Steam & Excursion > Any Update on 4014 Progress?

I'll touch the "third rail" here: does anybody have any 4014 news they'd care to share?

Posted from iPhone

ut-1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'll touch the "third rail" here: does anybody
> have any 4014 news they'd care to share?
>
> Posted from iPhone

ut-1,

When there is progress EVERYONE will know as the UP will make a play of it. Right now they have their hands full of other things. I'm sure small stuff is happening behind the scenes, but I would not expect any real news until next year at the earliest. Let them work, the good will come in time.

J.

ut-1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'll touch the "third rail" here: does anybody
> have any 4014 news they'd care to share?

No, nobody has any news.

Is this like a "Does anybody know?" question?

HotWater Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Is this like a "Does anybody know?" question?

I don't know. Does anyone know?

Mary McPherson
Dongola, IL
Diverging Clear Productions

Are they gonna drill holes in all the flexible Stabolt Caps???
Big Boys got a bunch more caps than a 4-8-4


Wes

I will be really interested in the conversion work being done in the firebox. Placement of burners and fire brick will be really interesting. I wonder if they have any of the work ups done when the last big boy was converted to oil or if theyre flying by the seat of their pants so to speak when it comes to the restoration.

If they were smart they would study the SP 4294 at the CSRM. The Cab Forward and the Big Boy have very similar sized fireboxes, and the cab forwards were known as free steaming engines. Whatever burner setup worked for one should work for the other.

Finderskeepers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If they were smart they would study the SP 4294 at
> the CSRM. The Cab Forward and the Big Boy have
> very similar sized fireboxes, and the cab forwards
> were known as free steaming engines. Whatever
> burner setup worked for one should work for the
> other.


The 4000's were also good steamers.

Realist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Finderskeepers Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > If they were smart they would study the SP 4294
> at
> > the CSRM. The Cab Forward and the Big Boy have
> > very similar sized fireboxes, and the cab
> forwards
> > were known as free steaming engines. Whatever
> > burner setup worked for one should work for the
> > other.
>
>
> The 4000's were also good steamers.


Isn't there a "yes but" in there somewhere.....as in yes, but they were coal burners?

AA

Stanford White
Carmel Valley, CA

I keep hearing conflicting viewpoints on whether the oil fired big boy was successful...

"Experiments in oil firing the 4000's were carried on from December, 1946, through March, 1948, on the 4005. The Big Boys had high crown sheets designed for use with Rock Springs and Hanna Coal. The oil-fired 4005's single burner just couldn't get the fire close enough to the crown to keep the loco hot and the road never tried a double burner so the 4005 put up with poor oil combustion."

"From a steaming standpoint, the 4005 steamed better than any oil burning power UP men had seen on any road.
However, the single burner caused spot heating on the crown sheet which in turn, caused it to leak."

keep in mind UP was burning bunker C at the time, and I highly doubt it is going back to burning liquid asphalt.

With all the layoffs and belt tightening maybe UP will silence the steam proram and lay off people...for awhile?

exprail

agentatascadero Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Realist Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Finderskeepers Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > If they were smart they would study the SP
> 4294
> > at
> > > the CSRM. The Cab Forward and the Big Boy
> have
> > > very similar sized fireboxes, and the cab
> > forwards
> > > were known as free steaming engines. Whatever
> > > burner setup worked for one should work for
> the
> > > other.
> >
> >
> > The 4000's were also good steamers.
>
>
> Isn't there a "yes but" in there
> somewhere.....as in yes, but they were coal
> burners?
>
> AA

No.

Interviews with the people who ran them, fired them and
maintained them for years say they steamed very well and
very easily on coal, and 4005 did while it burned oil.

I put a lot more faith in the people who made their livings
doing this kind of stuff every day for decades than a bunch
of know-it-all foamers with big imaginations.
on ether coal or oil.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/17/17 18:20 by Realist.

ut-1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'll touch the "third rail" here: does anybody
> have any 4014 news they'd care to share?
>
> Posted from iPhone


UP's web site is frequently updated with every bolt
that gets turned.

I'll be right back ...

---

What to watch for...

