The restoration of 1522 was very well organized and when we did it, we had no idea where we would be able to run it. It took 2-1/2 years and a ton of "schmoozing" and trying to make contacts in the industry to find a way to operate it.
We damned well earned to opportunity to operate on the BN/BNSF through blood, sweat and intelligent negotiations and by proving ourselves to be a professional operation. Our greatest compliment from them came after a couple of trips to show them what we were all about was being sent out into traffic and just treated like another train movement.
What blows my skirt up is to have somebody say they came to us, or they asked us to restore an engine or "chose" us. If only it had been that easy. It was a great relationship.
Early in my "career" as CMO, I established contacts in the restoration world that I respected and who had a great track record. Steve Lee, Doyle McCormack, Linn Moedinger and even Jerry Davis on the UP at Steve's suggestion. I still value their friendships and all of the valuable advice they passed along.
So the next time you hear, boy the 1522 sure lucked out, you know "the rest of the story".

Playing devil's advocate here, Dennis:

Let's assume for the sake of discussion that your theory about the cap installation 10 years ago is correct. Then, what about the installation of the bolts themselves?
Do all bolts need to be replaced now? How about the rivets? Any documentation on that from Alco in 1944? Point being, pretty soon you'd have to completely dismantle the entire locomotive and all its parts and start over documenting the raw iron ore, coal and limestone.

Also, if you've every seen the pile of accompanying documentation that goes with an FRA Form 4 and goes to Washington to be checked over, verified and filed, you might want to reconsider your theory that nothing was documented. Admittedly, it probably wasn't documented to Six Sigma standards, but those standards were not being applied at the time, and are not now.

According to people in the shop now (not years ago), there is no Six Sigma program in place there. Further research reveals UP does not use Six Sigma.

Now, I could understand using Six Sigma on a new, ground-up build, although I don't know of any steam operation that has the manpower, time and money to even attempt it. Nor what it would accomplish.

I think you might be on to something here, Charlie, but it may not be the point you intended to make, and which, IMHO, you did make.

UP is a big, bottom-line driven corporation, like any other. They can and do indulge a lot of stuff that another type of management might not (see also CSX and CP).

All railroads are experiencing lower traffic levels, lower revenue, and are in cost-cutting mode. In a big corporation, cost cutting is done by one department head looking at the other departments and seeing what THEY could cut, in his opinion, in order to avoid or minimize cuts to his own little kingdom. IOW, each is looking for someone else's lamb to sacrifice.

SO, someone starts digging and finds that several million was put into a steam locomotive 10 years ago and all went well for a few years. Now they notice more millions going into it. Why, they will ask, with alarm? How many more times are we going to have to do this and how often? And there are 2 more that are bigger than this one. Is it going to take 3 or 4 times what we are putting into this one to get those going? That's real money!! Then have to do it again after a few years? Yet, carloadings are down, we are furloughing thousands of employees, we are cutting back on track and equipment maintenance and on capital expenditures while this goes on unscathed?

What a fat, juicy target for a Lou Menk type!

Yes, I know....what they spend on steam is small beans. They won't be able to increase the dividend or go out and lay 50 miles of second main using the savings from a steam program they are paying for but not getting. It is the symbolism that matters, more often than not.

Just my thoughts.

Thank you for that clarification regarding the drilled flexible stays. A revisit to Part 230 does indeed make the exception for drilled stay bolts. I am not familiar with this style of flexi as all of the locomotives I have worked on are much older than any of the UP steamers and have the more common flexible bolts with removable caps.

No problem. Some railroads never did adopt drilled bolts.

But now, we are back to why did they replace the caps?

AMEN

That's a good question.

Having contacted several museums that have 4000s back when the 4014 was announced, I wasn't able to find one that had been contacted by UP, much less that had had an evaluation of theirs.

Or maybe they just didn't want it known.

I NEVER said 1522 "lucked out". I DID say that they were READY when we couldn't even get a Q engine to work on.

As a matter of fact, Dale Propp asked me who BN should pick. At the suggestion of somebody very famous and accomplished, I suggested 1522 to him. PERIOD. I'm NOT claiming responsibility, or trying to take credit for their success. Plenty of other people told BN the same thing I did.

I AM saying that UP treated us wondertful when we asked them for help. PERIOD.

It's always been said that #4014 was in the best shape of all of the Big Boys, but I'm curious as to whether any serious consideration or evaluation was done on #4004, right there across town in Holiday Park in Cheyenne. Yeah, I know it was flooded over the axles in the '80s, etc., etc.

Well, whatever you say about 844, it should look GOOD and hopefully will be in condition to run with little extra work for a lot of years. I know the quality of the repairs and quality of the operation keeps being questioned, mostly by those who were very close to the program in the past and now feel it is a insult to their work, etc. I think the rest of us at least hope they are wrong about that. At this point the only way we will know for sure is the yet-to-be-made track record of how it runs in the future.

