General Discussion

MichaelSol wrote:

petedabeat wrote: Hopefully I can find some information about individual locomotives, so I can actually start to create a model that will compare a single Diesel vs. a single steam locomotive, and compare costs, proving the Diesel to be more efficient. Well, it's nice to see that you are approaching this from a strictly objective perspective! However, regards "efficiency" I doubt there is anyone who would contest the observation that an internal combustion diesel-electric locomotive is inherently more efficient than an external combustion steam locomotive.

Let me add my caution to this researcher that he is "situating the estimate" by surmising at the outset that what he wishes to demonstrate is demonstrable.  In other words, watch the bias...it will trip you up at some point.  In this case, psychologists call it "confirmation bias."  It has been demonstrated that those with preconceived notions attend more keenly to information that they think supports the notion, and they will tend to discount or overlook contrary evidence (Klayman & Ha, 1987, Skov & Sherman, 1986).

Beware setting yourself up for "success."

jph2 wrote:

This is an extremely interesting thread. And I'm truly in awe of your knowledge on the topic, MichaelSol. You deserve a serious pat on the back! I'm involved in a couple of geofiction games called Aurora (which has a 1945-55 technology level) and Scandia (which is late 20th centrury technology). From time to time, I try to include railroad related stuff. In one Aurora case, my fictional nation has a company that builds locomotives (steam) for market and I was trying to gen up some cost and time to build estimates. It's not easy data to find, trust me. I can say, unequivocably, that I've gotten better and more significant information in this thread here than hours of internet research got me previously.

I can tell you that I learn a great deal reading Michael's input, and I appreciate it sincerely.

My internet connection has been acting up the last few days, and so I'm not getting to this thread till now.  Well...first I'd like to say I'm a bit....uh...overwhelmed...

Reading this, Michael Sol and a couple other of you are probably the greatest human beings to have ever walked the Earth.  There is so much out there on this topic, and well my efforts thus far have been proved...shameful. 

It has been suggested that I am using confirmation bias in this project, and that's probably true.  I've been digging for information that seems useful, and I guess I don't mean to do so, but I guess I will be finding information that will successfully answer my thesis (and dismiss information that disproves it...). 

The spreadsheet as it is now can be found as "(3) Senior Exit Project" at http://www.4shared.com/dir/5878411/bcf7dabd/sharing.html.

Explaination of content in the spreadsheet can be found at the blog I am writing for this project, at: http://www.steamvsdiesel.blogspot.com.  Comments to the blog itself are greatly appreciated. 

 Concerns have been raised that I need more data on alot of different things, including labor costs and I need some data on fuel costs.  I will make my best effort to address these concerns. 

Also, I found a couple old Train magazine issues we had lying around from the past 10 or so years, I'll see what I can find!

petedabeat wrote:

There is so much out there on this topic, and well my efforts thus far have been proved...shameful.

I was a junior or senior in High School when I did my first systems modelling -- using Fortran on a third generation IBM 360 identical to what MILW and CNW were operating at the time; the "60s". To have a powerful tool like Microsoft Excel at your fingertips is quite an advantage. I think what you are doing is a terrific start.

I agree with Michael...

The whole point of the project is to expand your horizons...and you are doing a wonderful job!  You found some great resources, and are learning to put them to use...which is the whole point of education, anyway!

So dont belittle yourself because you dont have the years of experience represented by the folks who have helped you...congratulate yourself for having sought out that experience.

Unlike some high school graduates (and lots of college graduates, too!), it appears as if you recognize that you dont know everything... being open to learning is much more important than what you have ever learned.

And, thanks for bringing your question to this forum...by participating, I have also learned a lot about a range of things greater than your original question. 

Press on!  Great things are ahead!

I agree.  Your first great advantage over so many other people is that you recognize your limitations and you want to reduce them to the extent possible.  There is also such a thing as "learning to learn", and that takes time.  Not only do those of us who have lived longer know more, but many of us know how to acquire yet more.  You are a sentient, self-concious learner who seems disciplined and determined to carve out a serious rock cut for yourself.   You are not so proud that you don't "see" what is out there for you, or that you don't acknowledge the contributions of others to your learning.  Many folks, young and old, hamper themselves with their pride, and miss out on opportunities.  Unless I am wrong about you, you are willing to work hard to get ahead.  For that, you should be commended.

I hope my added caution to Michael's wasn't unwelcome.  All hypotheses come from some form of bent or suspicion based on heurism, but the suspicion and its inherent bias shouldn't morph into determinism.  We wanted to caution you about reducing the value of your work early in its development by forcing the balance out of the picture.  You could, after all, be just as famous eventually for disproving a notion as proving it.  Either way, your disciplined approach will shine a light on the truth.

Good luck.

