War Production Board

[henry6]

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.

[timz]

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?

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[jrbernier]

  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

[henry6]

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.

[K4sPRR]

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.

[tpatrick]

Timz,

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

[timz]

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?

[BaltACD]

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.

[tpatrick]

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?