Steam & Excursion > 844 plans

Does anyone know Edgar's plan is for 844?  Haven't seen it in action for 4-5 years now or more.  I keep seeing 4014 plans and tours but 844 goes nowhere.

 



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/16/24 08:40 by CO1309.

It is likely that Union Pacific wants to get some return on the huge investment that was made on 4014.  In addition, there seems to be some marketing drive behind the Big Boy's Largest ever, hype.  It gets way more headlines and traction among the masses, when it runs. compared to 844.   The 4-8-4 is in good shape, but not the bell of the ball, at this point in time, despite being "The Living Legend."  While Ed gets his orders from the corporate office, in terms of authorized use of the steam program, 4014 returned to service under his guidance.  844 is a legacy piece--whether or not Ed's preference regarding locomotive choice is a factor at all, is unclear.  We should see 844 out and about when 4014 is either unavailable or an inappropriate choice due to its size and speed. 

g-spotter1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It is likely that Union Pacific wants to get some
> return on the huge investment that was made on
> 4014.  In addition, there seems to be some
> marketing drive behind the Big Boy's Largest ever,
> hype.  It gets way more headlines and traction
> among the masses, when it runs. compared to 844.
>   The 4-8-4 is in good shape, but not the bell of
> the ball, at this point in time, despite being
> "The Living Legend."  While Ed gets his orders
> from the corporate office, in terms of authorized
> use of the steam program, 4014 returned to service
> under his guidance.  844 is a legacy
> piece--whether or not Ed's preference regarding
> locomotive choice is a factor at all, is
> unclear.  We should see 844 out and about when
> 4014 is either unavailable or an inappropriate
> choice due to its size and speed. 

Except,,,,,,,,,,,,,,844 should soon (2025?) be due for her FRA mandated 15 year boiler re-certification. The really big question then becomes, will UP management spend the money for that re-certification?

It's a hangar queen dust collector....

CO1309 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Does anyone know Edgar's plan is for 844? 
> Haven't seen it in action for 4-5 years now or
> more.  I keep seeing 4014 plans and tours but 844
> goes nowhere.
>
>  

they were working on it this spring, he wants to run it when asked

HotWater Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> g-spotter1 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > It is likely that Union Pacific wants to get
> some
> > return on the huge investment that was made on
> > 4014.  In addition, there seems to be some
> > marketing drive behind the Big Boy's Largest
> ever,
> > hype.  It gets way more headlines and traction
> > among the masses, when it runs. compared to
> 844.
> >   The 4-8-4 is in good shape, but not the bell
> of
> > the ball, at this point in time, despite being
> > "The Living Legend."  While Ed gets his orders
> > from the corporate office, in terms of
> authorized
> > use of the steam program, 4014 returned to
> service
> > under his guidance.  844 is a legacy
> > piece--whether or not Ed's preference regarding
> > locomotive choice is a factor at all, is
> > unclear.  We should see 844 out and about when
> > 4014 is either unavailable or an inappropriate
> > choice due to its size and speed. 
>
> Except,,,,,,,,,,,,,,844 should soon (2025?) be due
> for her FRA mandated 15 year boiler
> re-certification. The really big question then
> becomes, will UP management spend the money for
> that re-certification?

Let's not forget about the investment they put into 844 for the 2016 rebuild. Wonder what the R.O.I. is on that??

You raise an excellent question, if they don't spend the money for the
re-certification will the 844 then be a candidate for donation to silvis?

hard for UP to field any trips they are so short staffed, as we found out with PNW cancellation

PSR and timely trains  is hard to mix, unless you are Hunter Harrison or the group trying to tell NS how to run their railroad



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/16/24 12:25 by dan.

bankshotone Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> HotWater Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > g-spotter1 Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > It is likely that Union Pacific wants to get
> > some
> > > return on the huge investment that was made
> on
> > > 4014.  In addition, there seems to be some
> > > marketing drive behind the Big Boy's Largest
> > ever,
> > > hype.  It gets way more headlines and
> traction
> > > among the masses, when it runs. compared to
> > 844.
> > >   The 4-8-4 is in good shape, but not the
> bell
> > of
> > > the ball, at this point in time, despite
> being
> > > "The Living Legend."  While Ed gets his
> orders
> > > from the corporate office, in terms of
> > authorized
> > > use of the steam program, 4014 returned to
> > service
> > > under his guidance.  844 is a legacy
> > > piece--whether or not Ed's preference
> regarding
> > > locomotive choice is a factor at all, is
> > > unclear.  We should see 844 out and about
> when
> > > 4014 is either unavailable or an
> inappropriate
> > > choice due to its size and speed. 
> >
> > Except,,,,,,,,,,,,,,844 should soon (2025?) be
> due
> > for her FRA mandated 15 year boiler
> > re-certification. The really big question then
> > becomes, will UP management spend the money for
> > that re-certification?
>
> Let's not forget about the investment they put
> into 844 for the 2016 rebuild. Wonder what the
> R.O.I. is on that??

