Could steam make a comeback?

[Modelcar]

....If the massive advantages purported to be with steam power noted in this forum for weeks upon weeks now....Why haven't the "believers" banded together and construct a "modern" steam engine prototype to put on the rails and determine whether it does or does not do the job up on par or better than the diesel electric.....

If the price of oil continues to skyrocket, that target should be  increasingly easy to achieve if it is achievable at all.....

[MichaelSol]

I'll prerface my remarks by stating they are OPINIONS and are not in any way intended to be statements of fact. I'll use the Santa Fe (AT&SF that is) which I consider to be one of the most progressive and innovative railroads ca. 1930-50 as an example. I have always thought that they were so impressed with the performance of their few freight diesel electric road engines during WW2 that they decided on full scale dieselization in the post war period. It's difficult for me to reconcile this decision with the studies referenced in this thread that show reciprocating steam's superiority. Weren't these studies available to Santa Fe management or, if they were considered, did they disbelieve their validity?

As a matter of fact, a specific study was done by Thomas Thelander, Chief Engineer for Swedish Railways, and well-known international railroading consultant, on the Santa Fe's experience with dieselization.

Thelander did, indeed, conclude that Santa Fe has misinterpreted its own data, and he ultimately concluded after arguing about it with their chief mechanical officer that, as good as he was as a chief mechanical officer, he was a poor statistician.

There is a well-developed record on the Santa Fe's experience and an independent review and study that came to nearly identical conclusions to that of H.F. Brown.

 

[MichaelSol]

 If railroad management was so stodgy and slow to accept change will someone please explain their almost universal headlong rush to dieselize.

With respect to the railroads deteriorating financials in the 1960 time frame, I seriously doubt that much of this can be attributed to their prior investment in dieselization. I won't dispute that this was a factor but I think it was way overshadowed by other issues. purport to show the advantages of steam over diesel but, and it's a very big BUT, I simply can not reconcile them with the historical fact that steam is long gone and diesels are at the head of our trains today.

The 22% operating advantage that I described earlier, as a result of favorable fuel costs, surely explains what operating people were seeing as favorable to dieselization.

As Brown tried to point out, the unexpected negative impact of dieselization came from financing charges. This had two repercussions.

1) Because of the long economic service life of steam, "financing", as an additional cost imposed on earnings, had not significantly existed before dieselization.

2) At the time dieselization began in earnest, and throughout most of the process, interest rates were between 1 and 1.5%, historic lows. The first generation of diesel-electric locomotives were purchased on payment plans for which there was little annual economic cost penalty tied to the installment plan kind of purchase.

The problem was, as that diesel-electric fleet was emplaced, interest rates rose. The second generation diesel-electric locomotives were purchased at 5% interest rates.

The problem is, that additional cost of financing came straight out of the bottom line. By way of example, if BN paid 1% on its locomotive leases in 2003 for 5,300 locomotives at the equivalent 1957 diesel-electric cost adjusted to 2003 using the Producer Price Index, BN would have paid $41.5 million in interest charges. At 5%, BN would have paid $199 million.

The difference in rate of return on revenue would be the difference between 8.3% and 6.58%. That's the difference between a railroad in 2003 being a good investment value and a mediocre one.

For railroads earning 4%, closer to the mark for the industry in 1950, all other things being equal, the transition between the lower cost first generation and the higher financing cost for the second generation would have lowered the railroad rate of return from 4% to 2.3% by 1965 or so. That's just about exactly what happened, and if it didn't happen on a particular railroad, you can look over to the M-O-W numbers on that road and see exactly why it didn't happen.

By the time the third generation came around, at 14% financing charges the die was cast for the rail crisis of the 1970s, as refinancing the fleet would have brought a 4% rate of return in 1950 down to 1.15% in 1977.

Likewise, that's just about exactly what happened.

 

[JonathanS]

Railroads didn't just look at the cost of maintenance of the locomotives.  There was and is a much larger picture.  Because diesels are much easier on the track than were the large steam locomotives of the day the size of the rail could be reduced at the next replacement.

The knowledgeable studies expected that diesel-electrics would be harder on track than steam engines. Your comment is something that has arisen since that time and is parroted, but I've never seen a study that supports it.

And the number of people needed to maintain the track could be reduced.  Both yield savings which do not show up in locomotive operations and maintenance costs.

Do you believe this? The 79 mph rule had more to do with reduced investment -- that, and the desperate attempt to keep operating ratios from deteriorating -- which led to huge deferred maintenance and capital investment deficits. "Normalized" maintenance requirements, according to at least one study, increased slightly as the result of dieselization.

Additionally, since the diesel locomotive develops higher TE than does steam at low speeds the railroads were able to eliminate many helper districts.

Baloney. Never happened. The diesel-electrics overheated at slow speeds and generally could operate only in the range where Steam power developed superior TE. And that points to an advantage for Steam. For units of equivalent weight on the drivers, the Steam engine could move equivalent tonnage faster on grades than a Diesel-electric locomotive which could not develop the TE, and which therefore slowed down to get on the point of the TE curve where it could continue to move the train, which either burned up the traction motors or ... required helpers where the Steam engine did not in order to maintain the speed and TE of the Steam engine.

Not only the operating crews of the helpers were eliminated, but the hostlers, night watchmen, maintenance crews, roundhouses, coaling towers, and everything else needed to support the helpers.  Some 2nd tracks and passing sidings were eliminated because of the elimination of the helper moves.  So additional savings in crews, building maintenance, local property tax, etc.  None of which shows up as locomotive operations and maintenance costs.

Except that the net financial investment in engine facilities doubled during the period of dieselization. Property taxes likely went up. As a percentage of total costs, engine crew costs were higher in 1957 than at any time prior to that in the 20th Century.

The change was made becuse a lot of factors came together at that time to make diesels much more attractive to railroads.  It wasn't a simple comparison of the cost of operation and maintenance of one locomotive versus the other.

