I started this topic to keep the replies from getting lost in the never ending thread of a similar name. On that other thread steam locomotives have been proclaimed to be superior to diesels in the following aspects:
1. Lower operating costs (primarily coal vs diesel fuel price differential)
2. Lower initial captial cost per equivalent hp
3. Superior performance (more hp at higher speeds where it is needed)
4. Longer service life
5. Lower repair costs
6. Easier on trackage (resulting in reduced MOW expense)
I personally am not convinced of the validity of all these claims (particularly 5 & 6), but for purposes of this discussion let's assume all are valid. The $64 question then becomes, why aren't the railroads jumping on the bandwagon and at least seriously studying the use of steam locomotives as a replacement for diesels on some of their routes where the supposed benefits would be greatest? A corrolary question is, why hasn't some firm recognized the market potential and stepped forward to design and build a truly modern steam demonstrator for actual in-service trials?
Mark
I have nothing much of value to contribute, but I would ask how you can be sure they are not?
It seems that the optics of such a proposal would stick in people's craws. Coal? What are you thinking? Steam locomotives? Get real! The environmentalists have their minds made up..we'll all die if we dont' cease all combustion right away, not even cooking fires (how's that for pollution control?). No home heating unless it's electrical heat pump type...but the electricity will have to be saved up from lightning strikes...I guess.
Okay, I got the ball rolling with some tongue-in-cheek stuff, but ...what? Will Washington get on board and show leadership when votes are at stake? Mmmmm....no.
selector wrote: I have nothing much of value to contribute, but I would ask how you can be sure they are not?
That I can answer. The railway and railway supply industry is not. At least not anyone in a position to command meaningful financial resources, publically or in private that I am aware of.
RWM
....All that is very interesting, and it will be fun to watch.
And I agree, if so many advantages are there to utilize....Where is the rush to them....Diesel costs are getting to a point we've not been to before.
With diesel at or near 5 dollars a gal. over on the interstates....I simply do not see how the truckers are making an acceptable profit to stay in business.
Quentin
I often wondered about this question myself. The larger question is "Is steam making a comeback anywhere"? Except for the largest central power generating stations and some cogeneration systems, steam seems to be abandoned for other technologies like gas turbines and Diesels. Even in large container ships, an application that on the surface would seem to favor steam, gargantuan Diesels are being employed. I can't understand why would this be occuring if steam had such an overwhelming advantage over Diesels.
Anthony V.
AnthonyV wrote: I often wondered about this question myself. The larger question is "Is steam making a comeback anywhere"? Except for the largest central power generating stations and some cogeneration systems, steam seems to be abandoned for other technologies like gas turbines and Diesels. Even in large container ships, an application that on the surface would seem to favor steam, gargantuan Diesels are being employed. I can't understand why would this be occuring if steam had such an overwhelming advantage over Diesels. Anthony V.
I think Anthony V has hit the nail squarely.
If steam was, in fact, viable we'd see its resurgance on ocean ships, river towboats, harbor tugs, etc. The people on this forum that claim the railroads worldwide are dolts for not returning to steam can't explain why the very diverse water transport industry isn't embracing steam.
The obvious answer is that the economics of diesel power still trump the economics of steam power. But that's the problem, the answer is too obvious and you can't build a conspiracy therory of dolts around it. So, seeking a melodrama conspiracy "play" some people get into meaningless discussions of how much lubricant steam requires vis a vis diesel, etc.
Another obvious fact is that if the spread between the price of diesel fuel and coal gets wide enough it will make sense to hire Sim Webb's great-great-great grandson, give him a shovel, and have him start throwing coal underneath a boiler. We're (again obviously) not there yet or we'd be smelling coal smoke along the Mississippi from steam powered towboats.
And BTW, the US Senate is considering a bill that will eliminate coal generation of electric power by 2030. Now there be dolts.
It's a rhetorical question, in that we can ask the same thing about other "obvious" situations:
Why isn't the US building more nuclear power plants?
