It is currently Tue Dec 11, 2018 7:26 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 35 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: UPRR 3985?
PostPosted: Wed Mar 07, 2018 9:59 am 

Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2011 5:57 pm
Posts: 57
What's the present status of UP 3985 and are there any plans to operate it again?


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: UPRR 3985?
PostPosted: Wed Mar 07, 2018 12:45 pm 

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 1:24 am
Posts: 72
Location: Michigan
RichardWilliam wrote:
What's the present status of UP 3985 and are there any plans to operate it again?


Mothballed while 4014 is receiving the work, and yes, in theory.

See the most recent update from Ed Dickens.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: UPRR 3985?
PostPosted: Wed Mar 07, 2018 1:59 pm 

Joined: Sat May 02, 2015 2:51 pm
Posts: 11
Stored in the Roundhouse in Cheyenne awaiting restoration.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: UPRR 3985?
PostPosted: Wed Mar 07, 2018 9:24 pm 

Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 8:44 am
Posts: 646
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
I watched Dickens' most recent presentation on YouTube yesterday, and while I can't vouch for the accuracy of his comments, he did mention #3985's future several times. In summary, he said there were plans to restore #3985 to operation after #4014 was finished. He said doing so properly would involve removing the front engine as has been done with #4014 in order to replace all the piping, lube lines, etc., that are routed through and underneath the engine that are otherwise impossible to reach and are doubtlessly buried under years and years of crud and debris. He also said that new parts necessary for the completion of #4014 that would also fit on #844 and #3985 are being ordered and produced in triplicate. I know there are a number of prominent detractors of Dickens, but I was encouraged by what he said was in the works.

_________________
David Wilkinson
KSL TV, Salt Lake City, UT


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: UPRR 3985?
PostPosted: Thu Apr 12, 2018 12:40 pm 

Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2017 11:27 am
Posts: 23
The reason why 3985 and 844 where pulled from service so freaking fast when they were a few years back was simple. When it came time to start 3985's 1472 inspection the UP steam crew started finding non certified materials in use on her boiler and in use on stay bolts that were in use on the engine. They made the decision to remove 844 from service when the RO's on file showed that 844 had the exact same parts in her.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: UPRR 3985?
PostPosted: Thu Apr 12, 2018 2:21 pm 

Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2010 2:41 pm
Posts: 119
ironeagle2006 wrote:
The reason why 3985 and 844 where pulled from service so freaking fast when they were a few years back was simple. When it came time to start 3985's 1472 inspection the UP steam crew started finding non certified materials in use on her boiler and in use on stay bolts that were in use on the engine. They made the decision to remove 844 from service when the RO's on file showed that 844 had the exact same parts in her.



Can you clarify what you mean by "non-certified materials"?

DC


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: UPRR 3985?
PostPosted: Thu Apr 12, 2018 2:42 pm 

Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:30 pm
Posts: 144
Yes , what does that mean?


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: UPRR 3985?
PostPosted: Thu Apr 12, 2018 3:38 pm 

Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2004 3:37 pm
Posts: 1103
Location: Pacific, MO
Certified by who? I call BS on that.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: UPRR 3985?
PostPosted: Thu Apr 12, 2018 4:07 pm 

Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2016 11:58 am
Posts: 37
ironeagle2006 wrote:
The reason why 3985 and 844 where pulled from service so freaking fast when they were a few years back was simple. When it came time to start 3985's 1472 inspection the UP steam crew started finding non certified materials in use on her boiler and in use on stay bolts that were in use on the engine. They made the decision to remove 844 from service when the RO's on file showed that 844 had the exact same parts in her.



Please take this whole topic to Trainorders.com and use that site's search function.

Thank you,

Brian


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: UPRR 3985?
PostPosted: Thu Apr 12, 2018 5:49 pm 

Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2004 1:51 pm
Posts: 8952
Location: Somewhere north of Prescott, AZ on the Santa Fe "Peavine"
choodude wrote:
Please take this whole topic to Trainorders.com and use that site's search function.


Not a chance. The static-to-signal ratio there is just too freakin' high.

This is fairly simple, I believe. It is my understanding that state or other boiler inspectors require documentation that certain materials used in boiler repair by a certified boiler shop come from "proper" sources with demonstrable proof, or at least a certificate saying "these staybolts were made with XXX alloy" or whatever.

If I do repairs to a car under warranty, and I don't use factory-approved replacement parts, I'm going to be rejected if I make a warranty claim later involving those parts.

If I'm wrong, this forum has by my count at least a half-dozen regulars eminently qualified to correct me,and a dozen lurkers......

Having said that, I have no idea if the allegation about 844 and 3985 is true. Another possibility: certification requirements changed between overhauls?


