Steam & Excursion > UP 4023 in Nov. 2012

Back around Thanksgiving weekend in 2012. I went out to Omaha, NE with my girlfriend to visit some of her family & friends. I was also beyond excited to see the one bigboy I've always wanted to see because I still feel had this one not been placed on a hill it would've been the one chosen for restoration. Anyway I took as many photos as I could but the wind was so gusty and freezing that my girlfriend wanted to get out of there asap. So here's what I got.

---

---

---

The only survivor of the 4-8-8-4-2 class. A lot of prep went into making that hillside support it.

I was always amazed by the size of these engines and pic #6 is one of my favorites as it looks ready to move again and tackle the grade at Sherman.

---

---

---

I will say they did a phenomenal job of cosmetically restoring this engine!! She looked beautiful all around. Even inside the cab from what I could tell.

---

---

---

A few from the back and from the engineers view almost.

---

---

---

One looking inside the cab. And the display outside the 4023.

---

---

---

A few more from on the engineers side.

---

---

---

Give credit to John Rimmasch and his company Wasatch Railroad Contractors of Cheyenne Wyoming for the restoration work on the 4023. Still looks great for nearly 10 years old.

A few more. Both 4023 and 6900 overlooking I80. One of the best displays of both steam and diesel.

---

---

---

EmpireBuilder Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Give credit to John Rimmasch and his company
> Wasatch Railroad Contractors of Cheyenne Wyoming
> for the restoration work on the 4023. Still
> looks great for nearly 10 years old.


I thought that was who did the restoration work. They did a great job!!! Was all the asbestos lagging removed and replaced with new jacketing?

MJV1988 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> EmpireBuilder Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Give credit to John Rimmasch and his company
> > Wasatch Railroad Contractors of Cheyenne
> Wyoming
> > for the restoration work on the 4023. Still
> > looks great for nearly 10 years old.
>
>
> I thought that was who did the restoration work.
> They did a great job!!! Was all the asbestos
> lagging removed and replaced with new jacketing?

The lagging was removed in the mid-1980's by UP while the 4023 was still displayed in front of the Omaha Shops.

On their website, Wasatch describes in detail what they did. It's in the "About" section at wrrc.us

edit - corrected website address.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/21/14 09:52 by EmpireBuilder.

a roof for both would be nice!

Man, She looks Great !

Excellent display, and also excellent photos!

Steve Mitchell
http://www.yardgoatimages.com

It is a beauty, and what better place than Omaha to show it off.

The only issue with its handsome presentation is that it has a 1941 tender, which is incorrectly stencilled on its rear with a water capacity of 25,000-gallons. It displays tender plate 25-C-104, which indicates it is 1941 tender which had a water capacity of 24,000-gallons and came new with the 4003.

4023 came new from ALCO with a 25-C-4 tender, which did hold 25,000-gallons. This is not the first time that a 25-C-1 tank was mislabeled.

Can you (or more to the point here, the General Public) visually tell the difference between the C-1 and C-4 tank by general outline, shape and proportion? Or do you have to look for details to tell them apart? (That is a real question, I never even knew there were variations before you mentioned it.)

I would be willing to bet that the mislabeling was deliberate, in order to have the tender labeled as the original tender would have been that the unit ran with. If the differences between a C-1 and C-4 are visually relatively minor, that seems like a fairly appropriate thing to do on a stuffed and mounted engine. (If the tender were grossly different than the original then you would mark the tender for what it is, of course.)

GMUP Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It is a beauty, and what better place than Omaha
> to show it off.
>
> The only issue with its handsome presentation is
> that it has a 1941 tender, which is incorrectly
> stencilled on its rear with a water capacity of
> 25,000-gallons. It displays tender plate
> 25-C-104, which indicates it is 1941 tender which
> had a water capacity of 24,000-gallons and came
> new with the 4003.
>
> 4023 came new from ALCO with a 25-C-4 tender,
> which did hold 25,000-gallons. This is not the
> first time that a 25-C-1 tank was mislabeled.

I believe 4023's original tender is behind sister engine 4017 in Green Bay, WI from what I've read.

Posted from Android

lwilton Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Can you (or more to the point here, the General
> Public) visually tell the difference between the
> C-1 and C-4 tank by general outline, shape and
> proportion? Or do you have to look for details to
> tell them apart? (That is a real question, I never
> even knew there were variations before you
> mentioned it.)
>
> I would be willing to bet that the mislabeling was
> deliberate, in order to have the tender labeled as
> the original tender would have been that the unit
> ran with. If the differences between a C-1 and C-4
> are visually relatively minor, that seems like a
> fairly appropriate thing to do on a stuffed and
> mounted engine. (If the tender were grossly
> different than the original then you would mark
> the tender for what it is, of course.)

The 'spotting' difference between the 25-C-1 tanks and the 25-C-2 thru 25-C-5s is a change to the coal space, adding space for a bit more water. On the -1s the side slope sheet rivet line is easy to spot, well down the outer skin as can be seen on this tender. The 25-C-2s and later had the side slope sheets join the outer side sheet just below the upper radius. The latter tenders came with all of the late Challengers and the last five 4884s. The -1s and -4s wandered quite a bit among the 4000s, but records do not suggest either of these groups were ever used with the 3900s. As I said, mislabeling was a common mistake. Whether intentional or not, it was not a new thing.

MJV1988 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> GMUP Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > It is a beauty, and what better place than
> Omaha
> > to show it off.
> >
> > The only issue with its handsome presentation
> is
> > that it has a 1941 tender, which is incorrectly
> > stencilled on its rear with a water capacity of
> > 25,000-gallons. It displays tender plate
> > 25-C-104, which indicates it is 1941 tender
> which
> > had a water capacity of 24,000-gallons and came
> > new with the 4003.
> >
> > 4023 came new from ALCO with a 25-C-4 tender,
> > which did hold 25,000-gallons. This is not the

> > first time that a 25-C-1 tank was mislabeled.
>
> I believe 4023's original tender is behind sister
> engine 4017 in Green Bay, WI from what I've read.
>
> Posted from Android

Having only fairly recently seen a good photo of the tender in Green Bay all I know is that it is not a 25-C-1, nobody that I know of has reported what number plate it has, or perhaps it has none anymore. Unfortunately, even UP's retirement and donation records do not ALWAYS correctly reflect what tender left UP property with a given locomotive. Being welded on to the right frame rail, I have seen the evidence of a few destroyed UP tender plates. SAD !