Careful now,,,,,that was NOT a "rebuild", but a major REPAIR as a result of NOT properly blowing down the boiler, plus using #2 diesel fuel which damaged the firebox side sheets & mud-ring areas.


> You raise an excellent question, if they don't
> spend the money for the
> re-certification will the 844 then be a candidate
> for donation to silvis?


Certainly sounds like a plan for the future.

Nobody carries UP Steam's water like ol dan on here..

HotWater Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > Let's not forget about the investment they put
> > into 844 for the 2016 rebuild. Wonder what the
> > R.O.I. is on that??
>
> Careful now,,,,,that was NOT a "rebuild", but a
> major REPAIR as a result of NOT properly blowing
> down the boiler, plus using #2 diesel fuel which
> damaged the firebox side sheets & mud-ring areas.

Ok you got me there....
Nevertheless it was a major project that was an investment, my point still stands
Regarding the R.O.I.

bankshotone Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> HotWater Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > > Let's not forget about the investment they
> put
> > > into 844 for the 2016 rebuild. Wonder what
> the
> > > R.O.I. is on that??
> >
> > Careful now,,,,,that was NOT a "rebuild", but a
> > major REPAIR as a result of NOT properly
> blowing
> > down the boiler, plus using #2 diesel fuel
> which
> > damaged the firebox side sheets & mud-ring
> areas.
>
> Ok you got me there....
> Nevertheless it was a major project that was an
> investment, my point still stands
> Regarding the R.O.I.

I fully agree, especially since NONE of it would have been necessary it proper maintenance procedures had been followed. Then, on top of all that work, they didn't do anything to re-certify the boiler for the FRA, and extend another 15 years! On the whole, a very, VERY sad situation.

The re-cert is due after 1472-days of pressurized-boiler conditions.

You have 15-years to accumulate the 1472..  
( it's a 5-year interval, because you can accumulate 12 months 
   of 'out of service'  time, for things like: seasonal pauses and maintenance 
    down-times;  1472/365 = 4.03 years + 12 mos. 'out of service' Credit)

If you perform the 1472-day recert-process, that re-sets the "15-year clock"
Many outfits, like Strasburg RR, operate their locos on an almost 
continual basis, so their boiler inspections are more frequent, than 15-years.

The major risk is: how many flue removal periods before you have 
to replace the front and rear tube sheets, with all those holes for the flues and 
tubes?

So, yes, it would have been an optimal time to complete 
the repairs to 844, AND, get another 1472-"pressure-days".
(They already had the tubes out....)

​W.


 



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/16/24 18:34 by wcamp1472.

844  work during Ed's tenure is readily available on youtube, i'll just pick this one as my computer does not have any  sound outlet currently, while i play with some wires

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onyBKGGT2X0

HotWater Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> g-spotter1 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > It is likely that Union Pacific wants to get
> some
> > return on the huge investment that was made on
> > 4014.  In addition, there seems to be some
> > marketing drive behind the Big Boy's Largest
> ever,
> > hype.  It gets way more headlines and traction
> > among the masses, when it runs. compared to
> 844.
> >   The 4-8-4 is in good shape, but not the bell
> of
> > the ball, at this point in time, despite being
> > "The Living Legend."  While Ed gets his orders
> > from the corporate office, in terms of
> authorized
> > use of the steam program, 4014 returned to
> service
> > under his guidance.  844 is a legacy
> > piece--whether or not Ed's preference regarding
> > locomotive choice is a factor at all, is
> > unclear.  We should see 844 out and about when
> > 4014 is either unavailable or an inappropriate
> > choice due to its size and speed. 
>
> Except,,,,,,,,,,,,,,844 should soon (2025?) be due
> for her FRA mandated 15 year boiler
> re-certification. The really big question then
> becomes, will UP management spend the money for
> that re-certification?

That's a good question, especially after the wasted rebuild Ed and his crew did to her back in 2016-2019!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/16/24 22:11 by ProAmtrak.

As some perspective, the 1472-day boiler interior inspection, 
+ ultrasonic shell-integrity & fresh 4:1 pressure recertification,
does NOT require that ALL boiler flues & tubes be removed.

However, you must remove a sufficient number of flues & tubes in order
to allow an inspector access to the total boiler interior, to perform a
complete inspection of all the riveted boiler-shell seams below the water line. 

The 15-year limit is based on the most recent 1472-day, 'start-date'.
( the 1472-day 'clock'  starts the day that the 1st 'new' tube was
   installed, following the interior inspection).

Fresh recalculation of the 4:1 design 'safety-factor' must be 
based on actual thickness measurements of the boiler shell.
The lowest sheet thickness ( ultrasonic) readings, determine the maximum
allowable boiler working pressure.  

Many times, the boiler's actual operating pressure is set below the
calculations based on sheet thickness.  You might have a very slippery engine,
if full boiler pressure spins the drivers too easily...

