Steam Locomotives versus Diesels

QUOTE: Originally posted by ValorStorm But I did want to mention that with steam, at least in North American practice, engineers typically had their own assigned locomotive. This contributed to the inflexibility of steam. I don't know if anyone addressed this point, because, face it, this is a really looooooong thread. I started getting kinda' dizzy!

It was, and I'm guessing, somewhere around the turn of the 20th century, that the practice of engineers being assigned to a specific engine was discontinued.

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard Old Timer, Michael is a lawyer in Montana....he isn’t supposed to say anything factual.[:D] Ed

Oh my God, that statement is freaking priceless...[(-D]

Now do you understand why Dylan Thomas said" Let's kill all the lawyers, lets kill them tonight!!"[:-,] As sung by the Eagles in a song called Get over it. As always ENJOY[8D]

QUOTE: Originally posted by GP40-2 QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb How is is possible that vitually every railway system in the world has followed this path when statisticaly it is the wrong path. [?] Whether it was Diesel or Electric none are steam anymore with a very few exceptions? [?] As always ENJOY [8D] My thoughts exactly...

Well, I doubt that they qualify as full-fledged thoughts. As I have mentioned before, the decisions of foreign railways, typically government operated, rarely offers a useful guideline for operation of privately-owned railways. That someone might offer foreign railway decisions (as opposed to experience) in the context of an a priori effort to justify something done earlier on American railways is a leap in logic I will have to leave to the obvious Olympic level jumpers on this thread.

However, without any data, we do know that, post World War II, the industrial and engineering leadership that had previously substantially reposed in Germany and England, and to a lesser extent in other European countries, had shifted almost entirely to the United States. With a couple of exceptions, German and Japanese scientists in particular weren't as popular as they otherwise might have been.

So, focus shifts to the United States as the leader in many areas, including railroad techology and in many cases, the funding for rebuilding and development.

At the same time, this incredible "idea" of marketing and development emerged at General Motors. The whole idea of "planned obsolescence". The idea that you didn't let people "buy" cars, you "sold" them cars, bus systems, trucks, railroad locomotives. Bill Gates did not originate the idea of "vaporware" -- promising a feature that wasn't there yet to forestall sales to competitors -- this was developed by General Motors.

The steam guys were pretty old fashioned -- their products spoke for themselves. They underestimated the power of "selling." More importantly, they underestimated the power of "dramatized" promises, the "30% return on investment" promised by EMD, the careful adjustment of "ratings" and "comparative ratings" to show the Diesel to its maximum advantage without ever clearly stating the ratings weren't ratings above 20 mph where steam generated significantly better economic and operational performance.

You can, indeed, "massage" economic data, and that's exactly what EMD did. Norfolk & Western wasn't the first railroad to see test engines that had been quietly up-rated without disclosure to the buyer. The sales literature promising 20 year economic service lives for road power was never based on a realistic assessment; it was a manufacturer's promise that was not, could not, and has never been kept. There was no basis for the number except that it was the only way the manufacturers could justify to the buyers the higher purchase costs of diesel road power. And particularly, to justify incurring annual finance charges. And, those studies were predicated on not only 20 year service lives, but on financing at 1 and 1.5%, historical lows and historical anomalies.

Would the decision to Dieselize have been the same with a 12 year economic service life at 5%?

Well, there is a huge difference in the economic outcomes. And, in fact, there was. We see it in the Railroad ROIs.

And that can't be overcome by emotional announcements about "historical truths."

The fact is, the promises were so much hot air, backed up by discrete fudging of the data. This probably explains the affinity that several posters have for the proposition.

In any case, the sales job worked. Mysteriously, Railroad ROI began to decline. So much for that promise of 30% return on investment. It is not a massaging of data that shows that Dieselization was an economic burden, it is a massaging of reality to say that it did not: It is irrefutable that Railroad ROI declined during this period, and when the second generation came along at a higher interest rate, Railroad ROI declined again, and when the third generation came along at substantially higher interest rates, railroads were pounding on the doors of Congress for relief from their financial crisis.

Just a series of identical coincidences, right?

Foreign governments no doubt looked to American railroads for guidance and the U.S. Government for funding. Just as the French government extended loans to governments converting to its version of AC electrification, the US government extended cheap "development" loans so that foreign countries could buy EMD products at the sacrifice of domestic steam builders that the US government had no interest in supporting.

To the extent that foreign railroads looked at US railroads, and made the assumption, "gee, these guys are the leaders of the industry, who are we to question the American rail industry," it is interesting to see the logic come full circle on this thread -- and it is circular logic -- to say that "it must have been the right decision for American railways, look at all the foreign railways that did it" even as foreign railways looked at American railways and said "it must have been the right decision, American railways did it."

Now, to the gentleman who insists that this is some "revelation" by Michael Sol and/or H.F. Brown, and that its all personal, and let's make it as personal as possible, here's my response: the discussions about the economic effects of Dieselization were ongoing from the mid-1950s to the early 1970s. Brown's paper was one of several that appeared in the best known engineering journals of the time. The debate was both public and extensive and, as I mentioned earlier, subjected to peer review by people actually knowledgeable about the subject and not given to announcing "historical truths" as a substitute for genuine analysis.

The fact that you have proclaimed as loudly as you can that you are totally ignorant of that debate and those published discussions offers nothing to either illuminate the discussion or refute Brown, all it does is offer exactly what you say it does: that you are completely ignorant of the subject matter and that by an interesting extension of your claim to ignorance of the debate, that everyone else must be ignorant too. What is remarkable is the chorus of voices all proudly claiming equal ignorance on that well-known debate, and happily offering their own ignorance of that discussion as a virtue in any discussion about it.

Other than your continuing efforts to draw attention to that fact, I can only refer to the published debate to refute your contentions on that point, and your emotional response to it.

As usual, if you have a specific observation as to how you feel the data might have been handled differently, that would be more productive for my time, and yours as well, if you simply pointed it out, rather than offering "historical truths" as a cheap substitute for actual analysis.

