Steam & Excursion > SP Cab Forward 4294 Reactivation

I've seen posts on other sites that claim SP Cab Forward 4294 is too far gone mechanically to reactivate and one post claimed someone from SP that looked it over many years ago said it was a plumbing nightmare.However on the museums site that houses the engine they said that during the cosmetic restoration it was given some years ago, they found nothing unusual that would prevent it from being rebuilt to operate at some point in the future. IS 4294 mechanically sound enough to operable again?

Anything can be rebuilt, it's just a question of money. After all the British built a new A1 Pacific (Tornado) from scratch and there are a couple of more 'new builds' of extinct classes underway over there.

Hummmmm. Sounds interesting.

Not so much initial funding but ongoing as well.

As well as a question of funding, where would you go with it? Certainly not something to run at the Museum. And the UP has not changed it's policy toward operations of non-UP owned equipment over it's lines.

Better bang for the buck for the CSRM on something smaller.

I like the SP 4-6-2 #2467, or, the Northwestern Pacific 4-6-0 #112.

Pullman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
And the UP has not changed it's policy
toward operations of non-UP owned equipment over
it's lines.

Here we go again with the "UP policy" rumor. The UP NEVER had such a "policy"!

It is NOT too far gone, in fact it's mostly there. In fact, it was built in what, 1944? Retired in 1956? Only 12 years running time. Hardly wore out

Agree on the fact that anything can be returned to service with a large enough pile of money. Also, if you want to run it on the UP or any other railroad, you just have Amtrak approve your steamer and then run under their umbrella. Then, you can run basically anywhere.

All we need is someone who is shot in the bum with diamonds and we could have a 4295!

Cheers,
Jack

HotWater Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pullman Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> And the UP has not changed it's policy
> toward operations of non-UP owned equipment over
> it's lines.
>
> Here we go again with the "UP policy" rumor. The
> UP NEVER had such a "policy"!


As proven by all of the moves of non-UP owned equipment over it's lines.

1522 used to run regularly over the UP. It was the only way to get from the Museum of Transportation to downtown St. Louis. All we ever had was a pilot engineer and conductor to ride along.

Anyone remember a steamer numbered 819?

It would be interesting to put some borders around the 'nothing but UP Steam' rumor. Seems like a pretty obvious absence of anything but Cheyenne rebuilt equipment out there, certainly in the west.

Keystone1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Anyone remember a steamer numbered 819?

Last time it ran was before the UP took over the SP/SSW.

Trackage rights are trackage rights. If diesel powered trains from other railroads can run on UP tracks, so can steam. Just gotta have a pilot crew for the territory. Even the UP does that with its own steamers on its own lines.

As for getting 4294 up and running again, it would certainly be sweet. Just seems that the people that truly know how to work on and operate steam are fading away and no replacements lined up in the wings.

Lee Ryan - Rio Grande Fan
Denver, CO

HotWater Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pullman Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> And the UP has not changed it's policy
> toward operations of non-UP owned equipment over
> it's lines.
>
> Here we go again with the "UP policy" rumor. The
> UP NEVER had such a "policy"!

Sure, but there is a huge precedent for UP denying Excursions on its lines. You don't see any like you used to see 4449 going to Wishram or 700 doing that Montana trip. 3751 runs on BNSF when it does. Sure 4449 and 700 lived in Brooklyn and needed to get over UP rails to get to Union Station, but that was as far as they went on UP. UP allowing ACCESS to get out of someplace is one thing, allowing a full blown excursion trip of steam locomotive not owned by UP is quite another.

I'm sure Mr Rowland can comment about UP not allowing his Golden Spike tour.

As I grew up in California, and still spend some time there, I would enjoy seeing the SP 4294 restored doing runs over its old stomping ground along Donner Pass.

I always worry when steam is restored by government agencies though. Donations for restoration is one thing, but they also need funds for operation/maintenance once it has been restored. If they are using public or quasi public funds (donations), funding sources could evaporate with little notice.

Other than the issue with capital, my question would be who would run it? The CSRM runs some excursion trains, (and are restoring some steam), but do they have staff to run/maintain a locomotive of that size in operating condition? Locomotives of the SP 4294's size look best on long excursions. I am unsure the museum has the funding for these types of excursions. Running it around on the short line on Sacramento Southern Railroad, really wouldn't allow her to stretch her legs.

I am exited what they have been doing with the old SP yard behind the museum.

africansteam Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> All we need is someone who is shot in the bum with
> diamonds and we could have a 4295!
>
> Cheers,
> Jack

Well, one of my lotto goals is a new cab forward. reason being that the CSRM would never want to let go go fo 4294. So, send me best wishes. The lotto is an integral part of my retirement plan...

rdsexton Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> africansteam Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > All we need is someone who is shot in the bum
> with
> > diamonds and we could have a 4295!
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Jack
>
> Well, one of my lotto goals is a new cab forward.
> reason being that the CSRM would never want to let
> go go fo 4294. So, send me best wishes.

You got'm!

Cheers,
Jack

>Trackage rights are trackage rights. If diesel powered trains from other railroads can run on UP tracks, so can steam. Just gotta have a pilot crew for the territory.

When a tenant-line train is operated over a "host" rr, the only time you need a pilot is if the tenant-line crew operating the train and isn't qualified over the territory. BNSF has qualified a number of crews to operate BNSF trains over trackage rights on the former WP between Stockton and Keddie, so no pilots are needed. They haven't done this with their trackage rights over the UP between Sacramento and Ogden/Salt Lake, choosing instead to pay the UP to use UP crews to operate their trains. Steam/diesel/electric have nothing to do with it.

I'm among those who have noticed that very few, if any, non-UP steam engines ever operate on UP track, particularly the 4449 and that SP&S locomotive (to name a couple). This means that if the 4294 is made operable, where would it run? I do know that the SP nixed any future operation upon its donation and movement into the building at Old Sac, but what this means today is anyone's guess. Last time I looked at it (about three years ago) all the moving parts were still full of sand from it's being sandblasted before being given the current shiny paint job. All the old heads I knew who ran it said it was the worst riding of the fleet.