Why isn't the US building CTL plants?
Why isn't the US offering financial aid for new transcon railroads?
Why isn't the new WTC building up yet?
The answer, such as one exists for all these questions, is that such new projects take time, lots of time - decades in some cases, just to get off the drawing board, out of the public hearing rooms, through the voter initiative process, past the frivolous lawsuits, etc etc etc. The question them becomes "is it worth going through all this BS?"
Maybe you should revist this thread in ten years, maybe by then something might have happened on the steam locomotive front!
Let's look at a few of the reasons we moved from steam to diesel.
Maintainence costs less with diesel
Less manpower with diesel
Cheaper fuel costs
That was 60 years ago.
My question is why couldn't a steam engine be built with modern cleaner coal burning, self lubricating parts, and modern longerl asting parts. If I were a rich industrialist I would love to build at least a prototype. They say history can repeat itself, who knows. Remember the test ran in the mid 80's hauling coal? I believe it was successful, but diesel costs were very low compared to now. And it was discarded. I do not think it is going to happen but I believe the concept is possible on an engineering level if not a practical level.
KCSfan wrote: A corrolary question is, why hasn't some firm recognized the market potential and stepped forward to design and build a truly modern steam demonstrator for actual in-service trials?
A corrolary question is, why hasn't some firm recognized the market potential and stepped forward to design and build a truly modern steam demonstrator for actual in-service trials?
Posted 5/26:
MichaelSol wrote:The real problem, as arbfe points out above, and as I have repeatedly cautioned regarding both steam and electrification, is that railroads now fully enjoy the monopolist's advantage: nothing can beat the railroads on cost, and they do not have the essential capacity to compete with each other. The danger of monopoly is in the cost imposed on society and this represents a classic example. Wth the disappearance of a genuinely competitive rail system and the new ability to pass through all costs directly to shippers without a competitive penalty, there is no compelling competitive incentive to significant investment in further productivity increases in the rail industry. And while lowering dependence of foreign oil has significant societal advantages, and lowering consumption significantly would assist other sectors of the economy which do not have alternatives, the rail industry in effect operates directly counter to the best interests of the U.S. economy because it has so strongly insulated itself against the market forces that, in other industries, continually compel ongoing productivity investment -- to beat the other guy in the market by lowering operating costs. And this is why this is a genuine economic problem in an allegedly "deregulated" environment that preserves the essential elements of regulation for the industry: protection from anti-trust law and fair trade practices acts. When the interests of a specific industry run so directly counter to the best interests of a market economy and society as a whole, it is not a matter of whether there is going to be reckoning, but when.
The real problem, as arbfe points out above, and as I have repeatedly cautioned regarding both steam and electrification, is that railroads now fully enjoy the monopolist's advantage: nothing can beat the railroads on cost, and they do not have the essential capacity to compete with each other.
The danger of monopoly is in the cost imposed on society and this represents a classic example. Wth the disappearance of a genuinely competitive rail system and the new ability to pass through all costs directly to shippers without a competitive penalty, there is no compelling competitive incentive to significant investment in further productivity increases in the rail industry.
And while lowering dependence of foreign oil has significant societal advantages, and lowering consumption significantly would assist other sectors of the economy which do not have alternatives, the rail industry in effect operates directly counter to the best interests of the U.S. economy because it has so strongly insulated itself against the market forces that, in other industries, continually compel ongoing productivity investment -- to beat the other guy in the market by lowering operating costs.
And this is why this is a genuine economic problem in an allegedly "deregulated" environment that preserves the essential elements of regulation for the industry: protection from anti-trust law and fair trade practices acts. When the interests of a specific industry run so directly counter to the best interests of a market economy and society as a whole, it is not a matter of whether there is going to be reckoning, but when.
Any investment requires an incentive and, currently, there just isn't any incentive for the rail industry to look at anything different. Even when there is a measurable incentive, industry-wide resistance to change tends to mark the rule rather than the exception: ergo steel, autos, etc. Railroads are no magnificent exception, and particularly so when the incentive is difficult to identify.
greyhounds wrote:The obvious answer is that the economics of diesel power still trump the economics of steam power.
