I'm sure that you know this, but most people do not - the LCF has a restricted type certificate. Only cargo that supports Boeing business can be transported, and only the specific cargo that is documented in the FAA approved W&B manual may be carried. Engines most likely could not be approved to be carried because they contain flammable fluids, and the LCF does not have a main-deck cargo fire suppression system. Ref TCDS A20WE, section XIV. TCDS A20WE Rev 60 Boeing Company, The

Point of note, I personally detest that nickname "Dreamlifter". If the 747 is "Queen of the Sky", then the LCF is "Drag Queen of the Sky."

A post above says that their carrier is 14 feet wide and 13 feet tall. While the 14 feet wide can be handled as special wide-load transport, 13 feet tall plus about 2 feet of truck bed height gives you a need for at least 15 feet of clearance. I don't know what interstates they travel on, but the ones that I travel on have a lot of bridges that don't exceed 14-some feet of clearance. It must end up being a pretty convoluted route.

See https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/data/tools/...mainline=false for the final push through Washington State.

You are entirely correct, routing this kind of truly outsized cargo is a major effort and the Interstates are not useful generally, because they were designed with insufficient bridge clearance.
Often the convoy creeps through the countryside at very low speeds in the wee small hours, over some weeks. So leasing an An 124 is massively more efficient.
I think the airship delusion gets reinvigorated every time one of these big lumps must get moved from A to B.

Same problem as Interstate but even more restrictive as to gauge. eg tunnels, bridges, catenary systems. While 737 fuses might move this way (by the way, didn't they have a few come off the rails recently and go down an embankment nearly into a river?) the 737 fuse is a lot smaller in diameter than the G90. Just take a look at the picture that starts this thread.

It might not make it through the tunnels through the Cascades, which are already woefully inadequate for modern shipping needs. (US infrastructure lags the rest of the world, but I digress.) I suppose it is possible that they plan to ship it through the Panama Canal, that might end up being cost effective

Surely you could squeeze a 9x into a C-5, no?

I don't think so. Maybe Boeing should have hung on to one of those last C-17s.
Educated guess is that they might ship the production GE9x as two modules (the fan module separate). The plan was to use a similar modular design to the GEnx, so it wouldn't add that much work to attach the fan to the rest after it arrived at final assembly. Certainly cheaper than charting an A124 for every single engine delivery.

There are no longer any snow sheds on Snoqualmie. It's now three lane through the pass, although, of course, there is always road work going on.

I guess an AIRBUS BELUGA is not PC for the job. I'm sure they would be only too pleased to do the job for Boeing.;)

Winemaker, there is no rail through Snoq Pass any longer... the main rail line goes to Easton, then turns South through Lester...

the fuselage train goes through Stevens Pass..

Remember this?
https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....ad781b336c.jpg


Here is the route:

https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....471e3eb953.png