Yet, most people who argue this point make very simple comparisons. And it isn't good enough to simply offer that there were "a lot" of factors. Those studies which have, in fact, examined the determinative factors in detail, including the effect of financing charges and economic service lives, came to different conclusions, but also allowed that, if certain factors were left out of the examination, the diesel-electric was the clear winner based on fuel cost savings.

It cannot be gainsaid that the cost of fuel was the primary motivating factor behind dieselization. Anything else was ancillary. The supposed cost savings in many of those ancillary areas were the natural result of post-War economic changes, not the change-over in motive power. That included shut-down of many branch line facilities as the growth of highways and the rapid decline of many branch lines permitted/compelled consolidation of facilities. That happened irrespective of motive power type, and the economic record on that point is reinforced by the decline in carloadings resulting in fewer trains, fewer locomotives in general, and an overall need to consolidate facilities as a result. Even at that, the cost of consolidation of facilities was high; and as noted above the total cost of such facilities more than doubled the cost of such facilities during the Steam era.

Your points in order

1. Nor have I seen a study that either supports or refutes it.  That said all you need to do is look at the historic track structures steam and post steam.  Taking the Pennsylvania Railroad's Horseshoe Curve just track west of Altoona as just one example.  Of necessity, Pennsy had custom rolled 155 pound rail made just for the east and west slope grades.  As soon as steam disappeared PRR replaced this with standard 132 pound rail. 

2. The railroads adopted the 79 rule because the governing authority mandated substantial increased investment in track and auxillaries where speeds exceeded 79.  The investment was not required prior.  Deferred maintenance was not widespread until the early '60s and even then was fairly regionalized as being mostly in the northeast and midwest.  What are the specific situations covered in the ONE study you cite that shows normalized maintenance increasing for diesels v steam?

3. There are far too many instances of helper districts being eliminated by diesel operation for this to be dismissed off the cuff as baloney.  Using Reading Company as an example, helpers on both sides of the hill were eliminated from the Catawissa Branch by assigning diesels (the Catawissa branch was actually a main line, the Reading called everything a branch excepting the original main).  The dedicated helper facilities in West Milton were completely eliminated and somewhat later the engine facilites in Tamaqua which had serviced both the head end locomotives and helpers was replaced with a fuel truck and bagged sand.  The helpers on Temple hill grade were eliminated by diesel operation, however in this case no facilities were eliminated as the helpers were based out of the company shop facilites.  Additionally the dedicated helpers for the Falls grade were eliminated.  This permitted the destruction of the facilites supporting the helpers.  Going back to the Catawissa line the use of diesels permitted the Reading to operate longer and longer trains on this line until they reached the point where they were frequently tearing out drawbars, and sometimes tearing off the ends of cars.  The had to reduce train size from this maximum but still ran trains much larger than was done using steam with helpers.

4. Not a surprise since most of the steam facilities dated from the 1920's or earlier.  The book value would have been at 1920 (or earlier) dollars and had been depreciated using the 50 year rule.  Replacing them with facilities constructed in the 1950s would incur a huge increase in property value simple by the change in the value of the dollar and by starting a new depreciation cycle.  That the increase was only double shows that there was a substantial decrease in the number and size of the replacement facilities.  How much more would have the lines have needed to spend to update the facilities to support new steam?  And that the crew costs were a higher percentage of the total costs in 1957 than any time prior in that century simply validates the position that by changing to diesel the railroads were able to shed many other costs that were necessary to support steam locomotives.  The other costs were gone so what remained became larger percentages. I will conceed that a confounding factor was the excessive wage inflation caused by the post WW2 boom and by the Korean "Police Action".

5.  I agree, fuel economy was and is not a large enough factor to cause such a radical change.

[JonathanS]

I'll prerface my remarks by stating they are OPINIONS and are not in any way intended to be statements of fact. I'll use the Santa Fe (AT&SF that is) which I consider to be one of the most progressive and innovative railroads ca. 1930-50 as an example. I have always thought that they were so impressed with the performance of their few freight diesel electric road engines during WW2 that they decided on full scale dieselization in the post war period. It's difficult for me to reconcile this decision with the studies referenced in this thread that show reciprocating steam's superiority. Weren't these studies available to Santa Fe management or, if they were considered, did they disbelieve their validity? Did GM's EMD distort the facts to convince Santa Fe management of steam's inferiority akin to their National City Lines strategy which led to municipalities scrapping their streetcar lines in favor of GM busses?

In the case of the Santa Fe the use of diesels permitted AT&SF to eliminate all of the non revenue trains that they had to run to supply water in the deserts of New Mexico, Arizona, California and Texas.  All of the water to resupply the steam locomotives had to be hauled in because the water was either unavailable, or unusable.  So for the Santa Fe dieselization was a no brainer.

[CNW 6000]

So let's have the UP or CP, since they both have steam power that appears to be viable, try a few revenue runs and see what happens.  It'd be interesting to see what the numbers are.

[MichaelSol]

Your points in order

1. Nor have I seen a study that either supports or refutes it.  That said all you need to do is look at the historic track structures steam and post steam.  Taking the Pennsylvania Railroad's Horseshoe Curve just track west of Altoona as just one example.  Of necessity, Pennsy had custom rolled 155 pound rail made just for the east and west slope grades.  As soon as steam disappeared PRR replaced this with standard 132 pound rail. 

Now, why would a railroad replace perfectly good heavy rail with lighter rail? Certainly not to save the cost of removing the old rail and installing the new. In the context offered, this makes no sense.

2. The railroads adopted the 79 rule because the governing authority mandated substantial increased investment in track and auxillaries where speeds exceeded 79.  The investment was not required prior. 

Does it matter that the new investment was "not required prior" to dieselization?

Deferred maintenance was not widespread until the early '60s and even then was fairly regionalized as being mostly in the northeast and midwest.  What are the specific situations covered in the ONE study you cite that shows normalized maintenance increasing for diesels v steam?

I don't think you've looked at the maintenance of way costs for the Western railroads during the period described.

