Transition era questions

[wjstix]

Philcal makes a good point, during the war railroads might want EMD switchers, but having to settle for an order of ALCO switchers - only to get an order of steam engines instead!! The gov't. tried to see that only railroads who really needed diesels got them. One odd situation was the M-St.L, who wanted to buy 2-6-6-2 steam engines and ordered them and some structural steel to shore up one (or more) bridges that as built couldn't handle a Mallet. The US decided they couldn't spare the structural steel, so sent the Louie FT's instead !!

As far as divisions dieselizing, when the US Steel railroads like B&LE and Union RR dieselized, US Steel sent their used steam engines to the Missabe. Since DMIR was a seasonal RR, they had time to do major shop work in the winter and could keep the used engines running great. That's why DMIR had mainline steam into 1960.

[Philcal]

WW II also had a fairly large impact on the transition from steam to diesel. Simply stated, quite a few steam locomotives were built, that wouldn't have been built had there not been a war. During the war, the War Production Board dictated who would make what, and in the railroad industry EMD made road diesels, while ALCO was limited to switchers. Many of these controls had been largely lifted by late 1944, and ALCO for instance, really developed the "road switcher" concept. This caused EMD to sit up and take notice. Quite a few roads were very reluctant to give up steam entirely. In this regard both Illinois Central and Norfolk and Western come to mind. There were others. As a boy, I rode a GS-4 Coast Daylight, Los Angeles to San Francisco in 1954. Little more than a year later, EMD-E7s held down the Daylight assignments. If you're modeling the "transition era", you're into one of the most fascinating aspects of our hobby.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by orsonroy

QUOTE:
The PRR was loyal to its on line coal mines and worked very late into dieselization to make steam more efficient hence the T1, S1, S2, Q1 and Q2 engines.

All of which were dismal failures. The Pennsy was a 19th Century steam road that never realized that the 20th Century was half over. The most sucessful of their steamers was just a copy of the C&O's 2-10-4s, a smaller version of which regularly beat Pennsy trains in all categories (the AMC 2-8-4 is arguably the best all-around first generation superpower steamer). 80% of the Pennsy's steam roster was 1800s technology. They sampled AMC, C&O, and N&W engines, but always wanted to go their own way, instead of copying the work of better engineers.

QUOTE:
The cost of diesel maintenance facilities, fueling and spare parts alone were more than other railroads spent for engines. It had to be done orderly so they could be fed and maintained.

Which is my whole point: the Pennsy DIDN'T dieselize in any sort of orderly fashion. They just tried to implement the shotgun approach to dieselization, and it cost them more in the long run. The Pennsy came into the diesel era full of cash, and ended the steam era dead broke and looking for a merger partner (the PC failure was the best they could come up with). Big roads with offices full of engineers and big steam did things right; why not the Pennsy?

You are being far too simplistic. The Pennsy did not embrace dieselization until they decided not to pursue duplex drive steam. The duplex drives were not "Dismal Failures". In fact they suffered fewer teething problems than most radical departures from normal practices. And by the time the fires were dropped the T1s had been turned into respectable, albeit slippery, passenger locomotives.

Pennsy did not order from just EMD, or just ALCO because they couldn't. No one manufacturer could supply the numbers of locomotives the Pennsylvania Railroad was asking for in the time demanded. Thus PRR ordered everything from everyone. They had to. With the decision to sideline the duplexes all of the PRR locomotives predated the Great Depression with the exception of the Js. The PRR management didn't have the luxury of buying a few locomotives and taking a few years to learn how to best use them. So they ordered diesels the only way they knew how to order locomotives, specific units taylored for specific jobs.

On top of that was the extreme variations in traffic seen in the 1945 - 1958 timeframe. First you had tremendous traffic due to the demobilization of the military because of the end of the Second World War. Then there was a great lull which idled the jobs of quite a number of newly purchased locomotives. So those diesels were quickly reassigned. Then you had the Korean "Police Action" and another mobilization requiring more locomotives than PRR had operable. So drag out some of the idle steamers, lease some other steamers from ATSF and RDG, and order as many diesels as the builders can deliver in two years. And that is not mentioning the grain rushes in OH, IN, and IL which affected the PRR differently each year.

While the rush for dieselization may have not been optimal it is hardly the cause for the downfall of PRRs cash situation. Get track diagrams, or employees timetables and compare the industries present on line east of Altoona to New York between 1920 and 1960. A huge percentage of the shippers were gone, not changed to trucks (although there were some of them). The industrial north east was gone! You cannot make money on traffic that no longer exists. Don't rewrite history to conform with how you want things to be.

Likewise NYC wasn't the Pennsy's choice for merger partner. But every other combination was blocked by litigation or by the governing bodies.

[orsonroy]

QUOTE: Originally posted by ndbprr

Wait a minute there on the PRR! Whilw I basically agree with the statement the PRR had 598 2-10-0's, 400+ K4 4-6-2's, 125+ 4-8-2's. It was impossible to dieselize over night due to the size of the railroad.

True, but then why didn't they dieselize in any sort of orderly fashion? They had at least one example of every diesel made between 1938 and 1960. Why? Simple: they were still thinking like a steam road. The IC had a steam fleet that was one of the largest on the planet (over 500 Mikados alone) and they did it in an orderly fashion: almost all EMD, GPs for the freights and E's for the passenger trains.

