Everyone is waiting to see UP 4014 to run again in the coming years.
Even here in Europe there are many rumors saying that UP would brake on the steam project because of his cost and the faisability and of course of the interest about doing it.
The insurance and conformoty necessary to run steam machine are too expensive.
The Challlenger 3985 is in shop from years and nobody can tell if it will ride again.
The Big Boy 4014 restoration had started in a hurry but seems to go to a slow rate now, some rumor says it will may be stop for a while or stop for ever.
Nobody can confirm or infirm the status of the future of the UP steam projects even UP itself but the rumors seems have real echoes about the cost and the the willingness to undertake a future steam project.
Did anybody have good infos about the future of UP steam projects ???
I have the project to come to US to see 4014 running in the next years hope it's not a dream.
Marc
A few notes (this started brief but got longer; sorry):
UP has no difficulty funding or continuing the steam heritage program. They had some difficulties getting the organization reworked 'under new management', especially when implementing a company "total quality management" incentive while having made a couple of bad operating and maintenance decisions (for which Ed Dickens in particular took his share of wrath and indignation). UP has no internal problems with "insurance" coverage; I'm not sure what 'conformoty' is supposed to be, but there's no problem with UP running steam anywhere it can physically go on their own system (at speeds measurably higher than those allowed diesels) and there has been considerable discussion to the effect that a 4000-class can go many places its "size" and "weight" were not supposed to allow it to go. Some of the perceived 'problems' likely come from Steve Lee's blanket policy that no Big Boy would ever run while he ran the UP heritage program. That policy obviously is no longer being followed.
Work concentrated more on 844 than on 4014, in order to have a running locomotive for excursions. That has now happened, and it is interesting to compare how she was run Saturday with how 3985 was run in the early 2000s.
The shop emphssis can now switch to getting 4014 operational, which needs to be done reasonably before the centennial (in 2019). I expect there to be some "fun" involving the conversion to oil burning, including the front-end design, but there is nothing particularly difficult, and the steam shop has worked through the problems that delayed the 844 'restoration'. There is no indication that UP's management is not fully behind the current operations; in fact, one senior VP has particular oversight in the implementation of quality management practices there. There is also little if any likelihood that the downturn in traffic will result in cutback, let alone suspension, of the heritage steam program operations.
The steam enthusiast community, and the historic-preserved steam community in particular, has had something of a field day with the various 'Ed Dickens follies'. That comes in no small part from the presumption on the part of 'practical steam men' that TQM and aerospace quality methods are ill-suited, and relatively non-cost-effective, when applied even to sophisticated large American steam power. And in some senses, the approach has been eye-wateringly slow and expensive compared to the way traditional steam restorations and operations have been done. On the other hand, much of the necessary training to make and restore all the various devices and pieces of these locomotives has now been done, and I suspect the work on 4014 may go much faster than expected now that all the 'common mode' issues in shop procedures are implemented. And with all the 'old hands' that made the older restorations possible now 'aging out', some approach to formalizing how to keep big steam running has to be systematized. Many details of the 'best practices guides' being developed in the RyPN community are radically different in detail from what UP, with corporate sponsorship and a firm corporate devotion to quality management and 'all that implies,' is prioritizing. It will be interesting to see what aspects of UP's approach translate over to conventional steam operations in, say, 10 to 15 years, vs. what other successful long-term steam programs like the Fort Wayne/765 operation will be doing.
Work on 3985 was suspended to concentrate on 4014, which I think makes very good sense considering the 2019 deadline. There was no immediate need to spend money on two very large excursion locomotives (and not incidentally restart the 1472-day clock on 3985) now. There were railfan worries about 3985 going to static display, but they appear to have no current basis in fact - the plans are to start reworking the Challenger after 4014 is done, and then support the three running locomotives appropriately. While it may be well into the 2020s before all the work on 3985 is finished -- there being, again, no real need for two large articulated locomotives operating simultaneously, but a very real advantage in having at least a couple of years' offset in the 1472-day rebuilding times -- there is little question that it too will be maintained in operating condition, and likely given a reasonably good schedule of publicity operations thereafter.
Incidentally, Dickens has started providing more YouTube videos that cover some of the issues at the shops, and progress on some details of the locomotives. I expect more on 4014 now that active restoration on 844 has been completed. If you look at shop pictures of 4014 now you can see that much of the required teardown is proceeding nicely.
I recently came across the following 2 part presentation by Ed Dickens on the 844 rebuild. Very interesting. Some comments relate to followup activities. I think these are the ones I recall.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMjKsiTXQws
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsPl73r6i18
I also discovered that the usual UP site I had been visiting is not where the latest updates and news are posted. Check this site out. That may be where the 844 rebuild videos are that I recall.
http://www.up.com/aboutup/community/inside_track/heritage/index.htm
Here are two examples (the videos within the articles):
http://www.up.com/aboutup/community/inside_track/steam_update_june2016
http://www.up.com/aboutup/community/inside_track/august-steam-8-11-2016.htm
Paul
Modeling HO with a transition era UP bent
Didn't UP run into problems when they tried to use oil as fuel in 4005? This is not to suggest that those problems can't be overcome.
Tom
ACYDidn't UP run into problems when they tried to use oil as fuel in 4005?
Yes, they did. I have heard several different versions of this, with several different stated reasons for the 'issues', and I think that it is possible to extract some idea of what actually happened.
Remember that the 4000 class was specially designed with a ridiculously oversized firebox and chamber, in order to burn that stuff UP mined itself -- it wasn't quite lignite, but not too far away -- and this poses some fairly great difficulties for making a single-burner oil firing system, no matter how good the burner or the plume characteristics. UP from what I understand tried a double-burner system, which either didn't work well enough or had too much flame impingement in areas where that was a Bad Thing (and there are so many of those!)
I tend to agree with some of the older texts on oil firing, which somewhat naively but reasonably correctly say that you want to fill the combustion space with luminous flame (not hot combustion gas!) but not have much of that flame actually come into contact with structural surfaces (especially those with water on the other side) as you will get prompt quench to soot (or worse). Now think for a moment about how the 4000s were often fired, with the fuel essentially atomizing and burning completely above the grate. With solid fuel, especially low-rank solid fuel, this process isn't going to go to chemical completion even in a large firebox and chamber. But with liquid fuel, particularly mechanically-atomized fuel, you stand a chance of getting the right combination of quick mixing, surface turbulence, and good mass flow to produce a good fourth-power radiant release through a good percentage of the radiant-section transfer area. (And then have the combustion complete 'just before' the gas enters the tubes and flues in the convection section, so there won't be substantial amounts of quenched carbon particles manifesting as soot buildup that has to be sanded...)
My preference is for a staged system with multiple burners, but no fancy swirl as in Porta's cyclonic system. And yes, with at least semiautomatic regulation of both the durations and the patterns involved in the firing. It's going to be too complex for a human fireman, even a very experienced one, to make all the necessary adjustments in realtime, responsive to how the engine is being run. (Nor should a fireman have to be responsible for predicting and overseeing something with multiple salience, especially without dynamic assistance ... but that's a personal prejudice)
TL:DR version -- yes, I think by 2019 they'll have a very effective firing system, with reasonably good fuel economy and operating reliability. Remains to be seen what (if anything) they do to the front end to optimize oil firing operation. (I have my thoughts there, too.)
Dragoon 45 3985 was "rode hard and put up wet".
"One difference between pessimists and optimists is that while pessimists are more often right, optimists have far more fun."