The biggest factor in loco steaming is NOT solely dependent on the wishes of the fireman to increase the fuel flow.
The ability of the boiler to make steam is mostly dependent on the mass of air pulled into the firebox --- and that depends on the mass of the train being hauled.
In a light draft situation, adding more carbon to the firebox, will simply make dense clouds of dark carbon , belching from the stack...

So, the success of the conversion will not be certain until the loco & it's fire is sufficiently ' loaded' by hauling a heavy enough train.
The draft is extremely important in bringing the amount of oxygen necessary for heat production.
Taking a frontend drafting arrangement set up for drafting coal firebed, and assuming that will function satisfactorily with an oil burner as the source of BTU release, is a gamble with uncertain odds.

I speculate that the conversion to oil will be disappointing --- because you cannot draft the fire adequately with a few excursion cars behind the tender.
Adding a diesel --as "protection"--- will exacerbate the lack of draft.

The advantage of coal is that the temperature of the firebed can be regulated, to a certain degree, to match approximately the varying mass of the train.

Another aspect of drafting consideration is: how well will the firebox/ burner combination perform in down hill situations.
According to the map of the grade over the Continental Divide, as shown in the fold-out map included in his book "Big Boy" Kratville shows how massive that continuous grade is ---- that grade is about 65 mikes long.
How well will the oil conversion do, over an extensive long, down hill drift....

I suspect that the drafting of the SP cabforward's frontend and it's drafting appliances varies widely from the design used by Alco in the Big Boys....
Watch for how the conversion works in a loco that was designed to haul trains many times the mass of what lies in this one's P. R. future.

Trying to design a successful, high-capacity burner arrangement is going to be very problematic. If you design a strong, high capacity burner arrangement, how will that perform with a 'few' coaches in tow? How well will the firebox perform on extended downhills? ..... it is extremely important to have a strong boiler pressure to maintain snappy air compressor action.

How wil they be able to test their design and modifications?
This adaptation will be interesting to follow.

Maybe somebody will dig up the typical mass of trains that routinely stormed the Cintinental Divide...Hauked by Massive Big Boys ...

Wes C.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/17/17 19:15 by wcamp1472.

Two burners with a high vertical divider down the middle of the firebox creating two smaller combustion
chambers with a strong vertical draft. Consider that you're trying to replace a large active coal bed with
a considerable amount of latent heat with a flame front that's subject to the draft. Cut down the size of
the firebox and at least make some effort to direct the flame front. Just a thought.

Out

wcamp1472 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What to watch for...
>
> The biggest factor in loco steaming is NOT solely
> dependent on the wishes of the fireman to increase
> the fuel flow.
> The ability of the boiler to make steam is mostly
> dependent on the mass of air pulled into the
> firebox --- and that depends on the mass of the
> train being hauled.
> In a light draft situation, adding more carbon to
> the firebox, will simply make dense clouds of dark
> carbon , belching from the stack...
>
> So, the success of the conversion will not be
> certain until the loco & it's fire is sufficiently
> ' loaded' by hauling a heavy enough train.

Which is NOT going to happen under current circumstances.

> The draft is extremely important in bringing the
> amount of oxygen necessary for heat production.
> Taking a frontend drafting arrangement set up for
> drafting coal firebed, and assuming that will
> function satisfactorily with an oil burner as the
> source of BTU release, is a gamble with uncertain
> odds.

Except that in this case, the change in front end
arrangement for oil conversion is documented.
>
> I speculate that the conversion to oil will be
> disappointing --- because you cannot draft the
> fire adequately with a few excursion cars behind
> the tender.
> Adding a diesel --as "protection"--- will
> exacerbate the lack of draft.

Yep.
>
> The advantage of coal is that the temperature of
> the firebed can be regulated, to a certain degree,
> to match approximately the varying mass of the
> train.
>
> Another aspect of drafting consideration is: how
> well will the firebox/ burner combination perform
> in down hill situations.
> According to the map of the grade over the
> Continental Divide, as shown in the fold-out map
> included in his book "Big Boy" Kratville shows how
> massive that continuous grade is ---- that grade
> is about 65 mikes long.