If it's that "obvious", prove it with a meaningful use of econometric data, since that is what the "answer" necessarily must rely on.
Maybe the answer to the question, why isn't steam making a comeback? is that the economics if rising oil prices have not yet reached the point where it happens. The fact that diesels are still used in ships does not mean that steam will never make a comeback. Steam may make a comeback in ships and locomotives. It may even comeback in ships first. I noticed that there are two underlying themes of the question of the thread, Could steam make a comeback?
One theme is that the rising price of oil will force a fuel substitution, and that the substitute fuel would be coal. Then there are three subdivisions of that theme as follows:
1) Burn coal directly in locomotives
2) Electrify the railroads, and burn coal in fixed power plants to generate electricity to power them.
3) Convert the coal to liquid fuel that would be burned in locomotives.
There are also propulsion subdivisions to the first subdivision above as follows:
1) Burn coal in locomotives to make steam for reciprocating propulsion.
2) Burn coal in locomotives to make steam for turbine propulsion.
3) Burn coal in locomotives to make gas for turbine propulsion.
4) Burn coal in locomotives as direct fuel for diesel engines.
Number 3 and 4 fall outside of the specific question about steam making a comeback, but are implied in the connection with alternate fuel driving the possible comeback of steam.
Then there is the second of the two main themes of the question, Could steam make a comeback? That second theme is that the railroads made a mistake by abandoning steam for diesel in the first place.
Deleted by the poster, in the interest of continuity.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Murphy Siding wrote: Railway Man wrote: selector wrote: I have nothing much of value to contribute, but I would ask how you can be sure they are not?That I can answer. The railway and railway supply industry is not. At least not anyone in a position to command meaningful financial resources, publically or in private that I am aware of.RWMWell Duh! That's just because they haven't seen the graphs and charts!
Railway Man wrote: selector wrote: I have nothing much of value to contribute, but I would ask how you can be sure they are not?That I can answer. The railway and railway supply industry is not. At least not anyone in a position to command meaningful financial resources, publically or in private that I am aware of.RWM
Do your insults really contribute anything?
Norman Saxon wrote: It's a rhetorical question, in that we can ask the same thing about other "obvious" situations:Why isn't the US building more nuclear power plants?Why isn't the US building CTL plants?Why isn't the US offering financial aid for new transcon railroads?Why isn't the new WTC building up yet?The answer, such as one exists for all these questions, is that such new projects take time, lots of time - decades in some cases, just to get off the drawing board, out of the public hearing rooms, through the voter initiative process, past the frivolous lawsuits, etc etc etc. The question them becomes "is it worth going through all this BS?"Maybe you should revist this thread in ten years, maybe by then something might have happened on the steam locomotive front!
Nope. People move pretty fast when there's money to be made.
The examples you cite involve government medling. Building a freaking steamboat to push barges on the Mississippi would be done toot suite if'n somebody could make some money doing it. It's not being done because it doesn't make economic sense at this time.
Ten years out, who knows.
selector wrote:I may be misreading entirely, but I think Murph was being facetious, Michael.
He wasn't. It was sarcasm, the device he routinely employs to denigrate the contributions of those he disagrees with, even as he is unable to make a positive contribution of his own.
greyhounds wrote: The examples you cite involve government medling.
The examples you cite involve government medling.
From another post:
"See the 1954 Internal Revenue Code, section 611, et. seq. on oil getting a 27% depletion allowance but coal 10%."
Do you suppose that "government meddling" had something to do with the cost advantage of oil over coal during the transition period?
Or is the answer "too obvious"?
