Your Opinon

[S&G Rute of the Silver River]

This may be the wrong forum, but What are your thoughts on the railroads going to diesel power not becouse it was a better technolohy, but it was a good way to reduce the labor unions power?

[PBenham]

There is a sound footing for this school of thought. Between 1946 and 1948, labor costs shot up at a rate never seen before in this country. The reasons for this are that the Unions and brotherhoods had unprecedented ability to leverage large pay increases following the end of wage controls in 1946. The argument was that the labor movement had contributed and sacrificed wage increases and new benefits in order to insure that the war would be won. The almost inevitable result was that with the post war revival of the consumer driven economy and shortages of nearly everything, labor costs took off. They never looked back, since the cold war dictated that the railroads not be struck for any period longer than a few days. The most common argument was that the "communists" would take advantage of any disruption of the US economy. They could never have harmed the US economy without risking their own economic ruin. In the 1980s under Ronald Reagan the US did just this to bring an end to the communist empire in response to a threatened soviet buildup of their military. We literally spent them out of power!

[tomikawaTT]

There are things to be said for the idea that the railroads were trying to break the power of one particular union - John L. Lewis's United Mine Workers.  Post-WWII, coal miners were pulled out of the mines repeatedly.  Understandably, the railroads saw that as a hazard to their fuel supplies, and started to look for an alternative.  When the use of oil as a steam fuel was compared (in cost) to the use of diesels, the diesels won hands down.

Chuck

[jimrice4449]

Nice theory.   Council on Foreign Relations and Tri-Lateral Commision probaby had a hand in it too.   Of course the fact that mainline trains (and many switch jobs) had firemen long after the last steam engine ran and that the cost of diesels vastly outvalued the wages of firemen makes it kind of problematic.   The big savings in diesels was fuel followed by the cost of the vast infrastructure steam required is what cooked steam's goose

[DMUinCT]

Let's look back to when the change happened, World War II.

The New Haven had Diesel Switchers in service since 1931.  The first fleet of 10 Road Diesels, the ALCO DL109s, were delivered in 1941 with 10 more each year (1942, 1943, 1944) to move the War time traffic. 

From the New Haven Railroad's "Along The Line", July 1944:  "The relatively short time at terminals for inspection, loading with fuel, and repairs, plus flexibility that enables locomotives just in from a fast passenger train to be put on a long, heavy outgoing freight train marks the Road Diesel as a star preformer in the New Haven's war effort".  "Aside from the feature of interchangeability between freight and passenger service as described, the Diesel-electric road locomotive has other inportant advantages.  With the Diesel locomotive it is not necessary to stop a tonnage freight train to take on water or fuel en-route.  Running times are usually reduced and the effect of low temperatures is minimized.  Short turnarounds at terminals are the rule and can be made in a matter of a very few minutes."

And not a mention of labor cost. 

Cann't blame labor, railroad workers are paid fairly when compaired to other transpotation industries.  The "big four" of railroads are the best performing transportions on Wall Street and they are all a Union operation.

[daveklepper]

I have great respect for the New Haven and its engineering and both the Alco D-109's and the FA's and FP's that replaced them.   Also, there isn't any question in my mind that in the case of the NYNH&H and B&M, the switch to diesel was sound economics, and note that neither railraod really did it overnight.   (The B&M didn't really complete diesselization until the Budd RDC's began taking over the passenger service that remained. nearly all commuter.)  Havinig said that:

A 4-8-4 could come off a fast passenger job and after servicing head out a fast freight.   Ditto most Birkshires.   Ditto most 4-8-2's.

[JonathanS]

I cannot say that the intent was to reduce the labor unions power but the Reading did dieselize the Catawissa line because by using diesels two helper districts could be eliminated.  Which eliminated all of the crews needed to run the helpers, and it also eliminated one engine facility on the western slope with all of its workers.  So the unions did lose membership, did that reduce thier power?  I do not know.

[S&G Rute of the Silver River]

Thanks guys, This is a big help. Planning to work for BNSF myself.

[IRONROOSTER]

All companies look to reduce labor costs (except for top management , but that's another thread).  They also look to maximize their use of assets.  With diesels, the railroads were able to do both. Reducing engine crew size and the number of crews for multiple units. Reducing maintenance and servicing was a double header - fewer employees needed for maintenance and better availability of units which meant you needed fewer of them.  Like it or not, the steam engine peaked in the early 20th century - the last technological improvements in the 30's and 40's were not enough to stave off the diesel. Bottom line, fewer employees required and fewer locomotives required.

Enjoy

Paul 

[wjstix]

Remember too that most unions came out of WW2 in strong shape. Federal laws and regulations required that companies getting federal contracts had to allow their workers the right to unionize - and since almost every company was doing war production work during the war, a lot of companies became unionized during that time. Oddly enough, a good example is Lionel Trains, who built electronic equipment for the Navy during the war and became a union shop during the war!!

But...I think labor cost savings was the issue, not breaking the unions or any such thing. Diesels were available a higher percentage of the time, better fuel consumption, and fewer crewmen and support people needed.