This past month I was able to buy a collection of N&W books. While reading the authers of the different books made some statements that I wanted to get some feed back on. The statements are as follows :
One reason for the demise of steam is that it "would have happend sooner but for the fact that the Navy needed the diesal engines for the Navies Submarines" . Implying that they had to stick with steam because there were not enopugh diesal engines
Reason number two- When the majority of the steam RR switched the manufactures of the steam compenents went out of buisness or switched so that the RR like N&W that wanted to stay in steam could not because the parts they didnt manufacture were no longer available
Reason number 3 : Diesal and Steam at least on the N&W were comparable in cost to run EXCEPT for the maintenance personnel required and this alone made steam more expensive. - What happened to all of the RR maintenace personnel ? Were they laid off ? Retired ? Transfered into other RR duties.
Please keep comments positive.
Thanks
YGW
First one I never heard before. Two, not true. Three, yes there were some routes were this was true but most routes were cheaper in the long run for diesels. It was not just the costs of yard things but with steam you needed to maintain water stations every so often along with fuel as the diesels could carry more and more fuel as they advanced, eliminating a lot of fueling stations.
I am not sure whether the change to Diesel locomotives would have happened sooner. It may be true that the Navy´s need for Diesel engines was huge in the early 1940´s, but certainly not for the rather small engines which powered locos.
I think that Dieselization was actually sped up by the war effort and the connected extraordinary wear and tear on all of the railroad equipment, requiring the railroads to replace a lot earlier than under peace time circumstances.
1. During WW2, diesel motors were in effect 'rationed' by the federal War Production Board. Diesel motors were used in many Navy ships, landing craft, subs, etc. This rationing meant that many railroads that had ordered EMD FTs or Alco RS-1s couldn't get them, and had to buy new steam engines instead. Otherwise, full dieselization might have happened sooner.
2. It's possible this could have had an effect, but railroads generally designed engines and had builders build them to that design, so some railroads had identical engines where some were built by Alco and some by Lima or Baldwin. It's not like diesels, where if a builder went out of business it became impossible to buy replacement parts. Also, there were many steam parts were made by third parties like Coffin feedwater heaters etc., so should have still been available, plus N&W and some other railroads could build their own engines anyway.
3. New York Central bought new E-7 passenger diesels and 4-8-4 passenger steam engines during 1945. Their tests showed that the engines were very comparable in cost, pulling power, etc. IF the steam engines were given considerable maintenance. The diesels didn't need that level of maintenance, so cost less to run.
Unfortunately, many steam men like boilermakers etc. were simply laid off when steam ended. No doubt some were able to transition into other jobs, but much of the cost savings of diesels was the result of the need for fewer maintenance and repair men.
yougottawantaReason number two- When the majority of the steam RR switched the manufactures of the steam compenents went out of buisness or switched so that the RR like N&W that wanted to stay in steam could not because the parts they didnt manufacture were no longer available
I've read this about the N&W's decision several times.
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.
Soon after I joined the Trains.com family of forums, say late January or so of 2004, I encountered a long, heated, quite contentious, and highly informative thread in the trains general discussion forum next door.
Steam was getting expensive to maintain and to run, and trucks were more common and permitted the first of what has come to be known as 'instant gratification' because what people wanted came by much more quickly via road transport (and they were ready to pay the extra cost for the rush of having exciting new things come to them quickly). More people bought cars in the booming post-war economy, and Dwight Eisenhower had what was then a super-highway network built at the same time that trucks and cars could use so readily. The trains couldn't wait to give up passenger service, always a problem for them.
What I found very compelling in this discussion was what one very informed person mentioned...the diesel manufacturers offered heady incentives to their prospective clients who were demuring...sitting on the fence. The diesel manufacturers made a pitch that appealed greatly to rails facing a tough bottom line when traffic of all kinds was in rapid decline; buy our diesels and see immediate benefits, including a sweet deal on the price and on maintenance packages/parts. Once the bean counters began to make highly persuasive arguments to their CEOs about how much the companies were about to save on steam costs, it was literally a no brainer. Anyone who is a rail fan who has read a single book on the subject of steam scrapping, the kind where the cutters' torches went to work, knows that successful businesses are not the least bit sentimental about 'stuff'. Literally hundreds of young steam locomotives were left cool on the scrap lines as soon as the first diesels were delivered, and the management never looked back.