"One piece of data should now be noted that is displayed in the spreadsheet. The spreadsheet shows that the number of locomotives per train decreased over the period of transition from steam to diesel. This might seem outrageous, considering that several Diesels were required to replace one steam locomotive. One would expect the number of locomotives per train to increase! The decrease in locomotives can probably be explained however, in the added flexibility of Diesel Locomotives. Diesel locomotives could be used for more tasks, and so fewer locomotives were needed per train."

I'm not sure what you are using as a data source for this, but be careful. For a variety of reasons, including union contracts, a "locomotive" was defined as the sum of the parts if it only needed one crew. That is, four diesel units operated together would be a "locomotive". So how the data source defined this is crucial to your conclusion.

"A few days ago, I found a little blurb about the cost of maintenance for the Santa Fe's 4-8-4 steam locomotives when delivered in 1944. Cost of maintenance was $1.79 per mile, in 2007 dollars. I have therefore added that information to the "model" section of the spreadsheet.

A bit of analysis:
Looking at the data, it can be seen that for the Diesels that have been modeled, maintenance costs ran at about 10 dollars or less per operating hour. The Santa Fe's massive 4-8-4 steam locomotives cost 1.79 per operating mile. Therefore, it can be seen that if these engines ran above about 5 miles for every hour of operation, Diesels offered drastic cost savings."

If a single Diesel-electric unit was operating at $10 per hour maintenance, then that would be $10/1500 horsepower per hour. If so, the equivalent cost to match the horsepower of a Northern should have been $33 for the equivalent Diesel-electric horsepower on a fleet basis. In this case, to match the Northern actually requires overpowering the train with four diesel "units." Trying to guess that the Diesel-electric was perhaps measured at something reasonable, say 20 mph average, then the Northern at 20 miles would cost $35.80 compared to the unit equivalent of the Diesel-electric of $40. But, the Diesel-electric cost isn't going to stay put with increasing utilization.

I'm uncomfortable with the use of a time measurement for maintenance cost and mixing it with an "operating mile" measure. They are not comparable units. The standard is "1000 rail hp miles" since time is really irrelevant in this context.

First, I'll go back into the blog and change the little bit about the number of engines per train later, since I was totally wrong. 

MichaelSol wrote:

I'm uncomfortable with the use of a time measurement for maintenance cost and mixing it with an "operating mile" measure. They are not comparable units. The standard is "1000 rail hp miles" since time is really irrelevant in this context.

Very interesting.  I did not know that....at all...   I guess I'll try to find something about both Diesels and steam in operating costs per hour, or in operating costs per mile.  Since that seems to be the only fair way to compare the two. 

JSGreen wrote:

MichaelSol wrote: A modern consideration, which I consider somewhat of a puzzler, is that while early diesel-electrics were advertised at 20 years, 1,000,000 miles, Iowa Curve analysis quickly showed that the depreciation period, upon which railroads based their purchase decisions, was wildly optimistic; and was quickly reduced in 1957 from 20 years to 14. Anytime there is a 30% negative error in assumptions, you can pretty well bet the original studies were worthless, but, by 1957, where was the industry to go? Question about accounting and large companies... The last time I operated a small business, what you could depreciate and the rate at which you could depreciate it was fixed in the tax code.  A notable case was PC's which had to be depreciated over something like 5 years, but most early PC's were being replaced in 3 years.  Are large companies faced with the same rigid tax codes, and could that be the reason the period went from 20yr depreciation to 14 year depreciation?  It is plausable that rates were initially set for depreciating Diesels based on experience with Steam, but that when the RR's were able to show cause, they were allowed to set a more reasonable depreciation schedule.

My PC's are being rebuilt in less than 18 months using parts left over from surviving builds. As they are rebuilt, they are getting very cheap and certain technology retired. For example IDE cables. My current machine dont have any now. Last years 100 dollar DVD drive is less than 20 today retail for equivilant drives.

I already have a second list set up to rebuild my machines yet again in a year's time. The time between builds is getting MUCH shorter than 3 years and accelerating with a constant fall in pricing as well. Last year's 3000 dollar monstor can be matched for 1000 today and probably 500 within 6 months.

The Government is going to need to be more agile as the charts race to Zero with increasing rates of speed versus time.

Steam engines require enormous care. The 819 down in Pine Bluff (A L1 Class 4-8-4) has slowly been rebuilt over these last years. Even this year Im not sure if she is ready to be steamed up again, if ever.

The new version of the spreadsheet [(4) Senior Exit Project] is avaliable at: http://www.4shared.com/file/40424140/de2da59d/_4__Senior_Exit_Project.html

As always, the blog is avaliable at: http://www.steamvsdiesel.blogspot.com

-THANKS, as always, comments are greatly appreciated and encouraged.