schlimm It is fruitless to argue with half-baked conspiracy theorists, as facts and logic are irrelevant.
It is fruitless to argue with half-baked conspiracy theorists, as facts and logic are irrelevant.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
tree68As has been said here, there are many variables - any of which had the potential to change the timeline of the change from steam to Diesel.
And if it weren't for WWII, Alco and Baldwin would have most likely made greater advances in their diesel locomotives. Steam probably would have been gone much sooner. Timelines and all that...
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
schlimmName one major nation that is running mainline steam in everyday service in 2016? In 2000?
In fairness, the thread kind of assumes that Diesel technology did not develop as it did. Were there no internal combustion power plant capable of producing the power required, or if that development didn't occur until much later, then clearly steam would have remained much longer, especially in areas that didn't lend themselves well to electrification.
As has been said here, there are many variables - any of which had the potential to change the timeline of the change from steam to Diesel.
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...
Comparing still new-technology diesels to long-established steam designs isn't really a fair comparison. Even at the end, the most modern-designed steam locomotives couldn't compete against the emerging (and improving) diesel-electric market. As one example, The N&W J classes only lasted 10 years on a railroad that was a coal hauler.
Even if Alco or Baldwin focused on steam locomotives, it wouldn't have lasted in my opinion. It would only delayed the inevitable for a few more years. By giving up on steam, railroads could close down their massive backshop and machine shops.
And electrification was fine for some mainlines, if you could get a return on the high costs. As the east de-industrialized, a lot of mainlines were reduced. How many of the former PRR electric mainlines still see any kind of heavy and frequent freight?
Maybe in some alternate timeline, steam still exists. But I don't see how it really could have happened here.
Miningman I'm not wishing upon a star or living a fantasy any more than diesel advocates come up with the same storylines and remain biased on what really happened.
Name one major nation that is running mainline steam in everyday service in 2016? In 2000?
Well thanks guys. All of your claims are reasonable and been put forth many times...however,...there is a very valid counterpoint to each claim you make. Reading through older posts this weekend I draw your attention to the "N&W 611 thread from last June, the "PRR T1"thread from Nov/14 and "Could steam make a comeback" thread from July/08 where very detailed technical explanations, from real professionals, along with proper references can be found to refute just about all of it. The reality is we have Diesels in mainline service and the enjoyment of steam in excursion service. The question on this thread was whether free enterprise railroads could have survived without dieselization and after significant reading and research I would say yes, but more than likely in the form of electrification. After reading some of the posters on those threads I referred to, particularly M. Sol and Juniantha, but others as well, some of who are still very much active on these pages, one can easily come to the conclusion that much evidence, good science and engineering was covered up, ignored or claims exaggerated in the interests of salesmanship, picking the pockets of cash flush railroads after the war and most of all advancing an agenda. As to the sucess of early locomotives I specified much earlier that Baldwin, Lima, later BLH, FM, made sucessful switchers but not sucessful road units. Even Alco to some extent. GM with their massive lead in research and fiat monopoly during the war was very sucessful indeed. The Railroads spent a lot of money on crappy diesels ( Centipedes, Sharks, Baby faces, even early PA's and the like ) that barely made 10 years and never lived up to expectations. Granted they also wasted a ton of money on new passenger equipment that soon fizzled. This they should have foreseen...some did. I remember the CEO of Canadian Pacific, upon the inauguration of the much ballyhooed "Canadian" lamenting that if the train ran at 100% capacity all the time they still would not make a nickel, that it was impossibly hopeless. I believe the Erie ( or was it Lackawanna?) was one of the only ones that didn't take the bait. Oh well, history is written but examining how we got here is quite revealing. I'm not wishing upon a star or living a fantasy any more than diesel advocates come up with the same storylines and remain biased on what really happened. GM and then GE make a great product but maybe Baldwin, Lima, Alco would be doing the same with the power of expanding steam.
Elsewhere in the world was very different.
Steam was more expensive to maintain and required greater manpower in the shops. In the United States, minimizing employment was a major goal of the railroads. In other countries with government owned railroads, maximizing employment was a major goal. Hence, steam lasted longer.
Steam lasted a long time in Communist countries because railway operations were sepparated from economic considerations and things were not always done the cheapest way. Locomotive construction was done to five year plans and often didn't produce what was needed. Free market countries with government railroads saw similar slow transitions due to lesser incentives to be efficient (or a starvation of capital which meant that expenses had to be spread out over a greater period of time as opposed to the American railroads which were comparatively flush with WWII cash).