Best regards, Michael Sol

QUOTE: Originally posted by Old Timer MichaelSol sayeth again, on ad nauseum: "They did NOT cost less to maintain. The fact that it could still be concluded from a discussion that showed the contrary, without any proof offered otherwise, is testamentary to the power of the myth, even among steam fans." Michael, you've proven this to suit yourself, if nobody else. You and your Mr. Brown have made it plain once again that data can be massaged to prove anything you want to prove. I'm with GP40-2; now, what are you going to do with this great railroad management "gotcha"? I said several pages ago that this was what you were after. But he's right - this is an awfully small forum for such a great revelation; why aren't you writing it up for the trade press? Now what? Twenty-three more pages of this drivel? What do you want to prove next? That the sun will rise in the west tomorrow? Got any figures from Brown to work with to help you with that? You've spent 23 pages trying to convince us that (1) you alone pre privy to the Gospel truth in all this; (2) you're the lonely voice in the wilderness; (3) you're smarter than everybody else (both the old managements that made the decisions and all of us on this forum), and (4) everybody is out of step but you and your Messiah, Mr. Brown. But all you've really convinced us of is that you're too stubborn to grasp the historical truth. Old Timer

Hey, Old Timer, have you come up with the counter studies yet? NO?

You have proven to everyone on this forum that myth repeated enough times will misplace fact-based historical analysis. The amazing thing is that you stubbornly refuse to acknowledge that this analysis isn't Mr. Sol's, it is Brown's, and it is simply an independent study for an overseas client.

It certainly was not intended as a critique of the cult of idiocy known as North American railroading, but you and others on this forum have certainly brought THAT truth to light!

QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb How is is possible that vitually every railway system in the world has followed this path when statisticaly it is the wrong path.

How is it you have no capability to read what was proffered?

1. No railroad manager could have foreseen the short shelf life of those first diesels, except if they gave those diesels a sufficient period of service for such data collection. They were sold, lock stock & barrell, on the initial tests, and probably assumed that since steamers tended to last 30 to 50 years, and electrics seemed to last forever, the diesels would likewise have a long shelf life. You could probably give them a pass on that miscalculation then.

2. Up to the time of mass dieselization, railroad companies hadn't really experienced such entrenched financing schemes as laid out by EMD. I am sure they had no idea of the long term negative effects such debt accumulation would have on the companies' ROI. They again just assumed that based on the initial tests regarding diesels' performance, the savings would offset any such debt. You can probably give them a pass on that then, who'duv known?

3. As stated before, they had no prior cause to believe that diesels would not last long and be relatively maintenance free. By the time the truth hit, steam manufacturing had ceased, all locomotive manufacturers had shifted production to diesel, so there was no turning back. THAT is why N & W capitulated to dieselization, they no longer had any suppliers of steam parts, and to continue to home build steam with custom made parts would have been prohibitively expensive. You will also notice that those other rail systems all over the world dieselized well after the US. US steam was king, and now the king was dead. Combine that practical fact with this inherent need of nations to be perceived as modern and progressive, and it was a cinch dieselization would take place worldwide.

4. Of course, most electric systems worldwide have stayed electric, so dieselization hasn't really replaced the "older" electric concept. In that vein your statement is in error.

Diesel is better. If it wasn't the RR's would still run steam. One thing i like about steam is the FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFWWWWWOOOOOOOOOOFFFFWWWWWWOOOOOOO...

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by GP40-2 QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb How is is possible that vitually every railway system in the world has followed this path when statisticaly it is the wrong path. [?] Whether it was Diesel or Electric none are steam anymore with a very few exceptions? [?] As always ENJOY [8D] My thoughts exactly... Well, I doubt that they qualify as full-fledged thoughts. As I have mentioned before, the decisions of foreign railways, typically government operated, rarely offers a useful guideline for operation of privately-owned railways. That someone might offer foreign railway decisions (as opposed to experience) in the context of an a priori effort to justify something done earlier on American railways is a leap in logic I will have to leave to the obvious Olympic level jumpers on this thread. However, without any data, we do know that, post World War II, the industrial and engineering leadership that had previously substantially reposed in Germany and England, and to a lesser extent in other European countries, had shifted almost entirely to the United States. With a couple of exceptions, German and Japanese scientists in particular weren't as popular as they otherwise might have been. So, focus shifts to the United States as the leader in many areas, including railroad techology and in many cases, the funding for rebuilding and development. At the same time, this incredible "idea" of marketing and development emerged at General Motors. The whole idea of "planned obsolescence". The idea that you didn't let people "buy" cars, you "sold" them cars, bus systems, trucks, railroad locomotives. Bill Gates did not originate the idea of "vaporware" -- promising a feature that wasn't there yet to forestall sales to competitors -- this was developed by General Motors. The steam guys were pretty old fashioned -- their products spoke for themselves. They underestimated the power of "selling." More importantly, they underestimated the power of "dramatized" promises, the "30% return on investment" promised by EMD, the careful adjustment of "ratings" and "comparative ratings" to show the Diesel to its maximum advantage without ever clearly stating the ratings weren't ratings above 20 mph where steam generated significantly better economic and operational performance. You can, indeed, "massage" economic data, and that's exactly what EMD did. Norfolk & Western wasn't the first railroad to see test engines that had been quietly up-rated without disclosure to the buyer. The sales literature promising 20 year economic service lives for road power was never based on a realistic assessment; it was a manufacturer's promise that was not, could not, and has never been kept. There was no basis for the number except that it was the only way the manufacturers could justify to the buyers the higher purchase costs of diesel road power. And particularly, to justify incurring annual finance charges. And, those studies were predicated on not only 20 year service lives, but on financing at 1 and 1.5%, a historical low and a historical anomaly. Would the decision to Dieselize have been the same with a 12 year economic service life at 5%? Well, there is a huge difference in the economic outcomes. And, in fact, there was. We see it in the Railroad ROIs. And that can't be overcome by emotional announcements about "historical truths." The fact is, the promises were so much hot air, backed up by discrete fudging of the data. This probably explains the affinity that several posters have for the proposition. In any case, the sales job worked. Mysteriously, Railroad ROI began to decline. So much for that promise of 30% return on investment. It is not a massaging of data that shows that Dieselization was an economic burden, it is a massaging of reality to say that it did not: It is irrefutable that Railroad ROI declined during this period, and when the second generation came along at a higher interest rate, Railroad ROI declined again, and when the third generation came along at substantially higher interest rates, railroads were pounding on the doors of Congress for relief from their financial crisis. Just a series of identical coincidences, right? Foreign governments no doubt looked to American railroads for guidance and the U.S. Government for funding. Just as the French government extended loans to governments converting to its version of AC electrification, the US government extended cheap "development" loans so that foreign countries could buy EMD products at the sacrifice of domestic steam builders that the US government had no interest in supporting. To the extent that foreign railroads looked at US railroads, and made the assumption, "gee, these guys are the leaders of the industry, who are we to question the American rail industry," it is interesting to see the logic come full circle on this thread -- and it is circular logic -- to say that "it must have been the right decision for American railways, look at all the foreign railways that did it." Now, to the gentleman who insists that this is some "revelation" by Michael Sol and/or H.F. Brown, and that its all personal, and let's make it as personal as possible, here's my response: the discussions about the economic effects of Dieselization were ongoing from the mid-1950s to the early 1970s. Brown's paper was one of several that appeared in the best known engineering journals of the time. The debate was both public and extensive and, as I mentioned earlier, subjected to peer review by people actually knowledgeable about the subject and not given to announcing "historical truths" as a substitute for genuine analysis. The fact that you have proclaimed as loudly as you can that you are totally ignorant of that debate and those published discussions offers nothing to either illuminate the discussion or refute Brown, all it does is offer exactly what you say it does: that you are completely ignorant of the subject matter and that by an interesting extension of your claim to ignorance of the debate, that everyone else must be ignorant too. What is remarkable is the chorus of voices all proudly claiming equal ignorance on that well-known debate, and happily offering their own ignorance of that discussion as a virtue in any discussion about it. Other than your continuing efforts to draw attention to that fact, I can only refer to the published debate to refute your contentions on that point, and your emotional response to it. As usual, if you have a specific observation as to how you feel the data might have been handled differently, that would be more productive for my time, and yours as well, if you simply pointed it out, rather than offering "historical truths" as a cheap substitute for actual analysis. Best regards, Michael Sol

