Steam & Excursion > Older UP Challengers

   We often see posted shots of the later series UP 4-6-6-4 Challengers, and rightly so.  Here's a couple of shots from the Nolan Black collection of two od the so-called "Sellers" series Challengers.

1.  The "class" engine of the series is captured by Guy Dunscomb at Ogden, Utah.  October, 1938.

2.  There is no information on this shot other than the date of May 14, 1940.  I believe this is a Railroad Boosters or Pacific Railroad Society trip, and the location is Yermo, Calif.

   Thanks for looking.

Brian Black
Castle Rock, CO

---

---

Not 100% positive, but weren't those called "Fetters" after the guy that came up with the concept, or was that a different design? Cool photos!

Cheers, Dave

I had to look it up!  A.H. Fetters was CMO of UP when the FEF-1's and the first Challengers were designed and built, hence the reference. He was assisted by Otto Jabelmann who succeeded him as CMO or Motive Power Design Chief, and subsequently improved upon the initial designs and is responsible for 3985 and 844...and 4014, btw...



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/22/22 20:44 by Hillcrest.

The Excursion Record in the Railroad Society's publication, Fifty Years of Railroading In Southern California 1936 -- 1986, shows Excursion [Number] 27 -- April 14, 1940 -- Railfan's Rodeo -- [Destination] Yermo -- UP 3935 & Challenger cars.

OCV

Hillcrest Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Not 100% positive, but weren't those called
> "Fetters" after the guy that came up with the
> concept, or was that a different design? Cool
> photos!
>
> Chhers, Dave

I believe you are correct, as the term "Sellers" is just the name of a suppler of injectors and exhaust team injectors, i.e. nothing to do with the design of the 4-6-6-4 steam locomotive.

Neat portraits! Always liked the racy yet imposing look of these first Challengers, very impressive machines.

An amazing "pioneer" design....
These were true successes as a first concept class.
There's a lot of 'original', first time engineering experiments ...
all worked very well together.   

First time developments rarely work-out when so many are included
in the 'new' locomotives.   In this class the success of the combined, original
engineering leaps is awe-inspiring.  For that era, the driver diameter is notable---
and a key component to its high-horsepower capability.   Look at how clumsy
the earlier 4-12-2 design looks compared to this class... and the 4-12-2s were never
capable of comparable horsepower.

Yes, the later version Challengers were better,  but the First Challengers, like these pics,
are truly remarkable for their ability to go to work right-away, just out of the factory, as a
whole class and a brand-new, successful design. 

Astounding class of locos....grandfather to the Big Boys..
A bigger achievement than the  Timken 4-ACES.... too bad that the Challenger design teams,
both at Alco and the UPRR, will forever be lost to the ages.  

There were so many pioneering locomotive designs that should have been saved...
virtually all were scrapped.  This class was conceived and 'totally built' on the drawing boards,
with manual drafting tools, tees & triangles, and slide-rules---- all before the first casting pattern
was started.

Every complex accessory had its own array of drawings for each of its component parts...
It existed in drawings, 100%. !!!  

Frames, cylinders, boiler. oil burner, articulated steam delivery-pipes --- everything----
was laid out, approved, revised and superceeded.   There were 1,000's of original
drawings that had to be completed before construction could begin.
WOW.

​W.

not proofed yet



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 06/22/22 17:53 by wcamp1472.

Hillcrest Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Not 100% positive, but weren't those called
> "Fetters" after the guy that came up with the
> concept, or was that a different design? Cool
> photos!
>
> Chhers, Dave

I think you are correct.

Brian

Posted from iPhone

Those locomotives visually are "just enough", a 4000 ruins the image.

Out 

tehachcond wrote of the second photo:

>  I believe this is a Railroad Boosters or Pacific Railroad Society trip, and the location is Yermo, Calif.

Railroad Boosters trip.  Railroad Boosters didn't change their name to Pacific Railroad Society until 1949.

The excursion included tours of the San Bernardino, Barstow and Yermo roundhouses.
 



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/22/22 19:44 by johnsweetser.

You've said it totally Wes!  Like the "chick out of its shell", each and every component had to commence from the engineering drawing, drawn with the tools as you said, and through its various stages.  Such beautiful engines without the later smoke lifters that ruined that entire boiler profile, but no doubt helped dissapate some smoke at times.

wcamp1472 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> An amazing "pioneer" design....
> These were true successes as a first concept
> class.
> There's a lot of 'original', first time
> engineering experiments ...
> all worked very well together.   
>
> First time developments rarely work-out when so
> many are included
> in the 'new' locomotives.   In this class the
> success of the combined, original
> engineering leaps is awe-inspiring.  For that
> era, the driver diameter is notable---
> and a key component to its high-horsepower
> capability.   Look at how clumsy
> the earlier 4-12-2 design looks compared to this
> class... and the 4-12-2s were never
> capable of comparable horsepower.
>
> Yes, the later version Challengers were better,
>  but the First Challengers, like these pics,
> are truly remarkable for their ability to go to
> work right-away, just out of the factory, as a
> whole class and a brand-new, successful design. 
>
> Astounding class of locos....grandfather to the
> Big Boys..
> A bigger achievement than the  Timken 4-ACES....
> too bad that the Challenger design teams,
> both at Alco and the UPRR, will forever be lost
> to the ages.  
>
> There were so many pioneering locomotive designs
> that should have been saved...
> virtually all were scrapped.  This class was
> conceived and 'totally built' on the drawing
> boards,
> with manual drafting tools, tees & triangles, and
> slide-rules---- all before the first casting
> pattern
> was started.
>
> Every complex accessory had its own array of
> drawings for each of its component parts...
> It existed in drawings, 100%. !!!  
>
> Frames, cylinders, boiler. oil burner, articulated
> steam delivery-pipes --- everything----
> was laid out, approved, revised and superceeded.
>   There were 1,000's of original
> drawings that had to be completed before
> construction could begin.
> WOW.
>
> ​W.
>
> not proofed yet

The early series in my opinion were the best looking of all UP locomotives. The 3806 along with BB 4013 were 'set aside' in a different part of the Cheyenne yard from the rest of the remaining engines waithing to be scrapped in 1962. I really thought someone wanted them to be retained but both were scrapped the next year.

Tom

I agree, callum! Superb proportions and lines.

These engines look better than the later Challengers.  One reason (for me) is the way the cylinders are hung, tilting outward.  Really adds to the look and "sense of speed."

The valves are farther outboard on the early 4-6-6-4s?
Why?
 

It brings the center-line of the valve bushing ( the ported tube that carries the spool valve),
in-line ( vertically) with the Walschaert curved-link ( reversing link)  and the 'combination lever" ( connects the
piston rod to the valve stem) ---at the centerline of the spool valve bushing.

Also, the main cylinders' center lines are moved closer to the wheel-hub outer face.
Its another way to describe the fact that the crankpins can be much shorter, and less stout.
You'd want short crankpins to lessen the ( break-off) forces on the crankpins.  
The closer to the wheel-hub, the more force gets applied more directly to the wheels.

The 3 drive axles ( per cylinder-set) allow the main rods to be closer to the wheel hubs...

So, the cylinders appear tilted because they designed to apply the power ( thrust) forces closer to
the same vertical-plane as the wheel hubs.

​W.

Question is, why would the later 4-6-6-4s have
a different spacing than the first ones?