Steam & Excursion > Just a modern "Diesel in Disguise" Idea for UP Steam Excursions

Yes Crazy, Just for Fun, For all the purist out there who are bothered by the hidiouse sight of the modern day diesel in the consist of 4014 Steam Excursion.

How about a E7-b type unit that is UP yellow, but kind of like the modern day Power Car, that is ever present in the passenger consist, but is actually a prime mover, with crew and such, but doesn't look like an everyday modern diesel?

Is there to protect the power needs and dynamic braking, meets all the FRA and Railroad Standards, but blends in with the rest of the 1940's look?

All it takes is imagination and most of all, funding $$$$$$?????

Otherwise, we will have to live with a Diesel in the consist.

Jim Baker
Riverside, CA



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 07/12/19 20:32 by RailRat.

They already have one and it was used in atleast one of the Denver Post trains. It was simply controlled by the remote box in the cab of the Steamer. It's the 963B
Steve

Unfortunately the A-B-A set of E's are land locked in Cheyenne. When they did the contamination site remediation around the turntable, few of the whisker tracks got replaced and reconnected. This also includes the 6936 and 3985 too.

Bob Krieger
Cheyenne, WY

Great idea. But it has to be an idea by the steam team, so the boys in Omaha can fund it. None of the heritage stuff from the Lee era, must be their own creation



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/12/19 09:23 by CPRR.

Amtrak AMD's are going to start becoming surplus.  They would look great painted UP yellow--almost look like baggage cars anyway. 
 

As long as the said Diesel can't blow its horn I'm all for it. Why is the Diesel in the current 4014 consist blowing it's whistle so often? They see a photograher or anyone on the side of the tracks and they are letting off. More than the 4014. I really don't get that as it drowns the already minimal stack talk the 4014 puts out. 



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/12/19 11:34 by Xander24.

Bob3985 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Unfortunately the A-B-A set of E's are land locked
> in Cheyenne. When they did the contamination site
> remediation around the turntable, few of the
> whisker tracks got replaced and reconnected. This
> also includes the 6936 and 3985 too.

Didn't know that, Very Interesting....but Schtupid!!!

Jim Baker
Riverside, CA

---

They must have done that on purpose now they have an excuse not to run that equipment.

Posted from Android

When Clinchfield #1 ran it always had it's "baggage cars" EMD B-Units in the consist.

When BCR ran it's  ex-Royal Hudson #2860 on it's cross Canada tour, years ago CP painted 2 B-units in tuscan in order to make them less obtrusive.

There's a thing called a "SPUD" which I think is by Northwest Short Line...
oh wait, wrong Forum.
 

RailRat Wrote:
 Very Interesting....but  Schtupid!!!

Haha, I see nothing, I hear nothing.

Bob Krieger
Cheyenne, WY

Now you're getting your TV comedy Germans mixed up... not even the same network!

Bless Rowan and Martin's '70s Laugh-In show...and Hogan's Heroes! 8^)).

What annoys the purists more: a) an obvious diesel in the consist or b) adding PTC to a steam engine.

My personal preference would be to add PTC to the steam engines. Even though a purist would not consider that "original equipment", having PTC on the steam engine would eliminate one of the excuses for needing a diesel in the consist. As for having a protect engine - how about making the steam engine reliable enough that no protection is needed. Especially on the recent trains where there were two steam engines.

There is nothing better than seeing a single engine pulling a decent size train. Even if it a single diesel. Perhaps some day the UP will be at that level with their program.

justalurker66 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What annoys the purists more: a) an obvious diesel
> in the consist or b) adding PTC to a steam
> engine.
>
> My personal preference would be to add PTC to the
> steam engines. Even though a purist would not
> consider that "original equipment", having PTC on
> the steam engine would eliminate one of the
> excuses for needing a diesel in the consist. As
> for having a protect engine - how about making the
> steam engine reliable enough that no protection is
> needed. Especially on the recent trains where
> there were two steam engines.

Hmm.  PTC has absolutely nothing to do with a protection diesel.  The PTC functions on that diesel are cut out and inoperable,  as PTC has to be engaged and functioning on whichever locomoitve has its air brakes cut in.  In almost all cases the lead locomotive.

>
> There is nothing better than seeing a single
> engine pulling a decent size train. Even if it a
> single diesel. Perhaps some day the UP will be at
> that level with their program.

That may be your personal opinion.  Mine is exactly opposite.  In todays world, with diesels, if you only have one motor, then you either have a relatively small train or you are underpowered.  Neither of which I enjoy.

As has been stated innumerable times by others more qualified than me:  Let us not forget the primary need for protection power, dynamic braking.  Were not living in the 1950's anymore.  Todays class ones consider air brakes to be a SECONDARY means of braking.  They want dynamic braking, the PRIMARY braking method, to be used to its fullest extent possible, and the rules state this.  Unitl we find a way to install dynamic braking on steam (haha), diesels will always find a way into present day steam consists.  Get over it.

