Steam & Excursion > UP 4014 into Portland someday?

As we get closer to seeing the UP 4014 return to steam I had a thought. Will it be able to negotiate the curve onto the Steel Bridge in Portland? The 3985 was able to do it so will the 4014 do it? The curve by the wye just south of there is also pretty tight so would that curve prevent it from at least making it to Albania Yard?
I don't know if the UP would even consider a run to Portland but if the answer to the questions above is no then Oregonians shouldn't get their hopes up.

If not, that's OK. Along with the 4449 and 700 we have a bunch of operational steam locos within a few hours drive in multiple directions. So I guess there is no reason to whine.

wingomann Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As we get closer to seeing the UP 4014 return to
> steam I had a thought. Will it be able to
> negotiate the curve onto the Steel Bridge in
> Portland? The 3985 was able to do it so will the
> 4014 do it? The curve by the wye just south of
> there is also pretty tight so would that curve
> prevent it from at least making it to Albania
> Yard?
> I don't know if the UP would even consider a run
> to Portland but if the answer to the questions
> above is no then Oregonians shouldn't get their
> hopes up.
>
> If not, that's OK. Along with the 4449 and 700 we
> have a bunch of operational steam locos within a
> few hours drive in multiple directions. So I
> guess there is no reason to whine.


No. 4014 cannot get close to the Steel Bridge, and
neither did 3985.

According to ED Dickens, the 4014 actually has a tighter minimum radius than the UP 844. He added that he had done some clearance studies with the UP system and believes it can be run virtually anywhere.

Posted from iPhone

> No. 4014 cannot get close to the Steel Bridge,
> and
> neither did 3985.

Didn't 3985 pass through there in 2005? It had to get from the Brooklyn sub to Albina somehow.

Posted from Android

A-1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > No. 4014 cannot get close to the Steel Bridge,
> > and
> > neither did 3985.
>
> Didn't 3985 pass through there in 2005? It had to
> get from the Brooklyn sub to Albina somehow.


She did NOT go over the Steel Bridge, but turned right, and went around behind those huge grain elevators and into Albina Yard,

Looking through some old posts on TO it looks like the problem for the 3985 was the tender not the engine. I guess when you see old pictures of Challengers in Portland they are the older ones that do not have the Centipede tender. For the 4014 could they use the Kenton line and come into Albania from the north?

wingomann Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Looking through some old posts on TO it looks like
> the problem for the 3985 was the tender not the
> engine. I guess when you see old pictures of
> Challengers in Portland they are the older ones
> that do not have the Centipede tender. For the
> 4014 could they use the Kenton line and come into
> Albania from the north?

Then they would have to back out through the tunnel, wye the whole consist, and then proceed eastward up the Columbia River Gorge.

As has been said over and over and over again, the issue is not just
the locomotives.

Of the three, 3985 can handle the sharpest curvature, followed by 4014
and then 844.

NOTE that his applies ONLY to forward movement. When it comes to backing
up (reverse movements) all three are the same, and are MUCH more restricted
in maximum curvature than in forward movement. This is, indeed, due to the
centipede tenders.

There are ways to help this situation somewhat, but not enough to make a
big difference.

It pays to know what degree of curve and what number of turnout you are going
to use, no matter whether going forward or backward, but it becomes much
more important and critical when backing up.

Any of the three can easily run forward through a curve that they could never
begin to negotiate backing up.

Some people don't believe that until they learn it the hard way.

I am not sure about the steel bridge curve. Albina would be a go and they could turn at St. John's Junction like we did in the past. Or they can come in using the Graham line I think and out the other line.

Bob Krieger
Cheyenne, WY

wingomann Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Looking through some old posts on TO it looks like
> the problem for the 3985 was the tender not the
> engine. I guess when you see old pictures of
> Challengers in Portland they are the older ones
> that do not have the Centipede tender. For the
> 4014 could they use the Kenton line and come into
> Albania from the north?

Thanks you answered my thought from earlier. In the Kenton line and out the Graham.
Yes, you are correct in that the tenders are usually the issue for derailments.
The older challengers did indeed have two 6 wheel trucks under them.
And thanks to Jack and realist for helping explain the perils of centipede tenders.

Bob Krieger
Cheyenne, WY



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/25/18 15:38 by Bob3985.