At least I cited 'ONE" study. And the several industry engineers that commented on the study did not refute that point.

3. There are far too many instances of helper districts being eliminated by diesel operation for this to be dismissed off the cuff as baloney. 

"Far too many" suggests you have some numbers. What are they? How many helper districts were abolished as the result of diesel operation?

In nearly every instance I am aware of, elimination of helper districts arose from two reasons. One reason follows from the generally accepted tractive effort curves of diesel-electric locomotives. In order to move the trains on grade above the 11-14 mph required on the first generation diesel-electrics, in order to meet the TE output of a steam engine with equivalent weight on the drivers, generally more horsepower was assigned to trains. Since the power was in discrete units, this generally resulted in increased overall power assigned to the trains. This shows up clearly in the statistics as the number of diesel units per locomotive climbed from 2.46 in 1953 to 2.59 by 1957. In any case, the proportion of unit miles in helper service vs general freight miles had to be small, and not justifying a wholesale change in motive power.  

Too, the choice of a helper district vs more hp assigned to a train is an economic decision. With higher traffic, a helper district can be more cost effective. With lower traffic, it can be more cost-effective to assign an extra unit to run all the way through. With the declining traffic and longer trains of the era, those changes are suggestive that at least in some instances the decision may have been an economic one, rather than driven by the motive power type, and particularly given the changes in the industrial landscape of the era that changed railroad traffic patterns. On the other hand, if a helper district were added somewhere, I have a feeling we wouldn't hear about it ...

 

4. Not a surprise since most of the steam facilities dated from the 1920's or earlier.  The book value would have been at 1920 (or earlier) dollars and had been depreciated using the 50 year rule.  Replacing them with facilities constructed in the 1950s would incur a huge increase in property value simple by the change in the value of the dollar and by starting a new depreciation cycle.  That the increase was only double shows that there was a substantial decrease in the number and size of the replacement facilities.

"Not a surprise"? It must have been. Your point was the property taxes decreased, and that this was a positive attribute of dieselization. If property investment doubled, then it must be a surprise to your premise that taxes declined since that requires a different system of property taxation than the one I am familiar with.  I suspect you made the point up, and are now trying rationalize something else by alleging that the 50 year rule applied to property built circa 1920 meant the property was depreciated out by the 1950's -- 30-40 years -- rather than 1970 -- the 50 years you concede -- but which has nothing to do either way with the usefulness of the structure since depreciation is an accounting attribute not a physical attribute. And has nothing to do with the fact that your statement was the opposite of what happened.

5.  I agree, fuel economy was and is not a large enough factor to cause such a radical change.

Without that advantage, there was no reason to change.

I have offered plenty of specific dollar figures on this thread, and while it is easy to succumb to the approach of offering broad generalizations without even "ONE" study in support (the Trains forum prevailing theory that no studies is better than one), or a single number otherwise, I would appreciate the courtesy of any numbers you can offer rather than the easy and often false generalizations that neither refute nor support anything I say or you say.

 

[JonathanS]

MichaelSol 

1.The Pennsylvania Railroad replaced the rail on the Horseshoe curve because it wore out in less than 5 years, and still does for NS.  So from the time that PRR ordered its first E7s until steam was completely eliminated the rail would have been replaced at least two times.

2.Certainly the additional costs born by new regulations matter in a business decision.  If the regulations make the cost of doing business a certain way too onerous you find a different way to work.  The 79 rule had nothing to do with dieselization. 

I was not citing the costs but rather the speed comparisons between the various railroads done during the period.  The rails in the South and West still had fast freight and passenger while the speeds of the railroads based in the Northeast and Midwest had fallen, in some cases precipitously.  And I know first hand from commuting on some of the lines.  My kidneys still ache when I remember some of those rides.  You have said twice in your discussions with me that you are citing a study; without offering the name, author, or sponsor of the study.

3. I cited examples on just one railroad.  There were several other helper districts eliminated on the Reading.  When the steam era ended on the Reading there were no dedicated helper districts.  What lines added dedicated helper districts by dieselizing? 

All decisions by corporations must be made on an economic basis. Even the decisions made in respose to regulations, legislations, and ethics are done on economics using the comparisons of what are the expenses of not complying.

How much of the increase in Units per Locomotive you cite is due to the change in purchasing by the rails.  By the mid 50s there were far fewer 3 unit 2000 horsepower per unit passenger locomotives being purchased.  Also by that time the double engine transfer locomotive and high horsepower locomotives (such as the Centipede, H20-44 and Consolidation line) previously pushed by Baldwin and FM were no longer even offered.  Instead the corporations were purchasing cookie cutter 1500 and 1600 HP locomotives.  Which for the same horsepower makes for more units per locomotive.

4. I never stated that any property constructed in the 1920s was fully depreciated by the 1950s.  Where are you getting that?  I stated that the book value, which is what it appeared to me that you were citing, would have been low because of inflation and depreciation.  So a large increase in book value for fewer facilities is no surprise.  The tax is separate from the book value as the municipalities base that on resale value.  My response was that there was no surprise to me that the book value increased, I was not making any statement about property taxes in this response as it seemed to me that your initial response was about book value.

5. So are you stating that the only reason anyone can make a decision about motive power is because of fuel economy?  The Reading Company annual reports I have from the era, and the copies of the engineering studies performed by the Reading that I have been privaleged to read cite numerous points of savings, fuel costs being simply one of them.

Again you claim to have cited a study in response to me, without naming the study, author, or sponsor.  I do not subscribe to the "broad generalization" that you seem to want to whitewash me with that no study is better than just one study.  However, I never take any study (the Reading's included) at face value.  It is worthless without knowing the background of the author, the purpose of the study, and especially, Who paid for it.

I cited in this discussion specific named examples from specific named railroads which you now claim that I have never offered.  I cited to you some time ago the detailed numbers of a Reading study comparing an 0-6-0, NW2, VO1000, S2, and an oddball FM swither.  When the dollars per hour operating and maintenance costs showed that the diesels were far better than steam you dismissed the data as irrelevant.

[MichaelSol]

 1.The Pennsylvania Railroad replaced the rail on the Horseshoe curve because it wore out in less than 5 years, and still does for NS.  So from the time that PRR ordered its first E7s until steam was completely eliminated the rail would have been replaced at least two times.

You contend that PR put in 155 lb rail for steam, put in 132 lb rail for diesels, and the rail wore out under steam and continues to do so for diesel. OK. Apparently there is a point there, and I assume that is unrelated to the improved quality of 132 lb rail at that point in time. which might actually be my guess.

Certainly the additional costs born by new regulations matter in a business decision.  If the regulations make the cost of doing business a certain way too onerous you find a different way to work.  The 79 rule had nothing to do with dieselization.

You stated the rule was in response to safety needs. Those safety developed based on what changes? Dieselization happened to be the big change.

I was not citing the costs but rather the speed comparisons between the various railroads done during the period.  The rails in the South and West still had fast freight and passenger while the speeds of the railroads based in the Northeast and Midwest had fallen, in some cases precipitously.  And I know first hand from commuting on some of the lines.

You made an assertion that deferred maintenance was regionalized -- just the northeast and "some" midwestern roads. I pointed out that you had to be unaware of maintenance expenditures for western roads during the time in question. Your response is that you were citing speeds, not costs. Please. Deferred maintenance is a cost analysis. Knowing first hand something from commuting -- then denying that it occured anywhere else, apparently where you didn't commute, is, well ....  

The fact is, maintenance was deferred on most western roads. Your "experience", which apparently consists primarily of not actually being there, is simply a mystery.

3. I cited examples on just one railroad.  There were several other helper districts eliminated on the Reading.  When the steam era ended on the Reading there were no dedicated helper districts.  What lines added dedicated helper districts by dieselizing?

I can tell you are not understanding the point. Helper districts, and their existence, is an economic need, not a physical one. At certain traffic levels, it is more cost effective in some locations to assist trains using helpers. At other traffic levels, it is more cost effective to add power between terminals. Post WWII, traffic, as measured by the number of trains, declined both a result of decreasing overall tonnage, and as the result of increasing length and tonnage of trains. Overall, that should have led to decreasing numbers of helper districts. Traffic changes as the result of economic relocation altered these effects in specific instances either because of declining on-line traffic (the East) or because of increasing on-line traffic (the South and West). And the Reading was ... where?

All decisions by corporations must be made on an economic basis.

You've never operated a business or sat on a board of directors.

 Even the decisions made in respose to regulations, legislations, and ethics are done on economics using the comparisons of what are the expenses of not complying.

This is a theory, and its works nice in theory.

How much of the increase in Units per Locomotive you cite is due to the change in purchasing by the rails.  By the mid 50s there were far fewer 3 unit 2000 horsepower per unit passenger locomotives being purchased.  Also by that time the double engine transfer locomotive and high horsepower locomotives (such as the Centipede, H20-44 and Consolidation line) previously pushed by Baldwin and FM were no longer even offered.  Instead the corporations were purchasing cookie cutter 1500 and 1600 HP locomotives.  Which for the same horsepower makes for more units per locomotive.

You've expressed your theory. Prove it.

4. I never stated that any property constructed in the 1920s was fully depreciated by the 1950s.  Where are you getting that?  I stated that the book value, which is what it appeared to me that you were citing, would have been low because of inflation and depreciation.  So a large increase in book value for fewer facilities is no surprise.  The tax is separate from the book value as the municipalities base that on resale value.  My response was that there was no surprise to me that the book value increased, I was not making any statement about property taxes in this response as it seemed to me that your initial response was about book value.

There is not a single number in your response that offers any useful information. This is just pure argument. I quote the above portion of it only to point out that you don't know how taxes are assessed against railroad property in most states, and this explains why you believed property taxes would have gone down as the result of dieselization. Now you offer a newly explicated notion of it that makes no sense at all. since railroad property is typically taxed on an ad valorem basis, not an appraisal basis. This might make sense if you thought about the fact that the local assessor probably can't estimate a "resale value" as you assert, since the market for roundhouses and such is pretty slow ...

5. So are you stating that the only reason anyone can make a decision about motive power is because of fuel economy? 

After citing to Brown umpteen times, and the detailed analysis of everything from engine crews to lubricants to water to maintenance, and to financing, the fact that you could make this statement suggests to me you are in this for the argument, not the honesty.

 The Reading Company annual reports I have from the era, and the copies of the engineering studies performed by the Reading that I have been privaleged to read cite numerous points of savings, fuel costs being simply one of them.

No one said there weren't numerous points of savings. Please share the studies. Or is this just another, "I saw something somewhere but can't cite anything ...".

Again you claim to have cited a study in response to me, without naming the study, author, or sponsor.  I do not subscribe to the "broad generalization" that you seem to want to whitewash me with that no study is better than just one study.  However, I never take any study (the Reading's included) at face value.  It is worthless without knowing the background of the author, the purpose of the study, and especially, Who paid for it.

The fact that you can say that you don't have any references to any studies means you haven't read the thread. I'm not going to reprint the thread for you. Misunderstanding is one thing. Self-imposed ignorance just to make an argument is unjustified at best, trolling at worst.

I cited in this discussion specific named examples from specific named railroads which you now claim that I have never offered.  I cited to you some time ago the detailed numbers of a Reading study comparing an 0-6-0, NW2, VO1000, S2, and an oddball FM swither.  When the dollars per hour operating and maintenance costs showed that the diesels were far better than steam you dismissed the data as irrelevant.

I have cited, on this thread, "detailed studies" including my own that show that "operating costs" taken as a whole were better with the diesel-electric than with Steam. And while statistics from individual machines may be interesting to you, they do not offer useful fleet data upon which to make an economic analysis.

In fact, maintenance costs for a brand new diesel-electric are better than for 20 year old steam. I don't think anyone has ever denied that. It is the idea that trying to offer that as an economic justification for something is what makes it "irrelevant" because, as a matter of fact, a brand new Steam engine also has better maintenance costs than a 20 year old Steam engine. And this is where the analysis usually foundered: proving that new machines have lower maintenance costs than old machines per unit output is not the same thing as demonstrating anything useful about diesel-electric vs steam. And most of the alleged studies proved the first contention, conclusively. But, that proved nothing about diesel or steam.

For those studies which understood the difference, the maintenance cost curves by age of the machine show that modern steam engines cost less than diesel-electrics; particularly so when the cost of overhaul is included so that the two comparisions represent the same economic service lives.

Similarly, financing cost charges made a difference in the overall evaluation, but that was not known at the time most railroads made the decision. The future was sacrificed to the present.

Finally, the single largest savings was in fuel. If the single largest economic savings cannot be described as the penultimate "driver" of the decision, then you and I went to different business schools.

 

[n012944]

Here is an interesting comparaison of steam vs diesel, focusing on the performance side but it does touch on the economic side as well.

http://www.railway-technical.com/st-vs-de.shtml

[KCSfan]

Certainly the additional costs born by new regulations matter in a business decision.  If the regulations make the cost of doing business a certain way too onerous you find a different way to work.  The 79 rule had nothing to do with dieselization.

You stated the rule was in response to safety needs. Those safety developed based on what changes? Dieselization happened to be the big change.

On this point Johnathan is 100% correct. The ICC 79(mph) order was based  solely on the signal system (or lack thereof) in place and had nothing to do with track quality or type of motive power. From about 1920 forward every ICC investigation report of head on and rear end collisions occurring in unsignalled territory concluded with the recommendation that automatic block signals be installed regardless of whether the line saw 4 or 40 train movements a day. The ICC order was a carrot and stick proposition: install ABS and you can run trains at 79mph (faster still if ATS or in-cab signals were adopted) or in their absence speeds would be limited to 59mph max. It was a mere coincidence that this order was promulgated about the time that dieselization was in full swing.

Mark

[Flint Hills Tex]

In the case of the Santa Fe the use of diesels permitted AT&SF to eliminate all of the non revenue trains that they had to run to supply water in the deserts of New Mexico, Arizona, California and Texas.  All of the water to resupply the steam locomotives had to be hauled in because the water was either unavailable, or unusable.  So for the Santa Fe dieselization was a no brainer.

Can you imagine what a return to steam could mean for western railroads? I don't even want to think about California emmissions restrictions and water conservation constraints. I have to agree with Jonathan!

Now some folks on this thread have been claiming that dieselisation, and solely dieselisation, led to higher operating costs, less return on investments, and the overall demise of North American railroading. I understand that a love of steam can cause tunnel-vision (no pun intended). Now, after consulting my history books, it seems that the US economy was experiencing a recession around 1960, a date by which the steam-diesel transition can be considered complete.

Obviously there were many external factors contributing to railroads' economic woes. As for the supposed numbers "proving" it was diesel's fault (sounds like an episode of "Thomas the Tank Engine"), never believe a statistic you didn't personally falsify! I once read a study which "proved" that red cars get stopped more often by the cops than cars of another color. Turns out that more high horsepower sportscars are sold in red than in any other color. It wasn't the red paint causing the speeding tickets, it was the powerful motor in the car. The color was actually irrelevant.

Steam survived over here in western Europe almost 20 years longer than in North America. If, by the 70s, railroads could have proven that steam were more efficient and cost effective than diesel, surely European railroads were in a position to stick with steam. Yet they made the transition. Why? Because steam is NOT cheaper and more efficient than diesel.

[VAPEURCHAPELON]

All the railroads have switched, including the last major hold out - China, so I think it's pretty obvious that steam is not going to make a comeback.

Yes they switched - and don't disagree to the fact that they now pay between 3 and 4 times as much as they did for steam service.

[Anonymous]

Yet they made the transition. Why? Because steam is NOT cheaper and more efficient than diesel.

You keep making this comparison as though the relationship is static, and not affected by fluctuating fuel prices. 

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

Environmental issues have been around in one form or another for longer than most of us care to think and have to be considered whether you like it or not.  Smoke abatement ordinances were responsible for electrification in New York, Cleveland and Chicago and probably encouraged very early diesel purchases for the New York metro area, and that was 80+ years ago.  Environmental issues are responsible for the proliferation of genset and low-emission locomotives in California (state regulation) and Texas (EPA order) so it would be unlikely for steam locomotives to operate in those states.  It also seems probable that emissions requirements are going to get tighter than they are now.

[KCSfan]

All the railroads have switched, including the last major hold out - China, so I think it's pretty obvious that steam is not going to make a comeback.

Yes they switched - and don't rely on the fact that they now pay between 3 and 4 times as much as they did for steam service.

Just what do you mean by "3 and 4 times as much"? Initial cost per horsepower, fuel cost per ton mile hauled or something else. I would love to see a return of steam, particularly reciprocating steam not some whining turbine, but I would rate the possibility of that happening as just slightly better than a return to stagecoaches as a means of transport. I'm sure the arguments will go on and on and if any railroad executives are tuned into this thread I'll bet they are chuckling about the zeal of the railfan community for steam power.

Mark

[MichaelSol]

Certainly the additional costs born by new regulations matter in a business decision.  If the regulations make the cost of doing business a certain way too onerous you find a different way to work.  The 79 rule had nothing to do with dieselization.

You stated the rule was in response to safety needs. Those safety developed based on what changes? Dieselization happened to be the big change.

On this point Johnathan is 100% correct. The ICC 79(mph) order was based  solely on the signal system (or lack thereof) in place and had nothing to do with track quality or type of motive power. From about 1920 forward every ICC investigation report of head on and rear end collisions occurring in unsignalled territory concluded with the recommendation that automatic block signals be installed regardless of whether the line saw 4 or 40 train movements a day. The ICC order was a carrot and stick proposition: install ABS and you can run trains at 79mph (faster still if ATS or in-cab signals were adopted) or in their absence speeds would be limited to 59mph max. It was a mere coincidence that this order was promulgated about the time that dieselization was in full swing.

