 |
Re: The UP Heritage Program
Author: E9A
Date: 01-21-2016 - 11:55
crmeatball Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Over the past few years, I have been watching
> earnestly the developments in the UP Steam
> Program. I have had the pleasure of taking my
> young children to see the 844 run, to see the 4014
> roll through and have been saddened by the fact
> there has been no steam operations to speak of
> near my home in past years. I followed the
> discussions on this site about the ineptitude of
> Ed Dickens and how he was single-handedly
> destroying UP's steam program. I find similar
> expressions of their dislike for the approach
> taken on other sites as well. I began to wonder if
> we would see the 844 or 3985 again, or if the 4014
> would ever run. In recent months, I have begun to
> see a different picture.
>
> I cannot speak to Mr. Dicken's managerial skills,
> as I do not know the man nor can I speak the
> internal squabbles and issues in his department.
> However, I am an engineer-which gives me an
> understanding of product lifecycles and the
> challenges which accompany manufacturing, such as
> Diminishing Manufacturing Sources and maintaining
> tooling- I see a manager who is not only thinking
> about production, but about his group's production
> capacity, that he is sharpening the saw. In
> looking at the reports disseminated from the UP
> Steam Program and watching the accompanying
> videos, I am beginning to wonder if it is not the
> railfans who are incompetent rather than Mr.
> Dickens. In watching these video, I am discovering
> they are giving much needed attention to not only
> the locomotives themselves, but to the tools and
> infrastructure needed to maintain them for many,
> many years to come. I see the restoration and use
> of machinery and tooling which is necessary to
> manufacture steam components. I see the
> re-configuration of a shop to maximize the
> efficiency of working on steam locomotives. It is
> entirely possible that these are produced to give
> the impression of work being done, but the fact
> is, these are the very things needing to be done
> to conduct heavy maintenance of this sort. It begs
> the question of "Why fake it?" and makes all the
> negative commentary seem to be the conspiratorial,
> "tin-foil hat" paranoia which prevails on the
> internet.
>
> It seems there is an effort being made by the
> Union Pacific to not only run steam locomotives,
> but to preserve the ability to maintain them as
> well. This investment comes at a cost - including
> the lack of operation for a few years as the
> tooling and heavy maintenance is completed. The
> decision to make such an investment of time and
> money for this sort of effort is not made by
> middle management (they only propose it). It is
> made by executives who are looking beyond the
> moment and seeing the long term needs of a
> company. It seems the vitriol coming from many
> railfans stems from their self-centered, impatient
> and ego-centric perspective that they deserve to
> "see the trains, NOW!" and should somehow dictate
> operational and maintenance practices in order to
> obtain such. I personally find the maintenance
> aspects of a steam operation fascinating and I am
> appreciative that I am able to see how much of the
> work is done. While it is from days past, I would
> love to see how an operation like the Sacramento
> Shops was conducted and how they could manufacture
> anything needed to keep these giants running. So
> rather than be so negative and dismissive of the
> work being done in Cheyenne simply because they
> are "not running trains" right now, lets be
> supportive and enjoy this aspect of our hobby.
Like too many others, you are assuming the UP program
was staggering along up until the arrival of Dickens.
You are also assuming that no one prior to him was thinking
ahead or planning ahead or worried at all about the future.
That is exactly what he and his small band of toadies want
everyone to believe. And it has no relationship to reality.
Which begs the question: If things were that bad until he got
there, how on earth did the program not only survive but thrive
and grow as it did?
The man is making a big deal out of unnecessary work, about
making new tools to replace the ones he inherited then scrapped.
This "aspect of our hobby" is an effort to tear down everything
and every one who ran the program or worked in the program from
1960 through 2010.
You might want to do a little research before surrendering
you powers of reasoning.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Over the past few years, I have been watching
> earnestly the developments in the UP Steam
> Program. I have had the pleasure of taking my
> young children to see the 844 run, to see the 4014
> roll through and have been saddened by the fact
> there has been no steam operations to speak of
> near my home in past years. I followed the
> discussions on this site about the ineptitude of
> Ed Dickens and how he was single-handedly
> destroying UP's steam program. I find similar
> expressions of their dislike for the approach
> taken on other sites as well. I began to wonder if
> we would see the 844 or 3985 again, or if the 4014
> would ever run. In recent months, I have begun to
> see a different picture.
>
> I cannot speak to Mr. Dicken's managerial skills,
> as I do not know the man nor can I speak the
> internal squabbles and issues in his department.
> However, I am an engineer-which gives me an
> understanding of product lifecycles and the
> challenges which accompany manufacturing, such as
> Diminishing Manufacturing Sources and maintaining
> tooling- I see a manager who is not only thinking
> about production, but about his group's production
> capacity, that he is sharpening the saw. In
> looking at the reports disseminated from the UP
> Steam Program and watching the accompanying
> videos, I am beginning to wonder if it is not the
> railfans who are incompetent rather than Mr.
> Dickens. In watching these video, I am discovering
> they are giving much needed attention to not only
> the locomotives themselves, but to the tools and
> infrastructure needed to maintain them for many,
> many years to come. I see the restoration and use
> of machinery and tooling which is necessary to
> manufacture steam components. I see the
> re-configuration of a shop to maximize the
> efficiency of working on steam locomotives. It is
> entirely possible that these are produced to give
> the impression of work being done, but the fact
> is, these are the very things needing to be done
> to conduct heavy maintenance of this sort. It begs
> the question of "Why fake it?" and makes all the
> negative commentary seem to be the conspiratorial,
> "tin-foil hat" paranoia which prevails on the
> internet.
>
> It seems there is an effort being made by the
> Union Pacific to not only run steam locomotives,
> but to preserve the ability to maintain them as
> well. This investment comes at a cost - including
> the lack of operation for a few years as the
> tooling and heavy maintenance is completed. The
> decision to make such an investment of time and
> money for this sort of effort is not made by
> middle management (they only propose it). It is
> made by executives who are looking beyond the
> moment and seeing the long term needs of a
> company. It seems the vitriol coming from many
> railfans stems from their self-centered, impatient
> and ego-centric perspective that they deserve to
> "see the trains, NOW!" and should somehow dictate
> operational and maintenance practices in order to
> obtain such. I personally find the maintenance
> aspects of a steam operation fascinating and I am
> appreciative that I am able to see how much of the
> work is done. While it is from days past, I would
> love to see how an operation like the Sacramento
> Shops was conducted and how they could manufacture
> anything needed to keep these giants running. So
> rather than be so negative and dismissive of the
> work being done in Cheyenne simply because they
> are "not running trains" right now, lets be
> supportive and enjoy this aspect of our hobby.
Like too many others, you are assuming the UP program
was staggering along up until the arrival of Dickens.
You are also assuming that no one prior to him was thinking
ahead or planning ahead or worried at all about the future.
That is exactly what he and his small band of toadies want
everyone to believe. And it has no relationship to reality.
Which begs the question: If things were that bad until he got
there, how on earth did the program not only survive but thrive
and grow as it did?
The man is making a big deal out of unnecessary work, about
making new tools to replace the ones he inherited then scrapped.
This "aspect of our hobby" is an effort to tear down everything
and every one who ran the program or worked in the program from
1960 through 2010.
You might want to do a little research before surrendering
you powers of reasoning.
