.

Kind of exactly like, say, Bessemer & Lake Erie 643........

[dives for the foxhole]

The biggest issue with 5511 is the cut piston rods and unlike 4014 3985 and 844 no parts common to the others that would be in the roundhouse. The 3 that will be up and running out of Cheyenne all share parts in some way. They all use the same air compressors dynamos staybolt lengths and type of stays in the boiler. They also use the same lubricators valve gears tenders and quite a few more parts. We all saw how when they couldn't get 4014's tender done in time how they just put 3985's behind for now. With 3 engines UP has engines that can go anywhere why have a slow drag freight engine that can not get out of the way in today's era of fast trains.

Back in 2011, I was advised that 5511 was not deemed "out of the question" for a regional representative locomotive. At the present, she only takes up a roundhouse track and remains somewhat viable. Maybe not the best choice for an operational locomotive, but she probably should be used for some specific historical purpose. If displayed, put her indoors and under cover, otherwise she represents a terrific artifact of her age, standing next to her sisters. Union Pacific seems to understand the value of their steam lineage.

I really suggested 5511 because I knew it was a slow freight hog: with a shorter train operating from Cheyenne, I’d think that the 5511 would be good for a short distance, slow train. Think of how fast the locomotives go at your nearest tourist train ride, but just a smidge faster, no faster than 25-30mph.

I absolutely do understand the concerns with maintenance and toughness on track though. Maintaining an older engine without interchangeable parts would not be in the best interest of the UP. Making it more difficult was that it has Young Valve Gear, compared to the valve gear for the later engines. But I thought the toughness on track was mainly due to the 10 and 12 coupled engines at higher speeds with heavier loads. Or was I wrong?

Whatever it is, it’s just an idea. A bit of wishful thinking by me, but you never know these days. They said the big boy was wishful thinking and look where we are now.

Cut piston rods are probably the easiest part of restoring 5511. New piston rods probably cost a couple of thousand dollars. The necessary firebox work would be three orders of magnitude more. But if the U.P wants to do it, it will get done. That said, 5511 has quite a few issues. It is a 1923 Baldwin product, and a far cry from a modern locomotive. It predates roller bearings and that may be its actual achilles heel. The designs in the 1920's were for long slow drag freights, 30 MPH or less. Not a good fit for an excursion locomotive that has to live in U.P.'s 60+ MPH network.

Is there a UP Pacific in existence? Or maybe a Mike? Those types would be better short-distance excursion locos.

UP 3203, ex OR&N 197 is slowly being restored at the Oregon Rail Heritage Center (also home to 4449 and SP&S 700).

There's another UP "Mike" in SoCal, at the museum near Redlands. The 9000 is safe in Pomona, and totally impractical for operation, although a delicious idea.

I hoped starting a new thread would spark discussion about the video, which covers much more than #4014.

OK, I'll take this in another, albeit 4014-related direction.

Early in the rebuild there was lots of controversy about converting the 4014 to oil firing. Everything from "it can't be done" to "if they do it she'll explode and kill half of Cheyenne!" to "just do it like they did the Challengers". I was always of the opinion that modern combustion engineering would be more than up to the task and the availability of computer modeling would make creating a burner for the Big Boy no big deal.

After watching the videos of 4014 and 844, I have noticed that there is little, if any, smoke from 4014's stack while there is copious but intermittent smoke from 844. Is this mostly fireman related or is there something in the new burner designed for 4014 that is the difference. If it is the burner, then UP needs to go back to the designer for an update to both 844 and 3985!

If I recall correctly, there are two UP mikes in Southern California. There is one at OERM (or whatever they are calling it right now) that is slated to be restored at some point, and another one in a park in Riverside. I would guess the mike in the park is in a lot worse shape than the one at OERM.

The "copious smoke" is definitely fireman related. This is the first time that they have needed two firemen at once, so a man with less experience is now gaining some experience.

One of my BN engineer (diesel, of course) friends thought that the 844 was doing all the work because she made more smoke. I told him it meant that the engineer had throttled down, but the fireman had not yet bumped his fire back. It takes a while to get the hang of it, everybody on the UP team is a good rail, BET ON IT.

When an oil burner is working, and the fire is adjusted correctly, you should have either no smoke, or a light grey haze. Instead of black smoke lazily rolling back over the tender, the exhaust STEAM should be shooting straight up out of the stack. Nine cars with three locomotives ??? Not much work for a Big Boy there, but it's a break in trip. She'll do some talking when they tie her on to a loaded coal train, with no help from another engine. I'd love to be there to see THAT.

VIVA UP 4014, 3985, 844, and my congratulations yet again to the steam team !!!

There’s UP MK-1 2005 in Pocatello, Idaho, MK-9 2295 (the one in last of the giants) in Boise, Idaho, USRA 2537 in Walla Walla, Washington, and MK-10 2564 at the OERM.

You may be thinking of UP 6051, a rather large and more modern 2-8-0 in Riverside, CA. Aside from the 2564 there are no UP mikes close to Southern California.

Out of all of the options, 2295 looks to be kept in very good cosmetic condition these days, right next to the Boise train depot, and is also the only MK-9 ever equipped with a “weather window”.