in this video a little kid said "how did they get in there?" i guess what i am trying to say is when i was 7 my dad met up with a friend and he worked for UP and we got tickets to the cab of the 844. so the kid in the cab was me
wrong. union pacifc has 5 other steam locomotive. 2 not working. 1 is in there crash and holding yard. and the other in the roundhouse in Wyoming. the 3 others are steam locomotive 3985. 844. and another.
we need to bring back steem on the long haul let the deisels take it into the city from the yard 1 steamer could pull as much as 3 deisels i would think like the challenger what a beast she is and beautifull too.i'll bet the challenger puts out less of a carbon footprint than 3 deisels if fitted with scrubbers bruning coal.
my favorite train of all time, its beast! I came across this train when i was six when i watched that old making tracks series on BBC2. The US sure know how to make beasty steam engines.
the big boy had asmuch as 6,000 hours power. thats more than the locomotives we have today. the big boy pulls or pulled 120 cars in one day up a hill at a 2percent grade. diesels cant do that in two days!
well try this 1 on then what if you used steam to turn the electric motor.like a power plant does. makes sence to me think about it use natural gas or propane to heat the water?
Well, if you're using propane/natural gas anyway, why not just power the actual engine with it? It'd be more efficient. Steam would be awesome if we could fit a small nuclear reactor inside the train engine and make it safe, but any other fuel for the heat source just wouldn't work.
Coal=too dirty
Wood=too bulky
Fossil Fuels=too expensive (and why not just power the engine with them anyway?)
Robertgift,not quite right, look at a power chart sometime, internal combustion flatlines fairly quick, steam combustion expands BIG time with added heat. Why do you suppose Navy vessels are (nuclear) actually steam boats, just a different fuel to boil water. Diesels could never do the job.
Power charts are not everything. So inefficient no comparison, wasteful, polluting, enormous BTUs just to raise water temperature to working steam. Need to haul water and too many water stops. Breakdowns required SO MUCH maintenence, overhaul, etc. I love, and my great uncle loved his steam locomotives, but if not for Diesels, railroads would go bankrupt.
Maintenance and water, your right, steam can't compare. However if we were to ask N&W's, South African Rail, and in the near future China's operating dept's. Bet you'd get a few opposing views. Especially with the price of oil these day's, and it's only going to get better!
you can always compare anything. maybe theres no equal, even, or close comparison, but i can compare a turtle to a house if i want. and thats a legitimate comparison.
One of my best friends ever was a steam locomotive engineer from the 1920s til 1950s and he said: "A diesel engine is an electric motor mounted on a flatcar, but a steam locomotive is an Iron Horse." During these days of $100 bbl oil it may not be a bad idea to go back to steam in some cases.
@ ferroequistrian: Diesels were made BECAUSE of steamers. Nobody likes shoveling coal from the tender to the firebox, or the pollution it puts out. And what's more, a steamer takes hours to start because it needs heat.
I was of course joking, but there's no joke when it comes to comparing any GWR engine with the UP 844 and 3985. These are far more powerful engines, regardless of how much you want to ridicule the public relations role they've been relegated to today.
ecseces me eomaha that is an isalt to the GWR, these fine of the GWR change the way locomotives were built not just in england also around the world, as for the exbit engines many GWR engines have been brought back from scrape yard conditions and are now pounding along britans railways not just on heritage railways but on the main line runing up to 60-90 mphs with 12 coaches and a 200 ton dead desial loco on the back. NOW DO YOU CALL IT A SHUNTING ENGINE!!!!!!!!!
This engine has boiler psi of 300. the GWR only gits about 160 tops. This could pull a 22 car train without deisel help. it is the stupid rail way regulations that require deisels.
GWR engine has a range of boiler pressures between 160psi all the way up to 230, 240psi. It may not be 300, but GWR engines have super heaters that will take the steam and heat it up and make more power out of little steam.
i must say that union pacific is not the best or the most powerful steam locomotive in the world the GWR Castle, King and Hall classes out match and out preform this steam engine, as i can see this loco is pulling 5 maybe 6 coaches and a water truck how weak
Jerry... it's only pulling a few coaches because it's an exhibition train. As for those Great Western engines you mention, they're 'shunters' compared to the 844... not to speak of the UP Challenger 3985 which is a 4-6-6-4 engine. Search for 'challenger 3985' on youtube... you WILL be impressed. It is the largest operating steam locomotive in the world.
