Talk:Union Pacific 4014

"reacquired"?

Does anyone know the exact circumstances of UP's "reacquisition" of Big Boy 4014? Was it a simple purchase? Or maybe UP donated other surplus equipment in trade? Elsquared (talk) 08:42, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I understand that it was a trade, UP apparently traded a caboose (one of the bay window kind if I recall correctly) and a emd locomotive in exchange for 4014. I think that was in the sources for the article, but I wouldn't swear to it. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:25, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Relocated content

Content relocated this date from Union Pacific Big Boy page. Anything not redundant here may be integrated at this page:

===Restoration of 4014===

In late 2012, Union Pacific announced that it was interested in acquiring a Big Boy to be restored and then operated in excursion service.

On July 23, 2013 Union Pacific announced that it has acquired 4014 from The Southern California Chapter of The Railway and Locomotive Historical Society in Pomona, California. Union Pacific began inspecting and preparing to move 4014 from Pomona to Union Pacific's Steam Shop in Cheyenne, Wyoming in August 2013. Movement commenced on 14 November.

As of November 12, 2013 U.P. Heritage Fleet Operations director Ed Dickens reported via his official YouTube channel that UP4014 was prepared for the move, and track laying was in progress. Several issues delayed the connection of the display track to the temporary rails. Crews used creative and classic methods, including plywood supports and "dutchman compromise joints" to solve uneven surfaces, a 1% grade, and several difficult curves.

On the morning of January 26, 2014, UPP 4014 (recently re-numbered on the U.P. active locomotive roster so as to avoid confusion with UP 4014, a diesel locomotive) was pulled out of the Los Angeles County Fairplex by a 4,300 horsepower Union Pacific diesel locomotive. The Big Boy left UP's West Colton yard on its journey to Cheyenne, Wyoming on April 28, 2014 and arrived in Cheyenne on May 8, 2014.

Now back in Cheyenne, Union Pacific's Heritage Fleet Operations team is restoring 4014 to operating condition, which is expected to take three to five years. As part of the restoration process, Union Pacific will convert 4014 from coal to more efficient No. 5 oil firing.

Wikiuser100 (talk) 21:25, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

References

I've recently did alot of adjustments made to the links, so there are no more redundancies at all. :)

NickH2001 (talk) 22:05, 03 May 2019 (UTC)

'Currently'

Union Pacific 4014 is currently in Union Pacific's Steam Shop in Cheyenne, Wyoming, awaiting extensive restoration work which is intended to return the engine to operational status.

– Unless someone's updating daily, "currently" should not be used in an encyclopedia article, as the reference could become outdated at any time.

Apparently, this was the status of UP 4014 in May 2014. Has it changed since then? We don't know.

Sentence rewritten to remove time element. Sca (talk) 14:47, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Union Pacific 4014. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140222164114/http://www.up.com/newsinfo/community_ties/2014/january/0127_4014_colton.shtml to http://www.up.com/newsinfo/community_ties/2014/january/0127_4014_colton.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:51, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

This can't be right

Hmm; this can't be right: "With the completion of the restoration, No. 4014 became the world's largest operational steam locomotive, displacing Union Pacific No. 3985, which was the largest operational steam locomotive in the world from 1981 to 2010." If No. 3985 lost its claim in 2010, then some other locomotive must have taken it — and therefore No. 4014 didn't displace 3985 but that other locomotive. Do we know what it was? PRRfan (talk) 16:59, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Don't know exactly what took its place. My best guess is that 844 might have took its place for some time because it was the largest 4-8-4 locomotive until Norfolk and Western 611 was restored. N&W 611 then became the largest 4-8-4, and possibly the largest. However, it wasn't ever announced which locomotive became the largest after 3985 was taken down, but I guess 3985 was technically still considered the largest until UP 4014 took over.--Davidng913 (talk) 21:04, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Presuming the source given in the 3985 article and in this article are one in the same then the author would be Union Pacific, in which case in the absence of 3985 due to maintenance issues and the prioritizing of 4014's restoration the phantom locomotive holding the record would be 844 since that's the only other steam engine operated by the Union Pacific 'Steam Engine Group' (such as it were). It's technically correct...if we assume that the other steam engines in use on the US are not being operated in any official interstate traffic role, but I do agree that the information could be tightened up some. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:10, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Time for Cleanup and Updating

Well, with the restoration of Union Pacific 4014 finally finished, this page is starting to become a mess, and a cleanup tahh jas finally been applied. This is the biggest problem, as read from the tag: Reads like fan page; Not the News; Introduction of trivia; non reliable refs.

All non-reliable references should be replaced with newer ones as soon as possibe. Trivia should be taken away, but I think trip descriptions should be kept. This also needs to be rewritten somehow as this is NOT a fan page. Don't ask me about the meaning of Not the News because that has really thrown me off: either it means that this is being written like the news, or the references are not from the news.

Also, if anyone can, PLEASE get pictures of 4014 under steam. Some dude tried to cheat his way into doing this by taking a screenshot of a YouTube video and uploading it onto Wikimedia Commons. I have since tagged it for deletion. The more pictures we have of the locomotive under steam, the better the quality on Commons will be. This would also be an opportunity to have a picture of the locomotive under steam to replace the current picture in the info box, which shows the locomotive on display.

Please edit accordingly, and TAKE YOUR OWN PICS! Unless the file on Flickr or elsewhere is freely licensed (I didn't spot any yet), do not trick Commons into thinking that a pic is yours when it is not because it will get deleted. A few YouTube videos that are freely licensed have already been uploaded, but I am still looking for pictures.

Thank you all.

--Davidng913 (talk) 21:12, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Your points about better references and photos are well-taken, and thanks. But as one of the folks who's done substantial editing recently, particularly *in response to* the cleanup tag, I confess I'm not sure what you mean by "this page is starting to become a mess". I don't think it reads like a fan page, nor do I think much trivia remains. Could you explain what you mean, perhaps with examples? PRRfan (talk) 16:08, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

You will have to ask GenQuest about that. I wasn’t the one who tagged it, and honestly I don’t understand the news part. It looks more like a proper article than a fan page for sure, and there is not that much trivia either. So you should ask him for clarification. --Davidng913 (talk) 19:36, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I wasn't asking about the tag, but about your "this page is starting to become a mess". In any case, it sounds like maybe you think the piece is in better shape now. I propose we remove the tag. PRRfan (talk) 21:21, 10 May 2019 (UTC)