blackz28
Well-Known Member
ahh sean ,i wondered when you were going to pop up on this thread & heck yes i wanna help too
Last edited by a moderator:
stop the press!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
- Thread starter blackz28
- Start date
irocinblue89
Member
ahh sean ,i wondered when you were going to pop up on this thread & heck yes i wanna gelp too
Sorry, took me a while. Thought I was dreaming!
blackz28
Well-Known Member
OK i found this floating around the net today, sounds better & better
Gentlemen:
I attended a meeting on Tuesday evening of the Southern California Chapter of the Railway & Locomotive Historical Society in San Marino.
An outside guest was there for the “informational” side of the meeting, with a proposal for the chapter membership and board to consider.
Ed Dickens; he’s the manager of UP’s Historic Equipment program at Cheyenne. He announced that UP has decided to restore and run a Big Boy as a public relations gesture—and that millions of dollars have been budgeted for the project.
Engineering staff has surveyed all seven surviving Big Boy locomotives and found that the 4014 on display at the Los Angeles County Fairgrounds in Pomona (owned by the SCC-R&LHS) is the one of the seven in the best condition and therefore the first choice for the UP restoration project.
At the meeting, UP offered to “obtain” the 4014 from the Chapter, move it across the Fair parking lot on snap track to live (Metrolink) rails and then haul it to Cheyenne for a multi-year restoration project. He didn’t say “buy” and he didn’t say “repossess,” and he did leave open the possibility of loaning another steam locomotive to the Chapter to fill the empty space. UP to pay all costs.
At least one Board member is adamantly opposed to accepting UP’s offer. His concern is that the Chapter and Fairplex facility management in Pomona have frequently clashed in the past and that removing the “star” of the R&LHS exhibit would give Fairplex the opportunity to evict the entire rail museum—leaving it homeless. No decision was reached during the meeting. I suspect that the Board will want to poll the entire Chapter membership, but that is just my own opinion. Apparently a Board meeting is scheduled for this weekend.
If a deal is reached, UP wants to make the move by February 2013.
This is not an official announcement and I do not speak for the Chapter or the UP. All I can say is, “watch the media” and check with your sources.
Joe Strapac
Gentlemen:
I attended a meeting on Tuesday evening of the Southern California Chapter of the Railway & Locomotive Historical Society in San Marino.
An outside guest was there for the “informational” side of the meeting, with a proposal for the chapter membership and board to consider.
Ed Dickens; he’s the manager of UP’s Historic Equipment program at Cheyenne. He announced that UP has decided to restore and run a Big Boy as a public relations gesture—and that millions of dollars have been budgeted for the project.
Engineering staff has surveyed all seven surviving Big Boy locomotives and found that the 4014 on display at the Los Angeles County Fairgrounds in Pomona (owned by the SCC-R&LHS) is the one of the seven in the best condition and therefore the first choice for the UP restoration project.
At the meeting, UP offered to “obtain” the 4014 from the Chapter, move it across the Fair parking lot on snap track to live (Metrolink) rails and then haul it to Cheyenne for a multi-year restoration project. He didn’t say “buy” and he didn’t say “repossess,” and he did leave open the possibility of loaning another steam locomotive to the Chapter to fill the empty space. UP to pay all costs.
At least one Board member is adamantly opposed to accepting UP’s offer. His concern is that the Chapter and Fairplex facility management in Pomona have frequently clashed in the past and that removing the “star” of the R&LHS exhibit would give Fairplex the opportunity to evict the entire rail museum—leaving it homeless. No decision was reached during the meeting. I suspect that the Board will want to poll the entire Chapter membership, but that is just my own opinion. Apparently a Board meeting is scheduled for this weekend.
If a deal is reached, UP wants to make the move by February 2013.
This is not an official announcement and I do not speak for the Chapter or the UP. All I can say is, “watch the media” and check with your sources.
Joe Strapac
blackz28
Well-Known Member
i was also thinking if this will start a" SUPERPOWER STEAM WAR" i still feel deep down this whole thing is because UP saw all the positive press NS got with the massive HERITAGE repaints ,sooooooooooooooooo im thinking NS fires back with the 1218 OR the 611 or drag a another Y & rebuild it for operation
also remember all the times that the 844 or the 3985 had to rescue dead diesels & frieght over the years , imagine a big boy haveing to come to the rescue of a stranded freight & pulling it up sherman hill full tilt
also remember all the times that the 844 or the 3985 had to rescue dead diesels & frieght over the years , imagine a big boy haveing to come to the rescue of a stranded freight & pulling it up sherman hill full tilt
Last edited by a moderator:
irocinblue89
Member
i was also thinking if this will start a" SUPERPOWER STEAM WAR" i still feel deep down this whole thing is because UP saw all the positive press NS got with the massive HERITAGE repaints ,sooooooooooooooooo im thinking NS fires back with the 1218 OR the 611 or drag a another Y & rebuild it for operation
also remember all the times that the 844 or the 3985 had to rescue dead diesels & frieght over the years , imagine a big boy haveing to come to the rescue of a stranded freight & pulling it up sherman hill full tilt
Black, I think it will be really hard for NS to do the Y or J in house because I heard they auctioned off all of their "steam era" maint equipment. Having said that, their is a really really nice roundhouse 45min West of me that could probably do it. HINT HINT NS
Boris
Beach Bum
The modern era equipment at Juniata Locomotive Shop in Altoona, could probably still handle the rebuild, although some specialty stuff might have to be farmed out to third party vendors. The facility there is was/is very impressive. Don't sell the railroad mechanical forces short. They are quite skilled and capable.
