1950s End Of Steam

1011 views
18 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    August, 2006
  • 157 posts
1950s End Of Steam
Posted by SPer on Tuesday, April 18, 2017 1:24 PM

The real reason Santa Fe stopped using steam in 1953 because steam locomotives do not fit Santa Fe's corporate image. that's why Santa Fe moved on with diesel-electrics.

  • Member since
    May, 2003
  • From: US
  • 11,394 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Tuesday, April 18, 2017 3:34 PM

SPer
The real reason Santa Fe stopped using steam in 1953 because steam locomotives do not fit Santa Fe's corporate image. that's why Santa Fe moved on with diesel-electrics.

So economics had nothing to do with it?

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

  • Member since
    August, 2010
  • From: Henrico, VA
  • 6,460 posts
Posted by Firelock76 on Tuesday, April 18, 2017 5:30 PM

SPer

The real reason Santa Fe stopped using steam in 1953 because steam locomotives do not fit Santa Fe's corporate image. that's why Santa Fe moved on with diesel-electrics.

 

I wouldn't say that.  Look at where the Santa Fe ran, a lot of it was through some VERY arid parts of the country.  Water was a problem and steam engines had to have it.  Diesels, not so much aside from the radiators.

Also, a lot of Santa Fe steamers ran though areas where coal was non-existant, so they had to burn oil.  If you're going to burn oil you might as well burn it in the most efficient way possible, right?  Back to diesels.

Corporate inage?  Can't say it wasn't a factor but probably not as much as you think. 

I'll say this much, I wish the New York Central was as generous in donating steam engines for preservation as the Santa Fe was!  That tells me when all is said and done Santa Fe was pretty proud of their steamers, moving on to diesels when circumstances dictated they should.

RME
  • Member since
    March, 2016
  • 1,635 posts
Posted by RME on Wednesday, April 19, 2017 11:10 AM

SPer
The real reason Santa Fe stopped using steam in 1953 because steam locomotives do not fit Santa Fe's corporate image.

According to all the sources I have seen on ATSF modern power, the Santa Fe intended to optimize on diesel-electric power as quickly as it could, as soon as the 'bugs' in the technology (e.g. those evidenced by the One-Spot Twins) had been satisfactorily resolved.  I believe Lloyd Stagner, Jr. has indicated ATSF would have taken all F units, instead of building the wartime steam classes, had the WPB permitted; they certainly nipped the desirable-improvements program (cf. the welded boilers for the 3460s, which were fully fabricated but never installed) very early on.  Big steam, especially big steam relatively intolerant of caustic water contaminants (silicon boiler steels, anyone???) was rapidly deprioritized as soon as a practical diesel-electric alternative was provided in the market.

Note that the "corporate image" for fast passenger trains was Diesel even before the NYC decided to stress 'Dieseliners' to replace the Great Steel Fleet.  Admittedly 3765 never got its shroud because it would have been overweight, but you did not see any later streamlining to match the pretty trains, nor did you see any particular postwar emphasis on that 6-4-4-4 design that was the 'true' high-speed passenger design for ATSF (as the C1a was for NYC).

  • Member since
    August, 2005
  • From: At the Crossroads of the West
  • 8,035 posts
Posted by Deggesty on Wednesday, April 19, 2017 11:24 AM

SPer

The real reason Santa Fe stopped using steam in 1953 because steam locomotives do not fit Santa Fe's corporate image. that's why Santa Fe moved on with diesel-electrics.

 

I am curious: what was the "corporate image" that steam did not fit?

Johnny

RME
  • Member since
    March, 2016
  • 1,635 posts
Posted by RME on Wednesday, April 19, 2017 1:56 PM

Deggesty
I am curious: what was the "corporate image" that steam did not fit?

I think he means the 'Santa Fe - All The Way' efficient, fast, dieselized picture that ATSF contemporary PR films were trying to evoke. 

Trains Magazine in the early 1980s ran an article on the '50s use of the Big Three and some other large ATSF power.  Most of their 'mission' was precisely the sort of fast mainline service that was increasingly optimal for diesels, and there was little 'secondary' service they were well-suited for -- so you saw them on things like secondary passenger trains and mail runs.

As I indicated, I think the decision to eliminate the big steam was primarily economic, and the economic and operational advantages (nominal as they might have been at the time) were what determined 'corporate image', not the other way around.

