Steam & Excursion > 7 Years since 3985

It has been 7 years now since Union Pacific 3985 has operated.

In my opinion that is a bit ridiculous.

Maybe an official update on the plan for 3985 would be a good idea (instead of the occasional inclusion in an article or mention during a shop tour or interview) if there is indeed a plan to return her to operating condition in the future.

Not holding my breath though.

I concur it's ridiculous.

Here’s your update..

2017. No change
2016. No change
2015. No change
2014. No change
2013. No change
2012. No change
2011. No change
2010 Parked & immobilized: “in absolutely, way too-costly ...in time and money to operate, again...”.
Crew not up to the Challenge(r) ?

( besides, Challenger boiler has immense capacity to retain copious amounts of highly acidic water treatment, sludge and mud—— better off running ( ruining?) a 4-8-4, ‘til finally more sludge in boiler than water...)

In my highly opinionated estimation...

AND, the recent record speaks for itself...

W.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/14/17 14:52 by wcamp1472.

From what I was told, once the 4014 is operational in 2019 for the 150th, then the 3985 will get a workscope to set up its work schedule.

Bob Krieger
Cheyenne, WY

“ workscope” will probably include a firebox replacement for 3985, —- not that it’s required, but being a self-admitted ‘perfectionist’....perfection is a Tough Master..

Also, better drill all those flexible staybolt caps, before replacing .......... you never know what could be a problem !!!
I’m sure that in old U.P. Standards Of Maintenace documents, there’s a whole chapter on proper dillling techniques for every staybolt-cap on the System...
Besides, nice new, shiny ones do a better job of heat conductivity to the lagging & jacket...


W.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/14/17 15:19 by wcamp1472.

Stupid question, but wouldn't it be more cost effective to get the 3985 up and running for the 150th anniversary of the completion of the Transcontinental Railroad?

Stupid question ???? I don’t think so!

Don’t apologize about a very logical question—— many thoughtful minds have speculated publicly about that VERY question.

It’s a valid question, without a satisfactory response.
There is no logical explanation— simply personal preference, personal choice.
Which, in reality, is the sufficient answer to the choice...

Don’t argue with personal preferences...
As amply demonstrated by the present occupiers of the “Oval Office... “.

“ I can DO IT, so I will do it !!!”,
“My mind’s made up, don’t confuse me with FACTS...”

W.

Railfan4Christ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Stupid question, but wouldn't it be more cost
> effective to get the 3985 up and running for the
> 150th anniversary of the completion of the
> Transcontinental Railroad?

I asked openly here on TO why the 3985 didn't celebrate UP's 150th Anniversary back in 2012, but got no response. not even from the "naysayers." Give credit to the folks who knew what was going on (in hindsight) to keep mum.

I went out of the way to catch the 3985 couple of times in 2008 and 2010, and am glad I did - carpe diem to the max. No urgency for me to worry about the 3985 right now, thanks to information from various sources on its current fate - let's see what happens after 2019.

cchan006 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Railfan4Christ Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Stupid question, but wouldn't it be more cost
> > effective to get the 3985 up and running for
> the
> > 150th anniversary of the completion of the
> > Transcontinental Railroad?
>
> I asked openly here on TO why the 3985 didn't
> celebrate UP's 150th Anniversary back in 2012, but
> got no response. not even from the "naysayers."
> Give credit to the folks who knew what was going
> on (in hindsight) to keep mum.

It was very obvious that 3985 had been made inoperable
in 2011 by the removal of a lot of parts and the superheater
units, which had already been tested and passed. A couple
of years later, the superheater units were scrapped. There
was no intention of ever operating 3985 after the runs it
made in 2010, for no reason other than personal preference
and a lot of BS.



>
> I went out of the way to catch the 3985 couple of
> times in 2008 and 2010, and am glad I did - carpe
> diem to the max. No urgency for me to worry about
> the 3985 right now, thanks to information from
> various sources on its current fate - let's see
> what happens after 2019.

This one? -sniff -

---

Yeah,

THAT ONE!!!!!


W.

You know, it may be that the cost of keeping 3, count em, three operating engines available is just to much money, especially when they operate a limited number of days a year.

tomstp Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You know, it may be that the cost of keeping 3,
> count em, three operating engines available is
> just to much money, especially when they operate a
> limited number of days a year.

That same question would have had a different answer back in 2010, or not even worth asking, especially with a good number of Big Boys already on display around the country. Besides, there were more graceful ways to "temporarily retire" the 3985 to promote the 4014. I don't recall anyone "over-testing" and then removing the superheater tubes out of the N&W 611, for example?

A more dignified approach would have been to let 3985 participate in the 150th Anniversary of UP back in 2012, then mothball it on a "high note."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/15/17 08:58 by cchan006.

tomstp Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You know, it may be that the cost of keeping 3,
> count em, three operating engines available is
> just to much money, especially when they operate a
> limited number of days a year.

Stop and think about what you just posted. There was no good reason at all to obtain 4014, when they already had two EXCELLENT operational steam locomotives, i.e. 3985 and 844. Any additional costs involved with "keeping 3, count em, three operating engines available" was NEVER a consideration, especial since the current manager couldn't even keep 844 "operational" anyway. There was NEVER any "plan" to maintain 3985 operational after Steve Lee retired, at the end of 2010.

The picture shows it all. One can see that 3985 should be operating anymore and why the last crew should be reprimaded--the boiler isn't even centered. No wonder it had to go into the shop.

And why use a perfectly operational locomotive that can go most places when we can spend a ton restoring a loco that has an even more limited operational range? These two extra driving axles will definately be noticed by the public and press. I mean really; look how little attention it got by the media and public and how rare the words "worlds largest operating steam locomotive" was in news stories. 

But what the hell do I know...

The Big Boy is going to present a lot of problems not experienced when the 3985 ran, but as said,
what do I know.

Out

I think they were built that way. The 3977 in Cody park looks just like it! LOL!
I am just thankful I got to be around the 3985 for 20 years and saw it run a lot in 9 different States.
Thank You Steve,Bob and Lynn and the rest of the 1990-2010 crew for that.
Steve

Inthehole Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The picture shows it all. One can see that 3985
> should be operating anymore and why the last crew
> should be reprimaded--the boiler isn't even
> centered. No wonder it had to go into the shop.
>



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/15/17 20:29 by wpjones.

She looks so amazing with the smoke lifters!

---

Has Kim Jong Dickens given any detail about the conversion to oil? The 4005 conversion, which followed conventional practice, was not entirely successful as it steamed very well but "the single burner caused spot heating on the huge crown sheet which in turn, caused it to leak. Every trip was the same -- when you looked in the firebox it was like a rainstorm, with water pouring down so fast that it almost extinguished the fire!" (From the Kratville book)

filmteknik Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Has Kim Jong Dickens given any detail about the
> conversion to oil? The 4005 conversion, which
> followed conventional practice, was not entirely
> successful as it steamed very well but "the single
> burner caused spot heating on the huge crown sheet
> which in turn, caused it to leak. Every trip was
> the same -- when you looked in the firebox it was
> like a rainstorm, with water pouring down so fast
> that it almost extinguished the fire!" (From the
> Kratville book)

Again, to clarify that "Kratville quote", such staybolt leakage problems were ONLY a problem in the early conversion. Once additional firebrick was installed, and the single burner PROPERLY aligned, then she steamed very well, and the staybolt issues stopped. For what it's worth, poor 844 began exhibiting the same staybolt leakage issues when the current manager stopped using the reprocessed waste oil and switched to #2 diesel fuel (which he was advised NOT to do by quite a number of people knowledgeable of such things).