QUOTE:
Steam was kept around Altoona for use on the curve and the torturous Pittsburgh division which required eastbound helpers from Pittsburgh to Altoona on freight due to the constant rise in elevation.

Ask the Erie or C&O about helpers, and why they were the first things that were dieselized. It doesn't make much sense to use the least efficient power on the most intense part of the road. Once the F3 and F7's started coming on line, the days of the "Build a train in the yard, start hanging 2-10-0s onto it until it moves" should have been over.

QUOTE:
It makes sense that they would stay near the main shops of the railroad centered in Altoona.

But Altoona was a backshop, someplace where steel was melted and engines beaten out of the living metal. You don't need that sort of labor to service and do up to class five repairs on engines. Just about any decent steam shop in the country could have done the necessary work on the Pennsy's engines.

QUOTE:
Passenger runs were dieselized first across the entire railroad from what I recall followed by freight engines as finances permitted.

Only on the mainlines, and on the flashy name trains. The Long Island ran steam commuter trains well into the late 1950s.

QUOTE:
The PRR was loyal to its on line coal mines and worked very late into dieselization to make steam more efficient hence the T1, S1, S2, Q1 and Q2 engines.

All of which were dismal failures. The Pennsy was a 19th Century steam road that never realized that the 20th Century was half over. The most sucessful of their steamers was just a copy of the C&O's 2-10-4s, a smaller version of which regularly beat Pennsy trains in all categories (the AMC 2-8-4 is arguably the best all-around first generation superpower steamer). 80% of the Pennsy's steam roster was 1800s technology. They sampled AMC, C&O, and N&W engines, but always wanted to go their own way, instead of copying the work of better engineers.

QUOTE:
The cost of diesel maintenance facilities, fueling and spare parts alone were more than other railroads spent for engines. It had to be done orderly so they could be fed and maintained.

Which is my whole point: the Pennsy DIDN'T dieselize in any sort of orderly fashion. They just tried to implement the shotgun approach to dieselization, and it cost them more in the long run. The Pennsy came into the diesel era full of cash, and ended the steam era dead broke and looking for a merger partner (the PC failure was the best they could come up with). Big roads with offices full of engineers and big steam did things right; why not the Pennsy?

[CMSTPP]

Yes this was normal for most railroads. The Milwaukee Road started getting rid of there steam locomotives in the west with the expansion of the electrics. They slowly worked there way across the mountains in to the plains and then to big cities removing all of the steam and replacing with the diesel. It took the milwaukee under 3 years for all steam to completely removed.

[ndbprr]

Wait a minute there on the PRR! Whilw I basically agree with the statement the PRR had 598 2-10-0's, 400+ K4 4-6-2's, 125+ 4-8-2's. It was impossible to dieselize over night due to the size of the railroad. Steam was kept around Altoona for use on the curve and the torturous Pittsburgh division which required eastbound helpers from Pittsburgh to Altoona on freight due to the constant rise in elevation. It makes sense that they would stay near the main shops of the railroad centered in Altoona. The last major concentration of steam was in Northumberland for the Mount Carmel ore run connecting to the Lehigh Valley for Bethlehem Steel. This had two 2-10-0's on the front and back for a total of four engines. Passenger runs were dieselized first across the entire railroad from what I recall followed by freight engines as finances permitted. The PRR was loyal to its on line coal mines and worked very late into dieselization to make steam more efficient hence the T1, S1, S2, Q1 and Q2 engines. The cost of diesel maintenance facilities, fueling and spare parts alone were more than other railroads spent for engines. It had to be done orderly so they could be fed and maintained.

[orsonroy]

It depends on the road. Some roads dieselized all at once, some dieselized according to train type, and some roads dieselized according to division. Some large roads that were mad to dieselize just bought everything in sight, and replaced steam engine for engine. Some examples:

The P&E (NYC subsidiary) had 28 steam engines on their roster one morning in December, 1950. By Morning the next day, they were all on their way to the scrap line, being replaced by 13 GP7s and three SW9s.

The C&IM had ONE diesel on their roster for several years, serving a coal mine. By October, 1955, all of their switchers had been replaced by SW's, and two weeks later, their 2-10-2s fell to six or so SD9s.

The NKP mostly dieselized by division. They'd figure out exacty how many diesels they'd need for a division, make an order with either EMD or Alco, and once the diesels arrived, that division was dieselized. The road started dieselization with switchers and passenger units, but the entire line wasn't completely dieselized until 1958, when the last of the 0-8-0s were retired (unlike most roads, the NKP's yard switchers were the last to go). In general, the NKP dieselized from west to east.

The NYC and PRR "mostly" dieselized by division, from east to west. But because the lines were so large (and possibly because their upper management were idiots) there was a LOT of mingling of steam and diesels on the same divisions, sometimes for years. Altoona was a prine example, serving both steam and diesel for more than ten years before full dieselization.

[SSW9389]

On the Santa Fe the conversion to diesel freight power began in the west. Specificly on those divisions where water was scarce or of poor quality. Diesels could take more tonnage over the grade, oft times at a faster pace as they did not have to stop for water.

On the Cotton Belt the railroad put its freight diesels to work on its southern end as that was where there were some hilly areas that the diesels could do better on. The first Cotton Belt freight diesels generally worked south of Pine Bluff.

[jecorbett]

From the limited amount of reading I've done about the steam-to-diesel transition era, it sounds like many of the large roads would convert one division at a time, often rather abruptly? Was this the norm? Did they typical convert from east to west, west to east, or was it done without a pattern to it?