Hmmm, intersting. I’ll also track down the source and see if I remember it wrong. Seems like it was from the book “SP&S The Northwest’s Own Railroad”…
Edit Update. I’ve not found the original story I was thinking of but in the book “S.P.&S.” by Ed Austin & Tom Dill I found a caption on a picture that says, "This locomotive [GN 4000] was ex-SP&S no. 903, being sold to the GN in November 1937. On October 12, 1946 it was sold back to the SP&S. … " So from this snipit it would appear that depending on when one is talking about both scenarios of who sold the locomotive to whom are true. However, that still doesn’t answer the other questions as to where the class originally came from, how it ultimately impacted the SP&S, and what was the NPs role in all of this… And we might have hijaked this thread from UP Challenger question to Hill Line Challenger questions.!
My son and I went to Cheyenne WY. with the Youth in Model Railroading club today and we got the full tour on the UP yard and remainder of Steam shop and roundhouse. It was great to see the 3985 again and still in repair and 844 all painted up and shiney. There was also a Rio Grande SD40T-2 “5371” unpatched sitting in the shop also with many other locos sitting in the roundhouse. It was great to be allowed to crawl all over the equipment.There was also an HO layout in the roundhouse between two locomotives, talk about having the best of both worlds. If any of the UP “Gents” that were there to help out on the tour, A sinceere “THANKYOU”!!! You made our day.
I still can’t find the photo I was thinking of but here is another Z6 Challenger update - In the book “Lines West” by Charles Wood, there is a picture with a very long caption (page 110). It basically says their Challengers were originally built for the SP&S and resold. It contends the limited acceptance of the locomotive was probably due to the GNs early decision to dieselize and the FTs were already doing the job this locomotive would have done. This is the opposite philosophy from the UP who never owned any FT locos.
In the book “Spokane Portland & Seattle Railway” also by Charles and Dorthy Wood on page 129 (also the caption of a picture) a couple run on senctences it says, “their [Challengers] performance in service was superb, and they could handle 5,400 tons in to Spokane with out assistance. … They could cross entire sub-divisions without stopping for water or oil. The loyalty of the SP&S to Alco can be attributed directly to the splendid performance of the Z-6 and Z-8 classes. Compared to the hand-me-down GN and NP power, previously used in main line service, the technological leap in the performance of these engines was so striking, that when the road did dieselize, it became the largest Alco customer in the Northwest.”
I caught that quote, was looking through my own copy of the Woods’ book. There have always seemed to be conflicting reports about GN 4000 and 4001–I’ve also heard that GN wanted as much traction on the drivers as they could get with their articulateds, which meant according to them, a 2-wheel lead and if needed, a 2-wheel trailing truck–even despite diesels, they were committed to the 2-8-8-0 or 2-8-8-2 wheel arrangement. That’s the story I got–whether it’s the truth or not, I couldn’t really verify it.
I seem to remember a photo of a GN 4000 working in the Deschutes River Canyon on the Oregon Trunk–with the GN ‘Goat’ firmly painted on the tender–but strive as I might, I cannot either find it, or remember which of my railroad books it’s in. But as I remember, the caption read that the GN was disappointed that the Z-series had trouble developing enough traction to haul a train out of the canyon and onto the Eastern Oregon Plateau. Again, another ‘story’.
Yet, NP certainly had no trouble using the Z’s on most of their system–though I understand that they were kept out of Stampede Tunnel because of clearance problems, not tractive effort.
Interesting stories. But let’s face it, NP had generally, a much rougher Transcon profile than UP, and the Z’s seemed to do yeoman service over pretty much all of it. I could be wrong, but that 4-6-6-4 wheel arrangement seemed to be pretty darned adaptable, no matter what railroad it was bought for. Rio Grande Baldwin 3700 L-105’s on the 3% of Tennessee Pass? Yah, it happened. And evidently it worked, at least during the traffic rush of WWII.