Steam isn't making a come back and never will because the only saving would be on fuel. Everything else would cost more. The whole probably with the arguement is that supports have really only looked at the price of coal vs. oil and not really much beyond that. Much of the arguement for steam neglects to account for increase in labor costs, the cost of water (yes water cost money and should be counted as fuel), the increase in unsafe working conditions (namely communication and visability) and increase in maintanence. Buying new locomotives and building new facilites are the upfront costs which doesn't need to be covered. The annual operaterating costs is what needs to be examine. Basically, any savings in fuel (coal/water) would have to be greater than the expected increase in operating expenses before steam could be considered a viable alternative. Let's look at some detail:
Labor - Two men crews would have to be expanded to 3 man crews since the union probably won't allow the conductor to also be the fireman. That means hiring more people. Let's assuming that only one locomotive is needed per train. For the sake of math, BNSF would have to hire 5,000 fireman at $50,000/yr (includes salary and benefits). That comes to an additional $250,000,000.00 per year just in labor. So whatever saving in fuel would have to over come that cost. As doubleheading a train or helpers, although it is possible to computer control a steam engine, that probably would not be allowed by law or make sense (someone has to watch the fire). So you would have to hire more engineers and fireman (no conductors). So a crew of 2 with a diesel can jump to a crew of 5 plus which is more money. For the sake of math it would could BNSF another $500,000,000 per year to run the extra engines on their trains.
Lost Time - The great thing about diesels is that they can go a long distance with out the need to refuel. Steam engines on the otherhand need to be refueled a lot more often. When EMD was promoting the FT-series locomotives, here was a major selling point for the diesel's triumph of steam:
"One of the most outstanding features of the entire performance was the ability of this diesel locomotive to make the entire trip (from Argentine Kansas to Los Angeles) with only 4 stops for fuel and water; whereas a total of seven steam locomotives would generally be required to handle the same train on the same run with 12 stop require for fuel and water AND 16 additional stops for water only."
Not only would train times slow down because of the need to refuel/water so many times, the additional stops would also require more labor since there would be more "idle" time where the labor isn't running the train. Let's call the time for refueling/watering as unproductive time. The more fuel stops also means more "hot shot" trains like UPS trains would take longer to get from point A to point B. I serious doubt UPS would pay BNSF premium prices for slower service with steam. So more money lost here.
More Infrastructure - With so many fuel/water stops required for steam, it means more facilites to handle such functions. For the sake of math, let's say BNSF has to add 1,000 facilties (water or water/coal) and each facility require an average of $10,000 per year for maintanence/upkeep/labor to fix or maintain. Just to run the additional facilities would cost BNSF an additional $10,000,000.
Water - Water isn't free, particular in built up areas and arid climates. So don't forget add that to the cost of fuel.
Loss Savings in maintanence - Diesel locomotives cost less to maintain because a lot of their parts are not only interchangeable with other locomotives, but also within itself. For instance, every wheel on a six axle locomotive is the same size with the same motor. You can shuffle with wheels around and it'll run fine. Not so with a steam engine. Just about every wheel is unique. The wheels on the lead trucks, drivers, trailers and tender are all different. So when it comes time to order wheels, railroad companies save money being able to buy in bulk one type of wheel as oppose to smaller orders of different size wheels. The inner workings of a diesel are also easier to access than steam.
Loss Visability - Unless all new steam engines are cab-fowards, the engineer will lose the ability to see what is going on his left side (assuming all controls are on the rightside of the cab). This lack of vision brings up safety concerns when it comes to reading signals and seeing other dangers.
Other Safety Issues - One of the pluses about diesels is that they are much more quiet than steam. Today's quiet comfort cabs allow engineers to communicate much more easily with the conductor or the dispatch because noise isn't such a factor. Isolating the cab of a steam engine may be possible put roar of the stack and the fire may be very hard to overcome. The windows of the cab would always be open (no more airconditioning) because of the heat generated by the boiler... thus adding to the noise (air rushing by). Communication is very important and the added sounds would make it difficult and more unsafe if it is hard to understand what is being said to you.
Waste Issues - While transporting coal or oil to a refueling facility are probably equal, the ashes from the ash pans need to be transported some place. That's an added cost.