Wow, another long response BUT you still haven't answered my question. What exactly is your motivation for your thesis and what are you going to do with this "information" within the railroad industry?

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb How is is possible that vitually every railway system in the world has followed this path when statisticaly it is the wrong path. How is it you have no capability to read what was proffered? 1. No railroad manager could have foreseen the short shelf life of those first diesels, except if they gave those diesels a sufficient period of service for such data collection. They were sold, lock stock & barrell, on the initial tests, and probably assumed that since steamers tended to last 30 to 50 years, and electrics seemed to last forever, the diesels would likewise have a long shelf life. You could probably give them a pass on that miscalculation then. 2. Up to the time of mass dieselization, railroad companies hadn't really experienced such entrenched financing schemes as laid out by EMD. I am sure they had no idea of the long term negative effects such debt accumulation would have on the companies' ROI. They again just assumed that based on the initial tests regarding diesels' performance, the savings would offset any such debt. You can probably give them a pass on that then, who'duv known? 3. As stated before, they had no prior cause to believe that diesels would not last long and be relatively maintenance free. By the time the truth hit, steam manufacturing had ceased, all locomotive manufacturers had shifted production to diesel, so there was no turning back. THAT is why N & W capitulated to dieselization, they no longer had any suppliers of steam parts, and to continue to home build steam with custom made parts would have been prohibitively expensive. You will also notice that those other rail systems all over the world dieselized well after the US. US steam was king, and now the king was dead. Combine that practical fact with this inherent need of nations to be perceived as modern and progressive, and it was a cinch dieselization would take place worldwide. 4. Of course, most electric systems worldwide have stayed electric, so dieselization hasn't really replaced the "older" electric concept. In that vein your statement is in error.

In statements 1-3, you to assume railroad management at the time didn't have any clue what was going on. In your view, they had no idea they were dealing with new technology. You also assume they had no knowlege of basic financing. You said: " I am sure they had no idea of the long term negative effects such debt accumulation would have on the companies' ROI." Do you honestly believe these guys made it up the ladder and had no knowledge of finance?

Note: I decided on my own to edit this post to be less inflamatory in an effort to be civil in this hotly debated subject.

Private or government owned they all (read everyone of them world wide) came to the same conclusion. There is no data that can refute the fact that no one has chosen steam over diesel/electric or electric. The chinese (whose system was the last to close there foundries) hung on longer than anyone. While still operating steam no longer build them. All the major steam builders tried to build and sell diesels but were too far behind GM in development and market share to remain viable. Me thinks you give to much credit to GM as they do not have a monopoly worldwide. [banghead] While your arguments are compelling no one came to the same conclusion based on the real world market place. It is the market place that ultimately decides in the end. As the steam engine began the demise of the horse drawn tram so has the D/E sounded the death knell for steam.[xx(]

QUOTE: Originally posted by GP40-2 QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb How is is possible that vitually every railway system in the world has followed this path when statisticaly it is the wrong path. How is it you have no capability to read what was proffered? 1. No railroad manager could have foreseen the short shelf life of those first diesels, except if they gave those diesels a sufficient period of service for such data collection. They were sold, lock stock & barrell, on the initial tests, and probably assumed that since steamers tended to last 30 to 50 years, and electrics seemed to last forever, the diesels would likewise have a long shelf life. You could probably give them a pass on that miscalculation then. 2. Up to the time of mass dieselization, railroad companies hadn't really experienced such entrenched financing schemes as laid out by EMD. I am sure they had no idea of the long term negative effects such debt accumulation would have on the companies' ROI. They again just assumed that based on the initial tests regarding diesels' performance, the savings would offset any such debt. You can probably give them a pass on that then, who'duv known? 3. As stated before, they had no prior cause to believe that diesels would not last long and be relatively maintenance free. By the time the truth hit, steam manufacturing had ceased, all locomotive manufacturers had shifted production to diesel, so there was no turning back. THAT is why N & W capitulated to dieselization, they no longer had any suppliers of steam parts, and to continue to home build steam with custom made parts would have been prohibitively expensive. You will also notice that those other rail systems all over the world dieselized well after the US. US steam was king, and now the king was dead. Combine that practical fact with this inherent need of nations to be perceived as modern and progressive, and it was a cinch dieselization would take place worldwide. 4. Of course, most electric systems worldwide have stayed electric, so dieselization hasn't really replaced the "older" electric concept. In that vein your statement is in error. In statements 1-3 it's pretty ignorant of you to assume railroad management at the time didn't have any clue what was going on. In your view, they were all freaking idiots who didn't realize the were dealing with a new technology. You also assume they had no knowlege of basic financing You said: " I am sure they had no idea of the long term negative effects such debt accumulation would have on the companies' ROI." What a laugh. Do you honestly believe these guys made it up the ladder and had no knowledge of finance? Correct me if I am wrong, but you don't have any work experience in management within the railroad industry, do you. But it is sure easly for you to sit here and tell us what people in the industry were thinking 50 years ago. You can blather on all you want, but the reality it that you are nothing but a foamer turd.

