I have always been a huge diesel fan but really enjoy learning about the steam era. This has been an enlightening thread, very informative. Well done all
Don
Thanks and thanks to every one who posted
BRAKIE yougottawanta I had always been told that diesal overtook steam because of the quick turn around, cheaper cost etc...That from my recent reading is not the complete picture. The true story is railroads found they could save billions by killing off steam with diesels. Here's what they saw:thousands of steam related jobs could be eliminated,hundreds of roundhouses and dozenss of back shops could be closed and they eye the elimination of thousands of fireman jobs as a bonus. Railroads embraced the diesel and only WWII stopped the railroads from dieselizing sooner. The reason is simple steam was a high maintenance locomotive that self destruct every time those drivers rolled down the track plus a steam engine pounded the rails. BTW.One thing that got ALCO in trouble is they was still thinking steam when railroads was clearly embracing diesels.
yougottawanta I had always been told that diesal overtook steam because of the quick turn around, cheaper cost etc...That from my recent reading is not the complete picture.
The true story is railroads found they could save billions by killing off steam with diesels.
Here's what they saw:thousands of steam related jobs could be eliminated,hundreds of roundhouses and dozenss of back shops could be closed and they eye the elimination of thousands of fireman jobs as a bonus.
Railroads embraced the diesel and only WWII stopped the railroads from dieselizing sooner.
The reason is simple steam was a high maintenance locomotive that self destruct every time those drivers rolled down the track plus a steam engine pounded the rails.
BTW.One thing that got ALCO in trouble is they was still thinking steam when railroads was clearly embracing diesels.
Larry nailed it, its always about the financials when it comes to a business.
"The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination."-Albert Einstein
http://gearedsteam.blogspot.com/
ACYBut that was 1941 when nobody had dieselized completely yet.
So true, Tom. You make some very good observations in your post. I just wanted to comment that there certainly were many suppliers to the railroad industry and the science of steam locomotive manufacture was one with a broad field of manufacturers all competing to get the attention of the Chief Mechanical Officer and the Road Foreman of Engines.
You make a valid point that WWII changed everything! Manufacturing processes, mass production (on a scale never before seen) and refinements in internal combustion engines brought on post-war changes on the railroad, and in every industry, that were unheard of until then.
I feel that there were many factors at play in this changeover from steam to diesel and some may have had more of an effect than others.
The boardroom is where these decisions take place and in the early years of railroading the boards were made up mostly of died-in-the-wool railroaders and engineering men who came up in the ranks of the company. Seems to me that not long after the War, the directors began to be culled from law schools, Wall Street and big banks. No romantic sympathy for steam from these guys. We're here to run a business and if we can move a ton of freight for 3¢ instead of 5¢ and the diesel can make that happen... so be it.
I believe a few railroads in the eastern coal regions held on to steam a bit longer, not wanting to step on the toes of those very lucrative coal customers but, in the end, we know how this played out.
Of course we have the luxury of looking back on these events knowing full well what the outcome was but for the railroad managers — who tended to be a stubborn bunch not too readily swayed by new, somewhat unproven, technology — didn't have a crystal ball and their decisions would have had serious consequences IF their gamble on the diesel would have proven wrong. I'm sure this thought had crossed the minds of at least a few purchasing agents.
Lots of interesting discussion here! Thanks to everyone who has chimed in.
Ed
I have always been a huge diesel fan but really enjoy learning about the steam era. This has been an enlightening thread, very informative. Well done all!
Happy modeling!
Don.
"Ladies and gentlemen, I have some good news and some bad news. The bad news is that both engines have failed, and we will be stuck here for some time. The good news is that you decided to take the train and not fly."
tomikawaTTWhen some hero finally re-ran the numbers with an E6a-b-a combination the Niagara won hands down.
Thanks for the info. Had no idea that happened. Interesting.
Mike
I got an extensive tour of the back shop at Steamtown, not to long ago. A lot of work required on steamers.
Rich
If you ever fall over in public, pick yourself up and say “sorry it’s been a while since I inhabited a body.” And just walk away.
