Number one priority ahead of guns, ammo, ships, planes, tanks, personnel, et. al.?
No. There was no "number one priority". The War Production Board had to make some very important decisions as to what had to take precedence in each particular instance. They made mistakes, but they mostly did all right. That's one reason the Allies won.
Tom
rrebell The lack of diesel engines was not a cause. Railroads were considered a #1 priority for the war effort.
The lack of diesel engines was not a cause. Railroads were considered a #1 priority for the war effort.
The RR was #1 priorty during the war. The DM&IR was one of the prime ones. Steel to build the massive Yellowstone engines was ranked number one over steel for tanks, ships and more. My father was deferred from military service because he was a road engineer for the DM&IR. A lot of women took over many jobs like steaming ore or doing servicing of the engines. Ore trains ran as soon and as fast as they could. No "off on miles" just haul that ore.
God's Best & Happy Rails to You!
Bing (RIPRR The Route of the Buzzards)
The future: Dead Rail Society
yougottawantaWhen that poisition changed thE new guy started changing as fast as orders could be filled.
That new guy was Stuart Saunders.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
ggnlars wrote "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."
I have read that also. One other factor was a change in upper management ( forget their names ?) The head guy ( name ? ) made a statement as long as he was in charge N&W would run steam. When that poisition changed thE new guy started changing as fast as orders could be filled.
YGW
ACYAlco was swamped with orders from other roads,
Tom, GM's GP7 was the start of ALCOs market domination downward spiral and when GE pulled out of the partnership with ALCO the die was cast for ALCO's locomotive poor reliability and maintenance issues.This ALCO would never recover from as GM started dominating the market.
FM opposed piston prime mover was better suited for ships then locomotives.
The War Production Board certainly gave a boost to EMD's mainline passenger and freight prime movers, and to Alco's switchers because they limited those builders' production of other designs. This was probably because of prioritization on the part of the W.P.B., and not due to a conscious decision to favor one builder over another. EMD switchers used the same prime movers as their passenger units (two per E unit), so this didn't really hamper EMD's switcher development. It certainly did slow development of Alco's larger prime movers. As of wartime, Fairbanks Morse hadn't entered the locomotive business. Their production was virtually all for nonrailroad military purposes, but the war gave them a good opportunity to develop their 1500 hp and 2000 hp O-P engine, so that they were prepared to begin locomotive design as soon as the war was over. During the war, Fairbanks Morse O-P prime movers went into all of the Navy Fleet subs that weren't fitted with EMD's. I don't know whether Alco prime movers were considered.
At the end of the war, all the builders scrambled to fill orders that were flooding in. AC&Y was well satisfied with the Alco switchers they had bought in the early 1940's. They intended to dieselize as quickly as possible, and wanted to place orders with Alco for road engines. Alco was swamped with orders from other roads, so AC&Y talked to F-M, who was anxious to make sales of its new line of locomotives. So AC&Y became known for its F-M road switcher fleet "through the back door", simply because Alco couldn't supply them.
dti406 Tax and accounting rules helped with the demise of steam on the railroads. Locomotives were to be depreciated over 40 years as that was the useful life of a steam locomotive. Diesels were shown not be as long lived as a steam locomotive with an estimated useful life of 15 years. President Truman had the IRS change the rules in the late 40's so they could be depreciated over 15 years versus the old rate of 40 years which hastened the production of diesels and although some lasted more than the 15 years like the GP7/9, GP38, SD40 with rebuilding many were scrapped after 15 years like all the Baldwins, Alcos, Fairbanks Morse, and early GE's. Rick Jesionowski
Tax and accounting rules helped with the demise of steam on the railroads.
Locomotives were to be depreciated over 40 years as that was the useful life of a steam locomotive.
Diesels were shown not be as long lived as a steam locomotive with an estimated useful life of 15 years. President Truman had the IRS change the rules in the late 40's so they could be depreciated over 15 years versus the old rate of 40 years which hastened the production of diesels and although some lasted more than the 15 years like the GP7/9, GP38, SD40 with rebuilding many were scrapped after 15 years like all the Baldwins, Alcos, Fairbanks Morse, and early GE's.
Rick Jesionowski
My Rio Grande Diesels Vol 1 & 2 indicated the D&RGW got an average of 20 years out of their diesels including early ones like the FT and F7. The GP30/40 series lasted more like 25 to 30 years.
Also, from what I've read, steam engines were maintenence intensive. I wonder if those long lives included major rebuilding or replacement of major parts, much like many EMD products have had extremely long lives through rebuild programs. All that is part of the generalization too.
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
7j43k Ah, but I was wondering about the "opportunity" (see Herb Tarlek) during the war. Imagine if someone at Alco realized that railroads would be wanting something like a GP9 pretty quickly. AND that EMD couldn't make them during the war. And they could (RS-1.........). What a great "opportunity" to position the company for that event. Or so it seems. So their job would have been to make the RS-1 super reliable and able to MU. And to get right to work on an RS-2.......... Ed
Ah, but I was wondering about the "opportunity" (see Herb Tarlek) during the war. Imagine if someone at Alco realized that railroads would be wanting something like a GP9 pretty quickly. AND that EMD couldn't make them during the war. And they could (RS-1.........). What a great "opportunity" to position the company for that event.
Or so it seems.
So their job would have been to make the RS-1 super reliable and able to MU. And to get right to work on an RS-2..........
Ed
Ok got a migraine today so not firing on all cylinders but how would the competition between Alco and EMD affect the demise of steam. It seems like the war board was dictating things there?
Ed,The RS-1 was one of the best made ALCOs for several reasons and it could do a yeoman's job from main line to branch line and could be used as a switcher in freight and passenger terminals. GM had nothing that could compete. ALCO even had their RS-2 out before GM's GP7. The BL-2 was a failure since GM's sales department did not like it,the mechanical department did not like and most of all the railroads did not like it.
So,ALCO 2 GM 0 in the road switcher market.
riogrande5761 7j43k 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? Ed Irony maybe, but EMD got the last laugh. From the wiki: "Alco products had neither the market position or reputation for reliability of GM-EMD's products, nor the financing muscle and customer support of GE."
7j43k 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? Ed
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?
Irony maybe, but EMD got the last laugh. From the wiki: "Alco products had neither the market position or reputation for reliability of GM-EMD's products, nor the financing muscle and customer support of GE."
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!
7j43kWdlgln005 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? Ed
Irony maybe, but EMD got the last laugh. From the wiki: "Alco products had neither the market position or reputation for reliability of GM-EMD's products, nor the financing muscle and customer support of GE. It could not earn enough profits. In the late 1960s Alco gradually ceased locomotive production, shipping its last two locomotives, a pair of T-6 switchers to the Newburgh and South Shore Railroad (#1016 and #1017) in January 1969.[7] Alco closed its Schenectady locomotive plant later that year, and sold its designs to the Montreal Locomotive Works in Canada."
Sorry but running out of oil may not happen as oil is being produced all the time, I'm sure not as fast as we are using it, but we are getting more efficiant. I remember when houses used heatng oil on the east coast, one of the most common fuels in the big cities, now that number is getting smaller and smaller, helped myself on conversion burners from oil to gas in the late 70's, then there was a gas shortage which stopped that, but only for a short time.
Steam to diesel was mostly about efficiency. The same is true about train to truck. Drive any distance on the interstate system and you will encounter a number of trains of trucks. They pay a significant amount of the upkeep.
I had a friend, who was doing a study for DOT, tell me that the average freight car traveled at a speed around 2 mph. I think he was only counting cars in current revenue service. The average truck speed in the study was about 25 mph. Part of that difference is the lack of independence of the freight car compared to the truck. Currently you have a motor and person with every truck, so the cost savings is a bit cloudy
Yes, electric drive allowed significant savings in facilities, but those were mostly one time events. Competition with the real technology change requires much more will and innovation. The country as a whole was more into asphalt and airplanes. Other countries have been more progressive with their rail technologies.
I spent a lot of my work time considering the life cycle cost of various power systems. When oil is the source of energy, a cost of $130-150 a barrel is enough to have a significant change in the LCC of on option compared to another. That will happen long before we are "out" of oil. Those sensitivities were not normally part of the decision process when the steam to electric decisions were made.
Steam was also a tailored type product. Can you imagine getting GM to build you ten special cars. Of course you can't. The price would just be too high today. It was high then as well, but that was the accepted option, today it is not. Diesel electrics came along at the same time as the move towards few models to serve a wider range of requirements.
These factors created a window of opportunity for diesel electrics that has lasted for at least sixty years. With today's speed of innovation, it will be interesting to see if it has another fifty years before another transition occurs.
So many trains, so little time,
www.llxlocomotives.com
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.
The trucking industry interstates would indeed harm the railroads and in turn some railroads would receive bailout money from the Feds..
One of the best studies on the problem can be found in Trains Magazines of the 60s. John Kneiling's (The professional iconoclast) columns would be a good start.
Ed,
What you haave shown is a fact but it is also a fact that Ike made it happen and his German experience influenced it's design.
Here is a quote from Wiki:
The Interstate Highway System gained a champion in President Dwight D. Eisenhower, who was influenced by his experiences as a young Army officer crossing the country in the 1919 Army Convoy on the Lincoln Highway, the first road across America. Eisenhower gained an appreciation of the Reichsautobahn system, the first "national" implementation of modern Germany's Autobahn network, as a necessary component of a national defense system while he was serving as Supreme Commander of the Allied forces in Europe during World War II.[11] He recognized that the proposed system would also provide key ground transport routes for military supplies and troop deployments in case of an emergency or foreign invasion.
The publication in 1955 of the General Location of National System of Interstate Highways, informally known as the Yellow Book, mapped out what became the Interstate System.[12] Assisting in the planning was Charles Erwin Wilson, who was still head of General Motors when President Eisenhower selected him as Secretary of Defense in January 1953
Bob
Don't Ever Give Up
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.
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....
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
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..
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
The N&W built new steam locomotives after the F7 was readily 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.
selectorDwight Eisenhower had what was then a super-highway network
Russell