LOL! Here I go to the trouble of giving an out for railroad management, allowing for their understandable inability to read the tea leaves of their motive power future, and some kool-aid drinking railroad Lewinsky farts out another substandard insult! Typical!

Ironically, this whole thesis is based on the writings of one engineering firm, which was basically the work of one or two engineers. Add to that, anyone on this forum that presents any statistical data published by the railroads (remember, they're the ones that made the decision and the investment) is immediately refuted as repeating propoganda that the railroads published to cover their decisions, which according to Brown et al, was a bad one. Somehow,I don't see them as a final authority on the matter, they had nothing at stake like the railroad management did.

QUOTE: Originally posted by GP40-2 QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb How is is possible that vitually every railway system in the world has followed this path when statisticaly it is the wrong path. How is it you have no capability to read what was proffered? 1. No railroad manager could have foreseen the short shelf life of those first diesels, ... In statements 1-3 it's pretty ignorant of you to assume railroad management at the time didn't have any clue what was going on. In your view, they were all freaking idiots who didn't realize the were dealing with a new technology. You also assume they had no knowlege of basic financing You said: " I am sure they had no idea of the long term negative effects such debt accumulation would have on the companies' ROI." What a laugh. Do you honestly believe these guys made it up the ladder and had no knowledge of finance? Correct me if I am wrong, but you don't have any work experience in management within the railroad industry, do you. But it is sure easly for you to sit here and tell us what people in the industry were thinking 50 years ago. You can blather on all you want, but the reality it that you are nothing but a foamer turd.

Well Dave, so much for giving management the benefit of the doubt!

Best regards, Michael Sol

Well, I don't know beans about high finance---the only numbers my education dealt with were vote totals and settlement checks---and this may have been addressed earlier, but let me ask it anyways because I don't recall reading it:

How much of a factor in dieselization were the notion(s) that a) coal was either flat or due for major price hikes in availability (thanks for nothing, John L. Lewis!) or b) this new place we call 'Saudi Arabia' has centuries of cheap fuel? I ask because that kind of thinking in a way led to the development of, and the subsequent death of, the Boeing 2707.

If I remember correctly, the anecdote about the 2707 (Boeing's SST) was that it was designed to break even/make money on fuel at $0.10/gallon, but that when the Arab states said, "Ooh, embargo!", the thing became absolutely non-viable solely on fuel costs alone. It would appear to this amateur student that, if/once the low(er) diesel fuel costs of the 1950s went away either due to increased consumption or political upheavals, a supposed cost savings of the diesel-electric went away.

I suppose that even had railroad management wanted to really make a change---Ross Rowland and the ACE 3000 of which I know very little notwithstanding---the ability to do so was long gone. Sort of like an anecdote I heard where the Carter Administration wanted to bring back the previously-retired Convair B-58A Hustler strategic bomber, but was prevented from doing so by the fact that they had all been scrapped in Arizona.

To wedge one other thought in here, is there detailed information/analysis on the effect of "efficient" versus "total" dieselization? Let me try to textualize this: It's the 1950s and so you've dieselized the lightly-trafficked branch line and retired locomotives that were new when Wilson was making his Fourteen Points. You cut down on maintenance and so forth, and maybe even save some doubleheading from time to time. Do those economies transfer (or survive, whatever) when all of a sudden you've got to have five GP7s to do the work of one Class A locomotive?

I suppose I'm wondering if there was a true advantage to 'total' dieselization as opposed to a 'no other choice since we can't support Class A operations any more' situation. I'm not trying to be clever or anything; I just wonder if the management types had any other choice than the "one 251/567 fits all" solution.

Thanks for any input.

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl ......anyone on this forum that presents any statistical data published by the railroads....

Uh, gee, Tom, we're still waiting for such statistical refutations.[zzz] You got any you want to share?

