Suppose GM's policy toward street railroads and interurban lines have been paralleled by a similar policy to favor trucking over freight railroads. (There were tendencies in that direction, but that is a subject for a different posting.) They would probably have not been the leader in streamlined passenger train power and probably would not have barnstormed the FT and done the research that made road freight locomotives possible. And Alco and Baldwin and Lima probably would have been more than content to continue supplying steam locomotives. What would have happened?
I have some ideas, but I would like to learn yours before presenting (and possibly modifying) mine.
I'm not sure where you are going with this, but I'll throw out a couple of thoughts.
As far as surviving without diesels, I think the strict pre-Staggers regulations hurt them more than anything else, so they could have done OK with steam for some time if they had been deregulated. The combination of steam only and regulation I think would have caused the financial crises of the 1970's to happen earlier and may have brought about earlier deregulation.
As far as EMD not promoting their products, the savings from flexibility (especially MU-ing) and from less maintenance requirements, would have made dieselization inevitable, though maybe not as fast.
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
Dieselization would have come a little later, but it would probably still have come. There were too many experiments (even from steam builders such as Alco, Lima and Baldwin) that showed reduced costs. The railroads still would have pushed for diesels from the steam builders.
I think so. Had deregulation come 20 or 30 years sooner than it did the railroads would have probably been able to avoid the mess of the 1960s and early 70s. Some, like N&W and B&O were quite profitable anyway because of coal and would have continued to do quite nicely I think with steam well into the 1980s.
Dieselization may have pushed some roads over the cliff in the 1950s. While the diesel offered many cost saving opportunities, the initial cost of purchase combined with cost of retraining staff and rejigging infrastructure during a time when trucking was poaching most of their merchadise traffic would have made the transition very difficult for some.
?
Ken G Price My N-Scale Layout
Digitrax Super Empire Builder Radio System. South Valley Texas Railroad. SVTRR
N-Scale out west. 1996-1998 or so! UP, SP, Missouri Pacific, C&NW.
I think you're mistaking his point a bit. He's not just predicating a world in which Sloan didn't put EMD together as a locomotive manufacturer, he's saying 'what if' there had been an effort like NCL that took over freight railroads in distress during the Depression and replaced the steam rail service with diesel trucks (perhaps preferentially and illegally made or engined by GM).
I agree with the point made elsewhere that the 'other' builders were working actively toward diesel power in that period, and that even with considerable capital GM was unlikely to acquire capital interest in enough railroads to make the 'shutdown' of very many roads likely. (Interurbans and trolleys were a very different situation!).
I don't think it is very likely that GM would get very far with that idea, especially with roads in the state they were generally at that time. I would expect Missouri, for example, to impose much the same restrictions they did on larger buses (the Pickwick Nite Coaches in particular!) as soon as appreciable traffic had shifted from railroads to roads, or efforts to have one truck tractor handle multiple trailers on main roads had progressed to any extent -- certainly the reaction would not be to build truck-only roads on the railroad ROWs. (And we have not started to discuss how trucks could handle the traditional bulk traffic that the freight railroads carried.)
As a peripheral issue, I think the likelihood of dieselization itself progressing rapidly would have been high in the latter '40s even without EMD, although I do not expect the other builders to have capitalized as quickly on the financial aspects or to have produced as good or workable a product as Dilworth's locomotives with 567 power. The forces that made steam relatively uneconomical would have been present with or without GM, and I think there would be so little pure diversion to truck traffic that many railroads would remain as such even if considerable traffic were diverted to trucks under GM-controlled or -influenced ownership.
In fact, I would consider it likely that GM would see other builders successfully promoting diesel alternatives to steam power, and decide to acquire its own locomotive division. That surely wouldn't be an acquisition of EMC and Winton followed by clever engineering, though. Might be highly interesting to see where the free-piston design would go with BLH needing an unrestricted high-horsepower capability and GM only just coming into competition with their own free-piston investigations starting up.
Here's just some pure speculation with little foundation. Might electrification have expanded or at least not contracted?
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimmHere's just some pure speculation with little foundation. Might electrification have expanded or at least not contracted?
No hesitation in finding one potential example: PRR would likely have proceeded with the electrification to Pittsburgh. I believe it's been mentioned that MILW had the financial capability for wiring the part between the two electrified sections, and in the absence of EMD this might have been the 'best' solution for them. Some other possibilities do come to mind, like ATSF over Raton.
The mere existance of internal combustion engines of any sort would likely have led to a conversion - the timing of which would have been predicated by the arrival of a successful design.
Probably more important was the tying together of the internal combustion engine with the electrical apparatus necessary to move locomotives.
Had that link not been made, the probability of pure electric railroads would certainly have increased greatly.
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...
