Lessons Learned From The Steam To Diesel and Electric Transition

[ontheBNSF]

In my view the transition from Steam Locomotives to Diesel and Electric locomotives has much teach us about technological transitions. 

• Railroads are institutions not prone to change and yet switching from Steam to Diesels or Electrics was a major undertaking that railroads were capable of doing. Large institutions can indeed make disruptive changes if there is a need or an incentive to do so. 
• Phasing out steam locomotives significantly reduced environmental impact. Steam locomotives required large quantities of water and coal. Coal from steam locomotives required dirty mining processes and created large amounts of pollution as well as waste products. Technology is indeed important in dealing with environmental problems contrary to those who would tell you technology can't solve important problems. 
• The transition didn't happen overnight. Some countries did it faster than others. In general it took 30 years for the transition to happen.
• Jobs were indeed lost but new one were created in the industries that replaced steam locomotives and the economic value of phasing out steam locomotives itself helped create jobs.
• Some government intervention was used to accelerate the process. For example the Kaufman Act of 1923 banned steam locomotives in New York accelerating the process of electrification and Dieselization and similar legislation was passed in other places. In China steam locomotives were banned from the mainline accelerating the process of getting rid of steam locomotives and the process was similar in Great Britain.
• Market forces were obviously important in the transition as well. The Steam Locomotive became overwhelmingly expensive to use all the while the alternatives became less expensive to use. In short both market forces and government regulation helped end the steam locomotive.

[erikem]

Market forces were by far the most important reason to switch from steam to diesel in the US.

[dakotafred]

Yes; steam required so much more shop time, involving specialized craft labor and time lost to service. And so many facilities for fueling and watering -- again with attendant labor. And of course that fireman. The wonder is that steam lasted as long as it did without breaking the industry. Transportation had become an internal-combustion world.

This would be self-evident to a child. Yet, remember Michael Sol's lawyerly sophistries on here "proving" the economic superiority of steam? (He also proved the economic superiority of the Milwaukee Road's Pacific Coast Extension over the other northern lines.)

[cacole]

Union Pacific's now retired steam excursion engineer Steve Lee says in one video I have that there used to be nearly 5,000 employees in Cheyenne to maintain the steam locomotive fleet, and that a labor force of 25 today can maintain the equivalent horsepower in diesel locomotives.

Tearing down all the unused buildings probably saved a considerable amount in property taxes, as well as hundreds of coaling and water stops that could be eliminated.

[dknelson]

What is interesting also about the power of those market forces is that railroads that had kept nearly antique steam locomotives running, and thus could be assumed to place a high priority on getting value out of every dollar shown on the balance sheet as an asset, were quick to retire even fairly new steam in favor of diesels.    I am sure there were many in railroad middle management who found this new way of looking at the economics of railroading to be very confusing to them, because suddenly the pride they took in making a locomotive last 50 years was not valued by senior management or the stockholders if labor savings and other efficiencies could result.

Dave Nelson

[cx500]

On the face of it, retiring modern steam and continuing to operate much older steam did seem counter-intuitive.  One reason is that the main lines, where the modern steam was best suited, were also where they would get the best utilization out of the new diesels and their ability to run 24/7 without downtime for regular boiler maintenance.  That gave the best payback for the expensive new machines.

By contrast the old 4-6-0 on the branch or wayfreight may have been only used 5 days a week on a single run.  The diesel that would replace it would do no better.  While economics still favored the diesel they were not as strong, and hence replacement of those old smaller engines took lower priority.

Modern steam was more efficient than the old ones, in its designed role.  Most of those locomotives, however, were too big to cascade down to the local services.  Perhaps too heavy for a bridge, or too rigid for a tight customer siding, so the old tea kettle gained a few more years of life while its younger brethren had a date with the scrapper.

John

[ndbprr]

Change never comes easy. Radical change takes longer. Everybody was in their comfort zone with steam. Would you risk your career on some radical new idea that initially cost more to purchase on the promise of better return later.

[Firelock76]

Some other things entered into the equation.

Some 'roads, the Jersey Central and the Southern spring to mind, hadn't bought a new steam locomotive since around 1930 or so, the poor economic conditions of the Great Depression just wouldn't allow it.  Then came World War Two and it was "go-go-go" for those same pre-1930 engines for a good four years.  By 1945 most of those engines were worn out, or to be more precise beyond economical repair.  Anyone who's ever owned a car can understand that phrase!  And of course after the war those same 'roads were rolling in dough and looking for a place to spend it.

So, given the choice between new steam or the greater economies promised by the diesel it was a pretty easy choice. 

Other 'roads like the Erie and the Lackawanna, and probably others who were doing OK in the steam motive department were pushed over the edge by a series of coal strikes in the late 40's and the early 50's.  Having what seemed to be an unreliable source of fuel is going to make you look seriously at another.  Has there ever been a strike in the oil industry?  If there has been I'm not aware of one.