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by GP40-2 Originally posted by rrandb How is is possible that vitually every railway system in the world has followed this path when statisticaly it is the wrong path. [?] Whether it was Diesel or Electric none are steam anymore with a very few exceptions? [?] As always ENJOY Other than your continuing efforts to draw attention to that fact, I can only refer to the published debate to refute your contentions on that point, and your emotional response to it. As usual, if you have a specific observation as to how you feel the data might have been handled differently, that would be more productive for my time, and yours as well, if you simply pointed it out, rather than offering "historical truths" as a cheap substitute for actual analysis. Best regards, Michael Sol There is nothing emotional about the statistical evidence that 0% of railroads have come to the same conclusion as you. What "facts" do you need to see.The "historical truths" of the market place are self evident!!! Reply MichaelSol Member since October 2004 3,190 posts Posted by MichaelSol on Sunday, January 22, 2006 9:54 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by GP40-2 Wow, another long response BUT you still haven't answered my question. What exactly is your motivation for your thesis and what are you going to do with this "information" within the railroad industry? The "motivation" is suggested by the thread topic, and the intial question "I wanted to get some expert opinions going on the advantages/disadvantages of steam & diesels ...". Since I had participated in a professional study which touched on that matter a goodly number of years ago, there were some memories of the controversy, particularly through the eyes of the senior motive power engineers on our study team. However, I first had to locate those files. In the meantime, I happened to have Milwaukee Road figures available, and walked through those in the absence of finding my file on the topic. I was surprised to some extent by what the statistical record showed for Milwaukee Road, reaching similar conclusions, although using a different methodology, to those arrived at by Gibbs & Hill for the industry as a whole. However, the data is freely available, and published by either the railroads themselves in their Annual Reports or by the ICC in Transport Statistics of the United States. Nothing really to massage: there is the fuel used, wages paid, interest paid, and ton-miles generated, plus we know the rates of inflation germane to the conversation. Indeed, the ICC required line item reporting including such things as "Repair costs -- Steam," and "Repair Costs -- other" which makes the identification of such costs quite easy, if you are familiar with the ICC reporting system which I gather you are not, and which is interesting all by itself given the implication of claimed credentials contained in your posts. Having located, subsequently, my research file on the matter, I reprinted portions of H.F. Brown's study, which happened to be an expert opinion on the matter and which happened to be exactly relevant to the question which started the thread. I subsequently recalled another seminal study for Swedish railways on the identical topic, and which gathered considerable attention as well. I now recall several studies which offered objective views of what was generally considered by neutral observers with professional engineering credentials to be a significant mistake in the method and manner of Dieselization on the railways of the United States. No more, but no less. Hopefully I have answered your question which, if you had looked, was implicit in the thread title. Now, who's your expert, what are your numbers, and what's your motive? I do find it remarkable that, after 23 pages, nothwithstanding the intense emotion and semi-hysteria accompanying several remarks, that no one has been able to offer a single study, nor a single figure in support of the method and manner of Dieselization of the railways of the United States, nor even a critique of Brown's methodology of anything more than the usual name-calling cat fights by which self-appointed "railroaders" always seem to end up settling their disputes. Some have even offered that it had to have been a thoroughly studied topic with many studies by the railroads themselves. Twenty three pages should have been plenty of opportunity to offer that proof if, indeed, it existed at all. Best regards, Mchael Sol Reply TomDiehl Member since February 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Sunday, January 22, 2006 10:23 PM How about: The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad provides a good example. From 1945-1957, a 12 year period, the transition from steam to diesel resulted in considerable savings in train operations. During this period, total fuel costs dropped from $23.6 million to $21.2 million. In 1945, fuel costs averaged 18% of all transportation costs. By 1957, this had dropped to 11% of total cost. This continued to drop and hit 8.5% in 1960. The cost of water dropped from $954,000 in 1945 to $147,000 in 1960. These figures are particularly impressive when you factor in inflation. When you add all these totals up, you can see that the diesel was a lifesaver for the railroads at a time when increased efficiency was vital in competing with trucks, automobiles, and airlines. The Pennsylvania Railroad serves as another example. A 1947 study compared the economic performance of the TI and Q2 steam locomotives to 6000 horsepower sets of diesels. (4 1500 hp freight units and 3 2000 hp passenger units. No distinction was made between builders) On the passenger side, a T1 cost $1.67 per mile to operate and a 6000 hp diesel set cost $1.30. For freight trains, a Q2 cost $2.37 per mile and a 6000 hp diesel set cost $1.94. These figures factored in maintenance, fuel, and other related costs, but did not take into account reduced expenses for labor with the elimination of steam helpers, reduced train crews because of multiple unit operation, and fewer trains required by using diesels. A 1951 study, again not distinguishing between builders, put the cost of operating a 1500/1600 hp freight unit at $0.88 per mile, and a 2000 hp passenger unit at $0.73 per mile. As these facts indicate, a railroad could achieve substantial savings in short and long term operating costs by dieselizing as quickly as possible. With the PRR's conservative and "test to death" corporate culture at the time, I have to believe their figures. Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply MichaelSol Member since October 2004 3,190 posts Posted by MichaelSol on Sunday, January 22, 2006 10:28 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl How about: The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad provides a good example. From 1945-1957, a 12 year period, the transition from steam to diesel resulted in considerable savings in train operations. During this period, total fuel costs dropped from $23.6 million to $21.2 million. In 1945, fuel costs averaged 18% of all transportation costs. By 1957, this had dropped to 11% of total cost. This continued to drop and hit 8.5% in 1960. The cost of water dropped from $954,000 in 1945 to $147,000 in 1960. These figures are particularly impressive when you factor in inflation. When you add all these totals up, you can see that the diesel was a lifesaver for the railroads at a time when increased efficiency was vital in competing with trucks, automobiles, and airlines. The Pennsylvania Railroad serves as another example. A 1947 study compared the economic performance of the TI and Q2 steam locomotives to 6000 horsepower sets of diesels. (4 1500 hp freight units and 3 2000 hp passenger units. No distinction was made between builders) On the passenger side, a T1 cost $1.67 per mile to operate and a 6000 hp diesel set cost $1.30. For freight trains, a Q2 cost $2.37 per mile and a 6000 hp diesel set cost $1.94. These figures factored in maintenance, fuel, and other related costs, but did not take into account reduced expenses for labor with the elimination of steam helpers, reduced train crews because of multiple unit operation, and fewer trains required by using