Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
This is a fascinating discussion. I am undertaking analysis of the substitution of motive power in all transportation applications as part of a multi-client study of energy technologies. So far I have looked at horse to ICE vehicles in general, horse tram to electric tram, horse cab to ICE cab and steam loco to diesel electric. There are some remarkable consistencies. In every case the time taken to go from 10% to 90% of the vehicle population is 12 years. The time taken to go from 0% to 10% is 14 to 19 years. This suggests that there is some sort of social-institutional learning or adaptive dynamic going on which supplies the consistency. I have been investigating what the drivers for substitution were in each case. There appear to be some interesting commonalities. For example, the horse to ICE and steam to diesel electric 0% to 10% experiences seem to have both been associated with the ability of the new technology to ameliorate externalities or environmental impacts of the old technolgy. For the former it was the manure problem (which had severe public health impacts, recognised at the time), for the latter it was the smoke problem of marshalling yards in cities. For the 10% to 90% phase I have several hypotheses which I am trying to confirm or disprove. The first is that both sets of examples appear to have been associated with significant avoided costs and alleged improvements in system efficiency. The avoided costs for the ICE were those associated with widening and constructing roads. For the railways it was double tracking and signaling. In both cases it was made possible by the faster cycle times of the new technology. The systems efficiencies came from there being less down time for exchange and maintenance, fewer motive units required per ton or passenger and the shedding of support activities (changing horse teams and maintaining them, the higher supply efficiencies of gasoline versus hay etc; low operating factors for steam locos because of maintenance requirements, refueling and rewatering etc). One thing I particularly want to understand better is the effect of avoided costs and systems efficiencies. I am very puzzled by the fact that the parameters for market penetration are identical or virtually so for all the substitutions even though the ICE vehicle owners could not appropriate the avoided cost and systems efficiency benefits (because they didn't own the roads and couldn't charge for the increased efficiencies of city economies) whereas the railroads could (because they owned both the roads and the vehicles). On the face of it, you would expect that the railways were more highly incented to make the switch than were the ICE auto and truck owners and so the penetration rate should be faster from the steam to diesel electric switch. But it isn't: it is identical. I would be very interested in any thoughts anyone may have on all this. Michael, I would very much like to read the Brown article, but unfortunately my local university library holdings of the Proceedings don't go back that far. I don't suppose you have an electronic version of it you could let me have? Thanks. Mike Hollinshead
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag