What Donald said.

Part of my post (that also got deleted) concerned Brother Dickens life before he got famous. He's pretty well known around here, although I don't have his resume in front of me. Successful work experiences include being a US NAVY fireroom operator, tourist railroad engineman, amusement railroad owner/operator, and UP engineman.

I would also have to say that getting and keeping his position with the UP steam program is quite an accomplishment indeed. Regardless of what the rumor mill puts out, both UP management and the FRA are evidently pleased with his performance or he would not be there. I can tell you from my experience in Class I engine service that UP and the FRA are not playing choo choo. Both entities have been railroading since long before I was even thought of, their experience and judgement in such matters certainly trumps mine.

Just speaking for myself, I am not qualified to do Brother Dickens job, and not qualified to criticize his job performance.

Take Care & WORK SAFE

Thank you, Mr. King. That's all I wanted to know.

DC

Dickens was in the U.S. Air Force, not the U.S. Navy. In fact, he was an Air Policeman (AP) i9n Germany. He was never in the Navy and has never been in the fireroom of any active Navy ship. He received his discharge from the U.S. Air Force.

He worked a short time at the D&SNG and at the Georgetown Loop.

He hired out in Denver in the early-to-mid-1990's on what became the UP. He holds seniority as a locomotive engineer all directions out of Denver, CO.

Thank you, Jeff

I have known Ed Dickens for over twenty years. When he constructed the Rio Golden railroad (Heritage Square, Golden, CO) I was of minor assistance in the track laying.
Ed was easy to work with and I have followed his career since.
Ed also spent time as a steam engineer on the CP with their steam program.

Judge not lest ye be judged

Ira Schreiber

I, for one, am glad to see that the inevitable posts against the current doings with the UP steam program are removed, burned, a steak driven through their hearts and then buried deep within the center of the Earth.
Why? Because the internet seems to have been made for people to trash talk at a distance with impunity.
There'll always be a 'hot button' among any community. PRR 1361 was it until this whole UP steam program not steaming anything firestorm roared in and hasn't left yet.
Problem is, I know for certain that at least 2 people who post on another forum who accuse certain people at Cheyenne of everything but the Lindberg baby kidnapping, have no clue of anything first hand. They're just repeating stuff they have no idea about.
I'm neither decrying nor supporting anything going on with the UP program because I'll admit I have no idea and I'm not familiar with anyone there.
I will say the obvious fact; that for whatever reason, it stinks that nothing is steaming there, but the photos in this thread do indeed support that something is happening there (now, at whatever speed they're happening? Well, that's open to speculation).
Unless a management shift kills the steam program as NS did their in '94, I have no reason to believe that there won't be something steaming out of Cheyenne eventually. 4014 is of course, the one I'd like to see the most, but I'll leave it to the people actually there to figure that out, and their bosses to decide who is and isn't the best to accomplish that as nobody in management will allow eternal spending with no tangible results...

Personally speaking, I see a lot of flak thrown at all the tooling they have been building. People saying its a waste of time

I would LOVE to have half the tooling they have made, you can't restore locomotives without good tools. And they have made some amazing tools over the last year that will not only be helpful on 844, but also 4014, and eventually 3985. And since now a lot of these tools are brand new, they will last another 30 years easily! I think they made the right call there.

Amen, tails..... I've wasted more time trying to get work done coping with not having what's needed to do it than getting the work done itself. Building what you need to do the job before doing the job is good management.

What a pleasure to finally read about the progress of UP’s steam program without having to wade through the “breathtaking inanity” posted elsewhere.

I too wonder the same thing.

It's interesting to note that on page 268 of the 1922 "Locomotive Cyclopedia" under ALCO Flexible Staybolts, there is a statement "...[A]lco Flexible Staybolts will function indefinitely without danger of failure. They are, therefore, of great value in modern locomotive boiler construction and are being used extensively in replacement of rigid bolts upon all classes of motive power." It would seem to me that a flexible staybolt assembly (bolt, sleeve and cap) would be fairly robust in it's application and unlikely to fail in comparison to the rate of a rigid stay. Of course, this is coming from an ad for flexible staybolts. I'm sure real-world differed greatly. I'm aware that UP 844 may not have Alco style flexible staybolts and more than likely has a universal Flannery style bolt assembly, but I'd imagine the principle is identical.

Did Flannery or the UP Shop standard practices ever recommend a replacement interval for flexible staybolt caps and sleeves?

