Steam & Excursion > Years when there has been no UP Steam operating?

It's been reported here (and I have echoed elsewhere blindly) that 2014 will end up being the first year in 152 years that there has not been steam running on the UP.

This got me wondering, just out of curiosity, if that's really the case. I wonder simply because of 15 year maintenance requirements, the new firebox of 844, etc. Since the retirement of all steam except 844 until the time 3985 was also restored, 844 was never not steaming on the rails at least once a year? None of the maintenance on 844 during that time took her out of service for longer than 12 months (the 12 months would have to be non-contiguous within a calendar year)? Once 3985 was in the roster then I assume 3985 was able to steam when 844 was getting the new firebox, etc.

Just wondering about that period prior to 3985's revival.

No reason to get into why there's no steam in 2014. I think we've all been over that more than a few times. The question of this thread is about the past.

-K

I believe it was always said that the 844(4) ran every calendar year from 1944 until 1992. There were likely 12 month spans within those years that it didn't run, but it ran during every calendar year at some point.

In years past maintaining 844 was allot easier. When the steam era ended 844 was a low miles engine that was in excellent health. It hasn't needed the major overhaul until the 2000 over haul and 3985 ran that whole time. Before they started work on 844's FRA inspection and major overhaul that included the firebox in 2000 they did 3985 witch is why 3985 is only due its inspection this year. Plus the FRA rules changed in 2000 and 3985's FRA was done quicker then it can usually be done now. 844 is now much older and not as new as it used to be.. Not and expert by any means. Just a foamer who reads allot.

844 did not run in 1959, did it? I thought that 838 was the only 800 to run in 1959.

steve

It could be I'm remembering wrong, but then I'm about positive it ran every year from 1960 until 1992.

kurt765 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's been reported here (and I have echoed
> elsewhere blindly) that 2014 will end up being the
> first year in 152 years that there has not been
> steam running on the UP.
>
> This got me wondering, just out of curiosity, if
> that's really the case. I wonder simply because of
> 15 year maintenance requirements, the new firebox
> of 844, etc. Since the retirement of all steam
> except 844 until the time 3985 was also restored,
> 844 was never not steaming on the rails at least
> once a year? None of the maintenance on 844 during
> that time took her out of service for longer than
> 12 months (the 12 months would have to be
> non-contiguous within a calendar year)? Once 3985
> was in the roster then I assume 3985 was able to
> steam when 844 was getting the new firebox, etc.
>
> Just wondering about that period prior to 3985's
> revival.
>
> No reason to get into why there's no steam in
> 2014. I think we've all been over that more than a
> few times. The question of this thread is about
> the past.
>
> -K

It can't be 152 years, yes Union Pacific Railroad was founded in a July 1862 but no track was laid before July 1865. So for three years Union Pacific was a paper railroad. So this is the first year that an Union Pacific steam locomotive didn't ran in 149 years but not the first in the history of the line. However a big boy was moved by Union Pacific to run again (someday) so the year wasn't a total bust. I am looking forward to '15 and seeing what steam will run, I will be suprized if UP 844 runs in '15. Too bad when finished SP 4449 could not travel on the UP, and not under Super Ed of course.

Posted from Android



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 11/27/14 23:40 by badtanker1987.

Yeah I couldnt see a steam expert like Doyle McCormack alowing that idiot to run 4449 under any circumstances!

Ed, did you see that last comment ?? : )

WauhopM Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yeah I couldnt see a steam expert like Doyle
> McCormack alowing that idiot to run 4449 under any
> circumstances!


If Ed had tried to show his authority to Doyle in order to operate 4449.....it wouldn't have been but two hits, Doyle hitting Ed and Ed hitting the ground! lol

apollo17 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WauhopM Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Yeah I couldnt see a steam expert like Doyle
> > McCormack alowing that idiot to run 4449 under
> any
> > circumstances!
>
>
> If Ed had tried to show his authority to Doyle in
> order to operate 4449.....it wouldn't have been
> but two hits, Doyle hitting Ed and Ed hitting the
> ground! lol

Although off topic, he would have to get past me first!

badtanker1987 Wrote:
>
> It can't be 152 years, yes Union Pacific Railroad
> was founded in a July 1862 but no track was laid
> before July 1865. So for three years Union Pacific
> was a paper railroad. So this is the first year
> that an Union Pacific steam locomotive didn't ran
> in 149 years but not the first in the history of
> the line. However a big boy was moved by Union
> Pacific to run again (someday) so the year wasn't
> a total bust. I am looking forward to '15 and
> seeing what steam will run, I will be suprized if
> UP 844 runs in '15. Too bad when finished SP 4449
> could not travel on the UP, and not under Super Ed
> of course.
>
> Posted from Android

Let me repeat myself.

