Post Reply 
UP Wants Big Boy No. 4014
12-08-2012, 12:49 AM
Post: #11
RE: UP Wants Big Boy No. 4014
I want this to happen but I don't want the big boy to move so far away..... :/ I've only gone out to see it once.

Shawn - Obsessed with Trains
Find all posts by this user
Add Thank You Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 1 user says Thank You to penguingeneral for this post:
TheSd90mac
12-08-2012, 05:21 AM
Post: #12
RE: UP Wants Big Boy No. 4014
Well, then you should probably head out there soon.

USAF - Donate some $ while there too...
Find all posts by this user
Add Thank You Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 2 users say Thank You to USAF_Andrew for this post:
TheSd90mac, SP4449
12-08-2012, 10:22 AM
Post: #13
RE: UP Wants Big Boy No. 4014
My question is if the SCC-R&LHS is worried about losing their lease because the 4014 is their biggest attraction, but the 4014 is the best candidate for restoring, why don't they just swap 4004 in Cheyenne for 4014 in Pomona? UP offered to give them a replacement steamer, so why not the 4004?
Find all posts by this user
Add Thank You Quote this message in a reply
12-08-2012, 10:57 AM
Post: #14
RE: UP Wants Big Boy No. 4014
(12-08-2012 10:22 AM)CoasterMike2105 Wrote:  My question is if the SCC-R&LHS is worried about losing their lease because the 4014 is their biggest attraction, but the 4014 is the best candidate for restoring, why don't they just swap 4004 in Cheyenne for 4014 in Pomona? UP offered to give them a replacement steamer, so why not the 4004?

Just guessing out of the blue here without knowing the details, but the 4004 might be owned by the city of Cheyenne and not actually by UP. Even if the engine was donated to the city of Cheyenne it'd be pretty tough to be able to come back and say "Ya...we want it back now, sorry about that."

If the 4014 has been chosen for the restoration its most likely taking into account how "easy" it will be to get the locomotive from CA to Cheyenne on-top of the monumental restoration that will follow. Seeing the 4004 wasn't chosen as a top pick indicates UP doesn't think its in good enough shape to restore, let alone pick up and move to CA. I'm sure the 4004 was a top candidate seeing how close it is to the steam program...practically next door vs the 4014.

Rumors are SOARING high above that UP will give the 3985 to SCC-R&LHS to fill the void taking 4014 out will create. Fat chance...with all the efforts the've put into that thing already. Even in the conditions its in now getting worked on I'd still bet its in better shape than the 4014.

~Alex
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Add Thank You Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 1 user says Thank You to SF3751 for this post:
CoasterMike2105
12-08-2012, 11:12 AM
Post: #15
RE: UP Wants Big Boy No. 4014
4014 was rolled to its current sight I believe in the early 90s. It has been kept in a fairly dry environment and maintained since it's donation. I am curious as to what the replacement engine would be. Its not like they have a lot of steam engines laying aroung. Perhaps the 833? I bet they could find enough parts to make that hulk display ready. If they can do it awesome, if not, no one is worse off than they were before.
Find all posts by this user
Add Thank You Quote this message in a reply
12-08-2012, 01:19 PM
Post: #16
RE: UP Wants Big Boy No. 4014
Another thing that has been mentioned is that 3985 is in need of a lot of work. I've even heard mention of a major boiler crack. You almost wonder if the 4014 would be a replacement for the challenger, since it is a more significant locomotive anyway. If they don't want to give SCC-R&LHS 3985 and can't give them 4004, that just leaves 5511 and 838, both of which would need a bit of work to be put back together.
Find all posts by this user
Add Thank You Quote this message in a reply
12-08-2012, 02:42 PM
Post: #17
RE: UP Wants Big Boy No. 4014
If they do restore the Big Boy to working condition, will the current rails UP uses hold up the massive locomotive? I heard or read (forgot which one) that the reason nobody has thought of restoring a Big Boy was because it was too heavy for the current trackwork UP has.

Before you start hating on this post, I have no idea if this information is true. THIS IS A RUMOR.
Find all posts by this user
Add Thank You Quote this message in a reply
12-08-2012, 03:10 PM
Post: #18
RE: UP Wants Big Boy No. 4014
Did you read one of Coaster Mike 2105’s posts earlier in the thread?

SP-I am just going to wait and see what happens.
Find all posts by this user
Add Thank You Quote this message in a reply
12-08-2012, 03:16 PM
Post: #19
RE: UP Wants Big Boy No. 4014
Irvine, I believe most track on the UP system, at least on the mainline, is in good enough condition and uses heavy enough rail to support a big boy. Most curves have been straightened over time enough to handle one too.
Find all posts by this user
Add Thank You Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 1 user says Thank You to CoasterMike2105 for this post:
IrvineAmtrakUP
12-08-2012, 03:55 PM (This post was last modified: 12-08-2012 03:56 PM by USAF_Andrew.)
Post: #20
RE: UP Wants Big Boy No. 4014
(12-08-2012 02:42 PM)IrvineAmtrakUP Wrote:  If they do restore the Big Boy to working condition, will the current rails UP uses hold up the massive locomotive? I heard or read (forgot which one) that the reason nobody has thought of restoring a Big Boy was because it was too heavy for the current trackwork UP has.

There should not be an issue with most of the trackage on the system. The only areas that I think would be a concern would be wyes to turn it. There the issue is more the centipede tender than the locomotive itself. Within theory, it should be able to go anywhere that the 844 can go. Remember, a 4000 is basically two 8 coupled locotives hinged together. The wheelbase of each individual set of drivers is IIRC less than the wheelbase of the 844. As we saw with the 844 in Shaqramento earlier this year, the engine itself made it through the sharp trackage into the museum without too much of an issue. The long, rigid (thats what Axy said) wheelbase of the tender on the other hand... With all the experience that the UP has with the oil burning 3985 and its conversion, they probably wouldn't have too much of a problem getting that to work as well. Fingers are still crossed...

USAF - Pun intended
Find all posts by this user
Add Thank You Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 3 users say Thank You to USAF_Andrew for this post:
CoasterMike2105, IrvineAmtrakUP, TC Smith
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)