Now we might take up the second half of the question -- even if the railroads had started first-generation dieselization in the '40s and early '50s, could GM's "variant" of NCL have gained traction, perhaps predominantly in the Northeast, in converting failing or financially-troubled railroads over to road-based common carriers using GMC trucks?
I can think of one railroad whose stockholders would likely have jumped at the chance, especially if GMAC were to make them good terms ... the Old and Weary.
If GM had decided to forgo the locomotive market, they would have forgone on the huge USN market for locomotive sized engines during WW2. This would have meant that the likes of Alco, Baldwin, FM and Lima Hamiton would have likely been in better position to offer well developed diesel engines post WW2.
erikem If GM had decided to forgo the locomotive market, they would have forgone on the huge USN market for locomotive sized engines during WW2. This would have meant that the likes of Alco, Baldwin, FM and Lima-Hamilton would have likely been in better position to offer well developed diesel engines post WW2.
If GM had decided to forgo the locomotive market, they would have forgone on the huge USN market for locomotive sized engines during WW2. This would have meant that the likes of Alco, Baldwin, FM and Lima-Hamilton would have likely been in better position to offer well developed diesel engines post WW2.
I am not sure about this. GM would still have had the Cleveland Diesel division,and in order for there to be any 'product' to use in the truck replacements for rail service we can probably assume the two-stroke Detroit series would have been developed for large vehicle service.
FM of course would have had exactly the development path from 'naval' OP engines to locomotives that it did in reality; the Hamilton engine left Lima with little better than switcher-size engine power (and the temptation for Lima to go to Hamilton's free-piston technology that would have bypassed diesels in more modern power); Baldwin's high-speed engine development both pre- and postwar didn't come to much and they specialized in dead-end 635-rpm engines that had little upgrade potential. I had thought that the whole development of practical road locomotive prime movers at Alco came after 1944, and largely hinged on turbocharger evolution during the latter part of the War. (The DL-109s with 539 power were something of a joke and a disaster waiting to happen, and the 241-engined demonstrators weren't much better - Will Davis has somethlng to say on these issues.)
I think there is little that the 567 provided naval vessels that couldn't have been done -- albeit not as well -- with quads or quints. My guess is that firms like Chrysler would have been far more likely than the 'other' locomotive builders in developing a light two-stroke diesel specialized at comparable size to the 567 for naval applications.
Since this is all a "what if?" we should follow Dave's outline. Therefore, none of the steam loco builders are building diesels. So what do the railroads do, especially those with mostly old, worn out steam after WWII? Continue with placing orders for the various 'revolutionary steamers? Electrify? Whitcomb?
One thing I should have made clear: GM's takeover of the transit industry, beginning with purchase of New York Railways (Green Lines) in 1926, was not a conspiracy, and the consent decree and fine were from excluding other bus manufacturers, not the destruction of electric railway plant.
I think Schlimm has the answer. I believe bankrupcies in the East would have come sooner, the government and subsidies for passenger service would have come sooner, the western railroads would have electrified their main lines with government help, and a sort of Conrail for most of the eastern railroads would have done the same thing. Total nationalization would still have been avoided, and soon enough another manufacturer, perhaps even Ford or Chrysler, as well as one of the three traditional builders, would have come up with the right package for dieselizing what remained that was not electrifie.
If Diesel hadn't invented diesel motors, so there were no diesel locomotives or diesel trucks, steam probably would have done well against gasoline powered road transportation. I don't think steam would have fared so well if you had diesel trucks, but no diesel locos.
I don't know if electrification would have been expanded to a large extent, since the OP's question deals only with private-enterprise railroading. Most European countries, who went electric 100+ years ago, had government controlled lines. Private companies often balked at the high up-front expense of electrification.
daveklepper Suppose GM's policy toward street railroads and interurban lines have been paralleled by a similar policy to favor trucking over freight railroads. (There were tendencies in that direction, but that is a subject for a different posting.) They would probably have not been the leader in streamlined passenger train power and probably would not have barnstormed the FT and done the research that made road freight locomotives possible. And Alco and Baldwin and Lima probably would have been more than content to continue supplying steam locomotives. What would have happened? I have some ideas, but I would like to learn yours before presenting (and possibly modifying) mine.
Get over that "street railways and interurbans" thing. Been shown again and again as the great urban myth. If you want to know the real reason for the demise of the Interurban read Hilton and Due. Copies are available on Amazon.
daveklepper One thing I should have made clear: GM's takeover of the transit industry, beginning with purchase of New York Railways (Green Lines) in 1926, was not a conspiracy, and the consent decree and fine were from excluding other bus manufacturers, not the destruction of electric railway plant.
WHAT? GM purchased New York Railways in '26?????