Murphy Siding wrote: MichaelSol wrote: greyhounds wrote:The obvious answer is that the economics of diesel power still trump the economics of steam power. If it's that "obvious", prove it with a meaningful use of econometric data, since that is what the "answer" necessarily must rely on.greyhounds-no need to re-prove it. The marketplace has already done that for you.
MichaelSol wrote: greyhounds wrote:The obvious answer is that the economics of diesel power still trump the economics of steam power. If it's that "obvious", prove it with a meaningful use of econometric data, since that is what the "answer" necessarily must rely on.
And Crandell, this is exactly what I mean. This guy doesn't want to see anything that contradicts his preconceived notions, and doesn't even want to see anyone support them either. And yet, he can't seem to muster anything positive to contribute -- just a peanut gallery of his very own. His attitude is that all matters on which he has strong opinions are naturally self-proving and self-evident, and I find the attitude and its ongoing manner of expression offensive, aside from the astonishing arrogance of coming onto a thread only to dictate to participants what questions should and should not be answered because he thinks he knows all the answers without proof.
MerrilyWeRollAlong wrote: The whole probably with the arguement is that supports have really only looked at the price of coal vs. oil and not really much beyond that.
Then you haven't read anything that has been posted the past five weeks, or are just trying to start the whole argument all over again. There's no point in that unless you actually have something new to offer. And, the thread author has kindly asked for a different approach on this.
Admittedly, the topic is tiresome following the standard procedure on the older thread when people offer 1) opinions without facts, 2) bias without premise, 3) conclusions without analysis, 4) economic answers without a single number in sight, and 5) self-gratifying observations that everything is self-evident notwithstanding published statistical evidence to the contrary.
The last thing I wanted to do when I posed this question was to start another steam vs diesel debate!!! That has been and continues to be thoroughly discussed on the other thread which is its right place.
The following quote from my original message sets forth what I hoped would be a groundrule for discussions on this thread. "I personally am not convinced of the validity of all these claims" (of steam's superiority over diesel), "but for purposes of this discussion let's assume all are valid." To the extent possible please try to keep this assumption in mind when you frame your replies. Many thanks -
MerrilyWeRollAlong wrote: Steam isn't making a come back and never will because the only saving would be on fuel. Everything else would cost more. The whole probably with the arguement is that supports have really only looked at the price of coal vs. oil and not really much beyond that. Much of the arguement for steam neglects to account for increase in labor costs, the cost of water (yes water cost money and should be counted as fuel), the increase in unsafe working conditions (namely communication and visability) and increase in maintanence. Buying new locomotives and building new facilites are the upfront costs which doesn't need to be covered. The annual operaterating costs is what needs to be examine. Basically, any savings in fuel (coal/water) would have to be greater than the expected increase in operating expenses before steam could be considered a viable alternative. Let's look at some detail:Labor - Two men crews would have to be expanded to 3 man crews since the union probably won't allow the conductor to also be the fireman. That means hiring more people. Let's assuming that only one locomotive is needed per train. For the sake of math, BNSF would have to hire 5,000 fireman at $50,000/yr (includes salary and benefits). That comes to an additional $250,000,000.00 per year just in labor. So whatever saving in fuel would have to over come that cost. As doubleheading a train or helpers, although it is possible to computer control a steam engine, that probably would not be allowed by law or make sense (someone has to watch the fire). So you would have to hire more engineers and fireman (no conductors). So a crew of 2 with a diesel can jump to a crew of 5 plus which is more money. For the sake of math it would could BNSF another $500,000,000 per year to run the extra engines on their trains.Lost Time - The great thing about diesels is that they can go a long distance with out the need to refuel. Steam engines on the otherhand need to be refueled a lot more often. When EMD was promoting the FT-series locomotives, here was a major selling point for the diesel's triumph of steam: "One of the most outstanding features of the entire performance was the ability of this diesel locomotive to make the entire trip (from Argentine Kansas to Los Angeles) with only 4 stops for fuel and water; whereas a total of seven steam locomotives would generally be required to handle the same train on the same run with 12 stop require for fuel and water AND 16 additional stops for water only."Not only would train times slow down because of the need to