One last thought, steam hung on in nations like China, India and in eastern Europe because labor was extremely cheap, coal very abundent and competition and free Enterprise lacking. Steam would look practical looking Thur that prisms. But even their steam is dead and for much of the same reasons.
Elsewhere in the world was very different.
Steam was more expensive to maintain and required greater manpower in the shops. In the United States, minimizing employment was a major goal of the railroads. In other countries with government owned railroads, maximizing employment was a major goal. Hence, steam lasted longer.
Steam lasted a long time in Communist countries because railway operations were sepparated from economic considerations and things were not always done the cheapest way. Locomotive construction was done to five year plans and often didn't produce what was needed. Free market countries with government railroads saw similar slow transitions due to lesser incentives to be efficient (or a starvation of capital which meant that expenses had to be spread out over a greater period of time as opposed to the American railroads which were comparatively flush with WWII cash).
Britain is perhaps the most interesting example. As private railroads before the war, there was experiments with diesels that produced good results (one LMS design set the standard for the Class 08/11 family of switchers). The railroads were on track to either dieselize or electrify until war interrupted things. Post-nationalization, diezelization commenced but with early diesels that were failures* resulting in steam lasting longer than in North America. In these years, Labor governments made employment a goal on the railways.
*Yes, some early diesels in Britain were failures. Most notable are the Western Region diesel hydraulics which were outlived by steam. Early US diesels were not failures as several hundred first generation diesels are still in active daily revenue service.
I also disagree with the notion that lines were upgraded for diesels. If anything, early diesels were less hard on the track as they lacked dynamic augument of drive rods. As a result, the same bridges with the same cooper ratings are able to support vastly heavier diesels without a problem.
Well thanks guys. All of your claims are reasonable and been put forth many times...however,...there is a very valid counterpoint to each claim you make. Reading through older posts this weekend I draw your attention to the "N&W 611 thread from last June, the "PRR T1"thread from Nov/14 and "Could steam make a comeback" thread from July/08 where very detailed technical explanations, from real professionals, along with proper references can be found to refute just about all of it. The reality is we have Diesels in mainline service and the enjoyment of steam in excursion service. The question on this thread was whether free enterprise railroads could have survived without dieselization and after significant reading and research I would say yes, but more than likely in the form of electrification. After reading some of the posters on those threads I referred to, particularly M. Sol and Juniantha, but others as well, some of who are still very much active on these pages, one can easily come to the conclusion that much evidence, good science and engineering was covered up, ignored or claims exaggerated in the interests of salesmanship, picking the pockets of cash flush railroads after the war and most of all advancing an agenda. As to the sucess of early locomotives I specified much earlier that Baldwin, Lima, later BLH, FM, made sucessful switchers but not sucessful road units. Even Alco to some extent. GM with their massive lead in research and fiat monopoly during the war was very sucessful indeed. The Railroads spent a lot of money on crappy diesels ( Centipedes, Sharks, Baby faces, even early PA's and the like ) that barely made 10 years and never lived up to expectations. Granted they also wasted a ton of money on new passenger equipment that soon fizzled. This they should have foreseen...some did. I remember the CEO of Canadian Pacific, upon the inauguration of the much ballyhooed "Canadian" lamenting that if the train ran at 100% capacity all the time they still would not make a nickel, that it was impossibly hopeless. I believe the Erie ( or was it Lackawanna?) was one of the only ones that didn't take the bait. Oh well, history is written but examining how we got here is quite revealing. I'm not wishing upon a star or living a fantasy any more than diesel advocates come up with the same storylines and remain biased on what really happened. GM and then GE make a great product but maybe Baldwin, Lima, Alco would be doing the same with the power of expanding steam.
Miningman I'm not wishing upon a star or living a fantasy any more than diesel advocates come up with the same storylines and remain biased on what really happened.
Name one major nation that is running mainline steam in everyday service in 2016? In 2000?
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Comparing still new-technology diesels to long-established steam designs isn't really a fair comparison. Even at the end, the most modern-designed steam locomotives couldn't compete against the emerging (and improving) diesel-electric market. As one example, The N&W J classes only lasted 10 years on a railroad that was a coal hauler.
Even if Alco or Baldwin focused on steam locomotives, it wouldn't have lasted in my opinion. It would only delayed the inevitable for a few more years. By giving up on steam, railroads could close down their massive backshop and machine shops.
And electrification was fine for some mainlines, if you could get a return on the high costs. As the east de-industrialized, a lot of mainlines were reduced. How many of the former PRR electric mainlines still see any kind of heavy and frequent freight?