UnitAlarm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ... diesels will always find a way into present day steam consists.

No, they won't. That will only occur with railroads who don't know how to operate their steam engines (and those afraid to operate them correctly).

UnitAlarm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> justalurker66 Wrote (in part):
> --------------------------------------------------

> As has been stated innumerable times by others
> more qualified than me:  Let us not forget the
> primary need for protection power, dynamic
> braking.  Were not living in the 1950's anymore.
>  Todays class ones consider air brakes to be a
> SECONDARY means of braking.  They want dynamic
> braking, the PRIMARY braking method, to be used to
> its fullest extent possible, and the rules state
> this. 

I've noticed in many 4014 videos that the trailing unit sounds to be in dynamic braking mode.  

Tom Coughlin
Stow, MA

justalurker66 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> UnitAlarm Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > ... diesels will always find a way into present
> day steam consists.
>
> No, they won't. That will only occur with
> railroads who don't know how to operate their
> steam engines (and those afraid to operate them
> correctly).

Ok. Maybe you would be happier if UP4014 was still a rusting static display. 
Steam locomotives were replaced for a reason. Duh. UP has shown great courage for continuing it's steam program, especially given the fact no other Class One carrier is doing the same. What does that tell you?
Diesels are there for a reason, including protection required to move a locomotive off the mainline if it fails so as to not interfere with the freight traffic that pays for the steam locomotive program. Steam locomotives failed where they were in regular operation, even on roads where they received excellent care. A diesel is far more reliable. 
So, perhaps you could get a position on the Board of Directors of UP and offer your solutions to their appearent sloppy steam loco maintenance. 

ATSF3751 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> justalurker66 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > UnitAlarm Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > ... diesels will always find a way into
> present
> > day steam consists.
> >
> > No, they won't. That will only occur with
> > railroads who don't know how to operate their
> > steam engines (and those afraid to operate them
> > correctly).
>
> Ok. Maybe you would be happier if UP4014 was still
> a rusting static display. 
> Steam locomotives were replaced for a reason. Duh.
> UP has shown great courage for continuing it's
> steam program, especially given the fact no other
> Class One carrier is doing the same. What does
> that tell you?
> Diesels are there for a reason, including
> protection required to move a locomotive off the
> mainline if it fails so as to not interfere with
> the freight traffic that pays for the steam
> locomotive program.

Well, actually in the "modern excursion era" the main line steam locomotives have tended to be more reliable than any of the diesels. There really isn't THAT much that can prevent any of the modern, currently operating, main line steam locomotives from reaching the next siding or junction to "get out of the way".

Steam locomotives failed where
> they were in regular operation, even on roads
> where they received excellent care. A diesel is
> far more reliable. 

Again, not quite true in the "modern excursion era".

> So, perhaps you could get a position on the Board
> of Directors of UP and offer your solutions to
> their appearent sloppy steam loco maintenance. 

Are you referring to those "issues" that hampered operations of UP 844, beginning in 2011?

HotWater Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ATSF3751 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > justalurker66 Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > UnitAlarm Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > ... diesels will always find a way into
> > present
> > > day steam consists.
> > >
> > > No, they won't. That will only occur with
> > > railroads who don't know how to operate their
> > > steam engines (and those afraid to operate
> them
> > > correctly).
> >
> > Ok. Maybe you would be happier if UP4014 was
> still
> > a rusting static display. 
> > Steam locomotives were replaced for a reason.
> Duh.
> > UP has shown great courage for continuing it's
> > steam program, especially given the fact no
> other
> > Class One carrier is doing the same. What does
> > that tell you?
> > Diesels are there for a reason, including
> > protection required to move a locomotive off
> the
> > mainline if it fails so as to not interfere
> with
> > the freight traffic that pays for the steam
> > locomotive program.
>
> Well, actually in the "modern excursion era" the
> main line steam locomotives have tended to be more
> reliable than any of the diesels. There really
> isn't THAT much that can prevent any of the
> modern, currently operating, main line steam
> locomotives from reaching the next siding or
> junction to "get out of the way".

Nope. Just ain't so. Most road freights have enough power to move if one unit fails. That is why single loco road freights are rare. They tend to keep moving even if one fails. 
>
> Steam locomotives failed where
> > they were in regular operation, even on roads
> > where they received excellent care. A diesel is
> > far more reliable. 
>
> Again, not quite true in the "modern excursion
> era".

You appearently were not travelling with the 4449 through Arizona when the tender separated from the locomotive. There are other examples.
>
> > So, perhaps you could get a position on the
> Board
> > of Directors of UP and offer your solutions to
> > their appearent sloppy steam loco
> maintenance. 
>
> Are you referring to those "issues" that hampered
> operations of UP 844, beginning in 2011?

You seem to be all knowing and ready with solutions. Of course, hindsight is a perfect science.