Forums

[wlaukaitis]

Hi everybody!

Was there or was there not suposed to be a "big Boy" movie. Did it fizzle out??

Bill L

[wlaukaitis]

Hi everybody!

Was there or was there not suposed to be a "big Boy" movie. Did it fizzle out??

Bill L

[Anonymous]

I assume you are referring to the movie abour rehabbing the Big Boy in Dallas. That Big Boy is owned by the Age of Steam Museum. The engine was moved (by another locomotive) a few feet to check the condition of the wheel bearings. This move went well and inspectors said the Dallas engine was in the best condition of the remaining Big Boys. The plan was to move the engine to a warehouse next to the Age of Steam Museum for dismanteling and rebuilding. The Museum was in agreement with this, however, they were worried that the engine would be disassembled and the movie company would run out of money and walk from the project leaving a big pile of parts in the warehouse. To protect its property the Museum requested a one million dollar bond be given before the engine is touched. To date no bond has arrived and the project is essentially dead.

As a sideline when the engine was donated to the Museum UP cut the piston rods with an acetylene tourch with the reason given as the tight curves to get into the Museum lot required the cut. I personally think that UP did not want the engine run again. When the excitement of the rebuilding was going full force UP stated that they only had two wyes capable of turning the engine on their whole system and they are 20 miles apart either in Kansas or Nebraska. (forget where). Again I do not think this is true. The Big Boy is a coal fired engine, not fuel oil, which would create logistical problems related to fueling.

W R Watkins, technical advisor to Age of Steam Museum

[Anonymous]

I assume you are referring to the movie abour rehabbing the Big Boy in Dallas. That Big Boy is owned by the Age of Steam Museum. The engine was moved (by another locomotive) a few feet to check the condition of the wheel bearings. This move went well and inspectors said the Dallas engine was in the best condition of the remaining Big Boys. The plan was to move the engine to a warehouse next to the Age of Steam Museum for dismanteling and rebuilding. The Museum was in agreement with this, however, they were worried that the engine would be disassembled and the movie company would run out of money and walk from the project leaving a big pile of parts in the warehouse. To protect its property the Museum requested a one million dollar bond be given before the engine is touched. To date no bond has arrived and the project is essentially dead.

As a sideline when the engine was donated to the Museum UP cut the piston rods with an acetylene tourch with the reason given as the tight curves to get into the Museum lot required the cut. I personally think that UP did not want the engine run again. When the excitement of the rebuilding was going full force UP stated that they only had two wyes capable of turning the engine on their whole system and they are 20 miles apart either in Kansas or Nebraska. (forget where). Again I do not think this is true. The Big Boy is a coal fired engine, not fuel oil, which would create logistical problems related to fueling.

W R Watkins, technical advisor to Age of Steam Museum

[Anonymous]

Why couldnt they have oil fired it? What if someone came up with the money to restore it? Where could they run it? In all likelyhood if they could best guess would be Wyoming, I am not sure but what would it take to install a Wye?

Thanks
Mike K

[Anonymous]

Why couldnt they have oil fired it? What if someone came up with the money to restore it? Where could they run it? In all likelyhood if they could best guess would be Wyoming, I am not sure but what would it take to install a Wye?

Thanks
Mike K

[Anonymous]

In 1946 they tried to convert a big boy to oil burning but it was unsuccessful.

[Anonymous]

In 1946 they tried to convert a big boy to oil burning but it was unsuccessful.

[Anonymous]

One of the very best ways to either determine whether or not a give proposal or project can be accomplished by the "proposee", contractor, owner, etc., is to require a bond prior to execution of any contract. In this instance, for the group desiring to produce the movie and fund the work on 4018 to have obtained any such bond would have required that they (1) have either a massive and profitable history of "bonding" with one or more "surety" companies (demonstrating a strong likelihood of safety and reliability) or, and maybe ALSO (2) they'd have been forced to put up $1,000,000 in cash or some account held by a reliable financial institution which would agree to place a lock on any withdrawals from such account without the written permission of the Museum. In another part of the (2), they may also have been able to obtain a "bank letter of credit", which is basically obtaining written evidence from a bank or similar institution (and deemed reliable by the surety company) which effectively states that the bank is backing the bond by guaranteeing that (should the movie group go bust and the surety company has to contract with people to complete the project or give the Museum the money to either do it themselves or "compensate" them for "damages) the bank will UPON DEMAND made by the surety immediately give the surety company the amount of the loss up to the $1,000,000 bond limit, afterwhich the bank would seek repayment from the movie bunch. The bank is thus sort of agreeing in advance to make a $1,000,000 loan to the movie group and they'd charge a tidy sum to make such guarantee because they'd be tying up $1,000,000 of the bank's money pending the potential need to make immediate payment to the surety until the contract was fully completed and the term of the bond complete. Well, obviously, this type of matter is not one put together in either a moment's time or without considerable financial backing and wherewithall. Doubltess the movie producers were in no position to put up the financial backing themselves, would have had to resort to another guarantor willing to tie up their own funds in a locked guarantee or obtain the bank letter of credit, which was highly unlikely without the backing and support of some major Hollywood-type movie producers.

I personally believe Danny Bishop had good intentions. However, I also believe he was effectively dreaming and, while intending upon landing grants, good craftsman and also expecting the Union Pacific to jump at the chance of running a Big Boy more or less for nothing, he was never make much of substance happen. Additionally, the Union Pacific was not about to break their long-standing "unspoken rule" in which they basically refuse to run locomotives and trains they do not manage and maintain themselves. At least, not trains like this one! The UP was NOT going to run that loco, not on their track, period.