Mark

I love coincidences. And that's fine. I am relying a published study that suggests that the railway civil engineers of the era, the gentlemen most familiar with steam and diesel, and who no doubt had done the math, believed that diesel-electrics would be slightly harder on track and structure than steam. And that study is available to read.

Now, show me the study that says its not true. It doesn't exist.

 

[MichaelSol]

Just what do you mean by "3 and 4 times as much"? Initial cost per horsepower, fuel cost per ton mile hauled or something else. I would love to see a return of steam, particularly reciprocating steam not some whining turbine, but I would rate the possibility of that happening as just slightly better than a return to stagecoaches as a means of transport. I'm sure the arguments will go on and on and if any railroad executives are tuned into this thread I'll bet they are chuckling about the zeal of the railfan community for steam power.

I could give a rats about anyone's "zeal". But, if the point of the discussion was to examine the economic factors underlying dieselization, and how the change in those factors have been nearly reversed by the passage of time and the change of circumstances, the thread, once again, stands for the proposition that actual numbers always yield to bias.

[MichaelSol]

Obviously there were many external factors contributing to railroads' economic woes. As for the supposed numbers "proving" it was diesel's fault (sounds like an episode of "Thomas the Tank Engine"), never believe a statistic you didn't personally falsify!

Perhaps it is a measure of your sophistication that when you can't offer a single tangible number or reasoned analysis, you call someone a liar. Thanks for the compliment. The classiest folks show up on these threads.

 

 

[MichaelSol]

I regret that it is nearly impossible to have an intelligent or honest discussion on this subject.

Fuel costs. Folks, the math is out there. You can whine all you want about steam, but as of now, the cost to operate a Northern type steam engine is substantially less than the cost to operate equivalent diesel-electric horsepower. It wasn't in the 1950s, and the fuel costs favored the diesel-electric by a long margin. That has changed. You will note that the change was specifically predicted in Brown's paper by simple trend analysis -- an analysis that happened to be correct.

Maintenance. This one perplexes me. There are published maintenance curves for steam, diesel and electric. They are generally accepted. I've personally confirmed the validity of the diesel-electric curves with fleet numbers for a more modern generation of diesel-electrics. They match. Yet, there are posters here who, without a shred of evidence otherwise, insist that diesel-electric maintenance cost was an advantage over steam. The published curves show that to be false.  

There's another approach if you don't like those results. Economic service life is a mathematical formula. It identifies, specifically, the point on a cost curve -- capital cost plus maintenance -- where the cost of continued service exceeds the cost of replacement plus maintenance. That definition has never changed. It is inextricably tied to the cost rise in maintenance as an asset ages. The economic service life of a diesel-electric and the U.S. steam fleet is a matter of record -- a record defined by the rail industry itself. And for you statistical geniuses out there who have never lifted a pen to do an actual analysis, but still have everything figured out, this is one you need to do.

At the industry-accepted economic service life of 30 years for steam, and at 14 years for a road diesel-electric, the maintenance costs must be higher for the diesel-electric than for steam. It's math. And the math doesn't care if rail executives are chuckling or railfans are filled with zeal or Europeans dieselized late.

And you can't get around the math.

The economic service life assigned by the rail industry to the diesel-electric locomotive is conclusive proof that the industry accepts that the cost maintenance curve for the diesel-electric is the one published by Brown and the cost maintenance curve for steam power is the one published by Brown.

And, if you do take the time to plot economic service life, you will see that the cheaper the initial capital investment, the shorter the economic service life. The capital cost of Steam, per hp, was considerably less than the diesel-electric so the fact that the industry assigned a 30 year economic service life to steam only reinforces the strength of the numbers, because if Steam had a capital cost comparable to the diesel-electric, its economic service life would have been much longer. And that is the irrefutable mathematical fact: with a low capital cost, the long economic service life assigned to Steam by the rail industry absolutely means that the cost of maintenance was substantially lower than the cost of maintenance for the Diesel-electric locomotive, because that's how economic service life is mathematically determined.

Consideration of steam on economic grounds is a matter of numbers. The rest of it is baloney. At this point in time, the numbers happen to favor steam, substantially, even the steam power as it existed in 1957. Whether steam could be improved considerably from what existed then, I have no doubt, but the question as to its economic viability is already answered by reference to 1957 technology for which there exists a substantial statistical record of operation.

Times change. I never liked steam because I never liked coal as a power source: it was dirty.  I have little appreciation for steam engines as a railroad power source. I'm not a fan. I've seen one in my entire life, and that was by accident. I grew up in electrified territory and by my lights, that's the way to go.

However, coal combustion technology has changed dramatically, and coal can now be burned more cleanly than diesel fuel. It's cost relative to diesel fuel has likewise changed dramatically. Coal is located close to the railroads that would use it; oil is problematic and dependent on an enormous infrastructure complicated by volatile political considerations. And, it gets back to price: coal is substantially cheaper than diesel fuel and that wasn't true in the 1950s.

But these emotional assessments, made by people generally unqualified to make them, I find offensive. If you've got some numbers, fine. But if you don't, kindly spare the world the excess garbage, there's enough of it, and particularly when posters want to take personal offense as though they personally made the decision to dieselize and continually confuse the discussion of current economic considerations with the economic circumstances that existed 40 years ago.

The statistical record is well developed. At this point in time, steam as it existed in the 1950s would enjoy an economic advantage in fuel and maintenance costs, and by reducing the need for lubricants, provide an operating cost advantage there as well. If that was all there was to the decision, then it is self-defining. It isn't. There is no alternative viable transportation to compete with the rail industry on costs, and for so long as that means that the rail industry can pass through its costs, there is zero incentive for a changeover. That is one of the economic risks and criticisms of oligopoly industries in failing to provide economically rational decision making.

And that has nothing to do with steam power.

