Steam & Excursion > Is TRAINS encouraging use of a diesel in Big Boy consist?

Received the latest (May) issue of TRAINS today.  To me it was disappointing that on page 40-41 they seemed to be encouraging the inclusion of a diesel in the consist when 4014 moves under steam.  844 moved around much of the UP system in 2017 without diesel assistance, and 611 moved long consists on steep grades over important lines on the NS on her own in recent years.  It's nice to know for sure when a steam train passes that steam is actually moving the train.
 

Amen, Lou!!

Bill Deaver
Tehachapi, CA

I think that’s a great idea.  If the 4014 isn’t ready the 119 would be a great substitute.

JB - Omaha

LTCerny Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Received the latest (May) issue of TRAINS today. 
> To me it was disappointing that on page 40-41 they
> seemed to be encouraging the inclusion of a diesel
> in the consist when 4014 moves under steam.  844
> moved around much of the UP system in 2017 without
> diesel assistance, and 611 moved long consists on
> steep grades over important lines on the NS on her
> own in recent years.  It's nice to know for sure
> when a steam train passes that steam is actually
> moving the train.
>  

844 was/is a known item with many years of regular service. 4014 will essentially be new to everyone who runs it, so the chance of a problem would seem to be greater. It might be good sense for the first few runs to be operated with a diesel helper until all of the potential break in issues are known and worked out. Stuff happens. Nothing like a broken down steam locomotive that blocks rail traffic to give fodder to those member of the board who may view such excursions as nonsense. Programs such as this may be one serious breakdown or accident away from cancellation. 
We fans often forget that UP's primary mission is to earn money through it's transportation services, and not as a provider of railfan experiences. 

I for one will laugh if most of the work 4014 makes to Ogden is mostly by the diesel!

They could apply the diesel locomotive's dynamic brakes as a means to increase the workload for the 4014.  Give her some real work during the shake down period.  That would be better than just a few passenger cars.

radar Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They could apply the diesel locomotive's dynamic
> brakes as a means to increase the workload for the
> 4014.  Give her some real work during the shake
> down period.  That would be better than just a
> few passenger cars.

But,,,,,,,,,what if there is no "shake down period"? The "break-in test run" may very well be the trip to Ogden, UT.

Has that happened before, the break in run is the excursion itself?

on the UP not that I know of. When the 3985 pulled the APL train they were still learning but it had been to LaSalle and back first.
Steve

ProAmtrak Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Has that happened before, the break in run is the
> excursion itself?

It might not hurt to have an engine behind 4014 to give it something to work against?

Joe

ATSF3751 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> LTCerny Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Received the latest (May) issue of TRAINS
> today. 
> > To me it was disappointing that on page 40-41
> they
> > seemed to be encouraging the inclusion of a
> diesel
> > in the consist when 4014 moves under steam. 
> 844
> > moved around much of the UP system in 2017
> without
> > diesel assistance, and 611 moved long consists
> on
> > steep grades over important lines on the NS on
> her
> > own in recent years.  It's nice to know for
> sure
> > when a steam train passes that steam is
> actually
> > moving the train.
> >  
>
> 844 was/is a known item with many years of regular
> service. 4014 will essentially be new to everyone
> who runs it, so the chance of a problem would seem
> to be greater. It might be good sense for the
> first few runs to be operated with a diesel helper
> until all of the potential break in issues are
> known and worked out. Stuff happens. Nothing like
> a broken down steam locomotive that blocks rail
> traffic to give fodder to those member of the
> board who may view such excursions as nonsense.
> Programs such as this may be one serious breakdown
> or accident away from cancellation. 
> We fans often forget that UP's primary mission is
> to earn money through it's transportation
> services, and not as a provider of railfan
> experiences. 

ATSF 3751 your comments are spot on. 

And $13M later it needs a diesel, uh huh.

Out

ATSF is spot-on with him comments.  It is the smart move for the long term future on the steam program.  But I do hope that when my son and I are in Wyoming in May, the diesel goes by us in idle..........

ProAmtrak Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Has that happened before, the break in run is the
> excursion itself?

Been there done that myself on a few shortlines. But I know we aren't talking about shortline operation here. A resourceful and savvy crew can save an excursion that's a break in run as long as it's not a catastrophic problem, without a whole lot of delay.

Posted from Android

I'm impressed no one was called out for wanting too much and not simply
being happy that an operable Big Boy will be leading an excursion - maybe
the rules are different for Union Pacific trains.

But, I certainly agree!

Suppose they could always have a diesel nearby for backup - believe that
was the plan with C&O 614, unless the diesel was strictly to clear the track
ahead.

Only the lawyers want to see a net under the high wire at the circus.

No complaints either way, that's for sure - y'know, unless they put big flags
on the point  ; )

/Mitch

To all of you complainers out here; be darn glad that the Union Pacific is restoring this locomotive period.  As someone above stated: this railroad company is in business to make money and they do NOT have to put a steam locomotive out here for all the rail fans.  Stop complaining!  Just be glad to have this engine running with a diesel for back up.  Live with it and be happy.  Who would have ever dreamed that one of the largest steam locomotives long retired would be in operation again in 2019.  We have no mainline steam here in the Baltimore area.
John in White Marsh, Maryland

The Big Boy hooked up to a Centennial would look pretty cool for a couple of reasons.  Dan

Look people...if you HAVE a damn diesel spoiling this once in a lifetime event, have it run 1-mile ahead of the Big Boy as protection, to go back and get her on radio instructions. Don’t ruin this even’t to see and hear a working Big Boy.  I remember 614 running on NJTransit back in the 1990’s with protection diesels running ahead of the train. Don’t turn this into a...”locomotives thru the years cavalcade”.  I think anyone who thinks a diesel in the consist “is really cool”, must be a Johnny come lately kid, that hasn’t been around shooting steam for long. There will be plenty of opportunities to shoot the Big Boy with the Centennial diesel later. For now...let’s just have the first Big Boy to assault Sherman Hill in 60 years, in its purist form.

ProAmtrak Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Has that happened before, the break in run is the
> excursion itself?

Yes, sort-of. The current manager at Cheyenne went down to the wire, so to speak, on his very first year, i.e. 2011. After tightening up all the rod bearing clearances on 844, by the time everything was finished, there wasn't time for a break-in run down to Colorado. The first day out of Cheyenne, eastbound to North Platte, there was lots of freight train "congestion", with lots of stop-and-go, with slow running. After the over-night stay in North Platte, the second day was lots of fast running, until the rod brasses overheated. All night work at Marysville, KS, the more overheated brasses, and lots of stop-and-go to Kansas City. 

 

Awful lot of bitching here for something we're getting for free.