If you are speaking of the Wasatch grade, that is
several hundred miles west of the actual Continental
Divide. Some people also think Sherman is the Continental
Divide, but it isn't.

> How well will the oil conversion do, over an
> extensive long, down hill drift....
>
> I suspect that the drafting of the SP cabforward's
> frontend and it's drafting appliances varies
> widely from the design used by Alco in the Big
> Boys....

Alco had little or nothing to do with the drafting
of the oil-fired 4005. That was all done by UP's
mechanical engineering staff.

For what it's worth, the 3900s and 4000s both had
issues with proper drafting right out of the Alco
factory as coal burners. It took a great deal of
testing and tweaking to get either class to draft
correctly in coal once they went into service. A
lot of the information gathered in that testing
and tweaking and the similar info gathered in the
conversions of the 3900-series came in very handy
in the conversion of the 4005 to oil.

> Watch for how the conversion works in a loco that
> was designed to haul trains many times the mass of
> what lies in this one's P. R. future.
>
> Trying to design a successful, high-capacity
> burner arrangement is going to be very
> problematic. If you design a strong, high
> capacity burner arrangement, how will that perform
> with a 'few' coaches in tow? How well will the
> firebox perform on extended downhills? ..... it is
> extremely important to have a strong boiler
> pressure to maintain snappy air compressor
> action.

Apparently, the 4005 performed well enough that it
stayed in oil until it was wrecked.

Unless someone decides to re-invent the wheel with
the 4014, which has a high probability of happening,
it should do fine.

> How wil they be able to test their design and
> modifications?
> This adaptation will be interesting to follow.

Again, unless they decide to start over from scratch,
sticking to what is known to work would be the best
course to start from. With this bunch however, some
of whom already think they are a lot smarter than
generations of locomotive designers, only time will tell.

> Maybe somebody will dig up the typical mass of
> trains that routinely stormed the Cintinental
> Divide...Hauked by Massive Big Boys ...

> Wes C.

Not likely. A similar tonnage train today would only be
about 60 loaded cars, if even that many. And if anybody
thinks there are enough '30s, '40s or even '50s-era cars
still out there and suitable for service to do this, he
or they obviously have access to some really good drugs.

And they use helper diesels on anything over 12 or 14 cars.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/17/17 19:42 by Realist.

exprail Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> With all the layoffs and belt tightening maybe UP
> will silence the steam proram and lay off
> people...for awhile?
>
> exprail


That happens all hell'll break loose!

So.....

How many hundreds of excursions is 4014 scheduled to make, following her restoration?
How far can 4014 roam around the entire U.P. System of far flung tracks?
Are there so many planned trips that conversion to try to burn oil is an operational necessity?
How will multiple burners, baffles and grate-area modifications allow the engine to ever reach sufficient drafting to generate the
flame- heat necessary to reach superheated operation? ( how many boiler tubes will they have to blank-off ?).
Or, will it remain in "saturated steam generation state" as it roams?
When will the throttle ever need to get more than 25% open?
What determines the strength of the draft, or the volume of air drawn into the firebox for maximum combustion and superheat temperatures?

It'll be a FUN show, even if it's always shoved around by a diesel.

W.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/18/17 05:27 by wcamp1472.

Interesting discussion about drafting and oil conversion. I have a couple of questions for those with steam experience.

First Question: If the load is not heavy enough to induce sufficient draft, couldn't the blower be used to supplement the steam exhaust from the nozzles?

Second Question: I have heard the term Stephensonian Cycle used to describe the self-regulating tendency of a steam locomotive to automatically supply more draft in response to a higher exhaust steam flow rate. This implies that for a *properly-drafted* locomotive (i.e. with front end configuration properly set up), the amount of draft produced over a range of steam exhaust flows will tend to be in good balance with the combustion air requirements of the firing rate that will produce the required evaporation rate. All that said, if the 4014 is pulling too light a load to draft and therefore steam properly, doesn't that imply the locomotive front end configuration wasn't set up correctly, or possibly could be modified to operate properly on a lighter drawbar load? By front end configuration, I'm referring to the exhaust nozzle effective area, petticoat pipe geometry and relation to the nozzle, smokebox baffling, netting etc.

Scott Griggs
Louisville, KY