Déjà Vu?
http://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/88/t/248641.aspx
Still, an interesting topic but the reasons are so manifold that entire books have been written covering the subject.
Nearly every industry has a story relating to increasing productivity while reducing costs.
Regards, Ed
During World War II, there were railroads that had already decided to commit to dieselization, but had their plans deferred by the needs of the war. For example, B&O wanted to buy FT's, but was only allocated 24 units and was forced to buy 30 EM-1 2-8-8-4's in addition. Those EM-1's were magnificent engines, but it is naive to think they would have been built at all if FT's had been available. Diesel prime movers from EMD and Fairbanks Morse were being used in U.S. Navy fleet submarines and other rather small ships, and would have been available for railroad use if not for the war. Santa Fe suffered from poor water in many parts of its system, and decided to adopt the diesel at an early date. The War Production Board allowed Santa Fe to buy a lot of FT's; but even so the demands of the war required the purchase of 25 2-10-4's and 30 4-8-4's in 1944. B&O and Santa Fe are just two examples. I believe the war most certainly caused the steam age to last longer than it otherwise would have, and gave us some of the most impressive steam locomotives ever built.
Tom
One of the cost savings of diesel over steam was crew requirements. When 2 or more locomotives were needed, each steam loco needed and engineer and fireman to run them. Diesels could be MUed together so 1 engineer and 1 fireman could run 3, 4 or more locomotives.
Also the infastructure to support steam locos was extensive, with water towers every 30 to 50 miles, and coal about every 3rd water stop. Railroads were quick to demolish these excess structures to reduce property taxes, with the exception of some large, concrete coaling towers that were considdered too expensive to demolish with the technology of the time.
George In Midcoast Maine, 'bout halfway up the Rockland branch
ACYThose EM-1's were magnificent engines, but it is naive to think they would have been built at all if FT's had been available.
The N&W built new steam locomotives after the F7 was readily available.
The Great Northern had only ONE steam locomotive delivered during World War II: 2009. And work on it had started before the war.
GN had bought a fair number of diesel switchers and a few FT's previous to the war and bought 18 four unit sets of FT's during the war. Those 18 could move a LOT of freight over the railroad. And somehow 78 diesel motors were available.
It does seem to be that a railroad should either be "in" or "out" of dieselization. Timidity costs money in this case. And time. And there was a war to win.
Ed
Here's the real cold facts.. Railroads knew converting to diesels would eliminate thousands of shop jobs, closed branch line engine houses and some roundhouses since diesels was cheaper to operate and maintain.. And would eliminate thousands of fireman jobs in the future.
Another goal was to extend the in service miles. Example. If you worked on the PRR out of Crestline Oh your day ended at Ft.Wayne 144 miles.The locomotive was cut off and serviced-unlike a diesel that could operate between Crestline and Chicago with no more then a crew change and refueling. You wouldn't need the Ft.Wayne roundhouse and could close the Crestline roundhouse since a diesel could operate from Pittsburg to Chicago..
Some locomotive companies like ALCO and Lima was still thinking steam when railroads was clearly thinking diesel power. Had ALCO cease their thoughts on designing new steam engines and thought more on diesel locomotives maybe ALCO diesels wouldn't have been prone to mechanical problems.
For a better understanding Trains Magazine has had many articles covering the demise of steam over the years-I would start with the 55-60 issues and the special All AlCO or EMD issues.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
The lack of diesel engines was not a cause. Railroads were considered a #1 priority for the war effort.
RR_Mel The SP started retiring their steam Cab Forwards in 1955 ending with the last one in September of 1958. Mel
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
As applicable to the Pacific Lines: class AC 11 & 12 cab forwards were among the last of SP steam retired with the final revenue runs occuring in early1957 in captive service between Oakland and Sacramento, as mentioned above, one AC11 was reactivated from storage in November 1957 for a fairwell to steam excursion, although it would be GS6 4460 that offically ended all standard guage steam operations in 1958 (the absolute last SP steam operations occured between 1961 and 1963 when several C class 2-8-0's stored serviceable in Tracy were fired up and run light for stationary boiler service in San Francisco and Oakland).
Large scale disposition of the AC11 & 12's from the SP roster began in 1958 the victim of the GP9 and recession, very few were active at the time. Several lingered on in Bayshore stored serviceable until 1960 when they too went to scrap.
To Espee's dynamic leader DJ Russell we owe a debt of gratitude for employing steam (although he was scorned and reviled for his opinions and policies on passenger train operations) so late, this was due to the seasonal nature of traffic on the SP, DJ was loath to have expensive diesels sitting idle during business downturns when they had a abundunce of paid for modern steam available.
As to the future of steam operations on the SP: Mechanical officials drafted a report in 1955 that proposed the following:
Dave
There are some real issues that played out in this process.
the sheer number of engines on a given railroad meant there would be a significant investment and time to make the switch.
Keep in mind that when diesel electrics first saw any revenue service was in the mid 1930's. During the depression, investment Capitol was a bit scarce.
The war had a huge impact on how things were produced and the quality of the end product. At the same time, all existing manufacturing capacity was being utilized, so getting the new diesels was problematic.
Most railroad men below the board level were railroad men who had grown up on steam. That is what they knew.
At this time, they were really deciding to go from steam driven to electric driven engines. Several were using all electric systems. These were much more efficient than either steam or diesel. They required more investment cost. But would it be better in the long run?
The steam men knew about the problems of steam, they did not know what problems they would get with a diesel engine. They heard what the sales people were saying, but their experience may have told them to beware. After all if something sounds to good to be true, it probably is.
I have been told that one ot the reasons the N&W was the last to switch had to do with their customers being coal suppliers.
Their could be a number of other factors, but the rail union during this time was one of the strongest. Just like with regional jets today, the new thing is new and may not require the same rules.
So many trains, so little time,
www.llxlocomotives.com
selectorDwight Eisenhower had what was then a super-highway network
Russell
carl425 ACY Those EM-1's were magnificent engines, but it is naive to think they would have been built at all if FT's had been available. The N&W built new steam locomotives after the F7 was readily available.
ACY Those EM-1's were magnificent engines, but it is naive to think they would have been built at all if FT's had been available.
Yes. But I was talking about B&O. You are referring to N&W, which had a different philosophy. In fact, a philosophy that was, by about 1954, different from that of EVERY other railroad.
rrebell The lack of diesel engines was not a cause. Railroads were considered a #1 priority for the war effort.
General Motors EMD, Alco, and Fairbanks Morse were not capable of bulding diesel prime movers in unlimited quantities. Some diesel electric locomotives were indeed built during the war, and the War Production Board strictly regulated (and restricted) their construction and allocation. While everybody (with the arguable exceptions of PRR, N&W, VGN, and a few others) would have liked to have more diesel locomotives, the fact is that those builders couldn't have supplied 100% of the needs of the Navy AND the railroads. A massive infrastructure already existed for the construction of steam locomotives by Baldwin, Alco, and Lima. It made sense at the time to use it. Those diesel prime movers were essential for use in Naval craft where steam power was out of the question (subs) or impractical (small patrol craft). Yes, the railroads enjoyed a high priority, but it's a bit much to claim that they were number 1, when the country was also building thousands and thousands of ships, tanks, guns, and other machines of war. After all, there were almost 50,000 Sherman tanks alone produced, many by the same plants that were busy bulding those modern steam locos. The wartime production of the U.S., plus Canada and others, was utterly awesome, and it was not only unleashed completely, but it was unleashed in such a way that, as much as possible, the Allies got the most bang for the buck. The process wasn't perfect by any means, but it worked well enough to secure the victory. That means some decisions had to be made with regard to prioritizing, and as a result we saw many modern steam locomotives that would never have existed had it not been for the war. They were fine engines. They didn't all need to be replaced immediately after the war, and the diesel builders would take many years to do that. But few truly knowledgeable people had any illusions that the future didn't lie with the diesel, even during the war.
ggnlarsI have been told that one ot the reasons the N&W was the last to switch had to do with their customers being coal suppliers.
