As to an earlier post as to cab signals, UP uses cab signals so I must assume 844 has had them since it was built as it was never retired. 3985 and 4014 either still have them or received them again when they went back into service.

On PRR (which used the same cab signal system but different carrier frequencies) steam engines had whistle and acknowledger only, meaning when the cab signal changed to a more restrictive aspect, an air whistle would sound in the cab until acknowledged by the engineer. After three fatal derailments in 1950-1951, PRR installed speed control on some K4's. This would apply the train brakes if the whistle were not acknowledged or if the train speed exceeded the speed authorized by the cab signal. It could not close the throttle.

Until the fatal collision at "GUNPOW" (Chase MD) in 1987, passenger locomotives and E44's had speed control but freight locomotives did not.

I don't know if UP used the speed control (sometimes called Automatic Train Control) function on its steam engines.

Phil Mulligan

Why not send 3985 to Pomona as a replacement for 4014?

Not a bad idea at all, but man, what a job it'd be to get it into 4014's old spot...

Kelly,

Can you direct us to this announcement?

Thanks

Paul

I have thought for quite some time that this is where the preservation community dropped the ball when it came to PTC. The rule of thumb on regulations that I believe makes the most sense is that if you can't stop something from happening, at least be in on writing the rules to make them as bearable as possible. When PTC was first proposed after the California wreck, the excursion community probably should have tried to be part of drafting the legislation, so they could have gotten some kind of outright historic equipment exemption. Barring that, I think a perfectly fine compromise would have been that the equipment is exempt from PTC if someone from the host railroad's supervision was present on the equipment and in-charge of the operation. That is something that is often the case with many excursions anymore. Sometimes (and I know that is true for say Ft. Wayne), one of the engine crew members is a current RFE or similar supervisor for a host railroad. My experience from the second great revival of steam in the 80's and early 90's was that there usually was a senior management official on just about every excursion to make sure things ran smoothly (I will grant you that I'm not sure about deadhead or ferry moves). I know it's too late now, but if a major disruptive rule proposal comes up, get ahead of it, don't live in denial.

.

I have said it a million times. Unless you hear it from Ed then don't believe it. Until then anything from official Facebook pages, fan clubs, previous and current Union Pacific employees, Trains magazine, Train orders, and your sisters friend of a brother, who heard something about someone who knows all about it, is just speculation.

In regards to PTC I remember reading last year that Ed got exemptions for all three steam locomotives.

I have noticed since the completion of the Big Boy, that there is a lot of people craving attention on this subject. So much so that if you happen to have a picture of Ed or if you take a tour in the steam shop, suddenly you are a Union Pacific representative with all kinds of forbidden knowledge. You know even more then the steam team knows. Like what the Presidents and CEO's are saying in closed door meetings. It's all a bunch of BS.

Saying that the steam program is ending is absurd. If that was really true, then what is the point of them still working there? Yes they are still working there as a few steam shop tours were given recently showing the Big Boy with the rods off, a stack of new fire brick, and the side rod bearings on a pallet. I have heard many rumors that the Big Boy is expected to make a run to Denver at the beginning of March. Also many rumors that the schedule for this year has already been finalized but not released yet.

I do not know what this obsession with the #3985 is? If I was Ed I would be telling anyone and everyone that it would never run again just so they stop asking about it. The majority of us have already seen the #3985 and it isn't much different then the Big Boy. You would have to have balls the size of coconuts to go in front of the board to ask for another million or so to finish the #3985 after the likely 8 million or so it cost for the Big Boy. I couldn't even imagine the looks on their faces when they say "the Big Boy isn't good enough for you"?

