Nostalgia & History > D&RGW 3800-series Challengers

Among Dave England's photo collection of Union Pacific steam locomotives (about 99.99 percent UP), are photos of all six UP-design 4-6-6-4 Challengers sold to D&RGW due to wartime restrictions.

Dave bought the prints from Don Roberts for 15 cents each back in the late 1950s, and each print is stamped "Negative Owned by Don H. Roberts." This particular photo of D&RGW 3800 was taken on July 1, 1946, and was taken the same day as the other five photos. The six photos show all six of the 3800s (3800-3805) stored at Salt Lake City, with their wheels solidly chocked. I can only think that they were out of service at the time, after D&RGW had returned them to the War Assets Administration, "Here, take these back, we don't want them."

The same photo was used on page 58 of "Locomotives of the Rio Grande," published in 1980 by the Colorado Railroad Museum. I bought my copy of the book at my local hobby shop in March 1981. That photo is credited to the Richard H. Kindig Collection.

Also attached is Dave's typewritten text that he placed on the same page as the photos, back when he put the albums together in 1959.

Don Strack

---

---

It does seem strange that these Challengers apparently didn't work out on the Rio Grande; I wonder if using different coal than they were designed for had something to do with it? Does anyone know what Rio Grande's beef was?

Does this mean the UP units weren't purchased by UP from either ALCO or the U.S. Govt., but were simply "assigned" (i.e., "given") by the Govt. to the UP?

glibby Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Does this mean the UP units weren't purchased by
> UP from either ALCO or the U.S. Govt., but were
> simply "assigned" (i.e., "given") by the Govt. to
> the UP?

Apparently so during the war, but afterward it might be safe to assume UP would have been given the same offer to buy as Rio Grande was.

The Rio Grande tried to order more FT's to handle the traffic.
Reallocating UP's 4-6-6-4's to the Rio Grande was the WPB's solution to the problem.

They got some gons at the same time (via the WPB) - those went to Alaska after the war.

The 3700s were better than the 3800s (for the specific application), and in any case, they wanted out of steam. They had already drafted their course - diesels - and didn't want any more steam (makes a lot of sense for a mountain road, with some very bad water and operations could be entertaining when you had 4-5 locomotives attempting to take water on a 3% grade).

Too, the D&RGW was under receivership - they had to satisfy the receiver - and steam was obviously NOT a good purchasing decision. The second hand steam left fairly quickly the W&LE got the ex N&W Mountains. The N&W articulateds were close enough to those on the D&RGW on mine runs that they got use from them. But there was no way they were going to buy new. They wanted out of the NG (this was pre-Farmington - and even then, they wanted out of it).

The D&RGW rostered a lot of "foreign" designs, from the UP "chopped" 4-12-2s (the D&RGW 1600s) to the MP/WP 2-8-0s, to the MILW & DL&W 4-8-4s, to various USRA-origin articulateds (with updates), to the Salt Lake Mallets - they picked good, solid, locomotives and they were modified enough to have a familial touch. But the original designs are there to see.

DRGW's 4-6-6-4 Challengers were "runners" not "haulers" which is what the DRGW really needed. Not too many places on the DRGW where a Challenger could stretch its legs.

rswebber Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> The D&RGW rostered a lot of "foreign" designs,
> from the UP "chopped" 4-12-2s (the D&RGW 1600s) to
> the MP/WP 2-8-0s, to the MILW & DL&W 4-8-4s, to
> various USRA-origin articulateds (with updates),
> to the Salt Lake Mallets - they picked good,
> solid, locomotives and they were modified enough
> to have a familial touch. But the original
> designs are there to see.

Don't forget the DMIR Yellowstones.

-John

Can you still get one for 40 grand?

Um, west of Grand Jct has lots of room. Most Challengers were kept here. railwaybaron Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> DRGW's 4-6-6-4 Challengers were "runners" not
> "haulers" which is what the DRGW really needed.
> Not too many places on the DRGW where a Challenger
> could stretch its legs.

Posted from Android

The DM&IR locomotives were leased during "off season" (and one got away, brand new). Flatlander engine without proper brakes (of course...they had them, just not as used to by D&RGW enginemen....there's a good tale...water brakes....)

The D&RGW ran the 3700s - they often ran troop trains fairly quickly. As was said, they were mostly used (to begin with) between GJ & Helper. And they ran. But...that was also one prime reason why they went to FTs - bad water (and why they were rarely photographed). I have some photos of 3700s being run fast - hard to come by any good photos of 3700s in service doing what they were built for.

And...let's be honest, the UP is not a flat railroad - they used their Challengers through a fairly varied profile, and if you look at the profile from Ogden to Cheyenne, and the profile between GJ & Helper - you might be stunned as which one is more of a sawtooth. Remember, the UP has a higher crossing than Donner.