Maybe in some alternate timeline, steam still exists. But I don't see how it really could have happened here.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
schlimmName one major nation that is running mainline steam in everyday service in 2016? In 2000?
In fairness, the thread kind of assumes that Diesel technology did not develop as it did. Were there no internal combustion power plant capable of producing the power required, or if that development didn't occur until much later, then clearly steam would have remained much longer, especially in areas that didn't lend themselves well to electrification.
As has been said here, there are many variables - any of which had the potential to change the timeline of the change from steam to Diesel.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
tree68As has been said here, there are many variables - any of which had the potential to change the timeline of the change from steam to Diesel.
And if it weren't for WWII, Alco and Baldwin would have most likely made greater advances in their diesel locomotives. Steam probably would have been gone much sooner. Timelines and all that...
It is fruitless to argue with half-baked conspiracy theorists, as facts and logic are irrelevant.
schlimm It is fruitless to argue with half-baked conspiracy theorists, as facts and logic are irrelevant.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
schlimm It is fruitless to argue with half-baked theorists, as facts and logic are irrelevant.
It is fruitless to argue with half-baked
theorists, as facts and logic are irrelevant.
FTFY.
Norm
Even the title of this thread can lead to argument. "Could have free-enterprise freight railroads survived without dieselization?."
I would like to think that events in a time line are normally not independent of each other. The railroads dieselized due to events leading up to that decision. So, if railroads never dieselized, then can we not assume those events that led up to said decision are also altered? Then if so, how can we make any conclusion whether the railroads would have survived or not? We would be looking at an alternate time line without knowing all the other events that would happen before and, more importantly, after the question to dieselize became relevant. Unless are we assuming diesel technology never would have even existed at all in this alternate time line?
I love when shows tackle time-travelling plotlines. Such a concept can seem so simple - yet be so complex. (Steins;Gate FTW)
When is a decision EVER made on pure engineering terms? Let's be realistic here. Diesels had that certain sexiness the old steamers just lacked.
Of course, dieselization wasn't made strictly on engineering terms, economics had a lot to do with it, too. Consider that Alco ads in the 1930's and early 1940's were already promoting diesels for yard service.
The reason decisions were never made on pure engineering terms is because economic terms always trump engineering terms.
When I say the case for dieselization was made on the basis of engineering, I meant to include economics. Also included would be maintenance, manpower, etc. I only meant "engineering" in contrast to emotional terms such as moderizing the image, and the opportunity to paint locomotives something other than black.
Certainly economics mattered, and could be said to be the ultimate cause, but the economics flowed from the engineering. In any case, a basis on the terms of engineering alone would be meaningless without the economics that resulted.
And the economics would have been impossible without the engineering. Neither one trumps the other.
Modern materials may well be able to conquer some of the physical issues with steam locomotives, but many of the limitations - chiefly manpower - would still be in the forefront.
As noted before, it took (and still does) a lot of just plain people to keep a steam locomotive on the road. Getting a cold steamer up to an operating state takes hours. And it's not the road crew that makes that preparation.
In addition, unless there is a reliable means of electronically/mechanically replacing the fireman, you've just increased the necessary crew by 50%, which is another cost.
Further, DPU becomes a little more complicating, now requring at least an attendant on each locomotive, even if the engineer and fireman can be replaced by electronics. Do we want an unattended 250PSI teakettle running through town, unattended?
Simply put, economics is probably the major reason steam locomotives are now curiosities rather than every day sights on our railroads.
You would need to fire a new steam locomotive on wood pellets - the only, um, "acceptable" fuel source to certain folks concerned with that sort of thing since the theory is it is only returning "recently captured" carbon back in to the atmosphere (there are millions of tons of wood pellets shipped every year to power plants in Europe based on that theory).
I believe the folks trying to acquire ATSF Hudson 3463 to make a run at 130 MPH were going to use a form of wood pellet fuel - more like wood "disks".
While it would be extremely cool for us lovers of all things large and powerful to see a modern steam-equipped line constructed somewhere, the odds of it happening are probably even smaller than the odds of one winning the $1.3 billion Powerball jackpot.
Posts in this thread point out that.......
RRs should have kept their steam locos until a major maintenance item occurred sidelining a loco. Not so much rush to judgement of retiring steam with life left. Then they would have had much better information on which diesels would last. The point that PRR had many worn out locos is well taken.
Removal of steam gradually first on divisions that had either coal supply or more importantly quality water would have been called for.
Some RRs such as UP, N&W, SOU sent train loads of completely operable steam locos to the scrappers.
Electric installation ? Thank goodness it did not happen. DEG points out to double stack plate "H" had not been planned for except maybe ERIE's RR?.. Raising CAT would have then be costly and hurt the roads in the early 1990s. + higher tunnel clearances for the present NS and CSX clearance work. What CAT raising Amtrak has done has been expensive in both time and cost.
Anyone know if the IC, South Shore and Milwaukee CAT was of sufficient plate "H" dimensions ?
blue streak 1 Posts in this thread point out that....... RRs should have kept their steam locos until a major maintenance item occurred sidelining a loco. Not so much rush to judgement of retiring steam with life left. Then they would have had much better information on which diesels would last. The point that PRR had many worn out locos is well taken. Removal of steam gradually first on divisions that had either coal supply or more importantly quality water would have been called for. Some RRs such as UP, N&W, SOU sent train loads of completely operable steam locos to the scrappers.
I can't buy this argument, Streak, except insofar as a road wanted or could afford to maintain a double fleet. If the future was diesel, why not get on with it to the extent of your financial ability?
Sure, there is some life left in a lot of obsolete technologies. The old adding machine still works, the calculator be damned. So does carbon paper, if you don't like the copy machine. (I think I'm showing my age by even evoking the copy machine, itself a thing of the past.)
But, if you don't go modern, the competition will, and set the pace. And you lose.
(I'm not saying I like the results all the time. But you have to go with them, unless you prefer some kind of command economy.)
Dakotafred/ blue streak 1.....The Southern Pacific, under Russell's leadership, " retained steam for years after other roads becuase Russell thought it unwise to have costly new diesels sitting in storage during traffic downturns" reference Fall 2015 Classic Trains pg 52. He is quoted as saying " I would rather have fully depreciated steam locomotives standing around than new diesels we are paying interest on". Hundreds of steam locomotives were stored serviceable in Houston and other locations. Russell led the Southern Pacific to greatness to the point where David P. Morgan called it the "new standard railroad of the world.
Euclid- thanks for coming to my aid with the references to M. Sol. I only ask that people have an open mind and read what he had to say. We shall see what the future yet brings.
I have a book in my 'library', "Decade Of The Trains the 1940's" by Don Ball Jr and Rogers E.M. Whitaker. Chapter 2 - The Home Front, has a number of pictures highlighting all the shop crafts and skilled manpower necessary to keep steam operating, the degree that engines had to be disassembled to comply with required inspections. If these actions were only happening at one or two major shop per railroad, there are a tremendous number of 'shop' people required - but the major carriers had multiple major shops and secondary shops in number of employees required would be larger than most any of today's major diesel shops.
The manpower required to keep steam operating was tremendous - more than many steam lovers would like to think about.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Balt, great book, and one I would recommend.
FWIW, many railroads kept steam on the roster for seasonal surges after regular use ended. UP was famous for using Big Boys on late summer perishables until the late 1950s.
The fact that the railroads that stayed with steam (N&W, NKP) transitioned a decade or so later than others gave them time to thoroughly examine the effects dieselization had on other roads. Clearly, there was enough economic impetus to change.
The DMIR famously purchased enough extra appliances to keep their 2-8-8-4s running until 1970 when parts supply began to become an issue-only to dump steam for diesels before 1960.
The economics are inarguable. The fact that so many railroads with so many different conditions dieselized at approximately the same time indicates that there was no great conspiracy that killed steam.
BaltACD- one cannot compare 1940 maintenance and practices to today...please read last post buy Euclid. The N&W had streamlined practices that were cutting edge....the Milwaukee Road had tremedous monthly mileage with near continuous running Of their steam. Best practices with steam certainly would be very advanced and unrecognizable today And not at a 1940's level. It is what it is, this thread asked a specific question and I'm certain its goal was not to pit steam heads vs diesel heads. Many claims against the diesel were overlooked and swept away, many claims can be made for steam efficiency today but that evolution stopped some time ago, whether unfairly or not. I still think good old American know how would have developed an incredible and advanced and efficient line of steam given a different set of circumstances and a more sceptical eye. The Railroads were sold a bill of goods that for the most part did little to offset financial the disasters that were to befall them. Much has changed for better or worse but the railroads performed magnificently during the war when called upon and they made a ton of dough doing so, mostly under steam.
Many railroads stayed with steam during WW2 because they didn't have much of a choice due to WPB restrictions. It's fairly well known that the WPB restricted steam locomotive purchases to existing designs and also slapped restrictions on diesel production. The military demand for diesel engines (especially the Navy) went a long way in helping to advance diesel designs.
Steam design was a mature technology by the 1940's and design advances were reaching the point of diminishing returns. Be honest, how many major advances received widespread acceptance after the development of superheating?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.