Allright guys,it's time for a little reality to settle in. Big Boys are great locomotives,and pulling a five mile long train would be an accomplishment. Let's look at tonnage ratings for a minute. They were rated up a 1.5% grade at 4,500 tons,and may have pulled more. On level ground,I would not be afraid to couple 16,000 tons behind one......just don't put the Streamliner behind me while I'm doing it.
The reasons one will not be restored are as follows:
1. High cost with nominal return.
2. Limited operational area.
3. Clearance issues:3985 will not run again offline because of this. The overhang as the boiler takes a curve has a nasty habit of fouling other tracks as the 3985 found out on the Clinchfield a few years ago.
4.Steve Lee has said he will not restore one.End of story.
gforrest wrote:When the big-boy in Scranton was being moved to Bellows Falls, Vermont. It passed trough Sayre , PA. It derailed on every crossover in the yard.
Were they using Atlas or Kato track?
Sorry, I couldn't resist. I was planning on visiting Scranton this month. Maybe I'll ask them to fire up the Big Boy and give me a ride.Afterall, it will be my birthday.
Saw this thread today for the very first time - very interesting and thought provoking read. I was thinking the whole time of the Last of the Giants (all 3 volumes) put out by Pentrex, while reading through the posts. Those tapes are a must have if you truly love the Big Boys. If you watch Vol 3, like mentioned in an earlier post, you'll likely come to agree that the likelihood of a Big Boy running again for any stretches longer than a few miles are probably about as close to zero as you can get.
Unfortunately, the problem at hand is all about infra-structure and not at all about whether the UP or anybody does or doesn't want to do it. The restoration of a Big Boy itself would be very doable, but expensive - but it would be no where near the expense that would be required to bring the infrastructure (right of way) to the conditions necessary to run a Boy Boy. Somebody said there are still 2 turntables left still big enough to turn a BB and possibly more if you allow for turning them overhanging the TT (and might I suggest even more TT's when considering turning the loco only / independant of the tender.) That may be true, but the infrastructure (re bridges, track, ROW) for operating between any of those TT's is not set up top handle the BB. Steve Lee mentions in Vol 3, that the UP does not even own a single Big Boy (like others have also mentioned) so for starters, they can't restore one. He then went on to say that even if somebody were to donate one to them to restore it would needlessly use up several years of their steam progarm's operating budget (again like others have said here). But the real caveat was when he said that even if somebody were to donate a Big Boy to the Up Steam Program and they were willing to spend the money on restoring the BB they wouldn't do so because they realistically have no where to run it. He mentioned the turntable situation and the fuel situation as discussed earlier and also the fact that the track and bridges etc just weren't there to handle the loco. We're talking the UP here, the one RR'd whose infrastructure today is probably about as modern and rugged as there is, currently. Further, nobody (not just the UP) would be willing to spend the enormous amounts of money that it would take to upgrade the bridges and structures for such a limited, non revenue producing use. The money could be better spent doing just about anything else. This is the UP talking, the ones with the biggest and most advanced and capital intensive steam programs anywhere, and who also take a lot of pride in their steam heritage - and the Big Boy was their pride and joy. They have more incentive and reason than absolutley anyone to see a Big Boy run again. If they are unwilling and saying it can't be done, there's no way anybody else can or will make it happen.
Just as an aside, the earlier comments made about the enormous diesels of today being much harder on the track and the more rugged modern infrastructure in place today as being capable of handling the BB are plain wrong (to put it kindly). To say the diesel (no matter how big) is harder on rail than a Big Boy shows that some of us have no idea of the forces and havoc a reciprocating steam loco wreaks on rail, yet alone the forces generated by a Big Boy. Counterbalancing may help somewhat to keep the loco from pounding itself into oblivion, but much less so the rail. The diesels have none of that, unless it has developed flatspots - and they don't run diesels for long with flatspots. No way is a diesel or today's roller bearinged trains harder on rail than a steam locomotive. Period. Further, the idea that with our 132 / 136 lb or more rail more common today making the infrastructure more capable than even what the Big Boys implies that the Big Boy ran on 100 or 110 lb rail. The BB's didn't. They ran/operated the BB's in a very limited area with heavy infrastructure in that area to built to accomodate them. While they may have been transported across the country from Alco and later (after being retired) to scattered places, that is no where near the same as operating one. Usually, those transfers were also of a one time nature - to Cheyenne or to the loco's final resting place (for permanent display) and done so in a light / non-operating fashion on steam era infrastructure. Even then, these final trips were done with much care and advanced planning using only certain routes even remotely available and deamed up to the task, and in spite of the best made plans they still often experienced problems and derailments on these well planned final trips over new/unfamiliar territory. I just thought these points needed mentioning in a more concise fashion, because there's a whole lot more to getting a Big Boy running again than most of us realize. I too would love to see a Big Boy run again, but while the spirit (desire) is willing, the flesh (capital, and reason to do so) is weak if not non-existant. We're probably really talkng several millions to truly get one running for any decent stretch. Sad to say, but that just ain't gonna happen. I don't mean to sound provacative or demeaning. I rather really enjoyed this thread. Thanks for bring it back to the top.