[kenny dorham]

I guess it has happened in all industry.

Look at how much labor was involved in the production of an automobile.

Much of it is now robotized.

Vacuum tubes employed Thousands of people performing skilled and semi-skilled tasks.

SS transistors are now cranked out By The Thousands, on machines, with hardly a human in sight.

Very few people know how to produce a quality vacuum tube...even less know how to build a steam locomotive.

It only gets worse..all part of the upward movement of wealth..and an increasing lack of need for labor.

We use to employ people to pump gas (i realize a few states still do)

The list is long.

best

[dakotafred]

Also, the competition -- trucks, buses, planes, cars, ships and barges -- were all internal combustion or getting there fast. Steam was an anachronism in an internal-combustion world.  

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

Steam locomotives were banned from New York City long before 1923 - around 1900 is my guess.  Wikipedia says 1903, effective 1908 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railroad_electrification_in_the_United_States#Laws_banning_steam_locomotives ).

John Kneiling loved to point out that the diesel innovation came from outside the rail industry - EMD, Alco, GE, etc. - and many railroads were reluctant to make the change, and so were susceptible to the claims of the salesmen.

He also pointed out that the first railroad to dieselize was the New York, Ontario & Western - a railroad with no money (because it was in bankruptcy at the time). 

As others have pointed out above, N&W was one of those railroads which scrapped fairly new steam engines to dieselize, a move that was led by its CEO, lawyer Stuart Saunders, mainly for tax benefits.  Saunders went on to apply his superb management skills [heavy sarcasm] to the N&W's parent, PRR, and its merger with NYC to form Penn Central, and we all know how that turned out.     

- Paul North. 

[SALfan]

N&W dieselized to get their stock price up so they could buy the Virginian, I assume by swapping stock or offering stock and cash. They realized that diesels cost less to run than even their well-maintained and well- managed fleet. The savings from using diesels would increase the stock price, thereby decreasing the number of shares needed to acquire VGN.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

SALfan

N&W dieselized to get their stock price up so they could buy the Virginian, I assume by swapping stock or offering stock and cash. They realized that diesels cost less to run than even their well-maintained and well- managed fleet. The savings from using diesels would increase the stock price, thereby decreasing the number of shares needed to acquire VGN.

I find that claim a bit hard to swallow when you consider that VGN also dieselized quickly at about the same time.  I would also have to see the particulars of the N&W-VGN merger agreement before passing judgment on that claim.  Other factors are PRR's 1/3 ownership of N&W and the ownership interests of Eastern Gas and Fuel in VGN.

[timz]

Paul_D_North_Jr

Steam locomotives were banned from New York City long before 1923 - around 1900 is my guess.  Wikipedia says 1903, effective 1908

Dunno if they were banned from Manhattan or what-- steam ran in Queens, Brooklyn and the Bronx until the 1950s at least.

[daveklepper]

correct, the ban only applied to Manhattan.   The 1908 ban only applied to railroads in cuts or tunnels.  In 1923(?) it was extended to all of Manhattan.  The West Side Freight line remained steam for about 15 years after the passenger line into GCS/GCT was electrified.  

[tree68]

NYC's Adirondack Division was probably also a candidate for early conversion, as coal burners were banned beginning around 1906 due to the hazard of forest fires.  The state actually passed said law, which only recently expired.

I believe the steam locomotives used on the Adirondack Division were the only oil burners used by NYC.

[Overmod]

tree68

NYC's Adirondack Division was probably also a candidate for early conversion, as coal burners were banned beginning around 1906 due to the hazard of forest fires.

Wasn't that around 1908-9, after the second great fire year (1908) rather than as a consequence of the multiple fires in 1903?

Interestingly, IIRC the law only required oil burning between mid-April and the end of October.  I'd have thought the spring fire season might start earlier than that.

[SALfan]

My info posted above was from memory, paraphrasing an article in TRAINS a number of years ago. I didn't find the article before posting, but that's how I remember it. Possibly some of our members could dredge up the article.

[tree68]

Overmod

Wasn't that around 1908-9, after the second great fire year (1908) rather than as a consequence of the multiple fires in 1903?

Interestingly, IIRC the law only required oil burning between mid-April and the end of October.  I'd have thought the spring fire season might start earlier than that.

Don't recall the dates - you're probably right.   I probably have the specifics in my books on the line, but they're out in the back of the truck...  As for the "season," you're right on that, too.  There are times when you can still find snow on the ground in mid-April, and it's the ground cover that poses the biggest problem (ie, the duff), and unless it's been a light winter, snow-wise, the duff will likely still be pretty wet even after the snow melts.