No matter what anyone says it's pretty clear the #3985 isn't going to get any attention for likely the next 3-5 years. There is no reason to restore it, they don't need it, they likely don't want to work on it, and there probably isn't any money in the budget even if they did want to restore it. So yes it's both true and false when people say the locomotive is retired. It will stay retired until they get bored and start working on it again. That could take 2 years or 20 years. Here a little video by your truly to reminiscence on the #3985 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YUwExIn4nY

Ok, but it's a direct quote from Union Pacific itself:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/UPSteamClub/

[quote="Tom F"]I have said it a million times. Unless you hear it from Ed then don't believe it.


and many have heard Ed Dickens say first hand "as long as I'm in charge 3985 will NOT run"

I agree inasmuch that UP doesn't need three steamers running. They don't need two or even one. But they do run them. We need to be grateful for that. But be honest about the reason for the retirement.

That's not something I've ever heard him say ... in that tone of voice, almost like Steve Lee discussing Big Boys.

What I've heard him say, repeatedly, firsthand is that there are no plans to run 3985 through the very expensive quality-assured process 'necessary' (under the peculiar VP arrangements that have governed the steam-shop operation at 'corporate' level) for it to operate again.

It is NOT that he particularly doesn't want it rebuilt, or operating, more that the time and expense warranted to do the required job in full is not 'corporately justifiable' now. Which is a very different thing from what the above quote seems to imply.

(Now, of course, I'm not going to call anyone here a liar, and if Mr. Dickens did in fact say the words mentioned above, I'd like a quote in context from a documented source to establish it...)

On several other forums, there are people declaring, "see? I told you so," when they were the same people who declared many times that Ed was the literal devil incarnate and would be fired at any moment for everything just short of the Lindberg baby kidnapping. They also declared that 4014 (and often, 844) would never run and Ed would never have anything running at all.
They all laid low for quite a while, having been made to look like fools, and now they're out in droves again over this 3985 thing. "See? I told you," they all finally got to say, for something I sort of doubt anyone thought would happen in any other way.
UP never promised anyone that I'm aware of that 3985 would run again.
Many of these people loved Steve Lee and hate to se anyone else in charge of the UP program. And to be fair, I think most of these posts are made by the same people, on any forum they thing they won't get booted from.
I seriously pondered finding a forum far removed from this hobby a while back and post how cool it'll be to see 4014 running, certain they'd somehow find the post and post their nay-saying. With a few, it's like saying "Beetlejuice" three times...
Many of you know the person/people of which I'm referring.

Amen. I heard the same quote when I was in the military as well.

As a general indication concerning applicability of PTC, I would mention two parts of CFR title 49, in a particular order. For reference, a link to e-CFR is

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/test/49/part-236/subpart-I

First, examine the provisions of 49 CFR 236.1029, which indicates that in the absence of functioning PTC a 'passenger train' may not exceed 40mph ... a somewhat interesting number to choose ... unless there is a functioning block signal system (in which case 59mph is permitted) or a cab-signal system with 'automatic train control' (in which case 79mph is permitted). There is an exception when operations call for PTC to be 'the exclusive method of delivering mandatory directives' to a train; this requires an absolute block to be established and then maintained ahead of the train as it proceeds before it can move at more than restricted speed.

Second, consider the requirement under part 230, section 79, regarding on-board signal systems on steam locomotives. If such a system is provided, and kept working, and has the functionality appropriate to an ATC system as in 236:1029(b)(3) then operation on a nominally-PTC-equipped main line with an excursion passenger train would be permissible as indicated... technically right up to that 79mph indication. If ATC functionality is not provided, the worst-case 'fallback' speed is 40mph -- which happens to be maximum dictated 'excursion speed' in recent history on many railroads -- and I for one find that appropriate.


Incidentally, it was common knowledge by the time 4014 was in West Chicago that 3985 would not be rebuilt for service. Presumably (at least I so presumed) that would involve pushing 3985 into the roundhouse next to 5511 and periodically moving it slightly to preclude fretting the bearings. Has there been anything in this whole kerfuffle of rumors that actually indicates UP in intending to 'deaccess' 3985 from its ownership, either reducing it to a plinthed outside exhibit somewhere or selling it to somebody?