diesels. A 1951 study, again not distinguishing between builders, put the cost of operating a 1500/1600 hp freight unit at $0.88 per mile, and a 2000 hp passenger unit at $0.73 per mile. As these facts indicate, a railroad could achieve substantial savings in short and long term operating costs by dieselizing as quickly as possible. With the PRR's conservative and "test to death" corporate culture at the time, I have to believe their figures. Pretty good internet researcher. I saw those same identical quotes a few weeks ago. Are you offering those as your original research? Best regards, Michael Sol Reply Anonymous Member since April 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, January 22, 2006 10:59 PM QUOTE: "Originally posted by edblysard Old Timer, Michael is a lawyer in Montana....he isn’t supposed to say anything factual. Ed Oh my God, that statement is freaking priceless..." You know, I must really be getting old. I should have long ago realized what Ed said. It explains at least 23 pages of this thread, and is, indeed, priceless! Old Timer Reply Edit MichaelSol Member since October 2004 3,190 posts Posted by MichaelSol on Sunday, January 22, 2006 11:34 PM Well, there are finally some "facts' offered, let's look at them. QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl How about: The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad provides a good example. From 1945-1957, a 12 year period, the transition from steam to diesel resulted in considerable savings in train operations. During this period, total fuel costs dropped from $23.6 million to $21.2 million. In 1945, fuel costs averaged 18% of all transportation costs. By 1957, this had dropped to 11% of total cost. This continued to drop and hit 8.5% in 1960. The cost of water dropped from $954,000 in 1945 to $147,000 in 1960. These figures are particularly impressive when you factor in inflation. When you add all these totals up, you can see that the diesel was a lifesaver for the railroads at a time when increased efficiency was vital in competing with trucks, automobiles, and airlines. OK, that says that fuel and water costs declined. Interestingly, the fansite that these were "lifted" from comments that these numbers are "particularly impressive" when you factor in inflation, not realizing that using percentage comparisons does, in fact, already factor in inflation. Apparently neither the railfan nor the poster above understand that. That may generate a sneaking suspicion that this was not a professional study. However, assuming, arguendo, that plagarizing from a railfan website offers a proper means of discussing technical and economic issues, how does the information offered above differ in substance from Brown: QUOTE: "Fuel costs "Diesels in road service have an average thermal efficiency of about 26 per cent, compared with 6 per cent for steam. Although diesel oil is a higher cost fuel, the higher thermal efficiency of the diesel engine makes it lower in cost than coal for the same work performed. The cost of diesel fuel used in road service, adjusted for ratio of efficiencies has averaged 79.2 per cent of coal costs on a B.t.u. basis during the past ten years. "The cost of fuel for all road locomotives was $366.7 million in 1957, exclusive of $23.2 million for electric power. Diesels were 88 per cent of total road power, using this proportion of the fuel cost, which is $323 million. This is 79.2 per cent of the cost of coal for equivalent service, which would have been $408 million, making the total fuel bill $451.7 million for equivalent steam operation. "In yard service, with lower load factors and higher stand-by losses, the ratio of efficiencies is approximately 15 per cent for diesel and 1.5 per cent for steam, or ten to one. Diesel fuel costs, adjusted for ratio of efficiencies in yard service, have averaged 34.3 per cent of the cost of equivalent coal on a B.t.u. basis during the past 10 years. "Diesel fuel cost $40.5 million for yard operation in 1957. This is 34.3 per cent of the cost of $118 million for coal for the same service with steam locomotives. Diesel operation was 95 per cent of the total yard operation. The total fuel and power bill was $43.3 million in 1957. With equivalent steam operation, this would have been $121.4 million."p. 271. "Water Costs "There can be no question that the diesel is saving almost the entire cost of water. Assuming the cost of $5.3 million in 1957 was for the 1,942 steam locomotives still in road service, the cost of water for 11,800 steam, locomotives would be $5.3 times the ratio of 11,800 to 1,942 or $32.3 million. "In yard service, there were 455 steam locomotives still in service in 1957 and the water cost was $1.1 million. Had all the 8227 yard diesels been replaced with steam, the water cost would have been $1.1 times the ratio of 8227 to 455, or $19.8 million." Brown says that fuel and water costs declined. Does it matter to the honest reader that Brown discussed those specific issues, and reached similar conclusions, but that Brown looked at other relevant factors as well? Or is it relevant that these statements would be presented as the "proof" as claimed, but only by ignoring the other relevant issues examined by Brown? TomDiehl has offered plagarized comments from a fan website and attempts to suggest that it represents a contrary conclusion, even though the specific observations are virtually identical to Brown's on the points discussed. Only the conclusions are different, and are different only by ignoring the additional relevant data, pointedly ignoring maintenance costs, lubricant costs, financing costs, crew costs, and other data examined by Brown. This is proof of what? That somebody didn't understand what they posted, or that they didn't understand what Brown said? It is the picture of the whole that is useful, but that is what TomDiehl has artfully avoided by his plagarized, carefully limited, comments which nonetheless led him, or someone he failed to identify, to broad and breathless conclusions about being a "lifesaver" for the industry. And to OldTimer, personal slurs are apparently just your routine mode of communication, and you've used up nearly a third of these pages rambling on about nothing. Why not cut to the chase: do you actually have any substantiating data, if so, let's hear it, if not, stop cluttering a thread about Steam vs. Diesel by continuing complaints that it keeps discussing Steam vs. Diesel. Best regards, Michael Sol Reply MichaelSol Member since October 2004 3,190 posts Posted by MichaelSol on Monday, January 23, 2006 7:28 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb There is nothing emotional about the statistical evidence that 0% of railroads have come to the same conclusion as you. What "facts" do you need to see.The "historical truths" of the market place are self evident!!! Judging by the record of ROI's during and after Dieselization, I think the statistical record quite clearly shows that 100% of long haul railroads "came to the same conclusion" as Brown, albeit by the painful truth of financial results as represented by the records compiled by the railroads themselves. Best regards, Michael Sol Reply Bergie Member since January 2001 From: US 1,431 posts Posted by Bergie on Monday, January 23, 2006 8:51 AM Attention GP40-2 Please e-mail me at editor@trains.com . . . I tried to contact you via the e-mail address in your profile but it bounced (please update your profile too). Thanks, Erik Erik Bergstrom Reply Bergie Member since January 2001 From: US 1,431 posts Posted by Bergie on Monday, January 23, 2006 9:05 AM One more thing... (and not just directed at one individual) Just because you may have a difference of opinion (especially in a topic like this) doesn't give you the right to start with the verbal jabs. The popularity of this forum (in my opinion) is built upon the respect you guys have for one another. It's better to agree to disagree than to start insulting each other. Thanks, Erik Erik Bergstrom Reply TomDiehl Member since February 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Monday, January 23, 2006 10:01 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl How about: The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad provides a