OK, I have what is probably one of the dumbest and most blasphemous ideas ever - but it could work. Isn't the auxiliary water tenders made from old Challenger or FEF-1 tenders? Maybe UP should convert one back to being a fuel/water tender for use in situations where the centipedes cause problems. I know, the current locomotives never used that type of tender but it could open doors to more operations.

wingomann Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> OK, I have what is probably one of the dumbest and
> most blasphemous ideas ever - but it could work.
> Isn't the auxiliary water tenders made from old
> Challenger or FEF-1 tenders? Maybe UP should
> convert one back to being a fuel/water tender for
> use in situations where the centipedes cause
> problems. I know, the current locomotives never
> used that type of tender but it could open doors
> to more operations.


Personally I don't think that the steam crew has THAT sort of time to waste fiddle f#$%ing around changing tenders! Especially after both auxiliary water tends have been COMPLETELY rebuilt for all water.

According to Kratville's 'The Challenger Locomotives', in pictures and text, 3900/3700 Challengers worked passenger trains to both Portland and Seattle. Two toned paint jobs were specifically for this service and must have run over the steel bridge through Vancouver, WA.

Tom

UP3806 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> According to Kratville's 'The Challenger
> Locomotives', in pictures and text, 3900/3700
> Challengers worked passenger trains to both
> Portland and Seattle. Two toned paint jobs were
> specifically for this service and must have run
> over the steel bridge through Vancouver, WA.
>
> Tom

Well no, as the UP didn't run to Vancouver, WA. Plus, that "Steel Bridge" is in Portland, OR.

Again, according to Kratville, Challengers were used between Portland and Seattle on the 'pool' trains. They would have to go across the steel bridge spanning the Columbia River between Portland, OR and Vancouver, WA. Is this not the same 'steel bridge' being discussed?

Tom

The bridge at Vancouver is generally referred to as the "Columbia Draw."

The Steel Bridge, as mentioned, connects Portland west of the Willamette River (including Union Station) to east Portland where Albina (not "Albania") Yard are. Some of the tightest curves on the UP mainline are between the foot of the Sullivan's Gulch route, the Graham Line, and Albina Yard.

Thanks for the clarification.

I had a thought concerning the centipede tenders. Again quoting from Kratville, the 820 series tenders had lateral movement on axles 3, 4, 5 and 6 of 1-1/2" and on axle 7 only 1/2". If all the centipedes had this specification, would it be possible to have more lateral movement incorporated into the remaining tenders to possibly allow them to better negotiate tight turns?

Tom

UP3806 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thanks for the clarification.
>
> I had a thought concerning the centipede tenders.
> Again quoting from Kratville, the 820 series
> tenders had lateral movement on axles 3, 4, 5 and
> 6 of 1-1/2" and on axle 7 only 1/2". If all the
> centipedes had this specification, would it be
> possible to have more lateral movement
> incorporated into the remaining tenders to
> possibly allow them to better negotiate tight
> turns?
>
> Tom


As previously posted, above by Realist, the REAL ISSUE with those pedestal type tenders is , reverse movements. Thus, backing up from the Albina roundhouse area, around the curve behind the grain elevators, and then onto the steel bridge & into Portland Union Station, would have been the major problem. Thus, when the UP passenger mountain type locomotives could no longer handle the increasing passenger loads, and the 800 class FEF locomotives could not safely negotiate those curves, the 4-6-6-4 Challengers were converted to oil burning, and successfully handled that passenger service.

I certainly agree that the pedestal part of the tenders has always been the Achilles Heel for UP big steam trying to go around wyes backward. Do you think increasing the lateral play of axle 7 would help to alleviate this problem? Is it a not-possible modification or a completely inane idea with no merit?

Incidentally, my first post was in reply to wingomann's assertion that only CSA Challengers ran to Portland. Also, I believe that UP does have trackage rights through Vancouver even though it is extremely unlikely that a Big Boy would ever be allowed to run there.

Tom

I suspect that backing up through tight curves may have been a consideration in the design of centipede tenders but those thoughts were secondary to tracking well going forward at track speed. They would be unlikely to introduce more lateral movement for the sake of one terminal move.

I remember the crew wyeing the 3985 at Laramie on one excursion from Cheyenne and being exceedingly careful about the process.