refuel/water so many times, the additional stops would also require more labor since there would be more "idle" time where the labor isn't running the train. Let's call the time for refueling/watering as unproductive time. The more fuel stops also means more "hot shot" trains like UPS trains would take longer to get from point A to point B. I serious doubt UPS would pay BNSF premium prices for slower service with steam. So more money lost here.More Infrastructure - With so many fuel/water stops required for steam, it means more facilites to handle such functions. For the sake of math, let's say BNSF has to add 1,000 facilties (water or water/coal) and each facility require an average of $10,000 per year for maintanence/upkeep/labor to fix or maintain. Just to run the additional facilities would cost BNSF an additional $10,000,000. Water - Water isn't free, particular in built up areas and arid climates. So don't forget add that to the cost of fuel.Loss Savings in maintanence - Diesel locomotives cost less to maintain because a lot of their parts are not only interchangeable with other locomotives, but also within itself. For instance, every wheel on a six axle locomotive is the same size with the same motor. You can shuffle with wheels around and it'll run fine. Not so with a steam engine. Just about every wheel is unique. The wheels on the lead trucks, drivers, trailers and tender are all different. So when it comes time to order wheels, railroad companies save money being able to buy in bulk one type of wheel as oppose to smaller orders of different size wheels. The inner workings of a diesel are also easier to access than steam.Loss Visability - Unless all new steam engines are cab-fowards, the engineer will lose the ability to see what is going on his left side (assuming all controls are on the rightside of the cab). This lack of vision brings up safety concerns when it comes to reading signals and seeing other dangers.Other Safety Issues - One of the pluses about diesels is that they are much more quiet than steam. Today's quiet comfort cabs allow engineers to communicate much more easily with the conductor or the dispatch because noise isn't such a factor. Isolating the cab of a steam engine may be possible put roar of the stack and the fire may be very hard to overcome. The windows of the cab would always be open (no more airconditioning) because of the heat generated by the boiler... thus adding to the noise (air rushing by). Communication is very important and the added sounds would make it difficult and more unsafe if it is hard to understand what is being said to you.Waste Issues - While transporting coal or oil to a refueling facility are probably equal, the ashes from the ash pans need to be transported some place. That's an added cost.
If steam were to make a comeback, it does not necessarily mean that the entire steam culture and state of the art that existed when it left would comeback with it. Steam could comeback in a form that the participants in that culture would not even recognize. For instance, I suspect that if steam comes back, it won't come back with firemen. The engineer will do the firing. I also suspect that new steam would M.U., and that the one engineer would also fire those remote units. Safety, comfort, visibility, sound control, and emissions would all be equal to or better than today's diesels. Fuel, water, and ash handling methods would need to be developed. They need not slow down the schedule, however.
KCSfan wrote: I started this topic to keep the replies from getting lost in the never ending thread of a similar name. On that other thread steam locomotives have been proclaimed to be superior to diesels in the following aspects:1. Lower operating costs (primarily coal vs diesel fuel price differential)2. Lower initial captial cost per equivalent hp3. Superior performance (more hp at higher speeds where it is needed)4. Longer service life5. Lower repair costs6. Easier on trackage (resulting in reduced MOW expense)I personally am not convinced of the validity of all these claims (particularly 5 & 6), but for purposes of this discussion let's assume all are valid. The $64 question then becomes, why aren't the railroads jumping on the bandwagon and at least seriously studying the use of steam locomotives as a replacement for diesels on some of their routes where the supposed benefits would be greatest? A corrolary question is, why hasn't some firm recognized the market potential and stepped forward to design and build a truly modern steam demonstrator for actual in-service trials?Mark
One thing I haven't seen discussed is the level of speculation that this firm, be it a railroad or potential locomotive manufacturer, would be putting forth. There's no guarantee that the present price differential between coal and diesel fuel will remain at today's level, and this differential seems to be the focus of all these type discussions. The oft cited ACE 3000 project from the 80's would introduce its own levels of infrastructure additions. For example, the coal was to be provided in fuel modules, and the ash removed in an ash module, that could be loaded and unloaded with a simple forklift, but it never addressed the point that somewhere along the line, these needed to be refilled with coal or emptied of ash.