As to which Big Boy got picked for the restoration, I do have to laugh a bit at the debate about which one was in the best shape. It seems to me that the current plan is to do a complete tear down to individual parts and to replace everything that is less then new specs or even has a cosmetic blemish. So it seems likely at the moment, that once it's done, all the new parts put on would of restored most of the Big Boys to operational condition.

I was an automotive mechanic for 10 years, working on volkswagens, old and new. Often, people get an old car and can't resist doing a complete teardown, even going into transmissions and engines, etc, that are in 100% working order. Often, when done, the car now has more problems then when they started, many new ones the car never had in it's whole existence...

I also thought this was funny, for the same reasons. That said, some 4000s would have likely been poor candidates, like the one in the park in Cheyenne, as it's been partially underwater in at least one flood. Picking between that one and 4014 would have been a no-brainer, I'd think.

I'd love to know where the idea got planted that 4014 was in the best condition. Or that 4004 is out due to the flooding. Neither is correct. I'd also love to know if the costs of logistics was given any thought at all. I'm guessing not.

Bar none, the best one is the one UP let get away. That would be 4023. it had fewer miles, was newer, and has Type A superheaters. But the best part is that it got a general overhaul shortly before being stored. If you look at it up close and know what to look for, you can see that the tires are virtually new and of full thickness. The flues, tubes and superheaters are also virtually new. Of course, any of the 8 would have to have been hollowed out and a new form 4 with UT done.

And of course, there is no way that thing is going to come off that hill.

Of the rest, the condition according to WRITTEN UP records, were all about the same when retired. They all were getting close to the limits on flue removal and general machinery repairs and overhauls. 4004 and 4014 fit that category, and 4004 could have been had a lot cheaper than what was ultimately spent just getting 4014 out of the park, across the parking lot, etc. If for no other reason that there would have been no travel expenses to worry about and no pilot crews to pay.

If you think that is peanuts, consider air fares for 5 or 6 or more people for 15 or 20 round trips or more. Then dozens of nights in hotels. Hundreds of meals. Equipment rental, and so on. Not to mention the months consumed that had to be paid for in labor. Those of you who travel much or work construction know what I mean. It adds up quickly. Then there were the 30+ crews it took to move it from the fairgrounds to West Colton and then to Cheyenne. There were probably at least 2 dozen deadheads involved in that, too. And 2 locomotives.

Now compare that to 4004. Yes, there would be some dirt work and panel work to do, but that would be small beans compared to Pomona. But the big saving is that it's just down the street from HQ, thus no travel costs at all. That alone saves a good 6-digit sum. Then there is fact that you'd need no deadheads and only one yard crew to get it to the shop.

But, for whatever reasons, real or imagined, that wasn't done.

Now, can any of you guess which one would have been the easiest to bring "home," meaning no panel track necessary, half the distance, and only 5 pilot crews and 1 locomotive needed? And this is another one that was not even considered.

And there was another not considered that would have been even quicker and cheaper than that one.

Perhaps it was judged that the firebox would not last for the NEXT 15 years (1472 days) and this is as good a time as any to fix that. I figure that some of us "restorationists" and ALL of the foamers would be making all kinds of unseemly noise if 844 went down for firebox work before the NEXT 1472 is due. As far as stay bolt caps are concerned, I don't have any idea how many (if any) were replaced at the last 1472. Could be that there were a large number that were still "good enough" then and are no longer "good enough" now. UP has not said anything, so we are left to speculate.
The complainers are making the unfounded assumption that UP is tolerating the spending of upwards of a Million dollars by an incompetent manager. Successful businesses do not operate that way. The corporate bean counters are scrutinizing the steam program, and you can count on that.

Do I understand correctly that a firebox that was entirely brand new in 2005 and operated only until the middle of 2013 (7 1/2 years) is in such poor condition now that it could not go another 4 years (844's current 1,472 isn't due until 2019)?? That's not likely. Unless, of course, you started using a highly corrosive water treatment a few years ago and stopped doing boiler washes about the same time.

A new firebox, under today's conditions of operating only a few weeks each year and stored under climate controlled conditions indoors the rest of the time, should be good for 40 or 50 years at least, not 7 1/2.

I also have to say again that there is no FRA, ASME or NBIC requirement to remove caps (on drilled flexible bolts), nor inspect them, nor do I know of an established procedure to inspect them, other than the hydro test while they are in place on the boiler. If they don't show any problems under 375 psi hydro pressure or 300 psi MAWP, what kind of inspection CAN be done that is more thorough than that??

And why?

And was such an inspection performed. And why? And how?

And ALL of the caps failed? That doesn't seem likely.

As for the best Big Boy to restore, my vote would've gone to the 4018 in Dallas (at the time). It had to be moved anyways and was connected to live track. Granted that it would need new piston rods, but the weather in Texas is relatively mild, or at least milder than other locations, and it had been lubed and moved back and forth a few years prior.