I just heard about this on another forum. That would be something if this happened. (Although, it would be quite a while before a Big Boy would run, if it did happen). Reminds me of when the 4006 at the Museum of the American Railroad was going to be restored to operating condition for a movie. (However, nothing really came of it and it never was.)
"On its face, the engine in southern California, with its dry climate, would be among the best condition." Not necessarily. The one in Green Bay has been in a temperature controlled building for many years.
I assume the unit in Cheyenne is too weathered to be used even though it's right there. I wonder if they'd rebuild California State Railroad Museum's AC-12.
How many millions do you have? In the 1970's, I was the president of the SW Railroad Historical Assn/Age of Steam which became the Museum of the American RR-"owners" of #4006 Big Boy. The UP donated the loco to the museum with the provision that it NEVER OPERATE AGAIN. Those guys who have told me "we'll see it run again" are just full of something. Here's a fact-in about 1975, we had two historical restoration experts look at 4006 and give an estimate for just a cosmetic restoration...the price would have exceeded $1.5 Million (1970 dollars) just to make it look nice..no operationional capability. What can you imagine it will cost now? And how about that "deal" with UP? So fellow Big Boy lovers, look elsewhere for a running Big Boy, it ain't gonna happen in Frisco, TX...Heck, they don't even have the loco on their property yet. W C Greene
The reason for speculation is this general public is rarely ever made aware of such stipulations. The many times I have seen that particular locomotive referenced, this is the first mention I have ever read.
Since UP is the company that wants to do the restoration, I'd assume that any Deal they made is by definition null. I mean why exactly would they have to obey the stipulation of their own company?
I believe the rods were cut also making it even more difficult to restore it to operation. The 4014 in Pomona is intact...
well, there are a few issues with a running Big Boy....there are very few lines built that can handle the weight of the loco as well as the pounding that it would give to the rails. Also, WHERE would you turn it? As for 4014, there is a guy that goes out there every month to lube and oil all of the locos, everything there should be in great shape
I should have known that some bright fellow would know much more than I do. I really don't care if the Big Boy ever runs, it's just nice that I know the real facts. Woodie C Greene
I found this unofficial report of the meeting between a UP exec and SCC personnel this past Thursday...... http://forums.auran.com/trainz/showthread.php?96250-Union-Pacific-making-plans-to-restore-Big-Boy
I assume you're refering to me. I don't question your knowledge of the situation at the time of your involvment, but I don't see how UP, the railroad that made the no run stipulation is obligated to follow the rules of their predecessors. They can tear up the contract. If you can explain that to me, i'd be happy to listen. Also, Trains Newswire is generally considered a credible industry news source. If they're reporting it, then that lends significant credibility.
From what I understand, the weight of the loco is a non issue. Because of the extra axles, the weight on wheels is actually better for a Big Boy than it is for the 3985 (and IIRC it isn't too far off from a GEVO or ACe). Also, the rail in use on most mainlines now, is actually a lot heavier than what was used when the 4000s were originally in service. I don't have the exact numbers in front of me, but its significantly heavier rail. Mainline curvature is really a non issue as well. In theory, a 4000 should be able to go anywhere the 844 can go. A 4000 is two 8 coupled sets of privers pivoted together. The wheel base of the individual sets of drivers is less than what it is for the 844. So, that in and of itself should not be an issue. Look at the 844 earlier this year at Sacramento. The locomotive itself, had no issues on the new narrow museum trackage. The long rigid wheelbase of the centipede tender on the other hand REALLY didn't like the curvature which was evidenced by the derailment of the rearmost axle. The main issue with operating a 4000 will be turning it around and perhaps some clearance issues with some tunnels. I am not sure the tunnels will be that big of a problem as most tunnels have been modified to accomodate double stacks. Turning facilities on the otherhand is another story. Most turntables would not be able to fit a 4000. Again though, in most cases, as long as the 844 is able to use it, a 4000 should be able to use it. I am sure the UP would check things out ahead of time and not go into something like that without doing their homework. I am cautiously optimistic about all of this. I would love to see the 4014 run, and would go out of my way to see it. But, until I see pics of it being hauled DIT up Cajon and heading east, I am not going to hold my breath.
The axle loading is only about 68,000# per axle, vesus the average ES44AC running about 70K/axle loads. Rail loading is not an issue for most of UP's mainlines. Again, bridges and tunnels on most of UP route is capable of doublestacks, and 286K freight car loadings (around 72K/axle). The curves on some terminal trackage and wyes will pose the biggest issue for the 4000s. The 844's tender has issues with some curves, so upgrading/opening up some curves to accomodate would only make sense. Very few turntables exist that can turn a 4000, but Cheyenne's can, and it gets the most use turning other UP heritage and steam locomotives. I recall some video interview talking with Steve Lee (the previous UP Steam manager) saying that restoring a Big Boy was "not impossible", never thinking it might ever happen.... But it seems it actually might! http://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?1,1643439 http://www.trainweb.org/jlsrr/bigboy/information/dimensions/dimensions.htm 2019 isn't that far away, in steam locomotive rebuilding terms... How long did it take to rebuilt 844 after its boiler problem in 1999? It was back in service in 2005. And it was operational before the rebuild. 4014 hasn't operated since 1959. Might be a bit optimistic for 6 years, but I'm happy that it is on UP's radar.
Thanks Hemi. I just didn't have the exact numbers. I don't think it would be cost effective to re-engineer their mainlines just to occasionally run a steam locomotive over it. I agree terminal trackage would be a problem, but again, if the 844 can do it, it ought to be able to do it as well. Another example of something I think I will see before a 4000 runs again, NS Heritage units running over Saluda...
