Narrow Gauge Railroad Discussion Forum
This is a forum for the discussion of narrow gauge and steam railroading with a primary emphasis on railroads operating in the US. While discussions of modeling are welcome, please try to limit such discussions to issues relating to the prototype. This forum is not associated with any organization or group, and the authors of each post are solely responsible for the content of their post.
The forum is open to anyone to read, however if you wish to participate, you will have to register, and to provide a valid e-mail address. When you do so, you will be sent a confirmation e-mail with a link which you can use to activate your account. You are free to use a handle as your screen name should you wish to do so, however we do ask that you provide a real name in the profile associated with your handle. Beyond that all we ask is that you accord yourself as if you were visiting a friend's house, or roundhouse. Remember, you are responsible for anything you say.
Rights to all posts are owned by their respective authors. All other content copyright 2001- 2010 NGDF, all rights reserved.
This board is owned and operated by Don Richter. Others who have contributed to the upkeep of this board are (in no particular order): Herb Kelsey, Everett Lueck, Bill Ramaley, Rod Jensen, Russ Sperry (El Russo Loco), Josh McNeal, John West, Jim Armstrong, Bob Bergstrom, Greg Scholl, Blake Forbes, and Doug van Veelen.1. I am curious why BNSF would insert a diesel on a train hauled by the 3751 or the 4449. How about the 261? They have no vested interest in protecting the brakes on these cars in the trains that they are hauling that are owned by other parties. I suppose you could make an argument that the diesel would provide additional braking but I would suspect that in most cases the diesel is there to protect the train from the steamer experiencing a menchanical failure.
2. I am also surprised that there is absolutely no concern at UP about a steam only hauled train experiencing a major failure on their very busy mainlines with no steam servicing facilities in close proximity. With two steamers on the train in 2005 there were no diesels. When one steamer failed they went to the diesel standbys from the closest place they could get them. If the diesels are only for braking, why didn't they have them on the doubleheader prior to the failure of the 3985?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Daniel, the BNSF is not the UP and I have never dealt with the BNSF, as for their diesels with Steam Locomotives, not only do I not know, I really don't care. The Railroad belongs to the BNSF and they have the perfect right to do with it what they wish. Just be greatful that they let Steam out occasionally and don't bitch about the diesels.
2. I'm sure that there is concern for a Steam only failure, but with the traffic that the DP was experiencing when the pin on the 3985 went bad, I'm sure that Steve thought that it was necessary for the diesels. Why no diesel on the way TO Denver? Maybe because he just wanted to show off, he didn't tell me and I didn't ask, I just enjoyed the show. If you don't like the thought of a UP Steamer leading a UP diesel, see my last sentence of the paragraph above.
Remember, both the UP and BNSF are in the Railroad BUSINESS, not in the Railfan business. Running steam is totally optional and on the BN (while Louie Menk was alive) was totally verboten. If you want Steam on the High Iron to continue, don't bite the hand that feeds you and enjoy what you get.
Rick
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/27/2009 08:03PM by Rick Steele.