The fact that there are more than several operating steam locomotives some 52 years after the last regular service steam locomotives were phased out is no less than miraculous. This might be cool.
irocinblue89
Member
WJLI26, I wasn't implying that they could not do the work. I was simply relaying what I had heard from a different discussion in another forum pertaining to the resto/running of 1218. I would love nothing more than to see these animals roaming around. I say if they can do it let's roll! Sorry if I was miss-informed or I miss-quoted something.
Last edited by a moderator:
Boris
Beach Bum
Nah, you are no more mis-informed than I am
. NS probably did auction off some of their machine tools, they had a surplus after the acquiring Conrail.Our "interest forums" are loaded with speculation, wishful thinking and fact, with which we base our discussions on. My comments were intended to convey that if NS were to decide to match UP in a "Steam Race", they possessed the capability to do so.
Remember JLS - then under Conrail - was responsible for most of the domestic production of EMD's SD70.
Joe
blackz28
Well-Known Member
sir you are right they had a wholesale of the foundary tools & guess who sent a rept to buy them up ? yep UNION PACIFIC did along with other tourist railroads.Nah, you are no more mis-informed than I am
Joe
the incoming president stated "so no thought of starting another steam program is possible" ok i paraphazed lol but that was the gist of his comments
sorry this was when NS ended the steam program , it has no bearing on NS/ CONRAIL PA SHOPS
Last edited by a moderator:
blackz28
Well-Known Member
heres more info on the oil burner conversion on #4005
Here's a posting from a email group from Steve Lee I just found on Google from the late 1990's that doesn't make it sound like it would be a major problem.
"You are referring to the 4005, which was converted to oil in the late
1940's. It was involved in a wreck at Red Desert, WY afterward and
when it was repaired it was converted back to coal.
The firebox is not too big per se, but extra steps had to be taken to
make this work right, and since there was no precendent for converting
a firebox that large, much of the work was by trial and error. This
included the size and shape of the firepan, placement of the burner,
location and size of air openings and damper, etc. The locomotive
steamed very well by the accounts of those who fired it when it was in
oil. One problem was hot-spotting on the crown sheet directly above
the burner, which caused leaking crown stays. There were several ways
to address this particular problem, including reinstalling the arch
brick immediately above the burner to protect the crown sheet. Several
railroads with oil-fired locomotives with large fireboxes performed
tests and experiments in this regard to solve localized problems, and
much of the results of these tests were reported at the meetings of the
Master Mechanics Association, the Boilermakers Association, and other
professional gatherings.
The main problem with 4005, and the one that would have been the most
expensive to solve, was that if UP intended to convert the class to
oil, it would have to install at least 7 or 8 new oil fueling
facilities across the territories where the 4000's operated. The oil
tank on the 4005, which was identical to those on the oil-fired
4-6-6-4's in the 3-5 series of those locomotives, held 5,945 gallons,
of which about 5,700 gallons was usable. This is because the tank was
designed to fit into the existing coal space on the tender; to have
made the tank larger would have required sacrificing some of the water
capacity, which was not acceptable.
Coal chutes were located at approximately 40-mile intervals across,
Wyoming and Utah (this was before the 4-8-8-4's began running to
Denver), but oil fuel facilities were located at 75 to 125 mile
intervals. A 4000 with a heavy train, or even a moderate train bucking
high winds, or one that had extensive delays enroute, usually was
unable to make those distances on one tank of fuel, which lead to
putting the train in a siding, cutting the engine off and running for
fuel, then going back for the train, and so forth. It didn't happen
every trip (and it sometimes happened with other classes of power,
too), but it happened often enough to make people realize that for this
to be successful, a large investment in wayside fuel tanks, tank and
pipe heaters, piping, and spouts would be needed in multiple track
territory, (which all of the territory in question is), this can get
very expensive, along with the maintenance costs of those new
facilties.
So, I wouldn't say it can't be done, just that it didn't work as
planned the first time it was tried.
