Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
Re: Jay's post, one of the disadvantages of superpower steam was the high axle loads, which limited them to certain routes and the wear and tear on the track from the reciprocating motion at high speeds. Diesel electric and electric with their low axle loadings could go anywhere on a system and they didn't damage the track so much. To some extent, these disadvantages could have been overcome by adopting the design practices of Andre Chapelon, particularly the adoption of compounding. As Chapelon showed with the 240.P.1 and especially the 160.A.1 you could get high power (48,000 lbs tractive effort), low fuel consumption, high power at low speed and low axle loadings. But American railroads didn't care for compounding because it required highly trained crew and more maintenance. Further to my previous post, does anyone have information whether the avoided costs of double tracking and signaling were: a) real; b) entered into the decision process of railroad companies re: dieselization? Also, is it anywhere documented what the railroads learned about improvements in systems efficiencies as a result of operating diesel electric switchers and powered railcars? And did that knowledge enter into the decision to adopt diesel electric passenger and freight road engines? Thanks, Mike
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