Uh oh! Do I see a future conflict here? Is that diesel #4014's regular, in-service, number? Recall the 844 change to 8444? They wouldn't change the Big Boy's number would they?

Les

Sub-letter it UPP or UPY and they don't have to change the number.

Not a video update, but some amazing photos, at least in my opinion, of the progress--and in turn, a hint of how much is being done with this locomotive.

https://www.up.com/aboutup/community/in ... 3-2018.htm

re:Locomotive No. 4014's Front Engine Progress video
It appears from the video that the required air demand for operation with oil firing is met by decreasing the orifice area and apply Goodfellow projections, this increases backpressure.
It is a pity that the basic theory for multiple exhausts and chimneys, by the american Buckingham in 1913, is not applied. A smooth 5th orifice would have resulted in a lower backpressure with the needed vacuum.
Kind regards
Jos Koopmans

I think they were burned with the 'improvement' effort on 3985 and are therefore going with a 'default' configuration approximating what was established to work. I will be watching the initial firing calibrations with some interest, as I suspect much of the 'original' firing with subbituminous coal has more in common with liquid-fuel firing than most forms of normal solid-fuel stoker firing...

It would not be possible to build the table with 'five nozzles' each and allow easy return to four if something in the new design were misproportioned. If the design turns out to have firing deficiencies in service, cutting/milling out the diaphragm with the four nozzle-holders in and keyhole-welding in a replacement with five will be a comparatively small expense.

Robert,
At this point of time in history it is quite possible to calculate the performance of a 4 or 5 orifice situation and compare the results. (i should say 8 or 10).
3985 was based on flawed Porta theory.
Kind regards
Jos Koopmans

Now have the video Mr. Koopmans referred to, and it has a few more details than were in the post I had earlier.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkbGoSK ... ture=share

IMO converting 4014 to oil will have enough glitches to get dialed in without throwing experimental theory into the mix. Get it converted with 3985 technology, tune it up and run it.
The engine isn't going to be used in the same service that it was built for. Some of this "technology" experimented with worked on small locomotives to a certain extent. Getting 4014 drafted correctly and the burner dialed in is enough to contend with going in.
I'm a dinosaur, but if it worked for decades, there must be something to it.
We will have to see how the rotary poppet valves and the Elesco FWH bundle on the smokebox works first.

"experimental theory"??? Buckingham showed in 1913 that a proper scale model would give scale performance. Properly scaled double chimneys would give together identical performance as the single original.The issue is that double chimneys are lengthened to the height allowed by the loading gauge and as such they are scale models of a single chimney with a height of squareroot(2) or 141% of the single original. They have the consequential improved performance. Young of Illinois tested in 1933 a double length chimney against a 4-orifice system and found identical performance. Both Buckingham and Young publications are on the web, so check for yourself!
The 8-orifice UP 4014 frontend should be regarded as having 8 chimneys and can be compared to a single system with a length of 282% of the present value and 10 orifices would increase that value to 316%. Just plain present day fluid dynamics and far removed from the fairy tales that people appear to embrace!
Kind regards
Jos Koopmans

If it were up to me ( which it isn't !! ) I'd leave her a coal burner as God and Alco intended as that's the Full Monty in my view.

If it must be a smudge pot then use what worked in the 3985 and go from there.

Let's hope she runs well and often.

Happy New Year. Ross Rowland

Neither Porta's theory, which failed utterly and miserably when attempted on a large steam locomotive not Buckingham's pretty little scale model have any application to large, US steam locomotives with their enourmous appetites for fuel, water and air and the demands placed upon them.

I have yet to see one of those fancy modified engines pull 9,000 tons up a one percent grade hour after hour, day after day, year after year. Simply put, the conditions under which those things operated were totally different from what was expected (and demanded) on this side of the pond.

Yes, they made some great test records and did very well with much smaller consists.

Let's not forget that PRR's "Big Engine" was a wild success and highly powerful on paper, but was a full-blown dud in actual real-world application. And it was certainly not the only one that didn't live up to the theory and hype.

This thing is not going to pull much nor run very fast (In steam days, UP 4000s were limited to 50-55 mph) Mostly it will have to perform as well as it can under under light loads and a lot of drifting. It won't be fun, but it can be done.

Interesting! Are you really denying that there is solid theory explaining the behaviour of a double chimney 8-orifice system? Like small and large jet engines, size does not come into this!
Kind regards
Jos Koopmans

They will give the diesel a new number.

Theory is meaningless in this case. The thnigs I described that were actually built, installed and tested failed under real-world conditions. That is the ONLY thing that matters.

The two-stack, 2-sets-of-annular exhaust nozzles worked VERY well. The Porta system didn't.

I am discussing the solid american theoretical background of the 4014 front-end, not Porta's derailment. Proper theory is not meaningless, unfounded opinions are.
Kind regards
Jos Koopmans