Steve Lee"
And recall that their steam program burned coal for many years. The Challenger even did for its first several years of operation in the 1980's in fact. So I don't think that is a non option even though I'm sure that's not the direction they'd want to go in.
Here's a posting from a email group from Steve Lee I just found on Google from the late 1990's that doesn't make it sound like it would be a major problem.
"You are referring to the 4005, which was converted to oil in the late
1940's. It was involved in a wreck at Red Desert, WY afterward and
when it was repaired it was converted back to coal.
The firebox is not too big per se, but extra steps had to be taken to
make this work right, and since there was no precendent for converting
a firebox that large, much of the work was by trial and error. This
included the size and shape of the firepan, placement of the burner,
location and size of air openings and damper, etc. The locomotive
steamed very well by the accounts of those who fired it when it was in
oil. One problem was hot-spotting on the crown sheet directly above
the burner, which caused leaking crown stays. There were several ways
to address this particular problem, including reinstalling the arch
brick immediately above the burner to protect the crown sheet. Several
railroads with oil-fired locomotives with large fireboxes performed
tests and experiments in this regard to solve localized problems, and
much of the results of these tests were reported at the meetings of the
Master Mechanics Association, the Boilermakers Association, and other
professional gatherings.
The main problem with 4005, and the one that would have been the most
expensive to solve, was that if UP intended to convert the class to
oil, it would have to install at least 7 or 8 new oil fueling
facilities across the territories where the 4000's operated. The oil
tank on the 4005, which was identical to those on the oil-fired
4-6-6-4's in the 3-5 series of those locomotives, held 5,945 gallons,
of which about 5,700 gallons was usable. This is because the tank was
designed to fit into the existing coal space on the tender; to have
made the tank larger would have required sacrificing some of the water
capacity, which was not acceptable.
Coal chutes were located at approximately 40-mile intervals across,
Wyoming and Utah (this was before the 4-8-8-4's began running to
Denver), but oil fuel facilities were located at 75 to 125 mile
intervals. A 4000 with a heavy train, or even a moderate train bucking
high winds, or one that had extensive delays enroute, usually was
unable to make those distances on one tank of fuel, which lead to
putting the train in a siding, cutting the engine off and running for
fuel, then going back for the train, and so forth. It didn't happen
every trip (and it sometimes happened with other classes of power,
too), but it happened often enough to make people realize that for this
to be successful, a large investment in wayside fuel tanks, tank and
pipe heaters, piping, and spouts would be needed in multiple track
territory, (which all of the territory in question is), this can get
very expensive, along with the maintenance costs of those new
facilties.
So, I wouldn't say it can't be done, just that it didn't work as
planned the first time it was tried.
Steve Lee"
And recall that their steam program burned coal for many years. The Challenger even did for its first several years of operation in the 1980's in fact. So I don't think that is a non option even though I'm sure that's not the direction they'd want to go in.
Boris
Beach Bum
sir you are right they had a wholesale of the foundary tools & guess who sent a rept to buy them up ? yep UNION PACIFIC did along with other tourist railroads.
the incoming president stated "so no thought of starting another steam program is possible" ok i paraphazed lol but that was the gist of his comments
sorry this was when NS ended the steam program , it has no bearing on NS/ CONRAIL PA SHOPS
Back in the late 1980s, I attended a Mechanical General Foreman's School" at Altoona and Holidaysburg Car Shop (now closed). For a Transportation guy, this was a real benefit, as i got to see and do what the Mechanical people did every day. I was totally impressed by what I saw, including the Gondola assembly line at Holidaysburg, and most especially the Locomotive Shops at Altoona.
From a mechanical standpoint, that facility was the most important acquisition the NS made.
Joe
GPwrangler
Active Member
It really seems to be between NS and UP with any of their programs. CSX and BNSF don't really seem interested.
blackz28
Well-Known Member
well BNSF could use alot of the santa fe steam locos around & any road that was merged with them & CSX could rob any museum in the east ,say the B&O for a rebuild , i mean there is a ton of locos in museums just waiting for the call........
There is a big Santa Fe Northern fully restored and roaming around in the CA NM area but I don't recall that the railroad had anything to do with the restoration. I'll see if I can find a link. I think it was a private/volunteer group that did the restore. The Illinois Railway Museum has a beautifully restored and operating NE Zephyr, but the museum did the restore not the RR.
http://www.irm.org/events/zephyrexcursion.html
The "Q" was big on excursions in the early 60's with several steamers including one of their beautiful O5 Northerns #5632. Would love to see one of these under steam, but I think 5632 was scrapped.
http://www.irm.org/events/zephyrexcursion.html
The "Q" was big on excursions in the early 60's with several steamers including one of their beautiful O5 Northerns #5632. Would love to see one of these under steam, but I think 5632 was scrapped.