Britain is perhaps the most interesting example. As private railroads before the war, there was experiments with diesels that produced good results (one LMS design set the standard for the Class 08/11 family of switchers). The railroads were on track to either dieselize or electrify until war interrupted things. Post-nationalization, diezelization commenced but with early diesels that were failures* resulting in steam lasting longer than in North America. In these years, Labor governments made employment a goal on the railways.
*Yes, some early diesels in Britain were failures. Most notable are the Western Region diesel hydraulics which were outlived by steam. Early US diesels were not failures as several hundred first generation diesels are still in active daily revenue service.
I also disagree with the notion that lines were upgraded for diesels. If anything, early diesels were less hard on the track as they lacked dynamic augument of drive rods. As a result, the same bridges with the same cooper ratings are able to support vastly heavier diesels without a problem.
One last thought, steam hung on in nations like China, India and in eastern Europe because labor was extremely cheap, coal very abundent and competition and free Enterprise lacking. Steam would look practical looking Thur that prisms. But even their steam is dead and for much of the same reasons.
Miningman Not 100% sold on the dieselization rush because it was a very expensive up front cost and the cost of financing was something akin to maxing out your credit card. The marketing and sales pitch along with the "easy payment plan" ended up putting them in a hopeless situation. The Southern Pacific recognized this. How the Pennsy got suckered in is beyond me, I suppose their motive power was worn out from the incredible wartime effort, but they still had Juniata and Altoona. We're maintenance costs really reduced....it has been brought up time and time again that this is an easy misconception. 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? Steam has been acknowledged as easier to maintain. Porta design seriously increased combustion and reduces emissions to near pure water vapour, CO2 and H2O, plus other advancements. Diesel exhaust, although less visible, contains many caricogenic substances. Stand behind a bus leaving verses a trolley. Track was replaced throughout entire systems to a much heavier standard. Everyone jumped on the bandwagon, many reluctantly and some needed to be pushed hard, dictated to, by the likes of folks like Saunders. I think today we can see that the railroads were sold a fairy tale to a great extent, it was not to their benefit despite appearing to be so. People still buy this story. Many early diesels were a waste of money and total failures especially from Baldwin, Lima, FM, even Alco. In any case it was not the saviour it turned out to be. Perhaps had the Federal government levelled the playing field by offering a one time electrification of anyone who wanted to do so, in the national interest as well, then steam sticks until completion. I think the railroads would have done just fine continuing on with steam for a good long time. So throw a pie at me.
Not 100% sold on the dieselization rush because it was a very expensive up front cost and the cost of financing was something akin to maxing out your credit card. The marketing and sales pitch along with the "easy payment plan" ended up putting them in a hopeless situation. The Southern Pacific recognized this. How the Pennsy got suckered in is beyond me, I suppose their motive power was worn out from the incredible wartime effort, but they still had Juniata and Altoona. We're maintenance costs really reduced....it has been brought up time and time again that this is an easy misconception. 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? Steam has been acknowledged as easier to maintain. Porta design seriously increased combustion and reduces emissions to near pure water vapour, CO2 and H2O, plus other advancements. Diesel exhaust, although less visible, contains many caricogenic substances. Stand behind a bus leaving verses a trolley. Track was replaced throughout entire systems to a much heavier standard. Everyone jumped on the bandwagon, many reluctantly and some needed to be pushed hard, dictated to, by the likes of folks like Saunders. I think today we can see that the railroads were sold a fairy tale to a great extent, it was not to their benefit despite appearing to be so. People still buy this story. Many early diesels were a waste of money and total failures especially from Baldwin, Lima, FM, even Alco. In any case it was not the saviour it turned out to be. Perhaps had the Federal government levelled the playing field by offering a one time electrification of anyone who wanted to do so, in the national interest as well, then steam sticks until completion. I think the railroads would have done just fine continuing on with steam for a good long time. So throw a pie at me.
You may wish what you say to be true (as do many steam fans) but like most fantasies, it is nothing more than desire fueling half-truths and illogical reasoning.
Railroads were rushing to dieselize. They were doing it during a time frame when they were flush with Cash from their world war two operations not maxing out their credit cards. Railroads that bought steam power during the war did so because they could not buy diesels. Roads like the nickle plate, reading, d& h, and the clinchfield retired their war baby steamers by the mid to late fifties, some that were only 10 to 12 years old. Many were stored unserviceable, but could not be scrapped because they were part of an equipment trust. Ad soon as they paid for, they went to the scrapper.
Like all industry railroads were looking to slash their operating costs. Steamers could not compete. As far as the costs associated with the process, new fueling bays and shops, they were more than willing to invest in facilities to continue to move forward. It was a long term investment that had to be made.
I love steamers and take steam excursions every year. But at the end of the day, it was the diesel that got the american railroads Thur the ugly 60' and 70's, until the industry could slim down, shed their money losing passenger and commuter operations and truly compete in the era of deregulation.
Long live the 1225, 611,844,2102 and their surviving sisters. But thank god diesels are on the job bring home the beacon.
When you compare the daily needs of a steam engine with the daily needs of a Diesel, you start to get a feel for the difference. As noted previously, starting a Diesel is very nearly a turn-key proposition. And the engineer can do it. It takes longer to check the fluids than it does to actually start the prime mover.
A steam engine had to be kept "running" 24/7, which required staff to do so if the locomotive wasn't actually on the road.
When you compare the periodic needs of a steam engine against the periodic needs of a Diesel, the differences really come out.
Take a look at steam-era locomotive shops - especially the "back shops." They were very large, and required a substantial workforce. Next time you see an end sheet for a steamer, understand that each hole represents a boiler tube that would have to be removed, cleaned, inspected, and replaced in the boiler when the loco came in for an overhaul.
Check out what it takes to change a tire on a steam locomotive driver some time.
Today's Diesels can have a power unit (one cylinder) changed out in a day, or less, and the unit is back on the road. Traction motors can be changed in the field - I've seen it done.
It's probably not fair to say that early Diesels were a failure, as such. Many examples of each of the manufacturers had long runs for their owners. Some are still running. ALCO disappeared because their prime electrical supplier (GE) decided to get into the locomotive business themselves. Had ALCO developed their own electricals, they might still be a major player.
The early Diesels may not have been successful, but that doesn't mean they were failures.
ROBERT WILLISONThe diesel just prolonged many carriers inevitable demise.
True. Certainly dieselization did not cause the failure of those chronically ill railroads. Excess capacity, a changing economy, changing demographics and financial malfeasance were the primary cculprits.
Many railroads that did dieselized failed. The list is long. For example the o&w, the rock island, the Penn central, including the mighty ncy and prr. The miluakee road. The sp and wp, most likely,if not saved by merger. The clinchfield for sure.
The diesel just prolonged many carriers inevitable demise.
I'm pretty new to the forum. Spent a large part of today going back to older topics and noticed many of you that I have replied to have been here a good long time. Read with great interest the entire thread from 2008 on steam making a comeback and the entire thread on the T1. Well that took away my Saturday! Some pretty smart folks posting here. Does Juniatha still post? Her knowledge on steam is very impressive. M. Sol? People speculating on $170 barrel oil and $5 gasoline and it sure did look that way. Great stuff How things have changed, with the coal industry unfortunately in serious decline. Some of my postings sort of covered old territory and my apologies to the veterans on this site. This has also been an interesting thread and I hope it continues for a bit yet. The premise of Alco, Lima and Baldwin continuing to build steam and the GM diversion is an interesting speculative timeline that can lead to many outcomes. For the pie throwers out there save one for me because I agree mostly with M. Sol that steam disappeared without all the facts yet in and a victim of marketing and the real story of the T1 was covered up and buried almost from the outset...very fishy indeed. Bottom line is "YES" steam could have survived and evolved quite nicely and the carriers would be just fine.
Thanks.
There is another matter, which was absolutely not foreseen in the thirties: the overhead clearance necessary for handling doublestacks.
Johnny
DeggestyIf the PRR had strung catenary all the way to Pittsburgh, what power would have been used at Gallitzin for helpers?
First: There were plans for a new 9000'+ tunnel (I don't remember the exact length or alignment) to eliminate the most severe limiting grades; a tunnel that long being easily facilitated by electric power.
Second: there were three sizes of power listed in the early-'40s analysis, none of which were described in detail, but the horsepower ratings for which neatly corresponded to the 428A twin-motor size that was used in the DD2 prototype. Almost certainly the locomotives using eight-axle chassis would be the 'helpers' (2-D-D-2, perhaps in coupled pairs). I would expect these would be streamlined more like the DD2 or the V1 turbine than like an updated GG1.
If the PRR had strung catenary all the way to Pittsburgh, what power would have been used at Gallitzin for helpers?
Schlimm- N&W would have retained steam for some time had Sauders not come along, the others were quite reluctant and very content with steam but for the loss of patented appliances, which they needed to have a licence to manufacture. Penn Station would still be standing as well and the Rangers playing somewhere else than a Madison Square Gardens.
Reality is that by 1950 steam locomotives were a mature technology. Of course additional improvements could still be made, but none were proving to be of more than marginal benefit. The hope of "considerable advancements" is wishful thinking. In contrast the diesel-electric was in the early stages of development and the next 50 years saw massive advances in the prime movers, the electric generation and motors, and the control systems. No doubt some of the modern control technology could be used on a steam locomotive to reduce its inherent disadvantages but it would come nowhere near overcoming them.
The idea of an electric boiler is a non-starter. The reason a steam locomotive has a low energy efficiency is simply that it cannot use the full energy of the steam, however it is created. Even ships, where it was more feasible to extract more of the energy by compounding, have by and large given up. Turbines instead of cylinders did not prove successful in a rail application either.
Electric locomotives could be considered to be steam engines, often sharing a boiler many miles away fired by coal, gas or nuclear energy. The generating plant is better able to maximize the energy efficiency.
In 1950 a modern steam locomotive vs a contemporary diesel set may have been relatively close to equal, and I think the N&W felt that way. Diesels took over quickly because few steam locomotives were modern. Today if we compare a modern ES44 or SD70ACe with any plausible state of the art steam locomotive, steam would have absolutely no chance.
Steam could prove viable when several factors went in its favor. Coal was sometimes much cheaper than liquid fuels (diesel). If labor was cheap (3rd world wages) that could mitigate the higher employment levels needed. Parts and maintenance techniques were also less sophisticated, advantageous in primitive regions of the world.
Miningmanschlimm- N&W, Nickel Plate, maybe even Southern Pacific could argue on that point.
They all dieselized, even though late in the game. A nd yes, electrification might well have been a wise choice in many ways. Short-term, expensive, but long term savings would have been considerable on heavily trafficked lines.
schlimm- N&W, Nickel Plate, maybe even Southern Pacific could argue on that point. I fully understand the numerous advantages of diesel over steam but we are considering an alternate timeline of events. There would have been considerable advancements. Whether or not enough so to forestall diesels is probably doubtful in the longer run but electrification could have, especially with reasonable low cost federal funding and earlier degregulation. If the steam builders were content to carry on building steam it would have advanced as well to a point were it could be viable even today.
Zugmann- can't argue with that to much. Maybe steam turbines that never shut down, or again, advancements and best practices that allow for near continuous operation. Or electrification.
Did the onset of dieselization really save the railroads? Most of the East and Midwest crashed and burned anyway, even the mighty Southern Pacific. The Rock Island, Milwaukee, Penn Central and so on with piles of cannibalized junk all over. Diselization did not get them too much further down the financial road, removed the railroads from the publics romance with railroading somewhat ( the railroads public relations went with the steam whistle) and for sure forestalled degregulation. Steam was likely doomed in a longer timeframe and electrification would have been at the forefront.
Miningman Thanks for the correction Tree68. My mistake. As for confusing/ comparing steam locomotives with industrial steel plants makes little sense. Stinky grimy diesels at ten years of age looked worse in an industrial setting than a 50 year old Milwaukee Road teapot shunting cars around. Everyone admired the little switcher. As to why a residential neighbourhood would be built in the vicinity of a steel mill or any industrial area goes to some kind of failure in zoning laws. Steam locomotive technology would have continued advancing and kept up with environmental laws but that is 70-75 years of development that is lost and never occurred. So it comes down to a question of "is there anything besides carbon that we can use as a power source to boil water" in today's setting. Steel mills, smelters and clean coal industry have made considerable advancements in scrubbing emissions from smokestacks and the production line. I suppose if we want a pristine world we have to give up everything and go back to the cave. Then we could start all over again?
Thanks for the correction Tree68. My mistake. As for confusing/ comparing steam locomotives with industrial steel plants makes little sense. Stinky grimy diesels at ten years of age looked worse in an industrial setting than a 50 year old Milwaukee Road teapot shunting cars around. Everyone admired the little switcher. As to why a residential neighbourhood would be built in the vicinity of a steel mill or any industrial area goes to some kind of failure in zoning laws. Steam locomotive technology would have continued advancing and kept up with environmental laws but that is 70-75 years of development that is lost and never occurred. So it comes down to a question of "is there anything besides carbon that we can use as a power source to boil water" in today's setting. Steel mills, smelters and clean coal industry have made considerable advancements in scrubbing emissions from smokestacks and the production line. I suppose if we want a pristine world we have to give up everything and go back to the cave. Then we could start all over again?
tree68 zugmann Also pretty neat to go out to a modern diesel and fire it up in, like, 3 seconds. Depends on whether you have to blow it down first (EMD 2 cycles...)
zugmann Also pretty neat to go out to a modern diesel and fire it up in, like, 3 seconds.
Also pretty neat to go out to a modern diesel and fire it up in, like, 3 seconds.
Depends on whether you have to blow it down first (EMD 2 cycles...)
The problem with steam engines was basic economics. Lower availability for service rates, high maintenance costs, high labor costs and a lack of standardization were why it was replaced, not emissions.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.