Regarding the cut piston rods, I personally don't thing their destruction had anything to do with the trackage or roadbed conditions necessary to move the loco into the Museum area. I have twice witnessed 4023 moved through some serious curvature, and her rods are well intact. No, I believe it had far more to do with moving it down to Dallas, and in fact, depending upon where the loco was last stored before movement to Cheyenne (if such even took place, depending upon where it was prior to retirement) the cut could easily have happened many years before the donation. It was far easier for crews to cut those rods than dismantle main rod and valve gear assemblies or the alternative, which is to pull the front cylinder head and remove the piston from the cylinder followed by the piston rod from the crosshead. More, leaving the main rod in place allowed the mechanical lubricators to work and provide oil to important locations during movement south. Depending upon decisions and circumstances (unfortunately, I've seen no photos of the engine during transport from Cheyenne), those in charge of the move would have disconnected the valve rods from the valve rod crossheads so the piston valves were not moved by the rotation of the main rod (which would have had the necessary effect of turning the eccentric crank and thus moving the eccentric rod, which is going to cause movement of the valve via the valve rod).

I think the main thought in connection with the cut piston rods was "This thing's never running again and I want you guys to make the quickest and easiest job possible out of ensuring the pistons are not going to run dry and possibly seize or break...." which would, of course offered immediate and possibly catastophic consequences! You should have heard the pistons and valves in 4023 when it was moved in the Omaha area a couple of years ago! And it was pre-oiled as well as reasonably possible by Steve Lee and crew, and moved at slow speeds and with care!

John

[Anonymous]

One of the very best ways to either determine whether or not a give proposal or project can be accomplished by the "proposee", contractor, owner, etc., is to require a bond prior to execution of any contract. In this instance, for the group desiring to produce the movie and fund the work on 4018 to have obtained any such bond would have required that they (1) have either a massive and profitable history of "bonding" with one or more "surety" companies (demonstrating a strong likelihood of safety and reliability) or, and maybe ALSO (2) they'd have been forced to put up $1,000,000 in cash or some account held by a reliable financial institution which would agree to place a lock on any withdrawals from such account without the written permission of the Museum. In another part of the (2), they may also have been able to obtain a "bank letter of credit", which is basically obtaining written evidence from a bank or similar institution (and deemed reliable by the surety company) which effectively states that the bank is backing the bond by guaranteeing that (should the movie group go bust and the surety company has to contract with people to complete the project or give the Museum the money to either do it themselves or "compensate" them for "damages) the bank will UPON DEMAND made by the surety immediately give the surety company the amount of the loss up to the $1,000,000 bond limit, afterwhich the bank would seek repayment from the movie bunch. The bank is thus sort of agreeing in advance to make a $1,000,000 loan to the movie group and they'd charge a tidy sum to make such guarantee because they'd be tying up $1,000,000 of the bank's money pending the potential need to make immediate payment to the surety until the contract was fully completed and the term of the bond complete. Well, obviously, this type of matter is not one put together in either a moment's time or without considerable financial backing and wherewithall. Doubltess the movie producers were in no position to put up the financial backing themselves, would have had to resort to another guarantor willing to tie up their own funds in a locked guarantee or obtain the bank letter of credit, which was highly unlikely without the backing and support of some major Hollywood-type movie producers.

I personally believe Danny Bishop had good intentions. However, I also believe he was effectively dreaming and, while intending upon landing grants, good craftsman and also expecting the Union Pacific to jump at the chance of running a Big Boy more or less for nothing, he was never make much of substance happen. Additionally, the Union Pacific was not about to break their long-standing "unspoken rule" in which they basically refuse to run locomotives and trains they do not manage and maintain themselves. At least, not trains like this one! The UP was NOT going to run that loco, not on their track, period.

Regarding the cut piston rods, I personally don't thing their destruction had anything to do with the trackage or roadbed conditions necessary to move the loco into the Museum area. I have twice witnessed 4023 moved through some serious curvature, and her rods are well intact. No, I believe it had far more to do with moving it down to Dallas, and in fact, depending upon where the loco was last stored before movement to Cheyenne (if such even took place, depending upon where it was prior to retirement) the cut could easily have happened many years before the donation. It was far easier for crews to cut those rods than dismantle main rod and valve gear assemblies or the alternative, which is to pull the front cylinder head and remove the piston from the cylinder followed by the piston rod from the crosshead. More, leaving the main rod in place allowed the mechanical lubricators to work and provide oil to important locations during movement south. Depending upon decisions and circumstances (unfortunately, I've seen no photos of the engine during transport from Cheyenne), those in charge of the move would have disconnected the valve rods from the valve rod crossheads so the piston valves were not moved by the rotation of the main rod (which would have had the necessary effect of turning the eccentric crank and thus moving the eccentric rod, which is going to cause movement of the valve via the valve rod).

I think the main thought in connection with the cut piston rods was "This thing's never running again and I want you guys to make the quickest and easiest job possible out of ensuring the pistons are not going to run dry and possibly seize or break...." which would, of course offered immediate and possibly catastophic consequences! You should have heard the pistons and valves in 4023 when it was moved in the Omaha area a couple of years ago! And it was pre-oiled as well as reasonably possible by Steve Lee and crew, and moved at slow speeds and with care!

John