844 is really powerful, and its really good at what it does. GWR castle class is no where near as powerful, however, she can preform extraordinarily well.
Union Pacific 844 was made to pull 20 coaches over the Rockies of Wyoming at over 100 mph!!! It has been said that she made it from Cheyenne to Salt Lake in four hours. That was back in the 1950s sometime. Union Pacific has the best steam Locomotives.
Lets get things in to perspective here. The design speed was 80mph. The tractive effort was a tad over 135,000 lbs. They produced their optimal horsepower at 35mph and their maximum at 10mph...diesels produce theirs from a standstill. The Big Boy was designed to haul 3600 US tons over a 1.14% grade. An SD90MAC-H diesel produces 200,000 lbs of TE and would eat a BiG Boy for breakfast. I love the big steam locos but I understand why they were replaced with diesels. Let's keep it real folks.
Union Pacific 844 is not a Big Boy. Fact 844 is not even the largest Steam Locomotive Union Pacific has. 844 is a 4-8-4 and a Big Boy is a 4-8-8-4. Union Pacific 844 was made to be fast. Next time you want to make people think that you know something about trains Google the right Locomotive.
By the way the SD90MAC-H is shit, Union Pacific announced that it would be retiring its SD90MAC-Hs. The GE Evolution ES44AC is so much better. Has more power with a V12 Prime mover not a V16.
You are absolutely correct, I have no f##### idea why I went down that path. And having driven locomotives for the last 30+ years I reserve the right to (a) make a stupid mistake and (b) say that I do know a little bit about them.
Now I said that I had made an error and you just want to be rude about it. I didn't need to Google Big Boy, I have Kratville's 1963 publication along with many other books on US and British railroads and locomotives. You should try reading; get a book on manners and learn how to respond to somebody that has been big enough to admit making a mistake. Maybe if you had taken time to look at some of my clips you would have discovered that I have progressed beyond the role of operating the switcher.
Kings,Castles,A4's, Merchant Navy, whatever, you name it were all fantastic machines but to suggest that any one of them could go head to head with the likes of 844 suggest to me that you live in a different dimension to the rest of us. On a ton for tractive effort basis a King is infinitely superior to the 844 but that 844 is three times the total weight and by sheer size wins out. A little like comparing an AEM 7 to an E60. Another example of European technology triumphing over US big is best.
I beg to differ. US steam (SP 4449, 844 ect) was built to haul long trains at fast speeds, and climb steep grades. This was a difficult balance to overcome. In Europe, grades are few and far between but in the States, grades are numerous and the need for power and speed was greater.
As is your right. I stand by my statement that European know how has always been a step ahead of the US notion that bigger is better. This was proven beyond any doubt on the north east corridor when the E60's were displaced by machines 60% of their size.
Great video! By the way, the bell on the second crossing sounded like a Western Cullen Hayes type 1 electronic bell, and those are the worst bells ever! Regardless, good video.
what happened to the camera at 1:04?
swaggastoega 4 months ago
greatest whistle ever, for some reason, all of the other steamers with the handcock 5 whistle just dosent sound the same as when it's on 844
Glaudge 10 months ago
in this video a little kid said "how did they get in there?" i guess what i am trying to say is when i was 7 my dad met up with a friend and he worked for UP and we got tickets to the cab of the 844. so the kid in the cab was me
MegaLegofanatic 1 year ago
We seriously need to go back to using steamers. To hell with the "going Green" shit. These look better on the rails anyway!
sdf1138 2 years ago 7
@sdf1138 Indeed...what about some new steam locomotives that burn clean coal? There's an idea.
deloreanman14 2 years ago
sorry. ment horse power.
micahthatrocks 3 years ago
That was the last steam engine ever built for Union Pacific, and the only UP runs today
ericreig 3 years ago
You are wrong, Union Pacific has too other steam engines. The Challenger 3985 and the SP 4449 Daylight.
williamsone2006 3 years ago
wrong. union pacifc has 5 other steam locomotive. 2 not working. 1 is in there crash and holding yard. and the other in the roundhouse in Wyoming. the 3 others are steam locomotive 3985. 844. and another.
micahthatrocks 3 years ago
Does UP own SP4449??
daltonauto 2 years ago
No, the city of Portland owns 4449, along with SP&S 700, and OR&N 197.