My Layout Photos- http://s1293.photobucket.com/user/ajwarshal/library/
That's very true, Ed. But that was 1941 when nobody had dieselized completely yet. After the War, the Monon and NYO&W dieselized as fast as they could in order to cut operating costs. The larger roads wanted to follow suit, but had too many steam locos and facilities to replace quickly. B&O wanted FT's in WWII, but had to buy EM-1's because of WPB restrictions, and wasn't able to afford full dieselization till 1958. Erie and Southern locomotive development stopped by 1930. They both knew they needed to replace their aging steam fleets with SOMETHING, and they knew the steam locomotive wasn't going to be developed much beyond its 1950 level of development. Even if those roads had bought efficient and modern mainline steam engines, they knew that then-current technology wasn't likely to produce a steam locomotive that would be efficient in the yards or branches or on the local freights. NYC's Niagaras were great, but NYC had lots of lines where an H-5 Mikado made more sense than a 4-8-4. So those roads would have been forced to have two locomotive fleets: steam on the mainline and smaller diesels for everything else. No way that could be efficient. The companies that produced parts and supplies to support steam knew that the future demanded change, so they wisely began to phase out and reduce production of products that supported that technology. After the early 1950's, railroads that stuck with steam (NKP, N&W, IC) knew they had to adjust to these realities. FWIW, I miss steam too.
Tom
Steam was way too inefficient. Too much heat loss for one thing
Diesel engine efficiency increased over time and was much better.
Old timers forget, everything evolves.
When was the last time you saw a steam operated car on the road? Maybe Jay Leno's steam operated car. lol
BroadwayLionNope. There were no small part manufacturers.
I would have to politely disagree with you there, LION
I just paged through the 1941 Locomotive Builders Cyclopedia and there was an index of over 150 locomotive parts suppliers in the back of the book.
Everything from staybolts to seatboxes, superheater headers to headlights there was a manufacturer, and a few competitors, to supply these parts.
Yes, the bigger roads did much of their own foundry and machine work. Altoona bult hundreds strike that: thousands of locomotives from the ground up.
But, if you were so inclined, you could buy complete boilers, (Vulcan Iron Works); frames, (Buckeye Steel Castings or Commonwealth); Driving wheels, boxes, running grar, (General Steel Castings, Franklin, Standard Steel Works) there were five manufacturers to choose from for pilot beams and front couplers.
Add to this partial list there were manufacturers for injectors, stokers, reverse gear, drawbars, boiler lagging, whistles, air pumps, speed recorders, valve pilot, low water alarms, thermic siphons, gauges and water glasses, flues, feed water heaters... the list goes on.
Prime Manufacturing Co. made cab windows and the little frames that the ICC inspection report was kept in.
I'm just pointing out that there were literally hundreds of manufacturers and you could "nearly" build a steam locomotive from a catalog of parts from outside manufacturers.
Anyone who is a student of the steam locomotive should avail themselves of at least one copy of a Simmons-Boardman Locomotive Cyclopedia. I have the 1941 edition which also covers early Diesels and has some beautiful color renderings of those classic paint schemes!
Happy railroading! Ed
Water Level RouteSteam would not have lasted much longer. The NYC's Niagaras, which were famously efficient, were pitted in a series of trials against diesels and narrowly lost. Combine that with the realization that diesel technology would improve, and correspondingly improve their efficiency numbers, and it was all over for steam.
Interesting that you picked that example, since it illustrates the NYC's tendency to overestimate diesel capability. They compared one 6000 to two E units (total 4000 hp.) It was shortly discovered that three E units were needed where a single 4-8-4 would do. (Two Es were roughly the equivalent of a J3.) When some hero finally re-ran the numbers with an E6a-b-a combination the Niagara won hands down. By that time the last Niagara had become frames for Detroit automotive products.
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September 1964)
I follow you dti406 but the records I've seen and read about show that in many cases the very last steam locos in operation were the older workhorse 2-8-0s and 2-8-2s. It was so on the New York Central and a number of other roads. And some were switchers too (NKP). I was told by those in the know that the reason for this was the older engines were simplier, cheaper and easier to get a few more miles out of while the super power engines had already been relegated to the dead line. On the Wabash, the last steam in operation were 1899 built 2-6-0s, (1955) but that was because of bridge weight restrictions that even the lightest diesels were limited to.
Victor A. Baird
Fort Wayne, Indiana
The newer steam Super Power engines could have lasted a bit longer, but the major problem was the worn out local engines like 2-8-0's and 2-8-2's. They had to be replaced and they were not to be replaced in steam the GP7's and RS-3's were their replacements due to local switching. And the railroads did not want both steam and diesels on the same divisions with duplicate servicing costs.