Are you referring to the purchase by the Omnibus Corporation (let's throw that name into the conspiracy mix) which was owned by John Hertz (of rental car fame) and had no connection to GM at the time. However he did have a bus building business called of all things "Yellow Coach" (still the corporate colors of Hertz, see how I snuck that in?),
GM recognized their superior designs and purchased (bought out?) Yellow in the mid '30s, and moved production from Chicago to Pontiac. After the war (they built tanks during the war) the name was changed to GMC Truck and Coach.
I always thought it interesting that both the Omnibus Corporation, and NCL were both based in Chicago, and both accused as shills for GM but very little evidence of staff crossover between the two!
PS There is no evidence that I am aware of that GM had any interest in Omnibus even though it was an almost 100% GM property.
They built what a lot of professionals in the industry thought was a superior product, as a rider I didn't agree but oh well!
Wizlish Now we might take up the second half of the question -- even if the railroads had started first-generation dieselization in the '40s and early '50s, could GM's "variant" of NCL have gained traction,
Now we might take up the second half of the question -- even if the railroads had started first-generation dieselization in the '40s and early '50s, could GM's "variant" of NCL have gained traction,
I recommend the following two books: From Steam to Diesel by Churella (Princeton University Press 1998) and Out of Steam Dieselization and American Railroads, 1920-1960 by Schramm (Lehigh University Press 2010).
I and my family were regular weekend uses of the 8 6th crosstown until conversion to bus in August 1936, and even at age 4 I was a curious railfan, and wanted answers. Sometime afterward, the E. 90th Street - Astoria ferry ceased because of the Triboro Bridge, and we stopped using the bus and went to Queens by subway. Then after the Athena tragedy, with the relocation of the reamining half of the visited family to Sutton Place, steetcar use returned with the 59th Street Crosstown. with their new 626-645 Third Avenue home-built cars.
So far I am enjoying the discussion. Thanks to every one who has added to it.
Dave: It's unfortunate that the term "conspiracy theory" has come to mean a false explanation for some event, usually spread by paranoid types. Of course it correctly refers to a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators, which is generally illegal or harmful.
Assuming GM hadn't purchased Winton or EMC and those two organisations survived the depression following the 1929 crash, diesel electrics would have continued in the passenger field, perhaps more slowly and remained longer on the secondary services. Surely diesel switchers would have continued to develop from those produced for the clean air acts, and probably road switchers would have emerged by the 1950s.
The resulting units would have been more costly and complex than those that appeared as a result of GM's and EMD's extensive R&D, but they would have superseded steam by the late 1960s, just as they did in the UK where diesel locomotive development proceeded independently of USA developments.
M636C
It would have been something to see steam developed even for another 10 years, to 1955 or so. There were some interesting locomotives on the drawing boards that never made it to production. Four that come to mind are the N-W Y7 fast freight 2-8-8-2, the Great Northern fast freight 2-6-6-4 with 73 inch drivers, the UP "Super 800s", and perhaps on C&O and SP some Lima-designed 4-8-6 passenger locomotives. (Could you imagine a Daylight 4-8-6?) I am sure there are others out there. With another 10-15 years of steam development and good old American ingenuity, there would have been some magnificent machines coming oit out of Schenectady, Eddystone, Lima, Roanoke, Altoona, and Hillyard Shops in Spokane.
It would have been something to see steam developed even for another 10 years, to 1955 or so. There were some interesting locomotives on the drawing boards that never made it to production. Four that come to mind are the N-W Y7 fast freight 2-8-8-2, the Great Northern fast freight 2-6-6-4 with 73 inch drivers, the UP "Super 800s", and perhaps on C&O and SP some Lima-designed 4-8-6 passenger locomotives. (Could you imagine a Daylight 4-8-6?) I am sure there are others out there. With another 10-15 years of steam development and good old American ingenuity, there would have been some magnificent machines coming out of Schenectady, Eddystone, Lima, Roanoke, Altoona, and Hillyard Shops in Spokane.
The labor force needed to maintain steam fleets was fading in numbers and too expensive.
True, the economics and "go everywhere" aspect of diesel electric power would have eventually triumphed no matter what by 1970 or so, as one of our contributors mentioned happened in Europe. But in a "what if" thread it is fun to to surmise "what if". Personally I would have liked to see if Alco would have come up with a higher-drivered Challenger for UP similar to what GN was kicking around, maybe a Sante Fe "6000" 4-10-4, a Pennsy second generation "T2" that solved the front engine slipping issue or a Southern Green 84-inch-drivered 4-6-4 with poppet valves on tne Atlanta-Washington main. I think David P. Morgan would approve.
i think all the previous posts are worthwhile, but I do believe the Harrisburg - Pittsburgh electrification would have occured, and some of the ex-interurban rementants that have survived to this day, like Southern Indiana, would have kept trolley power a lot longer, maybe even to this day like Iowa Traction, formerly Mason City and Clear Lake has done. If that short-line railroading had survived at all.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.