The February 1963 issue of Trains magazine had a article you should read: Stuart Saunders and his money making machines. It's a very interesting read.
During the war only EMD was allowed to produce passenger units, the E6. Only EMD was allowed to produce freight units, the FT. Alco built switchers & the RS1. EMD used the time & experience to build a much better product in the E7 & F3. In the E8 & F7 EMD made another step forward.
I was told that WP wanted to buy articulated steam locos to expedite wartime traffic, but the WPB allocated FTs instead, citing bad water and a shortage of maintainers on the WP.
Somewhere around 1956 I toured a destroyer escort powered by diesel-electric drive - 4 General Motors engines driving 2 shafts. That was one ABBA lashup that couldn't be powered in 1943...
N&W wasn't put out of the steam business by the loss of the major builders. What killed them was the lack of availability of rellatively minor parts from small suppliers who either curled up and died or moved on to more profitable lines. When the Pilliod Corporation stopped making parts for Baker valve gear...
A little-noted facet of rail dieselization was the sudden availability of al those 'war service' Machinist's Mates who started looking for jobs when the Navy all but imploded at the end of hostilities. Hired on at no seniority pay, and with no loyalty to the Brotherhoods...
The major steam builders sat back and waited for their customers to order custom-designed locos that exactly fit their requirements - in small batches. EMD, using sales tactics that would make a used car dealer blush, marketed a standardized, mass-produced product with a limited number of relatively inexpensive options. Rather like Rolls Royce versus Chevrolet - in a market looking to cut costs.
Last, but hardly least, there had been a steady stream of propaganda about all the wonderful new things that would come with peacetime. It was, "Out with the old, in with the new," in the entire society, not just the rail industry. Steam was old, dirty and expensive. Diesels were new, clean and wore pretty paint jobs...
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
csxns selector Dwight Eisenhower had what was then a super-highway network And he knew what that highway will do to the railroads.
selector Dwight Eisenhower had what was then a super-highway network
And he knew what that highway will do to the railroads.
During WW II Ike saw the German Autobahns and their ability to move a lot of traffic quickly.
When becoming President he initiated the Interstate Highway system modeled after what he saw in Germany.
Bob
Don't Ever Give Up
tomikawaTTEMD, using sales tactics that would make a used car dealer blush, marketed a standardized, mass-produced product with a limited number of relatively inexpensive options.
The GP7 sold its self even though it was designed and built for branchline service.
Said Dick Dilworth the desner of the GP7: "In planning the GP," he says, "I had two dreams. The first was to make a locomotive so ugly in appearance that no railroad would want it on the main line or anywhere near headquarters, but would keep it out as far as possible in the back country, where it could do really useful work. My second dream was to make it so simple in construction and so devoid of Christmas-tree ornaments and other whimsy that the price would be materially below our standard main-line freight locomotives." Classic Train's GM's Geep by Paul.D. Schneider Kalmbach 2001..
Of course the railroads love the GP7 to the tune of 2729 built..
Just to keep the record straight:
President Franklin D. Roosevelt saw highways as both essential to national defense and the economy, as well as a means of putting unemployed people to work. On April 14, 1941, Roosevelt appointed a National Interregional Highway Committee to study the need for a limited system of national inter-state highways.[1] The committee's report, Interregional Highways, released on January 14, 1943, recommended constructing a 40,000 miles (64,000 km) interstate highway system.[2]
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/origin01.cfm
steam also requires much more resouces to perform the work, the water and fuel consumed are double that required for a diesel, its like the transition from props to jets......technology just overran the steam era...diesels exceed on every level..just like jets exceed on every level over props
i love steam, it is just so elegent in its own....technology just gave it its walking papers....
Wdlgln005 During the war only EMD was allowed to produce passenger units, the E6. Only EMD was allowed to produce freight units, the FT. Alco built switchers & the RS1. EMD used the time & experience to build a much better product in the E7 & F3. In the E8 & F7 EMD made another step forward.
Hmmm. Alco could make road switchers and EMD couldn't. Does the word "ironic" apply here?