good example. From 1945-1957, a 12 year period, the transition from steam to diesel resulted in considerable savings in train operations. During this period, total fuel costs dropped from $23.6 million to $21.2 million. In 1945, fuel costs averaged 18% of all transportation costs. By 1957, this had dropped to 11% of total cost. This continued to drop and hit 8.5% in 1960. The cost of water dropped from $954,000 in 1945 to $147,000 in 1960. These figures are particularly impressive when you factor in inflation. When you add all these totals up, you can see that the diesel was a lifesaver for the railroads at a time when increased efficiency was vital in competing with trucks, automobiles, and airlines. The Pennsylvania Railroad serves as another example. A 1947 study compared the economic performance of the TI and Q2 steam locomotives to 6000 horsepower sets of diesels. (4 1500 hp freight units and 3 2000 hp passenger units. No distinction was made between builders) On the passenger side, a T1 cost $1.67 per mile to operate and a 6000 hp diesel set cost $1.30. For freight trains, a Q2 cost $2.37 per mile and a 6000 hp diesel set cost $1.94. These figures factored in maintenance, fuel, and other related costs, but did not take into account reduced expenses for labor with the elimination of steam helpers, reduced train crews because of multiple unit operation, and fewer trains required by using diesels. A 1951 study, again not distinguishing between builders, put the cost of operating a 1500/1600 hp freight unit at $0.88 per mile, and a 2000 hp passenger unit at $0.73 per mile. As these facts indicate, a railroad could achieve substantial savings in short and long term operating costs by dieselizing as quickly as possible. With the PRR's conservative and "test to death" corporate culture at the time, I have to believe their figures. Pretty good internet researcher. I saw those same identical quotes a few weeks ago. Are you offering those as your original research? Best regards, Michael Sol No. Since somebody above was "still waiting for statistical refuting" of the thesis, I need to repeat some things. He must be a bit slow. Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply TomDiehl Member since February 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Monday, January 23, 2006 10:20 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol Well, there are finally some "facts' offered, let's look at them. QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl How about: The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad provides a good example. From 1945-1957, a 12 year period, the transition from steam to diesel resulted in considerable savings in train operations. During this period, total fuel costs dropped from $23.6 million to $21.2 million. In 1945, fuel costs averaged 18% of all transportation costs. By 1957, this had dropped to 11% of total cost. This continued to drop and hit 8.5% in 1960. The cost of water dropped from $954,000 in 1945 to $147,000 in 1960. These figures are particularly impressive when you factor in inflation. When you add all these totals up, you can see that the diesel was a lifesaver for the railroads at a time when increased efficiency was vital in competing with trucks, automobiles, and airlines. OK, that says that fuel and water costs declined. Interestingly, the fansite that these were "lifted" from comments that these numbers are "particularly impressive" when you factor in inflation, not realizing that using percentage comparisons does, in fact, already factor in inflation. Apparently neither the railfan nor the poster above understand that. That may generate a sneaking suspicion that this was not a professional study. However, assuming, arguendo, that plagarizing from a railfan website offers a proper means of discussing technical and economic issues, how does the information offered above differ in substance from Brown: QUOTE: "Fuel costs "Diesels in road service have an average thermal efficiency of about 26 per cent, compared with 6 per cent for steam. Although diesel oil is a higher cost fuel, the higher thermal efficiency of the diesel engine makes it lower in cost than coal for the same work performed. The cost of diesel fuel used in road service, adjusted for ratio of efficiencies has averaged 79.2 per cent of coal costs on a B.t.u. basis during the past ten years. "The cost of fuel for all road locomotives was $366.7 million in 1957, exclusive of $23.2 million for electric power. Diesels were 88 per cent of total road power, using this proportion of the fuel cost, which is $323 million. This is 79.2 per cent of the cost of coal for equivalent service, which would have been $408 million, making the total fuel bill $451.7 million for equivalent steam operation. "In yard service, with lower load factors and higher stand-by losses, the ratio of efficiencies is approximately 15 per cent for diesel and 1.5 per cent for steam, or ten to one. Diesel fuel costs, adjusted for ratio of efficiencies in yard service, have averaged 34.3 per cent of the cost of equivalent coal on a B.t.u. basis during the past 10 years. "Diesel fuel cost $40.5 million for yard operation in 1957. This is 34.3 per cent of the cost of $118 million for coal for the same service with steam locomotives. Diesel operation was 95 per cent of the total yard operation. The total fuel and power bill was $43.3 million in 1957. With equivalent steam operation, this would have been $121.4 million."p. 271. "Water Costs "There can be no question that the diesel is saving almost the entire cost of water. Assuming the cost of $5.3 million in 1957 was for the 1,942 steam locomotives still in road service, the cost of water for 11,800 steam, locomotives would be $5.3 times the ratio of 11,800 to 1,942 or $32.3 million. "In yard service, there were 455 steam locomotives still in service in 1957 and the water cost was $1.1 million. Had all the 8227 yard diesels been replaced with steam, the water cost would have been $1.1 times the ratio of 8227 to 455, or $19.8 million." Brown says that fuel and water costs declined. Does it matter to the honest reader that Brown discussed those specific issues, and reached similar conclusions, but that Brown looked at other relevant factors as well? Or is it relevant that these statements would be presented as the "proof" as claimed, but only by ignoring the other relevant issues examined by Brown? TomDiehl has offered plagarized comments from a fan website and attempts to suggest that it represents a contrary conclusion, even though the specific observations are virtually identical to Brown's on the points discussed. Only the conclusions are different, and are different only by ignoring the additional relevant data, pointedly ignoring maintenance costs, lubricant costs, financing costs, crew costs, and other data examined by Brown. This is proof of what? That somebody didn't understand what they posted, or that they didn't understand what Brown said? It is the picture of the whole that is useful, but that is what TomDiehl has artfully avoided by his plagarized, carefully limited, comments which nonetheless led him, or someone he failed to identify, to broad and breathless conclusions about being a "lifesaver" for the industry. And to OldTimer, personal slurs are apparently just your routine mode of communication, and you've used up nearly a third of these pages rambling on about nothing. Why not cut to the chase: do you actually have any substantiating data, if so, let's hear it, if not, stop cluttering a thread about Steam vs. Diesel by continuing complaints that it keeps discussing Steam vs. Diesel. Best regards, Michael Sol And you didn't "plagarize" from Brown? As I said above, anything that disagrees with the almighty Oz, I mean Brown, must be wrong and has no meaning because it doesn't agree with his tunnel-visioned views. The point is after 23 pages of "briefs" that flip back and forth about which factors were savings and which cost more is simply meant to confuse the issue. The bottom line is that all railroads in the world have abandoned the steam locomotive for either electric or diesel-electric. China, being the most recent, has plenty of domestic coal, had their own steam production facilities, and a full infrastructure to support steam operations. One or two men claiming that they can interpret statistics to prove the decisions of hundreds of men, over a period of 50+ years, were wrong, sounds at best, arrogant on their part. Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply MichaelSol Member since October 2004 3,190 posts Posted by MichaelSol on Monday, January 23, 2006 11:00 AM Plagarism * Definition: When you use another person's ideas or phrasing without giving that person credit, you plagarize his or her work. Plagarism usually falls into one of two categories: 1) failing to reference quotations or borrowed ideas, or 2) failing to put borrowed language in quotation marks. QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl And you didn't "plagarize" from Brown? No. Best regards, Michael Sol Reply MichaelSol Member since October 2004 3,190 posts Posted by MichaelSol on Monday, January 23, 2006 12:24 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl The bottom line is that all railroads in the world have abandoned the steam locomotive for either electric or diesel-electric. China, being the most recent, has plenty of domestic coal, had their own steam production facilities, and a full infrastructure to support steam operations. One or two men claiming that they can interpret statistics to prove the decisions of hundreds of men, over a period of 50+ years, were wrong, sounds at best, arrogant on their part. Well, there is a little arrogance in the air, for sure as I gather from your remarks that this isn't an area you have anything in particular to offer, but you do have the confidence to challenge a professional engineer on his own turf without any apparent credentials, experience or training to do so. However, since I am apparently the only person who claims not to have enough information to discuss the railways in China, it is interesting to see the TomDiehl lecture on the railways of China. Well, a little macroeconomic discussion is in order on the difference between American railways and government owned railways, including those in China. Government owned railways, with few exceptions, are not required to generate a rate of return. In the case of Dieselization of American railways, the rate of return is paramount. When the cost of capital was at 1%, Dieselization was justifiable. At 3%, it became problematic at the rate that it was being undertaken. At 5%, it was unsustainable. At 14%, it compelled either nationalization or the complete structural overhaul of the rail industry. No such criteria applies as far as I know to the railways of China (India, Botswanna, Zambia, et; al.). Cost of operations are paramount. Under the conditions of the 1950s, Dieselization generated an operating cost advantage in the United States. Whether that is true in China today, 50 years later under different economic and operating conditions I do not know. TomDiehl implies he does. I do know that state industries there do not use GAAP, and that, in common with state enterprises elsewhere, there is no "cost of capital." The owner, the State, generates income through taxation as well as services. In that case, operating expenses are important, often inversely depending on political needs, etc,. and although even those considerations frequently yield to "national priorities" and even "national perception." Had there been no "cost of capital" Dieselization of American railways would have been a slam dunk. I am surprised, based on the Brown study, that Dieselization of Chinese railways took so long. It should have occured there much more rapidly. The fact that it did not occur very rapidly at all is suggestive to me that the Chinese experience is significantly different than the American railway experience; If American railways had interest free government loans, they would have Dieselized as fast as possible., or at least should have. However, because American railways operate by a different set of rules, it was not, in fact, a "slam dunk" but to the contrary. In China, assuming that there exists a cost/efficiency benefit that still favors oil over coal similar to that which existed in the United States in the 1950s, Brown's study says nothing that would contradict the idea that, if there is no cost of capital, that Dieselization would not be the way to go on a large system like that. It would be true everywhere when the installation is independent of that capital cost. The fact that this happened everywhere where the installation was 1) government controlled, or 2) subsidized by foreign development aid, says almost nothing about the experience of American railways because, in fact, those experiences are entirely different from the otherwise virtually unanimous government operation of railways during the time period in question around the world. Whether "no-cost-of-capital" projects somewhere else is relevant to American railway practice might more usefully be put to a closer test. As opposed to third world countries, where economic decisions are perhaps not held up as a shining example of what American railways should or should not do, those countries which did have the expertise, the financial controls, and the political will to make decisions based on more economic grounds, including consideration of cost of capital as a theoretical benchmark, by and large relegated Dieselization to the area where Brown found it most useful: yard work and branch line work. Most modern railway installations installed based upon more rigorous economic standards than afforded to the third world countries that fully dieselized, more typically electrified. And from an economic perspective, steam and electrification had more in common with each other than either did with diesel. What TomDiehl, and others, are really suggesting is that the railways of the United States made a decision as to the extent and speed of Dieselization based on considerations similar to those utilized by government railways around the world and that this justifes the US experience. The fact that nearly all other railways could make that decision, with consideration only for operating savings but without regard to the cost of capital, hardly justifies in any context an American railway taking the same approach. Government railways could do that, and did. American railways could not. And did anyway. Best regards, Michael Sol Reply CSSHEGEWISCH Member since March 2016 From: Burbank IL (near Clearing) 13,540 posts Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Monday, January 23, 2006 12:39 PM While Michael Sol presents an impressive amount of data and conclusions, I would agree with others and submit that he would be better served by presenting his hypothesis to a business or professional journal where it could be better analyzed and critiqued than is possible by the admitted amateurs on these forums. The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul Reply TomDiehl Member since February 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Monday, January 23, 2006 3:11 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol Plagarism * Definition: When you use another person's ideas or phrasing without giving that person credit, you plagarize his or her work. Plagarism usually falls into one of two categories: 1) failing to reference quotations or borrowed ideas, or 2) failing to put borrowed language in quotation marks. QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl And you didn't "plagarize" from Brown? So I guess since the first line of each paragraph credits a study done by each the Pennsylvania and Baltimore and Ohio Railroads, they didn't receive credit? No. Best regards, Michael Sol Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply « First«13141516171819»Last » Join our Community! Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account. Login » Register » Search the Community Newsletter Sign-Up By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy SUBSCRIBE TODAY THE magazine of railroading MAGAZINE NEWS RAILROADS BLOGS & FORUMS PHOTOS & VIDEOS LOCOMOTIVES SHOP TRAINS FREE EMAIL NEWSLETTER Get our weekly newsletter delivered to your inbox Sign up CONNECT WITH US More great sites from Kalmbach Media Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy