Steam & Excursion > what if with 844

Just foamer dreams but, what if Ed ran 844 without the smoke deflectors? Then it would have its "as delivered look"

Posted from Android

upheritage6 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Just foamer dreams but, what if Ed ran 844 without
> the smoke deflectors? Then it would have its "as
> delivered look"

No, it wouldn't!!!!   You all seem to forget that 844 was delivered, in 1944, as a COAL BURNER!!!!!

HotWater Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> upheritage6 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Just foamer dreams but, what if Ed ran 844
> without
> > the smoke deflectors? Then it would have its
> "as
> > delivered look"
>
> No, it wouldn't!!!!   You all seem to forget that
> 844 was delivered, in 1944, as a COAL BURNER!!!!!

Yup.  It would need ash pans and netting all around the
firebox, which were highly visible, as were the two large
dump door wheels on the right side.

The second turbo generator would have to go, which means
no cab signals, and the remaining one would have to be turned
90 degrees, would have to get rid of all the chrome, stainless,
polished brass, silver tires and running board edges, radio and
eot antennas, the chrome or stainless valve and cylinder head
covers,  get the handrails off the top of the fuel tank and get rid
of the joints at the bottom of the coping around the fuel tank,
put the wooden slats on top of the top of the water tank, get
rid of the auxiliary water connections and m/u connections,
and age every crew member about 30 years beyond existing.

Oh, and replace the pilot and buffer and reinstall the steam heat
connections.

Piece of cake.
 

Which raises the question when was she converted and why.  She was already an oil burner when I rode behind her in 1961.  Nice to see her back on the road.

JBWX



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/24/16 14:47 by jbwest.

---

jbwest Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Which raises the question when was she converted
> and why.  She was already an oil burner when I
> rode behind her in 1961.  Nice to see her back on
> the road.
>wax
> JBWX

I recall it was converted due to a coal miner's strike sometime around 1946 or 48.

Close to as built look anyway

Posted from Android

Copy19 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> jbwest Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Which raises the question when was she
> converted
> > and why.  She was already an oil burner when I
> > rode behind her in 1961.  Nice to see her back
> on
> > the road.
> >wax
> > JBWX
>
> I recall it was converted due to a coal miner's
> strike sometime around 1946 or 48.

Early 1946 all 800's, a bunch of 3900's and a lot of smaller
engines were converted to oil.

Why the partial conversion to oil.  Part of the answer is probably obvious (or at least the speculations is easy), but it would be interesting if anyone knowledgeable had more details. For example, clearly the territory between Cheyenne and Ogden had to infratructure for both, but why did some engines burn coal and others oil.  The same kind of question applies to other roads as well.  It undoubtedly started with coal being cheap, but clearly there were other considerations.

JBWX 

Here is the "as delivered look" for the 844.  On the way to be delivered at the ALCO factory in December 1944.  Merry Christmas to the UP from ALCO.
 

---

jbwest Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why the partial conversion to oil.  Part of the
> answer is probably obvious (or at least the
> speculations is easy), but it would be interesting
> if anyone knowledgeable had more details. For
> example, clearly the territory between Cheyenne
> and Ogden had to infratructure for both, but why
> did some engines burn coal and others oil.  The
> same kind of question applies to other roads as
> well.  It undoubtedly started with coal being
> cheap, but clearly there were other
> considerations.
>
> JBWX 

For one key item, Someone on the UP made the decision to convert mostly all passenger assigned locomotives to oil burning, starting in 1946. Thus the 800s and the "passenger" Challengers burned oil, which was perceived as much cleaner for the air-conditioned lightweight passenger equipment, i.e. no soot & cinders in the air intake systems.

Bunker C oil was very cheap back in the late 40's. Oil company's would price it by the ton. Oil was just convenient in more of the system. The Ogden to Cheyenne section favored coal until the end.

And don't forget about the fact that one tank of oil is equal to about 3 tenders full of coal.
Plus no ash and cinders to dump.

PHall Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And don't forget about the fact that one tank of
> oil is equal to about 3 tenders full of coal.

How did you come up with THAT?????

      One tender of oil equaling three tenders of coal in absolute volume or heating capability ? Even on how much the tender will hold of material, I don't calculate three times the volume.