A tourist operation might, theoretically, only accumulate less than 
1472-boiler days, and be faced with the approaching 15-year date....
The 15-year clock gets reset, and starts again when the 1st 
'new' tube gets installed.  You get a new 15-year re-cert date,
after every completed 1472-inspection.

A prudent practice would be that after sufficient number of 
flues are removed, to thoroughly clean a boiler interior,
it might be wise to take the steps necessary to create new 
"dimensional criteria" to support fresh 1472-day boiler-shell 
re-calculations and documentation.  You've already completed 
80% of the work.

​W.

 



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/17/24 09:03 by wcamp1472.

HotWater Wrote:

>
> Careful now,,,,,that was NOT a "rebuild", but a
> major REPAIR as a result of NOT properly blowing
> down the boiler, plus using #2 diesel fuel which
> damaged the firebox side sheets & mud-ring areas.
>

How does #2 diesel damage things?

sf1010 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> HotWater Wrote:
>
> >
> > Careful now,,,,,that was NOT a "rebuild", but a
> > major REPAIR as a result of NOT properly
> blowing
> > down the boiler, plus using #2 diesel fuel
> which
> > damaged the firebox side sheets & mud-ring
> areas.
> >
>
> How does #2 diesel damage things?

It does not provide even heat throughout the firebox, like the heavier power plant oils, or reprocessed waste oil, do. He was even told by two experts NOT to use #2 diesel fuel.

Practically speaking, no one to my knowledge has a designed a burner for a large streamer
for the use of diesel #2. As Jack mentions, getting the distribution to be even would take some
real analysis to even get close. A fuel that combusts that fast will light before it reaches very
far into the box giving a very uneven heating.

Out 

Being physically 'lighter' diesel fuel has less heat content, 
when there is higher steam quantity needed,

At lower steam demands, the unven air flow of lower 
draft rates encourages using a wider fuel setting...
accompanied by local and uneven hotspots in the flame path.

The burner and fireboxes were proportioned for heavier fuels,
so you had strong steam flows at the burner, and air flow was proportioned 
to the heavier fuels.  Lighter fuels can be adapted, but that takes 
research and experimenting for proper burner proportioning of 
air/fuel mix ---- A different type of burner would be required,
which would not work, when burning the heavier density fuels.

 However, the amounts of heat available in the lighter density fuels
vary dramatically, and what works at low steam demands, is woefully
inadequate at steam demands of a heavy train and a 'strong' throttle.

At the high steam demands, the lighter fuels cannot provide the necessary heat,
without resorting to 'over-firing' ---- but, that practice necessarily overheated 
and formed local hot-spots on firebox sheets.  Varying rates of Oxygen supply
In the firebox, makes for the locally hotter areas...
Imagine trying to burn gasoline in a burner designed for heavier fuels...

The engines were designed and drafted for the higher heats avaliable with 
more dense & heavier fuels.  The heavier fuels have slower burn-rates.
For fuels, there's a distinction between heat-content and temperature.  
Its called the science of Thermodynamics.

Of the fields of Engineering degrees, it's the most mysterious,
and not 'logical'.  It's at the basis of the distinction of superheated 
steam vs. heat-saturated steam and how the two behave differently 
against pistons and increasing cylinder volumes.

​W.





 



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/17/24 11:30 by wcamp1472.

callum_out Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Practically speaking, no one to my knowledge has a
> designed a burner for a large streamer
> for the use of diesel #2. As Jack mentions,
> getting the distribution to be even would take
> some
> real analysis to even get close. A fuel that
> combusts that fast will light before it reaches
> very
> far into the box giving a very uneven heating.
>
> Out 


Correct!

We have had to use #2 diesel in a pinch for a short period of time, on SP 4449. Luckily we did not have to work the locomotive hard. Then there was the time back in 1989 when our fuel truck failed to show at the end of the big 50th anniversary celebration at the LAUPT. Luckily, we were only going to Colton for the afternoon/night, in preparation for the side-by-side operation with UP 8444 on Cajon Pass. Since we were handling an SP business car special, the terminal manager at Colton said we could have as much diesel fuel as we desired, by simply easing in the big fuel rack. Doyle and I informed the Mechanical Supervisor that, with such a steep grade on Cajon (2.2%), we didn't want to use all #2 diesel, but if they mixed it half-and-half with a batch of used diesel engine lube oil, that would work. Well, the Supervisor apparently only heard the term "lube oil", but NOT the "used" part, so we pulled into the diesel locomotive fuel rack and took on about 2500 gallons of #2 diesel fuel plus over 2500 gallons of fresh new engine lube oil!

We made a lot of smoke ascending Cajon Pass on the SP line as a result of that odd-ball fuel mixture, but George Lavacot kept her at 298 all the way, while I sanded the tubes  every few minutes! Quite a show, I'm told.