[color=#0040BF][i]838 has given her heart, guts, etc., and will give more, but that leaves her with a broken spine, and if her boiler is transplanted, no lungs! Now, her cab might be a museum piece, and I'm all for that, but as she donates, used components off 844 don't go back on. As she sits today, the loco rests on her drivers and a cannibalized trailing truck. Her tender sits on the ground. I hate to say goodbye to such a selfless organ donor, but face facts[/color][/i]

This is the first time I have heard that the 838 has a broken frame. (A lot of this is from memory, so don't kill me). I seem to remember that Steve Lee stated not too long before he retired that he felt that the stripping of 838 would be stopped and he felt that it had been in essence a poor decision to use the locomotive for a parts source. At the time it was reported that she could be in fact repaired, but lots of additional work would be needed due to the way some of the parts were harvested. I can't imagine why UP would have chosen to save a locomotive with a broken frame while scrapping others that were in better condition. As a UP customer and stock holder, I applaud them for their proud history that they so well embrace. I can't see them actually restoring the 838, but I can't see them scrap it either. I think that when 844 needed a complete firebox a few years ago, that would have been the time for them to consider a boiler swap if it has ever been seriously considered.

Also, the E-9 B that Wisconsin Southern has restored from the Illinois Railway Museum is an ex-UP unit 967B. I hate to see the 928 e-unit so disgorged and laying on the ground like that. The Wisconsin Southern used an ex-BN E9A as a major parts source when they returned the 967B back into a locomotive as it had been stripped and used as a steam generator by the Michigan Northern. The last time I looked, the donor E-9A was still in Horicon Wisconsin and available. Perhaps there is enough to make one out of 2 there.

Steve

I hope if the 844 needs a new firebox in the future, the UP would see the wisdom to have a new one built, instead of using an old one from the 838, even if it has low usage. It would best for both locomotives. Dave

844 did recieve a new firebox, i am sure it didnt come from 838. My concern would be scrapping the turbine tender, its an earlier series turbine tender and would be a sad loss.

Mike Pannell

Cheyenne

Boy, I am really confused about this little bit of information! I know that steam locomotives were renumbered at times during their careers, some times more than once. But why would a railroad renumber an engine ONE NUMBER DOWN? It doesn't seem that it would be to allow the old number (3523) to be used for a new diesel series. Or that a different steamer was given that old number. I just don't get it. Would be nice if someone from the GTW (or CN) historical societies, or someone with a knowledge of CN system steam,, knew the reason, but I guess there is not much chance of that. Anyway, at this point in time, I guess the reason is moot!

Les

Les,

I have no record of this renumbering happening. GTW rebuilt engines 3520, 3521, 3522 and 3523 (of the S-1-h class) to the 0-8-2 wheel arrangement in 1936 and 1937. None of these engines were renumbered.

Circa 1947, all members of this class were in service and accounted for on the GTW:

http://www.trainweb.org/j.dimech/roster/1947282.html

All of these engines were scrapped between 1955-1960

http://www.trainweb.org/j.dimech/roster ... html#S-1-h

Also, as GTW renumbered their 2-8-2's to make way for diesels, they were renumbered into the 4000 series and the 2-8-2s that were numbered were in the 3700 and 3800 series.

Also, I can't even find any record of CN assigning the 3500 series to Diesel Locomotives until it renumbered a batch of ALCo M420W engines in 1986.

In short, I see no evidence at all to support this. If anyone has actual evidence of this, I would not mind seeing it.

Looks like Mr. Leonard's caption information could be off. . .all I did was copy the caption, the big point of interest was the valve gear. . .mea culpa. . .

844's firebox was made in house. It did not come off 838. The boiler of the 838 is so good, the steam shop is intent on saving it as a single unit. I was told that 838's final demise is years away, so now is not the time to panic.
The tender off the turbine is not yet consigned to scrap. The Buckeye trucks underneath it are its real value at this time. 838's tender is sitting on the ground, on her journal boxes. I would think this tender would be the one on borrowed time. If a museum or long run steam operator wanted an auxiliary tender, this would be the time to make a bid. Even so, the tender is still providing parts for 844 and 3985's tanks. Remember the earlier commentary, that the long wheel base of this piece makes it usable on only certain tracks. Before you move it, you will need to drain whatever liquid remains inside.

Rermoving an old firebox and then installing it in another boiler? I assumed that was simply bad communication.....who would ever consider such a thing? From a practical perspective alone.....given the costof the steel is just a small amount relative to its fitting and installation. Was this really being considered?

dave