Steam on,
Greg
Your friendly neighborhood CNW fan.
Go here for my rail shots! http://www.railpictures.net/showphotos.php?userid=9296
Building the CPR Kootenay division in N scale, blog here: http://kootenaymodelrailway.wordpress.com/
"...the likelihood of a Big Boy running again for any stretches longer than a few miles are probably about as close to zero as you can get. ...the problem at hand is all about infra-structure and not at all about whether the UP or anybody does or doesn't want to do it.... [loco restoration] would be no where near the expense that would be required to bring the infrastructure (right of way) to the conditions necessary to run a Boy Boy. Somebody [Steve Lee] said there are still 2 turntables left still big enough to turn a BB and possibly more if you allow for turning them overhanging the TT [which was the way they were always turned]..."
The turning issue is a complete red herring, propagated by Lee and the UP - who just don't want to do another locomotive. There are wyes all over the place that could accommodate a Big Boy. Not only have they failed to restore anything new since the 1980's (when 3985 was done), but they refuse even to entertain the idea of doing anything more - like a 4-8-2, or a Pacific, for example. They take our money through fees on models and spend it to promote Republic politicians and put lousy paint schemes on ugly SD70ACes.
"...the infrastructure (re bridges, track, ROW) for operating between any of those TT's is not set up top handle the BB [Nonsense. AC4400's are ballasted to an axle loading of 35 tons, heavier than a Big Boy. Two combined equal the length of a Big Boy and weigh almost as much - 844,000 lbs.]. Steve Lee [our hero!] mentions in Vol 3, that the UP does not even own a single Big Boy (like others have also mentioned) so for starters, they can't restore one. [Nonsense. Lots of groups restore engines they don't own.] He then went on to say that even if somebody were to donate one to them to restore it would needlessly use up several years of their steam progarm's operating budget (again like others have said here) [yes, and make poor Steve work for a living]. But the real caveat was when he said that even if somebody were to donate a Big Boy to the Up Steam Program and they were willing to spend the money on restoring the BB they wouldn't do so because they realistically have no where to run it. [Lies, lies, lies.] ...This is the UP talking, the ones with the biggest and most advanced and capital intensive steam programs anywhere, and who also take a lot of pride in their steam heritage - [Nonsense. They only have two working engines, for goodness' sake; Steamtown has more and a complete shop AND a railroad besides.]."
"... ounterbalancing may help somewhat to keep the loco from pounding itself into oblivion, but much less so the rail. The diesels have none of that, unless it has developed flatspots - and they don't run diesels for long with flatspots..."
Diesels also frequently ripple the rail surface and burn the rail through all the way to the ties at times. The dynamic augment excuse is an old saw that the railroads who don't want to run steam always trot out. The ones that do run steam don't cry about. Have you ever head a credible report of 4449 damaging miles of the BNSF right of way? It's more nonsense.
"...No way is a diesel or today's roller bearinged trains harder on rail than a steam locomotive. Period."
And from what mechanical engineer specialized in rail did you get that information?
"...the idea that with our 132 / 136 lb or more rail more common today making the infrastructure more capable than even what the Big Boys implies that the Big Boy ran on 100 or 110 lb rail. The BB's didn't. They ran/operated the BB's in a very limited area with heavy infrastructure in that area to built to accomodate them."
The infrastructure is heavier today than it was on all UP mainlines due to the vast increase in traffic and weight of lading (read: unit coal trains). Moreover, there have been very significant advances in railhead metallurgy which will reduce the effect of dynamic augment wherever it might be more than negligible. UP [Steve Lee, actually, who is the only one who thinks about these things over there] is happy with the status quo and won't do anything new. He'll have to retire (hopefully very soon) before any progress gets made.
The only real issue in restoring a Big Boy is how to convert it to oil. The UP never successfully accomplished that, but they probably didn't put enough engineering hours or testing time into the project as the end of steam was near. Coal firing such an engine makes no sense in 2006 due to the inconvenience and the fire risk along the right of way.
I think we need to be much more honest and far more critical than we are about issues like this. Steve Lee and the UP have done some great things, but they're not the superheros so many people would like to think they are.
Jim Wrinn's bumboy,
Milwaukee, Iran
I too am skeptical that the situation is as difficult as you say, although I don't doubt that restoring any Big Boy to operating condition would take at least several million dollars and would give you a locomotive that could only operate in some places, and with high variable costs (e.g., fuel consumption, routine maintenance) too. Also, I agree that it would be harder on the track, but how much of a problem this would be would have a lot to do with how regularly you ran it over a given segment of track.
The simple weight and/or axle loading is probably not a huge problem. As was said, the axle loadings and weight per distance on a unit coal train are IIRC close to the maximum of standard modern design, which is (or at least not too long ago was) a Cooper's E80 rating. The Challenger (UP 3985) runs about E72, as I recall; I doubt the Big Boy is that much more because it has two extra axles and is longer. SOME structures (e.g., major bridges) dating to at least the 1930's were designed to at least E90, and I suspect that today most main lines, at least that carry unit coal trains, are at or close to E80.
The ability to turn the locomotive is indeed a red herring. Use a wye! There are still a fair number of wyes out there, albeit fewer than there were. Within 50 miles of my house are several wyes that are plenty long enough to turn a Big Boy.
Admittedly I do suspect that the high reciprocating forces are quite hard on the track and possibly other light infrastructure. I'm not suggesting they're likely to cause catastrophic failures, but they do impose disproportionate wear and tear. And it's not simply the weight of the rails.
As for oil firing, well, people have converted the Challenger, Reading 2100, and lots of smaller locomotives. It can be done. The question is mainly the cost and work involved, and the willingness to incur enough trial and error, if needed.
Wrinnsbum, you have a peculiar logic that makes it hard to take stock in your arguments.
First, you insert things into my quotes that are of your own assumption – and which are wrong assumptions at that. For example, your very first insertion was when I said somebody said there were 2 turntables left – you assumed I meant and inserted [Steve Lee], when in fact I meant somebody, in an earlier post of this already 5 page topic, had said that. I wasn’t even thinking of Lee at that point. That leads me to a second issue – the apparent agenda you have. It’s pretty obvious you don’t like Steve Lee or the UP and many of your assertions appear to be more of a personal issue you have with the man rather than being an objective and cogent rebuttal to what either I said or what I reported as Steve Lee as having said. I am not saying you have to like the man or even agree with him, but your reply contains more insults towards him and his approach to the UP’s steam program than substance. Frankly, the insults cloud any of the truths that your rebuttals might legitimately have, as it appears that your interest is more in the axe you have to grind with Lee or the UP than with having an honest critical discussion on the possibility of a Big Boy returning to steam. You several times make it sound and imply that the UP almost has an obligation to restore a Big Boy or more steam locomotives in general, which is quite ludicrous. Then you mention others who restore locos they don’t own themselves and Steam town to blast Lee and the UP. My question here is why aren’t Steamtown and others restoring a Big Boy? I don’t mean that as a slam against Steamtown or the others – rather to point out a flaw in your logic in the way you used them to snipe at others. Also what other major railroad even regularly runs steam on their property, never mind maintains a substantial annual budget for just such a program? And UP is the bad boy for that, while the others go unscathed? The implied obligation doesn’t belong to the other RR’s as well, but rather just to the UP? Strange reasoning there Mr Bum. You even take a small swipe at me, saying what mechanical engineer did I get one assertion from. Funny thing is, I don’t see you offering any substantiated rebuttal to that assertion. Can you please quote a known authority to disprove my assertion, other than attacking me or Steve or others? Uh huh. I didn’t think so.
Also, what’s up with all this "hero" sarcasm? I didn’t see anybody in this thread even come close to implying Steve Lee was a hero so again it kind of indicates your real issue is your animosity with or resentment for the man and the UP. Ironically, I can agree with you in a manner of speaking on that point.With all due respect to Mr Lee, just because somebody is well known, or runs a major steam program, or even just works for a railroad doesn’t make them a hero. I suspect Steve himself might agree with me there. I personally think heroism is rooted in high degrees of self sacraficing and selflessness, not notoriety or doing something that is popular among certain groups. Sadly, heroes come pretty cheap these days. But like I said, I didn’t think anybody was making Steve into a hero in this thread. He may not be The authority on steam, but he is still very much An authority on it whether you want to acknowledge that or not. Certainly more of an authority than you or I. Again, there are certain truths that are contained in your reply, but there was too much noise to have to sift through to consider them and ponder their veracity and perhaps come to agree with or beg to differ with. Perhaps my first response was itself a bit arrogant. I apologize for that. I’ll try to be a bit more objective going forward if you will. Deal?