  • Member since
    February, 2002
  • From: Mpls/St.Paul
  • 9,905 posts
Posted by wjstix on Tuesday, April 25, 2017 8:22 AM

IIRC during World War 2 many railroads ordered FT diesels, but very few got them. Most were forced to buy new steam instead. One of the few who did get them was the Santa Fe, which as I recall was allocated diesels specifically because of the problems it faced supplying water for it's steam engines in the arid Southwest.

Stix
  • Member since
    March, 2016
  • From: Burbank IL (near Clearing)
  • 9,856 posts
Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Tuesday, April 25, 2017 10:18 AM

In the other direction, didn't M&StL try to order SAL-design 2-6-6-4's, but had to take A-B-A sets of FT's?

The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul
RME
  • Member since
    March, 2016
  • 1,635 posts
Posted by RME on Tuesday, April 25, 2017 1:06 PM

CSSHEGEWISCH
In the other direction, didn't M&StL try to order SAL-design 2-6-6-4's, but had to take A-B-A sets of FT's?

They had an order in to Baldwin for five 2-6-6-4s.  I have not heard the story about why the WPB would 'make' them take FT sets instead ... but I'll bet they didn't regret it.

  • Member since
    July, 2006
  • From: Matawan, NJ
  • 111 posts
Posted by Redwards on Saturday, April 29, 2017 2:01 PM

RME
Admittedly 3765 never got its shroud because it would have been overweight, but you did not see any later streamlining to match the pretty trains, nor did you see any particular postwar emphasis on that 6-4-4-4 design that was the 'true' high-speed passenger design for ATSF (as the C1a was for NYC).

I've read about the C1a, but don't recall hearing about an ATSF high speed design?  Any additional information or details out there (a quick google search didn't seem to find much)?  Thanks. 

--Reed

RME
  • Member since
    March, 2016
  • 1,635 posts
Posted by RME on Saturday, April 29, 2017 5:00 PM

Redwards
I've read about the C1a, but don't recall hearing about an ATSF high speed design? Any additional information or details out there

The 'mother lode' is Iron Horses of the Santa Fe Trail, p.379 (section called something like 'Iron horses that didn't make the trail').  There was at one time a detailed modeling article on someone 'kitbashing' a version, which I read with great interest right up to finding them use a diesel C truck under the firebox...

The six wheels would be for the added mass of firebox and chamber syphons (see the aborted 1947 design for the 3460s for a smaller version) in a high-pressure boiler.  Think of a late Lima design "backpedaling".  Oil fuel makes cab-forward design attractive by comparison with something like DR 05 003, but the poorer thrust characteristic of a 'backward' unconjugated duplex would exacerbate any high-speed slipping tendency.

  • Member since
    July, 2006
  • From: Matawan, NJ
  • 111 posts
Posted by Redwards on Sunday, April 30, 2017 9:58 AM

RME
The 'mother lode' is Iron Horses of the Santa Fe Trail, p.379 (section called something like 'Iron horses that didn't make the trail'). There was at one time a detailed modeling article on someone 'kitbashing' a version, which I read with great interest right up to finding them use a diesel C truck under the firebox...

I will have to keep an eye out for 'Iron Horses...' - Thanks!

--Reed

  • Member since
    March, 2016
  • 515 posts
Posted by PRR8259 on Wednesday, May 03, 2017 12:25 PM

To to OP--

Santa Fe didn't "stop" using steam in 1953.  Whatever source you are reading for that is questionnable at best.  There were several other railroads which for all practical purposes ceased using steam during 1953--Road like Rock Island, which had very limited use of any steam at all after 1953. Also official sources are often wrong on the last use of steam.  Rock Island announced to their shareholders, on more than one occasion, that ALL steam operations were finished in a city, like Chicago, when in fact steam operations were still continuing. 

In Santa Fe's case, many freight movements were "extras".  They had regularly scheduled freight trains like the famous GFX (Green Fruit Express), but they also had a high number of "extra" non-regularly-scheduled freight movements.  In addition to that, there was very significant seasonal fruit and vegetable traffic.  So, in effect, large numbers of Santa Fe steamers saw action AFTER 1953, including specifically large numbers of 2-10-4's, 4-8-4's, and the best (3800 class) 2-10-2's.  Some of that was seasonal traffic, but some was also regular, routine switching activity, and helper service.  In other posts on these forums it was alleged that it was non-revenue service, after 1953.  That is false.  Trains didn't help themselves through Abo Canyon.