SR722 2 years ago
How about NKP 190?
daltonauto 2 years ago
It's privately owned by Doyle McCormack.
SR722 2 years ago
we need to bring back steem on the long haul let the deisels take it into the city from the yard 1 steamer could pull as much as 3 deisels i would think like the challenger what a beast she is and beautifull too.i'll bet the challenger puts out less of a carbon footprint than 3 deisels if fitted with scrubbers bruning coal.
pauldrake2511 3 years ago
Yeah cept the maintenance alone costs more than anything.
mandown5050 3 years ago
my favorite train of all time, its beast! I came across this train when i was six when i watched that old making tracks series on BBC2. The US sure know how to make beasty steam engines.
ajantred 3 years ago
Long live the steam locos!
princenoah21 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
dude is that
how fast it can go
the british mallard
train would woop its
ass
thebalconyman 3 years ago
no,this thing goes up to 100 mph. its in a train yard. duh! :-P
micahthatrocks 3 years ago
Who cares, see in the US we actually have to pull serious freight.
patio87 3 years ago
do they still use steam trains commercially in the us or just on reserved lines
thebalconyman 3 years ago
They're only used on special occasions.
patio87 3 years ago
the big boy had asmuch as 6,000 hours power. thats more than the locomotives we have today. the big boy pulls or pulled 120 cars in one day up a hill at a 2percent grade. diesels cant do that in two days!
micahthatrocks 3 years ago
WTF is hours power ?
Rocketboy1950 3 years ago
i ment horse powre. you know.
micahthatrocks 3 years ago
That thing sounds pissed off when it whistles... Like it's not going to take any flack!
randommagnum 3 years ago
lol
expo12345 3 years ago
I had no idea they were so massive!!!
gothoaxed 4 years ago
2:09 Don't be fooled guys. That's not a train, it's a moving building
clubtcb 4 years ago
well try this 1 on then what if you used steam to turn the electric motor.like a power plant does. makes sence to me think about it use natural gas or propane to heat the water?
pauldrake2511 4 years ago
Well, if you're using propane/natural gas anyway, why not just power the actual engine with it? It'd be more efficient. Steam would be awesome if we could fit a small nuclear reactor inside the train engine and make it safe, but any other fuel for the heat source just wouldn't work.
Coal=too dirty
Wood=too bulky
Fossil Fuels=too expensive (and why not just power the engine with them anyway?)
Solar/wind=not enough energy
Nuclear=expensive as hell, dangerous.
noelie84 3 years ago
hey man most of us only got a GED dont get nasa on us.
micahthatrocks 3 years ago
Robertgift,not quite right, look at a power chart sometime, internal combustion flatlines fairly quick, steam combustion expands BIG time with added heat. Why do you suppose Navy vessels are (nuclear) actually steam boats, just a different fuel to boil water. Diesels could never do the job.
1961sd 4 years ago 2
Power charts are not everything. So inefficient no comparison, wasteful, polluting, enormous BTUs just to raise water temperature to working steam. Need to haul water and too many water stops. Breakdowns required SO MUCH maintenence, overhaul, etc. I love, and my great uncle loved his steam locomotives, but if not for Diesels, railroads would go bankrupt.
robertgift 4 years ago 4
Maintenance and water, your right, steam can't compare. However if we were to ask N&W's, South African Rail, and in the near future China's operating dept's. Bet you'd get a few opposing views. Especially with the price of oil these day's, and it's only going to get better!
1961sd 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Late whistle and gates late getting down in first view.
Try to photograph from the SUNNY side!
