Quote
Rick Steele
[Having been on the UP Steam Crew, I believe that you are woefully misinformed as to the reasons for the diesels.]
Two thoughts come to mind in response to this. I will not disagree with Rick's assertion of UP's practices and reasons for inserting a diesel. It would make a lot of sense that UP would want to preserve the cars that they own and want to protect. However:
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?
Just my thoughts,
Daniel
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/26/2009 10:50PM by dandtsrr2.