 

 

[CopCarSS]

...and by reducing the need for lubricants

I'm curious on this point, Michael. Do you have supporting numbers on this point? I have no idea, but I would have thought the advantage would be to the diesel on this point. Lubricating a steam locomotive seems to be a fairly labor intensive task -- at least the steam locomotives I've seen running. Is there such a quantity of lubricant in the crankcase and elsewhere on a diesel that offsets the labor costs of steam lubrication?

[VAPEURCHAPELON]

...and by reducing the need for lubricants

I'm curious on this point, Michael. Do you have supporting numbers on this point? I have no idea, but I would have thought the advantage would be to the diesel on this point. Lubricating a steam locomotive seems to be a fairly labor intensive task -- at least the steam locomotives I've seen running. Is there such a quantity of lubricant in the crankcase and elsewhere on a diesel that offsets the labor costs of steam lubrication?

What are the building years of the engines you have seen running?

Also keep in mind that lubricants for diesels are more expensive because some of them must withstand much higher temperatures than on steamers, and - I concede that I don't know it exactly - but I guess a diesel engine needs more types of lubricants than a steamer - and some probably require more attention to cleanliness.

[VAPEURCHAPELON]

All the railroads have switched, including the last major hold out - China, so I think it's pretty obvious that steam is not going to make a comeback.

Yes they switched - and don't rely on the fact that they now pay between 3 and 4 times as much as they did for steam service.

Just what do you mean by "3 and 4 times as much"? Initial cost per horsepower, fuel cost per ton mile hauled or something else. I would love to see a return of steam, particularly reciprocating steam not some whining turbine, but I would rate the possibility of that happening as just slightly better than a return to stagecoaches as a means of transport. I'm sure the arguments will go on and on and if any railroad executives are tuned into this thread I'll bet they are chuckling about the zeal of the railfan community for steam power.

Mark

They didn't specify, but it seems that they meant the complete game including every factor necessary to run trains with a given form of traction.

[MichaelSol]

...and by reducing the need for lubricants

I'm curious on this point, Michael. Do you have supporting numbers on this point?

From Brown:

"Lubricants

"In the diesel locomotive, some of the lubricants are consumed with the fuel. The costs of lubricants are higher than for other types of motive power.

"Most lubricants are products of petroleum, which has increased in cost 2.4 times since 1940. Lubricants cost $7.5 million for 33,700 steam and electric road locomotives in 1940. The equivalent steam and electric locomotives in 1957 would be 14,300, or 42.5 per cent of the 1940 number. The costs of lubricants in 1957 on the basis of above assumptions would be $7.5 x 2.4 x 0.425 or $7.7 million, a very slight increase compared with the actual cost in 1957 of $27.2 million.

"Lubricants for yard service locomotives cost $1.3 million in 1940. Multiplied by the assumed rise in cost, this would be $3.1 million in 1957, compared with the actual cost of $4.4 million."

Summarizing, lubricants for equivalent steam power in 1957 would have cost $10.8 million, compared with lubricant costs for diesel operation of $31.6 million. This was a net cost of $20.8 million because of dieselization.

I compared Browns' analysis, which was taken from railroad supplied data contained in Statistics of Railways of the United States with Milwaukee Road's experience.

On the Milwaukee, adjusted for ton-miles, lubricant costs increased from $419,687 in 1944, when the fleet was primarily Steam, to $1,324,196 on an equivalent ton-mile basis in 1959, an increase in lubrication costs of $904,509.

Although Brown and I used different approaches -- his by raw numbers of locomotives, mine by the amount of work done -- the results, 2.92 times the cost of lubricant for Diesel-electrics as for steam under Browns' approach, and 3.15 times the cost of lubricant for Diesel-electrics as for steam by using a "work" approach, are remarkably close suggesting that the observation is true rather than a statistical anomoly.

Since lubricant costs are generally 10-14% of the overall cost of diesel fuel used, the role of lubricants as an operating cost is significant.

 

[wsherrick]

...and by reducing the need for lubricants

I'm curious on this point, Michael. Do you have supporting numbers on this point? I have no idea, but I would have thought the advantage would be to the diesel on this point. Lubricating a steam locomotive seems to be a fairly labor intensive task -- at least the steam locomotives I've seen running. Is there such a quantity of lubricant in the crankcase and elsewhere on a diesel that offsets the labor costs of steam lubrication?

So many posts to respond to today.  I'll start with this one.

Today at work I just poured 25 gallons of lubrication oil into the diesel (GE U Boat)at work.  It will need that again in a few weeks.  We put 1500 gallons of fuel into the tank @ $3.75 per gallon which cost $5,625.00. It will have to be filled again in a couple of weeks.

I have experience with operating these steam locomotives: Southern No. 4501, T&P 610, C&O 2716, N&W 611, N&W 1218, CO&E No. 17 and NH&I No. 40.

None of these engines needed 25 gallons of any kind of lubricating oil at one time, ever.  The difference in the time to do the servicing depends on how old the engine is.  The 4501 which was built in 1911 took about an hour to do all the oiling.  The 611 which was built in 1950 takes about 20 minutes and oil is measured out in ounces and quarts not gallons.

You might say, well that's an old diesel.  And I will answer why do many of you try and compare 60 year old steam technology with what is current?  In the effort not to be redundant, I will simply say: Go back and read the thread again.

 

[selector]

...although, to keep the argument fairly steam tight ( ), we don't really have a comparative basis to deal with the lubricant debate.  What, and how much, will the "new" replacement in steam engines need in the way of lubricants?  If they improve efficiencies by a factor of 2, would it not be reasonable to presume that the sophistication and the numbers/amounts of lubes would increase commensurately?  It might be somewhat moot when a realistic comparison is eventually made on this part of the topic.

-Crandell

[wsherrick]

In the case of the Santa Fe the use of diesels permitted AT&SF to eliminate all of the non revenue trains that they had to run to supply water in the deserts of New Mexico, Arizona, California and Texas.  All of the water to resupply the steam locomotives had to be hauled in because the water was either unavailable, or unusable.  So for the Santa Fe dieselization was a no brainer.

