Page 1 of 2

UP to resurrect a Big Boy?

Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2012 5:57 pm
by BrianMoore
Not a joke. UP is giving serious consideration to bringing a Big Boy (4014) back into service. Look to the web, and you will find the proof.

All the problems and doubts are being chewed upon, but the owners of 4014 have been approached.

http://trn.trains.com/Railroad%20News/N ... rvice.aspx

Astonishing.

Re: UP to resurrect a Big Boy?

Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2012 6:38 pm
by torikoos
yes I read it on Big Blue forum. Exciting, but would be great if something similar would happen with the only surviving Cab Forward too.

Koos

Re: UP to resurrect a Big Boy?

Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2012 7:41 pm
by BrianMoore
torikoos wrote:yes I read it on Big Blue forum. Exciting, but would be great if something similar would happen with the only surviving Cab Forward too.

Koos
The chances of SP 4294 being resurrected by UP are nil (despite the fact that we would have said that about a Big Boy...).

It's non-UP, and has friction bearings, which are not liked by modern railroads - cars that have them are banned from being interchanged. Creating a replica would also be much harder than the A1 Tornado project, due to how US steam locomotive frames were manufactured.

But just think of a modern Challenger/Big Boy double-header, like we see in the DVD's...

Re: UP to resurrect a Big Boy?

Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2012 12:10 am
by torikoos
hmmm interesting point you mention there Brian. I'm not that familiar with steam locomotive construction, but interested to know just how american locomotive builders constructed their frames as opposed to British, or perhaps european mainland (german) methods (if there's a difference between them)?
The visible difference between UK designs and German was the way the various valves, pipes etc were either fitted externally on german machines (which is also common on American locos in many cases), and far less so on British locomotives. Also the dutch railways were using designs ,very heavily influenced by British designs (clean looks), but to the european loading gauge. (Here's an example although some external features are visible on this side of the loco, the other side is very clean : http://www.mobiliteitsmuseum.nl/obj_stoloc_NS_3737.htm)
But what else (besides sheer size) makes US locomotives so much different?

Koos

Re: UP to resurrect a Big Boy?

Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2012 6:14 pm
by BrianMoore
As I understand it, US steam locos had a cast main frame, whilst British ones were manufactured from flat plate (as was Tornado). The ability to create/manufacture such a complex piece of moulding is now apparently lost in the USA.

Re: UP to resurrect a Big Boy?

Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2013 7:54 pm
by Mike_R
Earlier and smaller US steam had bar frames, said to be much more flexible on the rough early lines.

The big advantage cast frames had were when the cylinders were part of the casting, that made them very strong and rigid, but makes for a huge casting. The knowledge can probably be brought back, but also you need the facilities to cast that size.

Re: UP to resurrect a Big Boy?

Posted: Wed Jul 24, 2013 8:55 am
by Gloriousnse

Re: UP to resurrect a Big Boy?

Posted: Wed Jul 24, 2013 6:40 pm
by Mike_R
If any company can afford it, then it is UP, their profits were up again last quarter. Plus their experience with the current preserved fleet.
I look forward to it to being back in steam.

Re: UP to resurrect a Big Boy?

Posted: Wed Jul 24, 2013 6:47 pm
by BrianMoore
Absolutely, Mr Ruby. Ditto!

Re: UP to resurrect a Big Boy?

Posted: Mon Jul 29, 2013 10:33 am
by antonyjq
With reference to a previous post stating that a cabforward will not be restored because of the bearings and the fact that it is not UP (despite being a fallen flag), can anybody confirm what I recently read on an American forum that UP will not allow 4449 on its rails because it does not have UP in its livery?
Ant


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Re: UP to resurrect a Big Boy?

Posted: Mon Jul 29, 2013 12:44 pm
by BrianMoore
The "no UP in its livery" preventing SP 4449 from running on UP rails is an unfounded rumour, passed around by people who loudly opine what they'd like to believe.

However, there may be more substance in the view that, since SP 4449 is not owned or maintained by UP, unwelcome issues of liability may arise in the event of a mishap, and that's why UP wouldn't be keen.

Also, and from what I understand, the "Friends of SP 4449" who operate the locomotive, have never asked UP for permission to operate on their trackage anyway.

Re: UP to resurrect a Big Boy?

Posted: Mon Jul 29, 2013 11:22 pm
by antonyjq
Thanks Brian,
I thought it sounded strange - until I read the earlier post on here.
Ant


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Re: UP to resurrect a Big Boy?

Posted: Sat Aug 24, 2013 8:37 am
by Mike_R
I see 4014 will be earning its keep even before the rebuild. UP plans to move it for most of the route in daylight to published times so people can see it pass.