Diesel engines are so much more efficient and reliable, there is no comparison to steam engines which require frequent repair and overhaul.
robertgift 4 years ago
You're right, there is NO comparison to a steam locomotive, not by a long shot. LLS!
hollywood1340 4 years ago
My Great Uncle was a PRR locomotive engineer.
He loved going to work. Said his huge 4-8-4 locomotive had a "personality" like a mule.
He loved it. He learned to operate a diesel, but said some engineers refused and retired. They "did not want to drive a car."
robertgift 4 years ago
you can always compare anything. maybe theres no equal, even, or close comparison, but i can compare a turtle to a house if i want. and thats a legitimate comparison.
rdgbmx 4 years ago
One of my best friends ever was a steam locomotive engineer from the 1920s til 1950s and he said: "A diesel engine is an electric motor mounted on a flatcar, but a steam locomotive is an Iron Horse." During these days of $100 bbl oil it may not be a bad idea to go back to steam in some cases.
2speakfreely 4 years ago 2
So I ask you..At the price of diesel...wouldn't steam be the way to go? I say bring back the Big black Beauties.
ferroequistrian 4 years ago 7
@ ferroequistrian: Diesels were made BECAUSE of steamers. Nobody likes shoveling coal from the tender to the firebox, or the pollution it puts out. And what's more, a steamer takes hours to start because it needs heat.
A diesel engine avoids all of those problems.
But steamers are better looking. XP
princenoah21 4 years ago
True...
but steam just pwnes in its own way.
WhyAyeMann 3 years ago
Ummm....I didn't bash steam in anyway.
princenoah21 3 years ago
they should of kept the steam engines
vegasfutbol 4 years ago
Bring back the steamers!! Especially with todays HIGH fuel prices. :-) I wish I was around to see them when they ruled the rails! :-D
Landaux 4 years ago
This monster puts the Gp-38 to shame... I like the Gp-38 too...
TheGoldenKnifefish 4 years ago
I was of course joking, but there's no joke when it comes to comparing any GWR engine with the UP 844 and 3985. These are far more powerful engines, regardless of how much you want to ridicule the public relations role they've been relegated to today.
eomaha 4 years ago
ecseces me eomaha that is an isalt to the GWR, these fine of the GWR change the way locomotives were built not just in england also around the world, as for the exbit engines many GWR engines have been brought back from scrape yard conditions and are now pounding along britans railways not just on heritage railways but on the main line runing up to 60-90 mphs with 12 coaches and a 200 ton dead desial loco on the back. NOW DO YOU CALL IT A SHUNTING ENGINE!!!!!!!!!
jerrypayne 4 years ago
This engine has boiler psi of 300. the GWR only gits about 160 tops. This could pull a 22 car train without deisel help. it is the stupid rail way regulations that require deisels.
Deathsaurer778 4 years ago
THE 844 is the 2nd largest steamer in the world.
Deathsaurer778 4 years ago
and besides that, the 844 has NEVER EVER been retired so take that :p
Deathsaurer778 4 years ago
GWR engine has a range of boiler pressures between 160psi all the way up to 230, 240psi. It may not be 300, but GWR engines have super heaters that will take the steam and heat it up and make more power out of little steam.
jerrypayne 3 years ago
So does the 844.... nice try though.
Deathsaurer778 2 years ago
i must say that union pacific is not the best or the most powerful steam locomotive in the world the GWR Castle, King and Hall classes out match and out preform this steam engine, as i can see this loco is pulling 5 maybe 6 coaches and a water truck how weak
jerrypayne 4 years ago
Jerry... it's only pulling a few coaches because it's an exhibition train. As for those Great Western engines you mention, they're 'shunters' compared to the 844... not to speak of the UP Challenger 3985 which is a 4-6-6-4 engine. Search for 'challenger 3985' on youtube... you WILL be impressed. It is the largest operating steam locomotive in the world.
eomaha 4 years ago 2
844 is really powerful, and its really good at what it does. GWR castle class is no where near as powerful, however, she can preform extraordinarily well.