It is more accurate to refer to the real end of steam operations as being August of 1957, when the last 4-8-4's and 2-10-4's ceased helper operations out of Belen.

Respectfully submitted--

John

  • Member since
    September, 2014
  • 873 posts
Posted by ROBERT WILLISON on Wednesday, May 03, 2017 7:23 PM

Beyond the great operating efficiency that diesels offered, they were considered modern, a way railroad management could  change their image. Railroad management along with the the Budd cars could bring a totally new product to the table. gone were heavyweight cars pulled by steamers, replaced with shiny new stream line trains pulled by an equally shiny new diesel. World war two slowed dieselization, but from an operating perspective and great public relations, steam wad dead.

  • Member since
    February, 2002
  • From: Mpls/St.Paul
  • 9,905 posts
Posted by wjstix on Wednesday, May 10, 2017 4:00 PM

RME
 
CSSHEGEWISCH
In the other direction, didn't M&StL try to order SAL-design 2-6-6-4's, but had to take A-B-A sets of FT's?

 

They had an order in to Baldwin for five 2-6-6-4s.  I have not heard the story about why the WPB would 'make' them take FT sets instead ... but I'll bet they didn't regret it.

 

 
IIRC, in order to run the articulateds, the M-St.L would have to have rebuilt it's bridge over the Mississippi between Iowa and Illinois. The WPB found that the amount of steel it would have required was too much - the FT's could go over the existing bridge with no problems. I believe they got A-B-A FT sets with the "FTSB" short booster as the B-unit, which didn't have space for a steam generator and water tanks for passenger service that the usual FT B-unit did.
Stix
  • Member since
    June, 2011
  • 1,447 posts
Posted by Trinity River Bottoms Boomer on Friday, May 12, 2017 6:55 AM

Lest we forget the twelve Santa Fe 2-10-4s that Pennsy leased and placed in service out of Sandusky Ohio during 1956.  Watching films of them working side by side PennsyJ1s is a sight to warm the heart of every Santa Fe and Pennsy fan.  Railroading hasn't been this good ever since, has it? 

  • Member since
    March, 2016
  • From: Burbank IL (near Clearing)
  • 9,856 posts
Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Friday, May 12, 2017 10:15 AM

It definitely has.  There is a lot to be said for watching a set of GEVOs hustling a UPS priority train on the Transcon or standing on the Roosevelt Road overpass at evening rush hour as Metra shoots suburban trains of six to eight gallery coaches from Chicago Union Station to the suburbs.

The only steam in regular service that I remember was NKP Berkshires when I was five years old.  Consequently, steam just doesn't do it for me.

The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul
  • Member since
    August, 2010
  • From: Henrico, VA
  • 6,460 posts
Posted by Firelock76 on Saturday, May 13, 2017 2:14 PM

Can't say there's no drama in modern day railroading, if there wasn't we wouldn't be out there lookin', would we?

The difference is like going to your local cinema to see the current films versus turning on Turner Classic Movies and watching the classics from the 30's and the 40's.  Which are the better movies, then or now, I leave it to you to judge.

PS:  I hardly ever go to the movies anymore, although there's a film coming out shortly on Dunkirk I probably won't miss.

Update, 10:40 PM 5/13/17.  I just spent the last two hours watching the 1937 "Lost Horizon" with Ronald Coleman.  Great movie!  Didn't mean to spend all that time watching an old movie but it just pulled me right in, with ridiculous ease I might add.

  • Member since
    August, 2005
  • From: At the Crossroads of the West
  • 8,035 posts
Posted by Deggesty on Saturday, May 13, 2017 3:06 PM

I regret never riding behind a pair of PA's between Bristol snd Chattanooga--my first trip on the Tennessean was, I believe, the first day that the Southern engines ran through over the N&W.

I was able to ride behind a J twice--Radford to Bristol and Bristol to Wytheville, in 1956.

In 1967-73, I enjoyed several steam excursions out of Birmingham.

Johnny

SUBSCRIBER & MEMBER LOGIN

Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more!

FREE NEWSLETTER SIGNUP

Get the Classic Trains twice-monthly newsletter

Search the Community