Trains.com

SACRALIGE!!!!!!

9125 views
25 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    August 2006
  • From: The Sunny South
  • 430 posts
SACRALIGE!!!!!!
Posted by Cheese on Sunday, May 20, 2007 5:42 PM

Hey Ya'll.

On May 19th, the Union Pacific 844 and Southern Pacific 4449 Doubleheaded a train from Tocoma to Everett, Washington.

However, there was a flaw. Not with the mechanics, but with the appeirance of the 4449. UP is so extreme on the no foreign steam policy that it patched the 4449, with a very noticable yellow UP Patch with the number 845 on it.

Ha. Now thats something to laugh about there.

Cheese

Nick! :)

  • Member since
    April 2007
  • From: Iowa
  • 3,293 posts
Posted by Semper Vaporo on Sunday, May 20, 2007 7:34 PM

I don't know this for sure, but it is conceivable that U.P. alreadys has a locomotive with the number 4449 and in order to keep from there being any confusion in communications they applied a different number to that engine.  Hate for a dispatcher to tell a train that they can proceed after engine number 4449 passes and the crew in the hole see the wrong engine and move before the way is actually clear.

 

Semper Vaporo

Pkgs.

  • Member since
    August 2006
  • From: The Sunny South
  • 430 posts
Posted by Cheese on Monday, May 21, 2007 6:29 AM

Oh,

Well, now that you mention that. I makes sense. I can forgive the UP now. LOL.

Cheese

Nick! :)

  • Member since
    August 2006
  • From: South Dakota
  • 1,592 posts
Posted by Dakguy201 on Monday, May 21, 2007 6:45 AM

UP 4449 is a EMD SD70M built in 2001.  Unless it has been wrecked, it is somewhere on the property.

I know a patch was made for 4449 and presented as sort of a gag, but there are a lot of pictures taken in the last week showing it running unpatched.

  • Member since
    March 2016
  • From: Burbank IL (near Clearing)
  • 13,435 posts
Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Monday, May 21, 2007 6:56 AM
There were two gag patches made up, one as UPY 845 and another as UP 844B.  I'm sure that everybody had a good time with them.
The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul
  • Member since
    August 2006
  • From: South Dakota
  • 1,592 posts
Posted by Dakguy201 on Monday, May 21, 2007 7:08 AM
Maybe not so much of a gag after all.  While there are pics of her on this trip running with her normal number above the side windows, there are a couple in which her numberboards have been replaced with "X 844".
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Monday, May 21, 2007 5:33 PM

Yeah, her numberboards said X-844, but the cab and smokebox plate still said 4449. Besides, in the steam era this was common practice. If you look at the train from a 50's point of view, 4449 is the helper on train X-844, so it's required to display the train designation on it's numberboards, just like 844.

An instance of this was when UP 3985 and 844 doubleheaded a few years ago. 3985 was the "train" engine, and 844 was on the head end as a "helper". So 844 display "X3985" on it's numberboards, because that was the identidy of the train.

Ok, maybe someone else can explain it better.......

  • Member since
    October 2006
  • From: heart of the Pere Marquette
  • 847 posts
Posted by J. Edgar on Monday, May 21, 2007 7:21 PM
 4884bigboy wrote:

Yeah, her numberboards said X-844, but the cab and smokebox plate still said 4449. Besides, in the steam era this was common practice. If you look at the train from a 50's point of view, 4449 is the helper on train X-844, so it's required to display the train designation on it's numberboards, just like 844.

An instance of this was when UP 3985 and 844 doubleheaded a few years ago. 3985 was the "train" engine, and 844 was on the head end as a "helper". So 844 display "X3985" on it's numberboards, because that was the identidy of the train.

Ok, maybe someone else can explain it better.......

 

 nope ya got it........the numberboards having the train number and the marker flags\lights were what train crews tower ops and station workers would ID a train with....made railfanning back in the day easier too.....you knew if the train you were watching was the first or second section of the fastmail or the hotshot.....

i love the smell of coal smoke in the morning Photobucket
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Monday, May 21, 2007 7:48 PM
True, but trains rarely operate in two sections these days, so there's no need.
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Monday, May 21, 2007 11:35 PM
Seems to me that this is a non argument.  Since UP ate SP a while ago, it would appear that 4449 is not "foreign" steam but "heritage steam", to use the latest railway slang.  If UP has a policy against locomotives running on their main line that have not been serviced by the UP folks in their steam program, that is their right to renumber the engine, even as a gag. It is their property, their main line, and probably their funding.  At least they have a steam program...
  • Member since
    August 2004
  • From: The 17th hole at TPC
  • 2,255 posts
Posted by n012944 on Tuesday, May 22, 2007 12:34 PM

As long as the UP lets the 4449 run on its main line, they paint the thing pink for all I care.  No matter what the number and what the paint color are, it is still an operating steam engine, which is enough for me.

