the trailing MU'ed diesel unit, with some sort of controls to the air brake system on 4014 (simplified explanation) . Attempting to have the PTC computer screens mounted and powered in the cab of 4014, or another steam locomotive, is quite a challenge.

We just deleted a few posts from this thread. We do not want this discussion to become a comparison between the relative differences between 4014 and 765. To a great extent it is an apples and oranges comparison anyway.

Keep it on the subject, please.

@Hot Water posted:

Actually the Cab Signal equipment, as well as any PTC equipment, must installed be on the lead/controlling locomotive. That is why NKP 765 is herself equipped with the former PRR, now NS, Cab Signal & and Train Control system, and really doesn't require a diesel behind (except for long moves in order to stretch coal usage, as Rich has already explained).

On steam excursions operating under the Amtrak insurance umbrella, such as more recent SP 4449 trips, the Amtrak diesel provides HEP (480 volt three phase AC) for the passenger cars.

Currently, the UP is experimenting with a "remote" PTC system on the trailing MU'ed diesel unit, with some sort of controls to the air brake system on 4014 (simplified explanation) . Attempting to have the PTC computer screens mounted and powered in the cab of 4014, or another steam locomotive, is quite a challenge.

The remote PTC system sounds like a really cool idea.

O.K. Apples and apples was mentioned a few times. The closest "apple" is 2 axles shy.

Patiently watch this video of a UP articulated, pay special attention at the :24 second mark.

Maybe turn up the volume just a "bit" for full enjoyment....be careful though.

If anyone has video of 4014 operating at this level of intensity please post. I'm not denying it, just haven't seen it.

Now if the "bean  counters" said " no more of that with the bigboy",  I get it.

(not my video)

I've watched several video's on Big Boy's . 4014 is not performing anywhere near to what the other locomotives are in these video's.

Somethings up with 4014 whether it's oil burner conversion is not right or something else is wrong. Sooner or later the railfan's

will catch on that somethings not right.

I don't understand what initiated this thread.  It is the UP's locomotive.  They are the UP's tracks.  If the UP wants to be running a diesel along with the 4014 that is their prerogative, whether needed or not.  Was Ed's answer in response to a comment that running a diesel with the 4014 cheapened the experience?  Was it in response to concerns that the 4014 might not be up to the job?  If so the answer falls short.

@Bill N posted:

I don't understand what initiated this thread.  It is the UP's locomotive.  They are the UP's tracks.  If the UP wants to be running a diesel along with the 4014 that is their prerogative, whether needed or not.  Was Ed's answer in response to a comment that running a diesel with the 4014 cheapened the experience?  Was it in response to concerns that the 4014 might not be up to the job?  If so the answer falls short.

Hello Bill N,

The point is that individuals have begun to question the level of integrity of the restoration of the locomotive.  A machine of this caliber should never really need a diesel behind it given the size of its consist.

When experienced individuals in the field of locomotive restoration started asking questions, along with folks who have an understanding of machine repair and restoration - Ed found it necessary to put out a statement to explain the reasoning for the diesels presence.

However his sighted reasons do not align well with reality and still leaves many unanswered questions with folks who know this business. 

Personally I'm not a professional boiler maker nor an experienced locomotive mechanic.  However as a experienced powertrain engineer having and still designing these systems ranging from cars, trucks, off highway vehicles and now very large military systems along with numerous years of debugging and resolving operational issues with these systems, his explanations do not FULLY justify the diesels presence.   That's just my personal belief.   

Other locomotive operations with steam do not routinely use a diesel and their boilers are significantly smaller and yet are capable of doing the same level of work and then some without any aids.    When you look at the overall context you'll start to come away thinking something is amiss.

Some have stated here that the boiler doesn't steam well, if true that would explain the diesels presence.   Additionally if that is indeed the case, it means that the coal to oil conversion process wasn't as successful as initially envisioned.

Here's another thing, Ed changed the water treatment. Is it possible that the chemical he is using has raised the boiling point of water to where it can't turn into steam  fast enough ? Whatever the problem is you'd think they would correct it.

@feet posted:

Whatever the problem is you'd think they would correct it.

That's a good point. You would think that if there was some sort of issue that it would have been corrected by now.

The facts that we know of are: #1) UP runs a diesel with 4014 and other railroads running steam generally do not. #2) We have Ed's statement as to why they do this.

I don't have the technical knowledge to definitively say that there is a real reason why the UP uses a diesel and that Ed is covering up that reason but it is an interesting discussion. It is my hope that there is nothing wrong with the locomotive mechanically and (speculating here) that maybe Ed feels an attachment to it so he doesn't want to push it hard and therefore have the diesel do some of the work? Please don't bite my head off here. This situation is strange to me and as I said I am just speculating.

@feet posted:

...Is it possible that the chemical he is using has raised the boiling point of water to where it can't turn into steam  fast enough?...

No, that's not how boiler water treatments work.

From what I was told, as much as anything, it's very high water consumption that leaves very little breathing room for error on the distance they run.  Less to do with the steam engine itself and firing abilities, but if something messes up on the railroad ahead of them, the diesel allows an extra measure of safety without running low on water.  The specific comment was that 4014 with 2 aux canteens gives about 200 miles or so, depending on conditions.  It's very thirsty.  One some of the days they run, you can see how that could potentially cause an issue if something up ahead screws up and they get stuck waiting for clear track.  I'm sure the scheduling can get interesting from a dispatcher's perspective throwing a 40mph steam train into a 60-70mph mainline railroad.  I think all of that is also why you are seeing more stops and lower mileage days and not the 200-300 mile days that used to be more common.

Having spent about 20 some odd days following it in 2019, here are my observations....

it basically did nothing on the run to Ogden in May.  No real surprise, given the timing and one test run.

It did work decently starting with the trip back from Ogden, and from that point on.  It would vary by the day.  Some days, they would work it fairly decently.  Some days not.  Often times, they would let the diesel boost them up to speed coming out of a stop with a light/medium throttle for draft, then 4014 would take over.  Coming out of the Duluth area southbound, we found a crossing just after a speed restriction over a bridge, and it was doing 100% of the work accelerating up to 40mph and sounding very good.  There were about 3-4 people there to hear and see it.  That fall, it sounded very good coming out of Tuscon, AZ on a hill there.  We got it twice on that hill (once fairly slow in the curves at the bottom and then up to speed on the straighter sections near the top), and the diesel was just along for the ride.  We had many more incidents where we picked a spot that it should have sounded good, and it wasn't doing much of anything.  It's a game of chance.

To an extent, the 4014 reminds me a lot of N&W 1218 in some regards.  Way too much locomotive for the train it's pulling the vast majority of the time.  The A was the same way--there were large portions of the system where it coasted much of the day once it got up to speed.  Fact of the matter is that a UP 4-8-8-4 on a 10 car train is barely letting it breathe right.  If you really want to hear it work hard, chances are far and few between.  They do exist, but a fair amount of planning and especially luck is required.