Fascinating article and photo coverage of moving the two immense Union Pacific 4-8-4's. It appears that 833 is in better physical shape, and the fact that her tender was still half full (fuel oil) leads one to believe that perhps it is not as badly corroded as some park locomotives.
My question: Why were the engines moved? Are they in safer and more responsible hands at present? And finally, FWIW, wouldn't the money spent on moving them have been better spent reconditioning them for service after U.P. 844 has gone the limit? I was told that 844's boiler is nearing the end of it's service life. I'd like to know more about both of these locomotives.



glueck@saturn.caps.maine.edu

Greetings,

The equipment moved from Dodge Park to the Railswest Museum is in great hands. The equipment is now displayed next to the former Rock Island depot in Council Bluffs. I routinely drive by this during my daily errands. While in Dodge Park, the equipment was fenced off so no one could get close except for those who cut a hole in it. The tender on the CB&Q unit has a cracked frame (since replaced by Railswest). I don't think it was feasible to rail this equipment. There were some interstate bridges I don't think the 833 would clear. Not to mention, the Railswest display grounds are land locked. These folks are good and have accomplished a lot for as small as they are. I think they deserve a round of applause for their efforts. Also, the UP and the city of Council Bluffs should be thanked for their cooperation.

Thanks,
Gerald Kopiasz, President
Heartland Railroad Historical Society


Heartland Railroad Historical Society
hrrhs@aol.com

> Fascinating article and photo coverage of
> moving the two immense Union Pacific
> 4-8-4's. It appears that 833 is in better
> physical shape, and the fact that her tender
> was still half full (fuel oil) leads one to
> believe that perhps it is not as badly
> corroded as some park locomotives.
> My question: Why were the engines moved? Are
> they in safer and more responsible hands at
> present? And finally, FWIW, wouldn't the
> money spent on moving them have been better
> spent reconditioning them for service after
> U.P. 844 has gone the limit? I was told that
> 844's boiler is nearing the end of it's
> service life. I'd like to know more about
> both of these locomotives.
Both of these locomotives were moved to different display locations due to there being conflicts with their old locations. Neither one is owned by the UP, and they would probably have little desire to repurchase them. As far as their 844 boiler having "gone the limit", the are in the process of replacing the firebox on her. (something that UP calls routine in steam days, and was in fact done to many of the 800's just not the 844) They also a few years ago completed a complete running gear overhaul on her. I certainly hope that they don't NS their program, but I would expect to see her remain on their active roster for many years to come. They also own the 838 which resides along side the 844 in the Cheyenne roundhouse. Although they did a lot of canibalizing to her for spare parts, I would bet that they would rather rebuild her if something happened to the 844. I understand that it would need a lot of boiler patches to correct excessive zeal while trying to get spare parts. But heck, if they are building an entire new firebox, I doubt that the damage would be too much to correct. (Just a guess, I have no first hand knowledge)
Steve


sacarlso@scj.com

At the time #833 was moved, I questioned why it was moved by highway rather than on rails since it the park it was located in was only a block from UP tracks. The responses I got, including one from Bob Krieger of UP's steam program indicated that while UP was initially receptive to moving #833 by rail, some of the local individuals involved in the move tried to manipulate or force UP in the negotiations. Rumors were spread by some that UP was bringing #844 to Salt Lake City to tow #833 to Ogden in a special move. After these things happened, UP shut the door on negotiations to move the loco by rail. Another UP consideration was that a rail move would have involved tying up the busy main line between SLC and Ogden and any breakdown or delay would have been disastrous.

> Both of these locomotives were moved to
> different display locations due to there
> being conflicts with their old locations.
> Neither one is owned by the UP, and they
> would probably have little desire to
> repurchase them. As far as their 844 boiler
> having "gone the limit", the are
> in the process of replacing the firebox on
> her. (something that UP calls routine in
> steam days, and was in fact done to many of
> the 800's just not the 844) They also a few
> years ago completed a complete running gear
> overhaul on her. I certainly hope that they
> don't NS their program, but I would expect
> to see her remain on their active roster for
> many years to come. They also own the 838
> which resides along side the 844 in the
> Cheyenne roundhouse. Although they did a lot
> of canibalizing to her for spare parts, I
> would bet that they would rather rebuild her
> if something happened to the 844. I
> understand that it would need a lot of
> boiler patches to correct excessive zeal
> while trying to get spare parts. But heck,
> if they are building an entire new firebox,
> I doubt that the damage would be too much to
> correct. (Just a guess, I have no first hand
> knowledge)
> Steve


davew833@yahoo.com