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: UPRR 3985?
PostPosted: Thu Apr 12, 2018 6:32 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2018 7:08 pm
Posts: 37
Location: Alberta, Canada
choodude wrote:
Please take this whole topic to Trainorders.com and use that site's search function.
Brian

I tried that, and gave up after 10 minutes of reading "strong opinions", to put it politely. And I did not find a valid, written source saying one way or another what had really happened, only lots of speculation and hearsay.

I am new around here and have no idea what really happened or continues to happen with regard to 3985. But I do have 7 years of employment in train and engine service with a Class I under my belt. My takeaway from being involved in several, shall we say "disputes" at work: If it isn't in writing or film you can show to others, then it didn't happen. And this is a two way street.

I am sure there is someone on this site with access to the hard information I am speaking of.

_________________
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: UPRR 3985?
PostPosted: Thu Apr 12, 2018 7:13 pm 

Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:30 pm
Posts: 144
If all the material in boiler must have documentation of a "certification" or more accurately a "Mill test report" then most all of the locomotives currently running are in violation. There is some leeway for non-documented material. There has to be. If you are going to undertake repairs then the paper starts there as does the design and the procedure and all the subtle nuisances. The inspectors typically trust the CMO who says yes we used this material here to do that. It is how the industry survives.
CCdW


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: UPRR 3985?
PostPosted: Thu Apr 12, 2018 8:58 pm 

Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:30 pm
Posts: 144
Why yes, I have an example: Show of hands, How many of you have heat numbers stamped into the head of each and every rivet in your boiler?

Only about half of you, huh?

No number, no documentation, no compliance.

And yet we still operate locomotives.

CCdW


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: UPRR 3985?
PostPosted: Thu Apr 12, 2018 11:28 pm 

Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2004 2:50 pm
Posts: 2349
Location: Northern Illinois
i believe this is self imposed by the Union Pacific; part of their six sigma quality campaign, or whatever the current buzzword is. They hold their diesel shops to the same standard, everything has to be traceable to a certificate. Of course the steam program didn't used to be run this way, so there is a lot of untraceable material in those locomotives, which, by definition, is NO GOOD. Hey, it's their money, and they have lots of it, so they get to spend it as they wish. The theory in the diesel fleet where they have a huge number of units, is if they start experiencing failures of bearings, or rings, or liners, they can identify every unit those were used in, and proactively change those out before they experience failures on the road. Seems kind of silly in a fleet numbering two engines, but if that's what management says is to be done, that is what will be done. I bet the rest of us would like to have the U.P.'s problems.

_________________
Dennis Storzek


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: UPRR 3985?
PostPosted: Fri Apr 13, 2018 12:17 am 

Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2011 9:40 pm
Posts: 799
I beg to differ. In the first place, both UP locomotives had already been through their first 15-year, 1,472 service day inspections back in the late 1990s. EVERYTHING had to be documented at that time, including MTRs for all material in the boilers and fireboxes, or lab test reports verifiying the material for which MTRs might not have been available.

Further, UP 844 got an entirely new firebox, combustion chamber, tube sheets, flues and tubes, and all new staybolts in the early 2000s. Again, FRA Form 19 required verification of all materials used.

Or are you saying FRA looked the other way? If so, prove it!

UP does not participate in six sigma. It never has participated in that.

UP 3985 was not due for it's next 15-year/1,472 inspection until late 2014, but it was removed from service in early 2011 for reasons that have never been clear and have changed several times since. It has also been documented that 2 boilermakers resigned in disgust in 2011 over this very thing.

There were records of all inspections and repairs and MTRs and everything else on both of those locomotives on file back to the mid-1950s AND on all new parts and materials in stock until early 2011, when all such records were quietly and unceremoniously thrown in Dumpsters and hauled away.

Shortly after that the claim was made that no documentation existed or ever had, therefore all the parts, both in stock and on the locomotives "must be counterfeit, probably Chinese." That was followed by quick scrapping of tens of thousands of dollars worth of new staybolt stock, tubes, flues and steel plates, all marked with the proper and correct ASME/ASTM specifications. This scrapped material was then replaced by new material, meeting the very same specifications, except for some parts that were not code-compliant, such as Huron washout plugs made of SAE 660 bronze rather than SB-61 bronze. (660 is for bearings, not pressure-containing parts)

They even went so far as to drill holes through the ASTM stampings in some parts to obliterate the stamped spec numbers.

ALL of the above has been documented and verified on this and other sites. It was blocked here at RYPN under the excuse that it was considered a personal attack on UP management in general and other persons specifically.


Offline
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 35 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


 Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], LeoA and 80 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to: