1242 at Walcott, Wyoming, early 1950s:

http://abpr2.railfan.net/abprphoto.cgi? ... up1242.jpg

1243, no date, photo says Cheyenne, but possibly Green River, where it was stored 1955-1968:

http://abpr2.railfan.net/abprphoto.cgi? ... up1243.jpg

838 looking good at Cheyenne in 1956:

http://abpr2.railfan.net/abprphoto.cgi? ... /up838.jpg

Looking more bedraggled at Council Bluffs, Iowa, 9/21/58:

http://abpr2.railfan.net/abprphoto.cgi? ... up838a.jpg

I hope #838 is cosmetically restored and placed on display somewhere someday.

Agreed, but the locomotive will likely "steam" its present course as parts-source--or rather parts-template--for sister 844 for the forseeable future.

Has anyone done a comprehensive assesment of the UP 838? What is wrong with it? What was removed from it? I would think that welding and patching of anything that was removed with a torch would be not unlike replacing the sheets in any major overhaul anyway. What am I missing, or more to the point, what is she missing?

Steve

I've seen pix of #838 (which I can't find now) that apparently show small sections of the boiler and firebox cut out-- I'm not sure why. Pictures also show that various appliances have been removed- probably rebuilt as spares for #844, along with some of the running gear, boiler jacketing, etc.

I doubt there's ever been a comprehensive assessment of #838 because there's really no reason for it, no plans for restoration or operation. If the boiler and running gear of #838 were really in better condition than #844, the time to make a switch would have been about 10 years ago when the extensive multi-year overhaul was done on #844. I'm sure UP feels the 'celebrity' status of #844, having been in continuous operation since it was delivered in 1944, is unique and worth investing money in preserving.

Who's to say the numbers weren't switched and the one running now IS #838? It's not like railroads have never switched the numbers on locos!

On the other hand, 2-10-2 #5511, also stored at the Cheyenne roundhouse, appears to be relatively intact and could be put on display somewhere with little or no cosmetic restoration.

Everyone,

My understanding is that the 838 has a 1 piece cast cylinder bed that is cracked and thus very costly to repair.

Also she has been a parts source as already mentioned.

JD Johnson, Morehead and North Fork Railroad Historian

ohhh, that is a good point, how do we know which is which and they didnt switch them on us 10 years ago? (i doubt they did, but good point)

The builder and boiler number are likely stamped on the steam dome. Should anyone ever be in a position to look. It would look something like this:

It sits indoors and serves a purpose. Why take it out and put it on display? So it can be a constant consumer of paint, pigeon crap,and money at some park or outdoor museum? Theres more than enough steam engines on display and in service do we need 2 UP 4-8-4's running? Be happy with the one in operation.

Bob, it's great to see you in here this evening! Good to see you doing what we (most of us) have appreciated.
I posted a link, a few weeks back, with photos of the U.P. steam locomotives in their Cheyenne home, including 838. She still wears her smoke lifters, which I personally like very well. The 4-8-4 is not in bad shape insofar as the eye ca see, but she is bereft of significant parts. I'd kind of liked to have seen those removed from 844, replaced on 838, so a virtually "intact" locomotive is maintained. Could she be run again? Of course, but at horrific expense. When she's "used up" should she be scrapped? I hope not. She'd make a good indoor exhinit piece somewhere, as would 5511. I think U.P. knows what they have and are invested, at least for the time being, with their steam program.
Union Pacific see something in running a steam heritage fleet that Canadian Pacific sees, and has been lost on some other mega-conglomerate railroads. Let us hope their light shows CSX and NS, among others, a similar vision.

Bob -

Seeing these photos of 1242 and 1243, it's amazing to me that the UP was running these engines in regular service at such a late date. There were some other "old" engines running on a "modern" railroad at the end. The Wabash's 3 Mogul's quickly come to mind as do the two old Ten-Wheelers on that New York Central line up in Canada. And of course, the 3 American-Standard's that the CP was still running. I wonder which line had the biggest disparity between an old engine, or engines, and its newest power, when those old engines were retired, and how many years was the difference. Be interesting to figure out some day.

Les