 

Bert

An "expensive model collector"

  • Member since
    April 2007
  • From: Iowa
  • 3,293 posts
Posted by Semper Vaporo on Tuesday, May 22, 2007 1:13 PM

The SP-4449 doesn't BELONG to U.P., does it?  It IS their railroad, but I didn't think they OWNED the 4449 Steam Locomotive.

They could force the owner to paint a different number of the side of the engine if they felt the present number would cause a problem with identification (what chance would there be of THAT!), and they can assign any number-board number they want for identification in the computerized list of operating power on their railroad (for those that can't actually "SEE", due to being deep in a windowless building a thousand miles from the rail line, that it is just a wee bit different than the 4449 Diesel).

 

Semper Vaporo

Pkgs.

  • Member since
    May 2007
  • From: Midwest
  • 11 posts
Posted by nathansixchime on Tuesday, May 22, 2007 4:07 PM
 n012944 wrote:

As long as the UP lets the 4449 run on its main line, they paint the thing pink for all I care.  No matter what the number and what the paint color are, it is still an operating steam engine, which is enough for me.

 

Bert

These trips operated over BNSF -- therefore, SP 4449 did not operate on UP rails. The 4449 did traverse UP on its way home, but this deadhead move is entirely different from an excursion or revenue generating trip.

KL

  • Member since
    August 2004
  • From: The 17th hole at TPC
  • 2,255 posts
Posted by n012944 on Tuesday, May 22, 2007 7:14 PM
 nathansixchime wrote:
 n012944 wrote:

As long as the UP lets the 4449 run on its main line, they paint the thing pink for all I care.  No matter what the number and what the paint color are, it is still an operating steam engine, which is enough for me.

 

Bert

These trips operated over BNSF -- therefore, SP 4449 did not operate on UP rails. The 4449 did traverse UP on its way home, but this deadhead move is entirely different from an excursion or revenue generating trip.

KL

What?  Which is it?  Is it "therefore, SP 4449 did not operate on UP rails" or "the 4449 did traverse UP on its way home"?  Doesn't matter what kind of trip it was, the UP let the 4449 run on its rails, which it does not have to.

Bert

An "expensive model collector"

  • Member since
    May 2007
  • From: East Coast
  • 5 posts
Posted by 88Mikado on Tuesday, May 22, 2007 8:36 PM

Don't over think it, Bert. Revenue generating excursions are TOTALLY different beasts from deadheads. UP's foreign steam policy relates to excursions only--not deadheads. The poster said the '49 didn't operate on UP with regards to the excursions, so it does matter what type of trip it is because deadheads are different.

 

Will 

  • Member since
    August 2004
  • From: The 17th hole at TPC
  • 2,255 posts
Posted by n012944 on Tuesday, May 22, 2007 8:49 PM

The UP is under no obligation to operate the 4449, or the 844 for that matter.  Regardless of what kind of move it was, people should be grateful that the UP permitted the 4449 to run.

 

Bert

An "expensive model collector"

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 148 posts
Posted by dredmann on Wednesday, May 23, 2007 1:34 PM
Yeah, her numberboards said X-844, but the cab and smokebox plate still said 4449.

Perhaps I am mistaken, but you may be confusing the train number with the locomotive number. I suspect that the locomotive was SP 4449, and it was one of the two locomotives powering train X-844. The "X" is a common designator for "extra", IOW, not one of their usual moves. UP may very well designate any train with UP 844 on point as X-844. The number boards often angled to the left and right of the top front of the smokebox often show the train number.

Ancient but well-known example: if you are familiar with the event / song, "The Wreck of the Old 97", you know that the 97 was not the locomotive (which was number 1132 or something?); the 97 was the train number, which was the number for the south-bound fast mail from Washington, D.C. to Atlanta, GA.
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23, 2007 8:02 PM
 dredmann wrote:
Yeah, her numberboards said X-844, but the cab and smokebox plate still said 4449.

Perhaps I am mistaken, but you may be confusing the train number with the locomotive number. I suspect that the locomotive was SP 4449, and it was one of the two locomotives powering train X-844. The "X" is a common designator for "extra", IOW, not one of their usual moves. UP may very well designate any train with UP 844 on point as X-844. The number boards often angled to the left and right of the top front of the smokebox often show the train number.

Ancient but well-known example: if you are familiar with the event / song, "The Wreck of the Old 97", you know that the 97 was not the locomotive (which was number 1132 or something?); the 97 was the train number, which was the number for the south-bound fast mail from Washington, D.C. to Atlanta, GA.
Yeah, I know. The name of the train was X-844, because generally when UP moves 844 it's X844. So 4449 displayed the train name, just like in the steam era.
  • Member since
    July 2006
  • From: Aledo IL
  • 1,728 posts
Posted by spokyone on Thursday, May 24, 2007 12:45 AM
 n012944 wrote:

paint the thing pink for all I care. 

Be careful what you wish for.
  • Member since
    May 2005
  • 293 posts
Posted by Newyorkcentralfan on Thursday, May 24, 2007 10:23 PM

Don't have to? Yes they do! They're a common carrier and are required to take freight that's transfered to them.  

