Replying to a message of TOM WALKER to BOB ACKLEY:

 BA>> In addition to its Challenger articulated, UP maintains a 4-8-4 steam
 BA>> locomotive. Several years ago UP had the thing completely overhauled
 BA>> in their shops at Cheyenne, WY.  That overhaul cost several times
 BA>> what the locomotive cost new in the mi 1940s.

 TW> you bet. Adn there is a VERY gpood Reason why most Railroads very
 TW> quickly shifted to Diesel after the main line capable ones came
 TW> along. Although it was Many, Many years later before a single Diesel
 TW> could match the Traction effort of a Single Steam Engine. They were
 TW> powerful but Horrendiously expensive to keep running. Even the cost
 TW> of providing wateroing stations was a large expense. As an example
 TW> the Big Boy Steam engine used 14,000 Gallons of Water per Hour. They
 TW> also burned 22 TONS of Coal per Hour so Coaling Stations neededc to
 TW> be supplied also. As a side note the Tender held 25,000 Gallons of
 TW> water and 25 1/2 Tons of Coal.

 TW> The Challendger is an Oil Burner but if one checks you will see TWO
 TW> tenders behind the engine when they travel.

That Challenger gets just about 10 gallons per mile on bunker oil, which is less
refined than diesel.  And that's without much of a load.  You are correct about
the two tenders (and I guess they have to drag firehoses to them to fill them,
and I'm sure that takes a while), I've seen it up close and personal (less than
ten feet away) and have many pictures.  While it's big for a steam locomotive
it's smaller and lighter (might bre a bit longer tho') than the big diesels UP uses
now.

--- FleetStreet 1.19+