WhyAyeMann 3 years ago
Union Pacific 844 was made to pull 20 coaches over the Rockies of Wyoming at over 100 mph!!! It has been said that she made it from Cheyenne to Salt Lake in four hours. That was back in the 1950s sometime. Union Pacific has the best steam Locomotives.
williamsone2006 3 years ago 3
Lets get things in to perspective here. The design speed was 80mph. The tractive effort was a tad over 135,000 lbs. They produced their optimal horsepower at 35mph and their maximum at 10mph...diesels produce theirs from a standstill. The Big Boy was designed to haul 3600 US tons over a 1.14% grade. An SD90MAC-H diesel produces 200,000 lbs of TE and would eat a BiG Boy for breakfast. I love the big steam locos but I understand why they were replaced with diesels. Let's keep it real folks.
Rocketboy1950 3 years ago
Union Pacific 844 is not a Big Boy. Fact 844 is not even the largest Steam Locomotive Union Pacific has. 844 is a 4-8-4 and a Big Boy is a 4-8-8-4. Union Pacific 844 was made to be fast. Next time you want to make people think that you know something about trains Google the right Locomotive.
By the way the SD90MAC-H is shit, Union Pacific announced that it would be retiring its SD90MAC-Hs. The GE Evolution ES44AC is so much better. Has more power with a V12 Prime mover not a V16.
williamsone2006 3 years ago
You are absolutely correct, I have no f##### idea why I went down that path. And having driven locomotives for the last 30+ years I reserve the right to (a) make a stupid mistake and (b) say that I do know a little bit about them.
Rocketboy1950 3 years ago
Have you moved up to the 25-ton switcher yet?
williamsone2006 3 years ago
Now I said that I had made an error and you just want to be rude about it. I didn't need to Google Big Boy, I have Kratville's 1963 publication along with many other books on US and British railroads and locomotives. You should try reading; get a book on manners and learn how to respond to somebody that has been big enough to admit making a mistake. Maybe if you had taken time to look at some of my clips you would have discovered that I have progressed beyond the role of operating the switcher.
Rocketboy1950 3 years ago
lol. well say that you drove'em. i would have at least givin you that respect.lol. anyway. you drove what let me guess. diesel?
micahthatrocks 3 years ago
Still do....in Australia. EMD,ALCO,GE just like in the US but ours our generally smaller to suit our loading gauge. See my videos.
Rocketboy1950 3 years ago
do you mean me?
micahthatrocks 3 years ago
Kings,Castles,A4's, Merchant Navy, whatever, you name it were all fantastic machines but to suggest that any one of them could go head to head with the likes of 844 suggest to me that you live in a different dimension to the rest of us. On a ton for tractive effort basis a King is infinitely superior to the 844 but that 844 is three times the total weight and by sheer size wins out. A little like comparing an AEM 7 to an E60. Another example of European technology triumphing over US big is best.
Rocketboy1950 3 years ago
I beg to differ. US steam (SP 4449, 844 ect) was built to haul long trains at fast speeds, and climb steep grades. This was a difficult balance to overcome. In Europe, grades are few and far between but in the States, grades are numerous and the need for power and speed was greater.
DanielVolker 2 years ago
As is your right. I stand by my statement that European know how has always been a step ahead of the US notion that bigger is better. This was proven beyond any doubt on the north east corridor when the E60's were displaced by machines 60% of their size.
Rocketboy1950 2 years ago
@jerrypayne 844 produces almost twice the tractive effort of the GWR Castle, 1/3 more than the king, and almost 3x as much of the Hall.
EpicureMammon 1 year ago
That is one sweet sounding steam whistle.
daddia 4 years ago
the 844 truly is the ferrari of trains
Shadowsamaman 4 years ago
Great video! By the way, the bell on the second crossing sounded like a Western Cullen Hayes type 1 electronic bell, and those are the worst bells ever! Regardless, good video.
trainmanwp 5 years ago
A remarkable locomotive...the times I saw her, I was in awe.
TheLSK 5 years ago
i have a book and it says that that train is 16 feet high
gloocoos 5 years ago
Powerful.. just powerful :)
flugusopp 5 years ago