No reason to get into why there's no steam in 2014. I think we've all been over that more than a few times.

THE QUESTION OF THIS THREAD IS ABOUT THE PAST. Let's not drag the present and future into the discussion please.

So prior to 2000, rules for maintaining a steam locomotive were easier, and thus 844 did not require any long stretches of downtime for maintenance?

OK then, lets narrow it down and get specific:

Since the Union Pacific RR fired up their very first steam locomotive (in 1865?), there has not been one single CALENDAR year since, that the Union Pacific did not have at least one steam locomotive fully capable of being under steam AND OPERATING, until 2014.

Does that satisfy your question?

kurt765 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So prior to 2000, rules for maintaining a steam
> locomotive were easier, and thus 844 did not
> require any long stretches of downtime for
> maintenance?

No, "prior to 2000" had nothing to do with what NEEDED to be done on 844 after she broke some tubes at the Sacramento Rail Fair in 1999. During the extensive investigation as to why the tubes broke (incorrect material specs from the tube manufacturer, as I recall), the team also discovered that 844 STILL had her original firebox from Alco. Generally, the practice on railroads with fleets of oil burning steam locomotives (UP & SP for example), was to replace the firebox every 10 years, whereas coal fired locomotives got new fireboxes at 15 years. Thus, the proposal was made to UP top management to COMPLETELY overhaul the boiler on 844, INCLUDING a new firebox.

In modern Excursion service the fire box 844 got should last 100 years, In 15 year 844 will be lucky to be under steam 350 days.. Modern excursion engines are garage queens that dont see allot of use. That is why 844 and the other main line excursion engine last. 844 generally see's more use then most.

kurt765 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So prior to 2000, rules for maintaining a steam
> locomotive were easier, and thus 844 did not
> require any long stretches of downtime for
> maintenance?

Doyle McCormack Talks about the FRA rules changes in the interview posted yesterday. They specifically grandfathered some engines so the new rules didnt effect them until after 2000 he mentions that. Both 3985 and 4449 did the 15 year FRA inspection under the old rules. Major change I think (but dont know for sure) is the boilers thickness must be measured.. The rules changes were in response to the accident at Gettysburg.

HotWater Wrote:
> No, "prior to 2000" had nothing to do with what
> NEEDED to be done on 844 after she broke some
> tubes at the Sacramento Rail Fair in 1999. During
> the extensive investigation as to why the tubes
> broke (incorrect material specs from the tube
> manufacturer, as I recall

Jack,
As it turned out the tube material was not out of spec but the rolling machine was over rolling the tube about every 4th roll and rolling them too thin. So the guys made up a jig to test the rolling machine with every three or four rolls to make sure it was still set right. We replaced all the tubes installed with the 1996 boiler work in order to have the tubes rolled properly and we had no issues after that.

Bob Krieger
Cheyenne, WY

In 1959, there were a LOT of UP steam engines running,
at least in the first half of the year, but referring
specifically 844, it indeed ran as a snow melter in
Council Bluffs that year. See Kratville's book and
several other sources.

For my part, I feel so much better knowing it's only
been 140-some calendar years since UP has not operated
a steam locomotive at least once, instead of 152.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/28/14 12:46 by Realist.

Bob3985 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> HotWater Wrote:
> > No, "prior to 2000" had nothing to do with what
> > NEEDED to be done on 844 after she broke some
> > tubes at the Sacramento Rail Fair in 1999.
> During
> > the extensive investigation as to why the tubes
> > broke (incorrect material specs from the tube
> > manufacturer, as I recall
>
> Jack,
> As it turned out the tube material was not out of
> spec but the rolling machine was over rolling the
> tube about every 4th roll and rolling them too
> thin. So the guys made up a jig to test the
> rolling machine with every three or four rolls to
> make sure it was still set right. We replaced all
> the tubes installed with the 1996 boiler work in
> order to have the tubes rolled properly and we had
> no issues after that.


Thanks for the clarification, Bob.

Anybody want to guess how many years UP will go without steam?
The record so far seems to be 1862-1864, or 2 years.

So far in this streak, it's going to be one year, 2014, but I
predict 2015 and maybe even 2016, so that would set a new non-
steam record of 3 years.

The Great Steam God (the one who didn't recognize asbestos on
the 4014 and forced his men to virtually wallow in small piles
of it as they worked until they refused blew the whistle on him
and he had to have it tested to find out -sure enough- it
was) claims to have found asbestos on 844 and 3985, and both
are "far worse" than what 4014 has. This, of course, is to
draw attention away from the existing problem on 4014.

Plus, he claims 844 needs far more boiler and firebox work now
than he first thought.