I'm aware of Flannery testing can be used to detect flaws (cracks) in the flexible staybolt itself. What other NDE methods were used?

DC

Nobody (Flannery, Alco, UP, ICC, FRA, ASME or NBIC) established a replacement time interval for staybolts, as properly maintained and tested bolts could and would last 30 or 40 or even more years with no issues. Replacement was done on an as-needed basis, meaning when a bolt broke, or when sheet repairs or replacements were made that required cutting out old bolts to get the sheet out or install a patch.

A used staybolt cannot be reused, nor can it be re-ended to make it longer to fit someplace else. Welding on a staybolt changes the chemistry of the bolt material.

The other NDT method of testing is the hammer test, under hydro pressure. See Part 230. Of course, under hydro pressure, a broken bolt will usually announce itself right away by the steam of water gushing from the telltale hole.

All modern UP engines were equipped with the hollow flexible staybolts that do not require the caps to be removed ever, except to replace a bolt. Again, see part 230.
This includes the new bolts applied to 844 during the firebox replacement in the early 2000s, when the entire firebox, combustion chamber, throat sheet, tube sheets and all staybolts were replaced with all-new, code-compliant, domestically-produced materials.

Once removed, caps can be and almost always are cleaned up, inspected, and reused if still good as proven by the inspection. That is how it's been done since time immemorial. I would guess very few, if any locomotives operating today got all new caps
at any time.

I have yet to see or hear the specific justification for replacing all the caps on 844, aside from some remarks that they were of "inferior material," whatever that means.
I'm sure FRA would love to know more about that "inferior material" and how it passed muster with them in 2004.

And I, too, am waiting to see that list of post-2010 positive accomplishments.



Edited to correct spelling and grammar.

Just a wild guess, but hasn't 8444 had a cab card and worked pretty steady though the second half of the 40s, all the 50s, all the 60s, all the 70s, all the 80s, all the 90s, and most if not all of the first decade of this century ??? It's about time to jack up the whistle and build a new engine underneath, or so I would think.

Again, I'm just guessing, but maybe they don't want to have to take all that stuff apart again anytime soon, once they finish her overhaul. Maybe that is why they're doing such a thorough job.

Better than taking my word for anything, Uncle Pete has provided plenty of opportunities for interested folks to see their equipment and talk to their people on countless excursions, and at Cheyenne open houses, civic events in communities located on their system, and appearances at train shows.

Anybody who really wants to know what's really going on, really can get their information straight from the iron horses's mouth.

Mr. King,

I totally agree with your statement. I believe every operational locomotive will eventually endure thorough rebuilds outside of the scope of work outlined by the CFR in their operating lifetime. However, a quick look back through the RYPN archives shows 844 underwent an extensive rebuild between the years of 1999-2004, as Mr. Penn mentioned, where heavy firebox repairs were performed, including replacement of the staybolt components, that were replaced again this year.

I can't help but wonder why a seemingly robust item such as a 30 or 40 year Flannery flexible staybolt assembly would render itself unfit for service after only 11 years of operation? I'm not claiming to make a point either way, it just seems odd. Perhaps the issues with water treatment in the later years played a part in the decision to replace them all? I don't know, I'm merely speculating. But for the issue to migrate to the sleeves and caps outside the realm of boiler treatment, seems unlikely to me IMHO.

Stranger things have happened in the world but the likelihood that UP between 99-04 would have used "inferior materials" on a locomotive that was and is owned by the UP whom had ample access to their own standard practices, prints, material specifications etc., seems far-fetched.

Anyway, I've speculated enough for one afternoon. Glad to see that the old girl is coming back together.

Cheers,
DC

Speculation, I have no specific knowledge - but the quality of steel available today - and as recently as the last major overhaul - is not as high as that which was commonly available back in the 1940s and earlier. I would not be surprised to find that the material used in the 1990s was found incapable of lasting in service as well as the older did. If several were found deficient during the current inspection / repair phase, it would make sense to replace them all with steel with a better pedigree than risk failure in service.

I got this via facebook a few weeks ago in a post talking about the covers over the flexible stay bolts on the 4014. It is unclear whether the 844 is similarly equipped or not, but these stay bolt CAPS have to be removed per Part 230.41. Further I don't know if these are even allowed under the current part 230. Makes sense to replace these permanent caps with removable/replaceable caps.

https://scontent-ord1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hp ... e=56B0C1EA