Can you imagine what a return to steam could mean for western railroads? I don't even want to think about California emmissions restrictions and water conservation constraints. I have to agree with Jonathan!

Now some folks on this thread have been claiming that dieselisation, and solely dieselisation, led to higher operating costs, less return on investments, and the overall demise of North American railroading. I understand that a love of steam can cause tunnel-vision (no pun intended). Now, after consulting my history books, it seems that the US economy was experiencing a recession around 1960, a date by which the steam-diesel transition can be considered complete.

Obviously there were many external factors contributing to railroads' economic woes. As for the supposed numbers "proving" it was diesel's fault (sounds like an episode of "Thomas the Tank Engine"), never believe a statistic you didn't personally falsify! I once read a study which "proved" that red cars get stopped more often by the cops than cars of another color. Turns out that more high horsepower sportscars are sold in red than in any other color. It wasn't the red paint causing the speeding tickets, it was the powerful motor in the car. The color was actually irrelevant.

Steam survived over here in western Europe almost 20 years longer than in North America. If, by the 70s, railroads could have proven that steam were more efficient and cost effective than diesel, surely European railroads were in a position to stick with steam. Yet they made the transition. Why? Because steam is NOT cheaper and more efficient than diesel.

The point has been proved over and over again with out refute.  It wasn't sucessfully refuted in H.F Brown's time and it can't be on this thread.  I take your red car example to illustrate your point of view.  The supposed benefits of dieselization, lowered maintence, improved locomotive productivity, etc., are all because of other economic factors such as a decline in traffic overall and a decline in unprofitable short haul traffic and costs associated with that, et al. that had nothing to do with the type of power involved.  So I guess it was because the diesels were painted red so to speak.

There have been repeated posts here with hard numbers to back these statments.  And you call us liars.  Hmm, I could be offended but I'm not, one is entitled to one's opionion even if it is based on unfounded bias and willful ignorance.  So be it.

[VAPEURCHAPELON]

Class A:

Starting Tractive Effort: 114,000 LBS.

Maximum DRAWBAR horsepower: 5,350 @ 40 MPH

Continuous Drawbar horsepower: 5100 between 24 & 64 MPH

Tonnage Ratings: Williamson to Columbus OH-16,000 t0 18,000 tons @ 15 to 30 MPH.

Time Freight Tonnage: 7,500 Tons @ 64 MPH

Class Y6b:

Starting Tractive Effort: 160,000 pounds,  152,000 continuous TE in compound mode.

Maximum Drawbar Horsepower: 5,600 horsepower @ 25 MPH

Continuous Drawbar Horsepower: 5000-5100 between 17 & 34 MPH

Tonnage Rating for a single Y6b on the 1.6% grade between Gln Lynn and Bluefield Summit is 3900 Tons.

Maximum Rating for 2 Y6b's on the same grade is 10,000 to 11,000 Tons

Source:  N&W Records, circa 1950

I believe that some of these are not correct.

class A:

- starting TE of 114000 pounds is the calculated TE, actually measured were as much as 119000

- max drawbar hp was above 6200 (boiler is larger than on Y-6)

 

class Y-6b:

- 152000 pounds TE continious I think is compound mode plus intercepting valve opened, not compound alone

- if two Y-6 engines could lug 11000 tons up 1,6% grade, why could a single one take only 3900 tons on the same grade? Actually I would expect a bit moe than half of the tonnage for two engine, but 6000 tons up 1,6% seems to be very high. Do you could look again if these statistics are correct?

[wsherrick]

Class A:

Starting Tractive Effort: 114,000 LBS.

Maximum DRAWBAR horsepower: 5,350 @ 40 MPH

Continuous Drawbar horsepower: 5100 between 24 & 64 MPH

Tonnage Ratings: Williamson to Columbus OH-16,000 t0 18,000 tons @ 15 to 30 MPH.

Time Freight Tonnage: 7,500 Tons @ 64 MPH

Class Y6b:

Starting Tractive Effort: 160,000 pounds,  152,000 continuous TE in compound mode.

Maximum Drawbar Horsepower: 5,600 horsepower @ 25 MPH

Continuous Drawbar Horsepower: 5000-5100 between 17 & 34 MPH

Tonnage Rating for a single Y6b on the 1.6% grade between Gln Lynn and Bluefield Summit is 3900 Tons.

Maximum Rating for 2 Y6b's on the same grade is 10,000 to 11,000 Tons

Source:  N&W Records, circa 1950

I believe that some of these are not correct.

class A:

- starting TE of 114000 pounds is the calculated TE, actually measured were as much as 119000

- max drawbar hp was above 6200 (boiler is larger than on Y-6)

 

class Y-6b:

- 152000 pounds TE continious I think is compound mode plus intercepting valve opened, not compound alone

- if two Y-6 engines could lug 11000 tons up 1,6% grade, why could a single one take only 3900 tons on the same grade? Actually I would expect a bit moe than half of the tonnage for two engine, but 6000 tons up 1,6% seems to be very high. Do you could look again if these statistics are correct?

Yes, I will be happy to check those figures for you. The figures for the A are taken from an N&W trade publication from 1950 and others from: "N&W Giant of Steam.  If I made an error I will be more than happy to correct it.  Thanks.

[blue streak 1]

I'm not clear on the water problem. Modern steam electric plants have to take their own water from streams and rivers that is untreated. I've heard that steam operators of today have to be very careful where they get their water. Because many local water systems treat water to make it taste better that water cannot be used. How about it you steam operators lets us know. The lack of good water on some RRs suggest that they would not want to start hauling proper water al la Santa FE. The techniques discussed for newer technology almost suggest distilled water would be needed.

New steam facilities would be very costly to build - sand, water, coal, heaters for water storage, ash pits, servicing facilities, wyes or turntables, etc. All old steam heads i've talked to say you don't work outside on those "beasts" in cold weather.