 

 n012944 wrote:

 What?  Which is it?  Is it "therefore, SP 4449 did not operate on UP rails" or "the 4449 did traverse UP on its way home"?  Doesn't matter what kind of trip it was, the UP let the 4449 run on its rails, which it does not have to.

Bert

 

 nathansixchime wrote:

These trips operated over BNSF -- therefore, SP 4449 did not operate on UP rails. The 4449 did traverse UP on its way home, but this deadhead move is entirely different from an excursion or revenue generating trip.

KL

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 148 posts
Posted by dredmann on Friday, May 25, 2007 1:53 PM
Don't have to [accommodate SP 4449]? Yes they do! They're a common carrier and are required to take freight that's transfered [sic] to them.

No. UP only has to take freight that meets interchange standards. I'm about 95% sure that a steam locomotive would not meet interchange standards. For one, as I recall, 4449 is not all roller bearings, and if so, that alone would disqualify it from meeting freight interchange standards. Also, if the locomotive had steam up, that would probably fail interchange standards. And regardless of bearing type, if it didn't have steam up, it would either not get lubrication to the cylinders (very bad) or else you would have to remove the rods. There are probably other issues too.

Also, there's a big difference between hauling something as freight (presumably cold, in the middle of some freight train) versus letting it run under its own power (which is what 4449 typically does).
  • Member since
    January 2005
  • From: Duluth,Minnesota,USA
  • 4,015 posts
Posted by coborn35 on Sunday, May 27, 2007 2:09 PM
Wow. They are idiots. Who cares if there is a UP 4449? The SP 4449 is exactly what it is. SOUTHERN PACIFIC 4449. Not UP 4449.

Mechanical Department  "No no that's fine shove that 20 pound set all around the yard... those shoes aren't hell and a half to change..."

The Missabe Road: Safety First

 

  • Member since
    August 2004
  • From: The 17th hole at TPC
  • 2,255 posts
Posted by n012944 on Monday, May 28, 2007 4:27 PM

 dredmann wrote:
Don't have to [accommodate SP 4449]? Yes they do! They're a common carrier and are required to take freight that's transfered [sic] to them.

No. UP only has to take freight that meets interchange standards. I'm about 95% sure that a steam locomotive would not meet interchange standards. For one, as I recall, 4449 is not all roller bearings, and if so, that alone would disqualify it from meeting freight interchange standards. Also, if the locomotive had steam up, that would probably fail interchange standards. And regardless of bearing type, if it didn't have steam up, it would either not get lubrication to the cylinders (very bad) or else you would have to remove the rods. There are probably other issues too.

Also, there's a big difference between hauling something as freight (presumably cold, in the middle of some freight train) versus letting it run under its own power (which is what 4449 typically does).

Bingo!!!  Now if the 4449 group wanted to put the engine on a flat car, and PAY transportation as a high/wide load then the UP would be obligated for it.  I would be willing to bet that the UP donated transportation costs on this move.

 

Bert

An "expensive model collector"

  • Member since
    November 2003
  • From: West Coast
  • 4,122 posts
Posted by espeefoamer on Saturday, June 2, 2007 4:13 PM
Why didn't UP do a reverse of the adding an extra digit to their own 4-8-4 and remove the first digit,renumbering the engine 449 for this trip?Laugh [(-D]
Ride Amtrak. Cats Rule, Dogs Drool.
  • Member since
    February 2006
  • From: Gilbert, Arizona
  • 67 posts
Posted by Mimbrogno on Monday, June 11, 2007 3:45 PM

The #4449 is owned by the city of protland and the preservation group who runs her. UP has no right to do ANYTHING to this locomotive, and has no authority to change it's apperance or current construction.

 UP does own the track though, and if they wanted to they can block the #4449 in it's shed. They could also, although it would be a PR nightmare, "steal" the #4449 by buttonholing it on some desolate siding and redflaging it. I'm not sure it would actually be legal or not, but they could lock it up somewhere and keep anybody from getting to it, if it was holed up in the right place.

 On paper UP has to ship any car that meets FRA and ICC standards, but in practice they can pull enough tricks to do anything they want. Right now UP has a limited embargo on all passenger cars coming to Phoenix on their rails. I don't know the exact arrangment, but they won't switch passenger cars in Tucson onto Amtrak trains, and they will only bring passenger cars to Phoenix on UP through freights. UP is also loggerheading Amtrak on serving Phoenix. It seems they just don't want passenger equipment here.

Helping to keep Baldwins alive in the 21st century!
  • Member since
    August 2004
  • From: The 17th hole at TPC
  • 2,255 posts
Posted by n012944 on Wednesday, June 13, 2007 2:07 PM
 Mimbrogno wrote:

The #4449 is owned by the city of protland and the preservation group who runs her. UP has no right to do ANYTHING to this locomotive, and has no authority to change it's apperance or current construction.

The UP owns the SP reporting marks, however.  It is well whithin its rights to have the 4449 use different reporting marks or number if it is using SP reporting marks.

 

Bert

An "expensive model collector"

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy