At least some of the newer steam locomotives using newer technologies (PRR, C&O, N&W) had very high maintenance costs and concurrent high out-of-service rates compared to diesel or even older steamers. To assume steam's high labor costs would have disappeared is yet another example of wishful thinking.
Even in western Europe, the trend was to move away from steam for the same reasons.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
One need only look at the time and money required to overhaul steam locomotives in the modern day - which is usually measured in years and hundreds of thousands of dollars - to understand the amount of labor required to go through just one locomotive, much less hundreds.
I don't believe the shops weren't governed by the same constraints as operating crews (ie, state laws, etc), so a comparison there is moot. Labor agreements notwithstanding, it takes X people to do Y function. If the railroad can get rid of function Y, they can get rid of X people...
One can also look at the real estate needed to maintain steam vs Diesel. There is a significant difference, and you can bet that if the railroads had figured out how to reduce that, they would have.
Short of finding another way to transfer energy to the wheels (and we know turbines didn't do a good job), about the only improvements that could physically be made to steam locomotives are pretty much limited to improving heat transfer efficiency and using materials that would require less maintenance.
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...
I can't imagine how modern technologycould improve some aspects of operating steam locomotives. You'd still have to haul the coal from the mine to the yard and store it. You'd have to transfer the coal to the locomotive. You'd have to remove the ashes from the locomotive and haul them off somewhere for disposal. You'd still have to haul with and deal with water. You'd still have to do the maintenance to keep the locomotive operating. What would a 10,000 ton train hauled by steam locomotives look like? Perhaps like five 2,000 ton trains hauled by steam locomotives. There's a reason that steam was replaced by diesel. Steam was near the end of its development. Diesel was at the beginning of its development. It the same reason that F-14 Tomcats aren't powered by Merlin engines with a 4 blade prop. Time marches on. I'm sure the coming of the railroads sent a fair amount of perfectly good horses and oxen prematurely to the auction barn as well.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
As Norris said, the logistics of providing fuel and water for steam power--and disposing of the residue of combustion would be almost overwhelming. How much fuel can be carried in a tender? Some roads, such as the N&W used "canteens" to reduce the number of water stops; others had the locomotives pick water up from between the tracks (and spread water on the right of way). It may have been that multiple control of steam engines would have been developed, just as multiple control of diesel engines was developed. These matters, as well as the matter of maintaining the shops would have had to be considered.
Johnny
tree68 Labor agreements notwithstanding, it takes X people to do Y function. If the railroad can get rid of function Y, they can get rid of X people...
Labor agreements notwithstanding, it takes X people to do Y function. If the railroad can get rid of function Y, they can get rid of X people...
Miningman If diesels were so much cheaper to run then why did steam hang on into the seventies, eighties and nineties in Eastern Europe, even Germany, India, China and much of the third world? Because those countries had lots of cheap labor and coal reserves... Steam has been acknowledged as easier to maintain. I Can't let that go unchallenged: Prove it...
If diesels were so much cheaper to run then why did steam hang on into the seventies, eighties and nineties in Eastern Europe, even Germany, India, China and much of the third world?
Because those countries had lots of cheap labor and coal reserves...
Steam has been acknowledged as easier to maintain.
I Can't let that go unchallenged: Prove it...
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
Bucky's anti-union rant seems to disregard the fact that a lot of shopcraft labor related to the maintenance of steam locomotives was laid off in the 1950's.
CSSHEGEWISCH Bucky's anti-union rant seems to disregard the fact that a lot of shopcraft labor related to the maintenance of steam locomotives was laid off in the 1950's.
How does what I said about unions and steam mainentance disregard the fact that shop labor was laid off in the 1950? That does not conflict with what I said. It confirms it.
I have also read that the skills needed for steam maintenance were becoming more and more scarce. Partly this is because of the lack of standardization and need to hand craft replacement components from scratch. Couple that with some good points made by another poster about how labor intensive steam was (changing driver tires, replacing steam drive components vs swapping out a prime mover in diesel. But the motivation about cutting maintenance costs went way beyond getting rid of union labor, since obviously diesel maintenance labor was also union. Bucky simply cannot resist getting in one of his obsessive 'anti' rants, whether it be anti-union, anti-government or anti-reality.
So many of the changes on the rails post-war were painful adjustments to economic and technological changes, far beyond the dislocations attributed to over-regulation.
zugmann 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 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?
Pretty much my take on the original question. The advantages of the internal combustion engine (ICE) over the steam engine for land transportation where clear enough that internal combustion locomotives would have prevailed in the railroad industry over steamers even if GM never exsted. The internal combustion engine also made autos and trucks a lot more practical than they would have been with batteries or steam. Without ICE powered cars and trucks, the railroads would have been in a different competitive environment and steam locomotives might not have been a disadvantage - but the electric interurbans would likely have been more successful than they were.
Blue Streak
The Milw cantenary was 24' above the rails wherever possible, though tunnels would have been an issue for plate H. The Milw did lower floors on the PCE tunnels in the early 1960's to allow for tri-level auto carriers.
- Erik
erikem zugmann 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? Pretty much my take on the original question. The advantages of the internal combustion engine (ICE) over the steam engine for land transportation where clear enough that internal combustion locomotives would have prevailed in the railroad industry over steamers even if GM never exsted. The internal combustion engine also made autos and trucks a lot more practical than they would have been with batteries or steam. Without ICE powered cars and trucks, the railroads would have been in a different competitive environment and steam locomotives might not have been a disadvantage - but the electric interurbans would likely have been more successful than they were. Blue Streak The Milw cantenary was 24' above the rails wherever possible, though tunnels would have been an issue for plate H. The Milw did lower floors on the PCE tunnels in the early 1960's to allow for tri-level auto carriers. - Erik
The tri-levels of the 60's were not as high as the 19'2" and 20'2" multilevels that are normal today.
If steam was such a 'success' why did the steam driven automobiles disappear well before the steam locomotive. Steam, in the right situations has it's place in the world - tranportation is no longer that place.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
EuclidHow does what I said about unions and steam mainentance disregard the fact that shop labor was laid off in the 1950? That does not conflict with what I said. It confirms it.
The way you shape and distort your arguments - nothing anyone can say will ever conflict what you say.
You basically said the railroads dieselized to save a lot of labor costs because if they didn't dieslize, then they wouldn't have been able to save a far lesser amount on labor costs?
Here. Have your ribbon. You win the internets today.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
I can't believe the hostility on here to "Bucky" -- the insulting name of some clever posters -- and his self-evident truths about the gross overstaffing from which railroading used to suffer.
Firemen? Give me a break. One hundred-mile workdays? Give me a break. Four- and five-man crews that used to be reinforced by state law? Give me a break. Cabooses, which have probably crippled more railroaders than derailments? Again, give me a break.
This is not to say that railroaders of today don't earn their money. Rather that, if unions had had their way in the turbulent 1950s, '60s and '70s, most railroaders wouldn't have any jobs at all. Not on the railroad, anyway.
BaltACD The tri-levels of the 60's were not as high as the 19'2" and 20'2" multilevels that are normal today.
I did know that the tri-levels aren't as high as a double stack, my point was that the Milwaukee did some work in improving clearances on electrified lines. Whether it was feasible to modify the tunnels to allow 20'2" multilevels is something I can't answer authoritatively.
erikem BaltACD The tri-levels of the 60's were not as high as the 19'2" and 20'2" multilevels that are normal today. I did know that the tri-levels aren't as high as a double stack, my point was that the Milwaukee did some work in improving clearances on electrified lines. Whether it was feasible to modify the tunnels to allow 20'2" multilevels is something I can't answer authoritatively. - Erik
20'2" multi-levels is one thing, 20'2" stacks are another. Multi-levels are narrower at the 20'2" height than stacks. My carrier and NS have been 'notching' tunnels to permit the 20'2" stacks.
dakotafredI can't believe the hostility on here to "Bucky" -- the insulting name of some clever posters -- and his self-evident truths about the gross overstaffing from which railroading used to suffer.
Bucky isn't an insult. Just his past username. Besides, he can hold his own.
The railroad was a different beast in years past. We have reduced crew sizes now (like every industry), but the number of yards and industries have also been greatly reduced. It's hard (all but damned near impossible) to compare opertaions of today to yesteryear.
dakotafred I can't believe the hostility on here to "Bucky" -- the insulting name of some clever posters -- and his self-evident truths about the gross overstaffing from which railroading used to suffer. Firemen? Give me a break. One hundred-mile workdays? Give me a break. Four- and five-man crews that used to be reinforced by state law? Give me a break. Cabooses, which have probably crippled more railroaders than derailments? Again, give me a break. This is not to say that railroaders of today don't earn their money. Rather that, if unions had had their way in the turbulent 1950s, '60s and '70s, most railroaders wouldn't have any jobs at all. Not on the railroad, anyway.
Bucyrus "Bucky" Euclid doesn't need ay help, but you just cannot resist another anti-union, anti-labor snarkiness.
schlimm dakotafred I can't believe the hostility on here to "Bucky" -- the insulting name of some clever posters -- and his self-evident truths about the gross overstaffing from which railroading used to suffer. Firemen? Give me a break. One hundred-mile workdays? Give me a break. Four- and five-man crews that used to be reinforced by state law? Give me a break. Cabooses, which have probably crippled more railroaders than derailments? Again, give me a break. This is not to say that railroaders of today don't earn their money. Rather that, if unions had had their way in the turbulent 1950s, '60s and '70s, most railroaders wouldn't have any jobs at all. Not on the railroad, anyway. Bucyrus "Bucky" Euclid doesn't need ay help, but you just cannot resist another anti-union, anti-labor snarkiness.
"Another"? Show us the first.
zugmann dakotafred I can't believe the hostility on here to "Bucky" -- the insulting name of some clever posters -- and his self-evident truths about the gross overstaffing from which railroading used to suffer. Bucky isn't an insult. Just his past username. Besides, he can hold his own. The railroad was a different beast in years past. We have reduced crew sizes now (like every industry), but the number of yards and industries have also been greatly reduced. It's hard (all but damned near impossible) to compare opertaions of today to yesteryear.
dakotafred I can't believe the hostility on here to "Bucky" -- the insulting name of some clever posters -- and his self-evident truths about the gross overstaffing from which railroading used to suffer.
1) The actual task of maintaining steam power based on steam locomotives and maintenance practice.
2) The labor force built up to accomplish that task.
Some folks would suggest that the only reason railroads transistioned from steam to diesel was to get rid of a bunch of union labor. And to think that it's been 60+ years since this diabolic plan was put in place and only one individual has caught on to them. And they probably would have gotten away with it if it hadn't been for those meddling kids!
Murphy Siding Some folks would suggest that the only reason railroads transistioned from steam to diesel was to get rid of a bunch of union labor. And to think that it's been 60+ years since this diabolic plan was put in place and only one individual has caught on to them. And they probably would have gotten away with it if it hadn't been for those meddling kids!
About the last 350 books and magazine articles about steam locomotives going away seem to suggest that it was all about the economics of the equipment, most of it having to do with labor. Somehow you've now uncovered a plot to eliminate labor unions that everyone else has somehow overlooked. So please, elaborate away. You are free to explain your theories any way that makes sense to you. Have a ball. Won't we feel dumb when all those diesels are put back in the boxes and replaced with new, shiny, labor efficient steam locomotives?
Murphy Siding- ummm, yah! That could happen, the world can change and turn on a dime. I picture a 6-8-8-6 duplex drive hauling a 120 car double stack along the shores of Lake Erie emitting nothing more than water vapour verses 4 diesels with their carcinogenic particulate exhaust. That is what this thread has been about...could it have happened? Maybe it will yet. One breakthrough is all that is needed. The rest falls into place.
Murphy Siding About the last 350 books and magazine articles about steam locomotives going away seem to suggest that it was all about the economics of the equipment, most of it having to do with labor. Somehow you've now uncovered a plot to eliminate labor unions that everyone else has somehow overlooked.
About the last 350 books and magazine articles about steam locomotives going away seem to suggest that it was all about the economics of the equipment, most of it having to do with labor. Somehow you've now uncovered a plot to eliminate labor unions that everyone else has somehow overlooked.
BaltACD 20'2" multi-levels is one thing, 20'2" stacks are another. Multi-levels are narrower at the 20'2" height than stacks. My carrier and NS have been 'notching' tunnels to permit the 20'2" stacks.
Euclid The railroads have demonstrated that it is not always easy to get rid of the people after getting rid of the function. Diesel “firemen” was a great example. Cabooses, crew size, telegraphers and operators, and depots are other examples. With union labor, getting rid of people is fought by the unions whether the labor is needed for a function or not. So it is not necessarily true that if the railroads could have figured out ways to reduce labor in steam maintenance and repair, they would have done so. Where is the motivation to do it if the unions won’t let you get rid of the labor that is no longer needed after reducing steam maintenance? Not only would be hard to get rid of steam labor it if were not needed, but also due to the same dynamic, labor may have been allowed to expand beyond actual need as the steam age progressed. I suggest that getting rid of steam may have been an extreme decision for the purpose of getting rid of the steam labor that could not have been reduced otherwise simply by reducing the need for maintenance and repair. It would be hardest for the unions to argue that steam labor is needed when you have no steam. Although they did argue that in the case of the steam firemen.
Miningman Murphy Siding- ummm, yah! That could happen, the world can change and turn on a dime. I picture a 6-8-8-6 duplex drive hauling a 120 car double stack along the shores of Lake Erie emitting nothing more than water vapour verses 4 diesels with their carcinogenic particulate exhaust. That is what this thread has been about...could it have happened? Maybe it will yet. One breakthrough is all that is needed. The rest falls into place.
Blogs tend to attract conspiracy theorists. Railroad blogs tend to attract ant-labor union types.
I've read quite a few books about counter-factual history. A lot of them well written and thought provoking. Most are written in chapter form, with perhaps a dozen chapters, each with it's own, related, counter-factual question. A series of chapters about the American Civil War might have chapter titles like: What if the war didn't reunite the union? What if Britain allied itself with the south? What if Lincoln hadn't been re-elected? etc.. Good couterfactual books are typically written by historians- good ones, who do a lot of research. To jump much beyond make-believe, a counterfactual discussion needs to have a definative shelf life. For example, what if JFK hadn't gone to Dallas? From that point on, everything else is still heading down the same highway, but now the world is different based on that one event that happened differently. With that perspective, I'd suggest railroads would be about where they are now, but the path to get to here would be somewhat different than it took. Since diesels were being developed since early in the century, it's safe to say they would have replaced steam eventually. Perhaps, given a longer gestation period, the bugs would have been worked out earlier in smaller doses. The first generation may have been 100 odd units working to perfect the product. The second generation diesel may have run off all the steam in a very short time. If GM pushed hard to get all the rail traffic pushed to trucks, I din't think they would have succeeded too far. Then as now, we need the railroads to haul big quantities of bulk materials economically. Even with an overabundance of trucks, once all the low hanging fruit was gone, the existing roads would be clogged to a standstill and the railroads would still be hauling freight. Pehaps the scenario we're speaking of would have caused something along the Staggers Act to have shown up around 1950? Faced with the prospect of trying to raise enough tax money to build the comprehensive road network that a bazillion trucks would immediately require, right after the most expensive war in history might not have gone over well with the public. Suddenly the idea of letting the railroad compete with less control looks pretty promising. We might have missed out on PennCentral and ConRail. In the end, we can only squint our eyes, and theorize on what would have happened if one detail of history had changed, we have to look at it from a historical perspective, based on what else was going on, and what else went on, starting at our little fork in the road.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.