But the main reason steam was replaced is tax. Locomotives were depreciated by law for 40 years. None of the first diesels were robust enough to last for 40 years like steam locomotives were. Truman had the IRS change the life on locomotives to 15 years per railroad requests, which is why you see them being replaced on a 15 year schedule, especially the ones that were not very well liked.
Rick J
Rule 1: This is my railroad.
Rule 2: I make the rules.
Rule 3: Illuminating discussion of prototype history, equipment and operating practices is always welcome, but in the event of visitor-perceived anacronisms, detail descrepancies or operating errors, consult RULE 1!
Nope. There were no small part manufacturers. Every thing was custom built. If you needed a part, you had to back to a machine shop and make one.
Diesels introduced sameness and standard parts, because they were eaiser to make that way. Some steam locomotives were in serial production, but never enough to support a small parts industry.
LION had an old printing press, and when a part was damaged, him had to find a machine shop to make a new part.
ROAR
The Route of the Broadway Lion The Largest Subway Layout in North Dakota.
Here there be cats. LIONS with CAMERAS
Actually, there's some factual evidence that coal strikes near the end of steam hastened steam's demise at least on die hard roads like the NKP. The diesels were already here but steam might have lasted at least to a limited extent another year or two if that might not have happened. There are some very late examples of steamers pulled out of storage for a bumper crop or other upswing in traffic. But the coal strikes pretty much killed that.
Technology rolls on, and economics is often it's hand maiden, as others have noted with respect to reduced labor forces, smaller capital costs with longer operating lifetimes for diesels, etc.
But what goes around, sometimes returns in suprisingly familiar form- as steam locomotives were dying, steam was the motive force for the then- new technology of nuclear ship propulsion. The vinyl record became an antique as laser-read data discs replaced it (for a few years) as a means to listen to music, etc. The water cannon that was used in surface mining reappeared as a high tech (much more refined) method for cutting materials without tool contact.
Time marches on and nothing can stand in its way, neither nature nor man.
Cedarwoodron
Much as I admire steam, and I do have good memories of it in my childhood, they were just too expensive to keep running. Their availability was low enough that sometimes a single diesel could replace several steamers. Imagine driving a car that needed the radiator filled every 60-100 miles and every hundred fifty miles or so needed an oil change, lube job, tire rotation, tune up and alignment. Newer steamers were much better of course, but they were often restricted as to where they could run. Luckily, it's not too drastic in scale models, though even then steam is more hassle than diesel.
In a video tape about the Union Pacific shops in Cheyenne, Wyoming, then steam engineer Steve Lee shows some pictures of the area. He states that in the days of steam, close to 5,000 people worked at Cheyenne per shift just to maintain the steam fleet.
After full dieselization fewer than 200-250 employees can maintain the equivalent horsepower.
Right after WWII steam got hit with the perfect storm:
Plus the fact that the locomotives were wearing out. They were expensive to maintain and getting more expensive. Plus, there were all those diesel-qualified machinist's mates looking for jobs, none of whom had any great loyalty to the entrenched unions...
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
yougottawanta Just a curious what if post. I had always been told that diesal overtook steam because of the quick turn around, cheaper cost etc...That from my recent reading is not the complete picture. Another factor is that many or all of the steam parts manufacture went out of buisness or switched to diesal manufacturing leaving the hold outs for steam with out many of the small parts needed to build a steam engine. SO the question is how much longer do you think the steam engines would have run if the small parts manufactures would have stayed in buisness ? Five more years ? Ten years ? Something else ? Look forward to your comments YGW
Just a curious what if post.
I had always been told that diesal overtook steam because of the quick turn around, cheaper cost etc...That from my recent reading is not the complete picture. Another factor is that many or all of the steam parts manufacture went out of buisness or switched to diesal manufacturing leaving the hold outs for steam with out many of the small parts needed to build a steam engine.
SO the question is how much longer do you think the steam engines would have run if the small parts manufactures would have stayed in buisness ? Five more years ? Ten years ? Something else ?
Look forward to your comments
YGW
Five years maybe, but not any longer by my thinking. It was over for steam and even today, almost all parts can be made in the back shops. It does cost a lot of money to have special parts made and that added to the cost of steam maintenance.
Steam was one of the greatest machines made by men in my opinion, but if you ever went to a roundhouse or the back shops, you would realize the time it took to keep them on the road. I spent a lot of time around roundhouses in Southern Illinois watching steam being repaired at the end of each run. The backshops were 24 hours a day in many places the number of men working was simply amazing. Good jobs but each diesel that came on line ended all of the work and maintenance.
Parts began to get hard to get in the mid fifties since only a few roads were still maintaining steam, but the real reason they were replaced had to do with the total maintenance cost and reliability to be on the road earning money for the railroads. I was sad to see the Illinois Central finally give up and start to purchase diesels in large numbers and it took two or three geeps to equal on of the 2500 or 2600 series 4-8-2 mountain locos.
The last picture was taken in 1954 also and the IC started to use two and three extra canteen water cars since many areas in Illinois had very little water that summer. Smoke also became a big issue in large cities like LA which had major problems with smog from cars and trains.
This particular train called the Banana train usually ran 70mph or more on its way to Chicago. This is one of my pacing shots in 1954.
Roundhouse at Bluford, Illinois
The time spent in the roundhouse was much of the day compared to the time on the road. I know the N&W certainly kept their steam on the road more than others, but the maintenance costs were always high on steam. In the southwest portios of the USA, steam was eliminated sooner than the midwest due to poor water conditions and lack of water. The diesels did not need that H2o every 100 miles and that certainly was a selling point.
Dry summer in Illinois caused lakes to be low on water in many areas including my area I lived near Effingham Illinois. The PRR could not get water there and by early summer, diesels took over the St. Louis main line for good.
It's interesting to note that China kept steam going for many years after the U.S. But they had the "adavantage" of very cheap labor and their own coal. Eventually, they gave it up as well.
Paul
BRAKIEOnly because that Y was supped up to out perform those F units-there was a article in Trains Magazine covering that "test".
A post from the Trains forum:
feltonhillThe steam vs. diesel tests on N&W were run in 1952. N&W did not modify either 1238 or 1297 for the tests. This story appeared in Nov 1991 Trains, contained errors of fact, and lacked supporting evidence. It was apparent that the author had not done adequate research on locomotive performance capapabilities on both N&W and on other roads, nor did he have adequate understanding of N&W's physical plant or operations at the time. It rebutted in part by a participant in the tests in the May 1992 issue of Trains. Full rebuttals appeared in N&WHS magazine, The Arrow in the May/June 1994 and Jan/Feb 1998 issues. Both available as back issues AFAIK. It' a good idea to read all four of these sources before arriving at a conclusion.
Another interesting tidbit... there was an agreement between the Southern and the N&W to exchange maintenance cost records for two 2-unit Southern E6's vs two N&W J-class 4-8-4's and two 4-unit Southern FT's vs two N&W class A 2-6-6-4's. The N&W Historical Society obtained the original files on the test that was conducted from Nov. 1945 through March 1947. They did an article on it in the September/October 2004 issue of The Arrow (NWHS Magazine).
I have the right to remain silent. By posting here I have given up that right and accept that anything I say can and will be used as evidence to critique me.
SP&S modeler, 1960's give or take a decade or two for some equipment.
http://www.youtube.com/user/SGTDUPREY?feature=guide
Gary DuPrey
N scale model railroader
I believe there was some financial incentive to purchase diesels by EMD and ALCO. Apart from the foreseen, but not realized, savings in crew costs, diesels were able to be added as managed units remotely controlled for the weight of the consists, and the diesels were sold cheaply initially to get the market rolling. They were also less costly in fuel and infrastructure costs and maintenance.
In America, the main steam locomotive builders (Alco, Lima and Baldwin) often built designs that the railroads themselves designed. They were simply contracted out to build them. A railroad's backshops could construct or maintain any parts the steam locomotives needed. N&W, for example, built a majority of their locomotives in-house. The only thing they could not make is some of the appliances such as feedwater heaters that were only needed on new steam locomotives, which were no longer constructed after the early '50s. Parts supply did not impact the demise of steam, except for the poor economics of the shops required to manufacture the parts.
andrechapelon N&W tested 4 unit F7's against its latest Y's and came to the conclusion that for its purposes, the Y was superior.
Only because that Y was supped up to out perform those F units-there was a article in Trains Magazine covering that "test".
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"