Trains.com

War Production Board

14432 views
39 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    March 2002
  • From: Lakewood NY
  • 679 posts
War Production Board
Posted by tpatrick on Tuesday, May 24, 2011 8:51 PM

It is well known that during WWII the War Production Board vetoed the production of some diesel locomotives in favor of steam. One the happy consequences of that decision was the B&O's acquisition of the magnificent EM-1 2-8-8-4. (Happy for railfans, not so for the B&O) The question is, why? Was there a shortage of production line capacity due to the Army's need for tanks and other vehicles? Or how about a shortage of copper, needed for diesel wiring, but not needed for steam? Or was it something else?  Does anybody out there in forumland know the real story?

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Tuesday, May 24, 2011 8:55 PM

During the war there were shortages of all critical materials...the WPB was a effort to maximize the effective use of all the critical materials.

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    February 2005
  • 2,366 posts
Posted by timz on Tuesday, May 24, 2011 9:04 PM

tpatrick
It is well known that during WWII the War Production Board vetoed the production of some diesel locomotives in favor of steam.

You're saying it's well known EMD could have made more FTs than they did, except the WPB told them not to?

Or maybe you're saying they told Alco and Baldwin not to take the time to develop road diesels until after the war?

  • Member since
    March 2002
  • From: Lakewood NY
  • 679 posts
Posted by tpatrick on Tuesday, May 24, 2011 9:46 PM

Timz,

I said what I said. No more. No less. Do not put words into my mouth.

  • Member since
    June 2009
  • From: Along the Big 4 in the Midwest
  • 536 posts
Posted by K4sPRR on Wednesday, May 25, 2011 6:30 AM

Fuel, which was rationed during the war, was also a consideration.  Military vehicles did not use coal, the diesel at the time was still an infant in the world of railroads.  Many railroads at that time were not fully equipped for maintaining diesels or had fueling depots around in great abundance.  Steam on the other hand was still the main source of power and the infastructure to keep them running was well in place.

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • 8,156 posts
Posted by henry6 on Wednesday, May 25, 2011 8:24 AM

There were seveal factors, fuel being one, use of materials another, deciding what locomotive purchase was for war effort and what was for railroad bottom line was a consideration, too.  There was also a feeling of the diesel being a new concept, not totally proven, so why not just "stick with the steam engine we know" was often heard.  The supposed mindset was to keep as much money and action working toward the war effort rather than for consumer expansion.

RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.

  • Member since
    January 2001
  • From: SE Minnesota
  • 6,847 posts
Posted by jrbernier on Wednesday, May 25, 2011 8:32 AM

  War Production Board controls limited diesel locomotive production starting in 1942, and was generally lifted in 1944.  In the case of diesels, existing orders could be completed in 1942, but any new order needed approval by the board. Any & all strategic materials were  monitored by the board(plate steel/copper/aluminum among others), and there were shortages as production of war materials took precedence.  The M&StL even looked at 2-6-6-4 steam rather than ABA sets of FT's.  The need for new bridges/turntables to support the steamers resulted in the FT order.

  EMD was limited to FT production(and 567 power plants for maritime/stationary power plants).  The reason was EMD was the only diesel manufacturer that had a 'road freight' diesel in their catalog.  Most of the EMD FT production went to the AT&SF(320 units worth).  The AT&SF 'trans-con' was a vital link to Southern California, and ran through 'bad water' districts. 

  Alco & Baldwin were limited to 'switcher' production(EMD was not allowed to build their SW1/NW2 switchers).  Alco also was allowed to build a military version of the RS-1 for the Trans-Iranian railroad.  Alco and the New Haven also petitioned the production board and were allowed to build 'dual service' DL109's.  Late in the war, Alco also was given permission to built a tested set of road freight engines(Black Maria).   The RS-1 production gave Alco an 'edge' in the road switcher market and they fielded the RS-2 right after the war.  Alco's real problem was not EMD's massive lead in road freight engines, but the problems with the '244' series engine.

Jim

Modeling BNSF  and Milwaukee Road in SW Wisconsin

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, May 25, 2011 9:16 AM

And there was a gasoline shortage.  I came across my older brother's ration card.  Everybody had a farm buddy that would come through in a pinch.

Steamers used coal, no shortage there; now what did diesels use?

Just asking.

  • Member since
    March 2016
  • From: Burbank IL (near Clearing)
  • 13,540 posts
Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Wednesday, May 25, 2011 10:39 AM

Another reason for restrictions on diesel locomotives was that railroad-sized diesel engines are also used as marine engines.  567 and OP engines found their way into a lot of ships, the use of the OP engine in submarines is fairly well known but a lot of destroyer escorts, LST's, etc. also had diesel engines.

The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul
  • Member since
    February 2005
  • 2,366 posts
Posted by timz on Wednesday, May 25, 2011 11:10 AM

tpatrick
It is well known that during WWII the War Production Board vetoed the production of some diesel locomotives in favor of steam.

tpatrick
I said what I said. No more. No less.

So you refuse to say whose diesels got vetoed? Anyone else know?

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • 8,156 posts
Posted by henry6 on Wednesday, May 25, 2011 11:25 AM

TMZ, it was done on a contract by contract basis.  As a rule, road units were not favored but switchers were.  And it depended upon the needieness of the road in relation to its contribution to the war effort in the area of transporting war goods.   Thus a road with 50 year old steam power which was falling apart and had war sensitive traffic  would more likely get what it needed, even diesel, than say, a large well equipped Class One.  TRAINS Magazine has done numerous articles through the years...check some of the indeci (sp?) for details.

RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.

  • Member since
    February 2005
  • 2,366 posts
Posted by timz on Wednesday, May 25, 2011 6:09 PM

I think I see the confusion-- the original poster said B&O got 2-8+8-4s because "the War Production Board vetoed the production of some diesel locomotives". But far as we know WPB never vetoed any FT production; they likely were delighted to see EMD crank them out as fast as they could.  The WPB might have vetoed sending FTs to B&O, but the FTs the B&O had hoped for got built all right, and sent elsewhere.

henry6
TRAINS Magazine has done numerous articles through the years

But no articles saying WPB restricted FT production-- right?

 

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 20,096 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Thursday, May 26, 2011 4:32 AM

LaGrange could not expand its production facilities and most were needed for diesels and generators and other equpment for war purposes, including landing craft, patrol boats, portable generators for field use, etc.  Other than that it built FT diesels as quickly as possible.   In addition to the AT&SF, the Southern and B&M were able to get some.   Also diesel fuel was in short supply.   Saudi oil went to the African and Italian campaigns, often refined at Haifa, then under British rule.  The American motorist was very limited in the amount of gasoline he could use (A-cards) unless he was a doctor or somone similar.   But there was no rationing of coal.     Meat was rationed.

  • Member since
    July 2001
  • From: Shelbyville, Kentucky
  • 1,967 posts
Posted by SSW9389 on Thursday, May 26, 2011 8:51 AM

Author Richard Steinbrenner details the War Production Board (WPB) in his book The American Locomotive Company A Centennial Remembrance. In his Chapter VII, ALCO and World War II from pages 193 to 233 there is mention of the WPB and how it effected locomotive production. From what I can piece together from reading Steinbrenner's work the War Production Board required locomotive builders to obtain prior authorization from the WPB before committing to production. The WPB controlled the raw materials for production, provided the plants and tools for production and ensured that there was a trained and skilled work force at the production plants. 

In the WPB there was a Transportation Equipment Branch and part of that Branch was the Railroad Industry Advisory Committee. This Committee created a plan for locomotve production and a system of priorities for that production.  What happened to a particular railroad's request for new motive power was subject to the WPB Plan and the priority given to the request.

Steinbrenner cites various Committee letters and records in this chapter that reflect a serious approach to writing about the WPB. To my knowledge these records are available for study at the National Archives.

Ed in Kentucky

COTTON BELT: Runs like a Blue Streak!
  • Member since
    March 2002
  • From: Lakewood NY
  • 679 posts
Posted by tpatrick on Thursday, May 26, 2011 12:33 PM

Excellent input from everyone. Thanks to you all. And a special thanks to SSW 9389 for referencing the Steinbrenner book. I just ordered a copy for myself. Can't wait to get into it!

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • From: US
  • 1,522 posts
Posted by AltonFan on Thursday, May 26, 2011 9:31 PM

artschlosser

And there was a gasoline shortage.  I came across my older brother's ration card.  Everybody had a farm buddy that would come through in a pinch.

My understanding is that it was not that there was a shortage of gasoline, but that rubber, which could only be obtained from Japanese-held areas in Southeast Asia, was in a critically short supply, so to save rubber, gas was rationed.

IIRC, submarine warfare in the Atlantic forced the railroads to ship most petroleum products in tank cars, even as crews were frantically working to build the first oil pipelines.

Dan

  • Member since
    July 2001
  • From: Shelbyville, Kentucky
  • 1,967 posts
Posted by SSW9389 on Friday, May 27, 2011 7:33 AM

tpatrick: I think you will find Steinbrenner's Alco Book fascinating. In regards to the WPB there were so many factors to be considered as to what was to be built that it can be seen why there was a need for it. For example the WPB determined production capacity for the locomotive builders and assigned work accordingly.

Ed in Kentucky 

COTTON BELT: Runs like a Blue Streak!
  • Member since
    July 2001
  • From: Shelbyville, Kentucky
  • 1,967 posts
Posted by SSW9389 on Friday, May 27, 2011 7:39 AM

Alco had been supplying the U S Navy with Model 330, 531 and 538 engines prior to the war. During WW2 the Navy continued to use Alco engines. The 540 welded block engine was used in patrol boats, mine sweepers, mine layers and tugs.   

COTTON BELT: Runs like a Blue Streak!
  • Member since
    December 2001
  • 8,156 posts
Posted by henry6 on Friday, May 27, 2011 8:27 AM

Alton..., yes, rails moved petroleum products in tank cars because German U boats lurked off the Atlantic Coast.  

RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.

  • Member since
    December 2005
  • From: Cardiff, CA
  • 2,930 posts
Posted by erikem on Saturday, May 28, 2011 4:21 PM

jrbernier

  Alco & Baldwin were limited to 'switcher' production(EMD was not allowed to build their SW1/NW2 switchers).  Alco also was allowed to build a military version of the RS-1 for the Trans-Iranian railroad.  Alco and the New Haven also petitioned the production board and were allowed to build 'dual service' DL109's.  Late in the war, Alco also was given permission to built a tested set of road freight engines(Black Maria).   The RS-1 production gave Alco an 'edge' in the road switcher market and they fielded the RS-2 right after the war.  Alco's real problem was not EMD's massive lead in road freight engines, but the problems with the '244' series engine.

EMD did have a significant lead in diesel engines due to the large production of 567's for the Navy, which was important enough that the WPB allowed EMD to do development work on the 567 during the war.Improved reliability was probably as important to Navy as it was to the railroads.  Alco, on the other hand, was not allowed to commit significant resources to developing the 244 along with not having a large installed base of the 567 to spot problems with the engine. Had the 244 been as reliable as the 567, Alco would have taken over the post WW2 passenger market as the PA was a lighter and less expensive locomotive to build than an EMD E of the same horsepower.

It would have been interesting to see what would have happened in the road switcher market if Alco had a reliable prime mover immediately post WW2.

- Erik

  • Member since
    February 2002
  • From: Mpls/St.Paul
  • 13,892 posts
Posted by wjstix on Saturday, May 28, 2011 5:09 PM

The definitive book on the subject is the recent "TRAINS TO VICTORY, America's Railroads in World War II". What the WPB (and other boards and agencies) did was to try to manage the best use of limited materials like steel, rubber, petroleum etc. In the case of locomotives, it did say that no new designs were allowed, only proven ones.

FT production was shut down for a time, GM was doing a lot of work building tanks etc. FTs when made were given to railroads that had the most need, like ATSF. Oddly, when Minneapolis & St.Louis ordered 2-6-6-2 steam engines to handle their increased traffic, they were given FTs instead - a turnabout from usual complaints of railroads that ordered diesels and got steam. The gov't decided the amount of steel the railroad would have needed to upgrade it's bridges so the new steam engines could cross them weren't justified - it used less materials to give them diesels of similar power.

Stix
  • Member since
    August 2005
  • From: At the Crossroads of the West
  • 11,013 posts
Posted by Deggesty on Sunday, May 29, 2011 6:03 PM

AltonFan

  

My understanding is that it was not that there was a shortage of gasoline, but that rubber, which could only be obtained from Japanese-held areas in Southeast Asia, was in a critically short supply, so to save rubber, gas was rationed.

Another use for petroleum products was in the manufacture of synthetic rubbers. Work on the production of synthetic rubbers began about 1860, was expanded about 1930 as chemical knowledge of rubber had been increased--and in 1942 took off when a large of source of natural rubber was cut off from the U.S.A.

Johnny

  • Member since
    February 2002
  • From: Mpls/St.Paul
  • 13,892 posts
Posted by wjstix on Sunday, May 29, 2011 8:00 PM

Keep in mind too that at that time America was EXPORTING oil. Gasoline rationing would strongly imply there was a shortage, though it may have been self-imposed, just as were rations on meat and sugar. Military needs, and supplying our allies in Europe, created shortages here.

Stix
  • Member since
    July 2004
  • 803 posts
Posted by GP40-2 on Saturday, June 4, 2011 2:59 PM

Not only did the War Production Board often deny new orders for road diesel-electrics, they often forced RR's to use existing designs (with some allowable modifications) of steam. The PRR J1 2-10-4 , which was pretty much a direct copy of the older C&O T1 2-10-4  was a good example. Many other RRs were also forced to use "War Babies" that were not their favored design.

What is interesting about the EM1 2-8-8-4 was that it was a totally new design than previous large articulated freight engines. They were as modern as large steam got, and closed the book on articulated locomotive engineering. I always found it interesting exactly how Baldwin and the B&O got the EM1 past the board. More than likely it was a case of who you know and what political connections they have, but we will probably never find out the real answer.

  • Member since
    July 2004
  • 455 posts
Posted by aricat on Sunday, June 5, 2011 11:00 AM

Both the British and US Armies did not know what type of fuel might be available overseas. Both Armies designed trucks that would be diesel powered early on. There was no certainty that gasoline would be available where the army might be deployed in 1942. I don't know if the US Army ordered diesel powered trucks or tanks in World War II or if it was only in the design stage.However, the British did put into operation both gasoline and diesel powered trucks. This diesel fuel would most likely come from the United States.

  • Member since
    October 2004
  • From: Allen, TX
  • 1,320 posts
Posted by cefinkjr on Sunday, June 5, 2011 3:20 PM

Safety and range were also considerations in whether a tank should be diesel or gasoline powered.  Diesel fuel is less volatile and thus harder to ignite and safer than gasoline.  Extended range in terms of mileage was a diesel bonus.

Just ask any old (pre-Abrams) tanker whether he'd rather have had a diesel or gasoline fueled tank.  I had both (gasoline M48A2C and diesel M48A3) at various times and there is no question that I'd prefer my tank to have a diesel engine in it..

Chuck
Allen, TX

  • Member since
    August 2005
  • From: At the Crossroads of the West
  • 11,013 posts
Posted by Deggesty on Sunday, June 5, 2011 4:26 PM

aricat

Both the British and US Armies did not know what type of fuel might be available overseas. Both Armies designed trucks that would be diesel powered early on. There was no certainty that gasoline would be available where the army might be deployed in 1942. I don't know if the US Army ordered diesel powered trucks or tanks in World War II or if it was only in the design stage.However, the British did put into operation both gasoline and diesel powered trucks. This diesel fuel would most likely come from the United States.

From what I have read of the movement of the Allies in Europe, the tanks used gasoline.

Johnny

  • Member since
    March 2008
  • 258 posts
Posted by J.Rob on Sunday, June 5, 2011 5:44 PM

One other thing to look at is political considerations. Many government employees were political appointees who behaved much the way things are run now. Favoritism exists due to other dealings, so what was good for the country might translate to what was good for the political bosses themselves. Should you doubt such things going on you might look at the history of such things as the National Road, US 40. It was routed through Wheeling, WV due to influence of Henry Clay. Also U.S. Grants administration was terribly corrupt.

It seems corrupt officials have been around for quite a while and are nothing new.

  • Member since
    October 2004
  • From: Allen, TX
  • 1,320 posts
Posted by cefinkjr on Sunday, June 5, 2011 7:26 PM

Deggesty

From what I have read of the movement of the Allies in Europe, the tanks used gasoline.

I think youi're right.  Do you think that might have had anything to do with the German nickname, "Tommy Cookers", for the M4 Shermans used by the  Brits?

My earlier comment on this matter expressed a tanker's preference for diesel as opposed to gasoline fuel.  As a matter of fact, I'm not certain if any US tanks before the M48A3 and M60 burned diesel.

Chuck
Allen, TX

  • Member since
    March 2008
  • 258 posts
Posted by J.Rob on Sunday, June 5, 2011 7:43 PM

One other thing to look at is political considerations. Many government employees were political appointees who behaved much the way things are run now. Favoritism exists due to other dealings, so what was good for the country might translate to what was good for the political bosses themselves. Should you doubt such things going on you might look at the history of such things as the National Road, US 40. It was routed through Wheeling, WV due to influence of Henry Clay. Also U.S. Grants administration was terribly corrupt.

It seems corrupt officials have been around for quite a while and are nothing new.

SUBSCRIBER & MEMBER LOGIN

Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more!

FREE NEWSLETTER SIGNUP

Get the Classic Trains twice-monthly newsletter