As I recall, the shift in the fuel price differential is what moved this project to the back burner, if it's still on the stove.
Trying to find the firm or firms to take on this level of speculation is the hard part.
KCSfan wrote: The last thing I wanted to do when I posed this question was to start another steam vs diesel debate!!! That has been and continues to be thoroughly discussed on the other thread which is its right place.The following quote from my original message sets forth what I hoped would be a groundrule for discussions on this thread. "I personally am not convinced of the validity of all these claims" (of steam's superiority over diesel), "but for purposes of this discussion let's assume all are valid." To the extent possible please try to keep this assumption in mind when you frame your replies. Many thanks -Mark
-Norris
This thread seems to be merely a rehash/continuation of the other thread.....
I believe that the question that should have been posed on the original thread is (i.e the question that the original poster was ACTUALLY ASKING) :
Will (not "should") Railroads in North America purchase new steam locomotives to replace existing diesels due to the continuing trend in global oil markets?
It seems that the majority of the people who have feel that the above is unlikely, even the "pro steamers"...
As far as the question at the heart of this thread it should really be asked of decision makers in the railroad industry, it cannot be answered by debate among railfans...
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
I believe you're on the right track Crandell. For most of us, this is a hobby interest. I truely feel sorry for those who feel this is earth-shattering, have to be 100% serious all the time discussion. Life is too short to be so serious and have so many rules.
MichaelSol wrote: MerrilyWeRollAlong wrote: The whole probably with the arguement is that supports have really only looked at the price of coal vs. oil and not really much beyond that. Then you haven't read anything that has been posted the past five weeks, or are just trying to start the whole argument all over again. There's no point in that unless you actually have something new to offer.Admittedly, the topic is tiresome when people offer 1) opinions without facts, 2) bias without premise, 3) conclusions without analysis, 4) economic answers without a single number in sight, and 5) self-gratifying observations that everything is self-evident notwithstanding published statistical evidence to the contrary.
Then you haven't read anything that has been posted the past five weeks, or are just trying to start the whole argument all over again. There's no point in that unless you actually have something new to offer.
Admittedly, the topic is tiresome when people offer 1) opinions without facts, 2) bias without premise, 3) conclusions without analysis, 4) economic answers without a single number in sight, and 5) self-gratifying observations that everything is self-evident notwithstanding published statistical evidence to the contrary.
Sir, why don't really say what's on mind? In my opinion, from the tone of your response I can tell you are dying to say a few choice words to me. I appologize for not reading the 35 pages of the last thread and it's my opinion. What if I didn't know about the other thread and I just came across this thread? It's fine if you don't like my opinion, but in my opinion your attack against me shows that you do not value anyone who contradicts your opinion. It is in my opinion that you choose instead to belittle me, put me down and call my opinions and views nothing but trash. You could have just said, you disagree with my thoughts and list your reasons. With that said, I invite you to prove to me what stand you wish to take (steam or diesel / coal or oil) and hold yourself to the standard to which you are choosing to hold me.
Can you also tell me what I said that is not true? All i said was that for the sake of math, let's ASSUME BNSF has to hire 5,000 fireman at an ASSUMED annual cost of $50,000 per year per person which would translate to $250 million per year in additional labor. The key word here is ASSUME and the numbers were rounded for the ease of math. I work with numbers for a living and everything gets rounded off. It makes things easier to read and understand.
By the way, the quote in my last post. I got it from an ad shown in the July 2008 Railfan and Railroad, page 42 in an article called "Something About F Units".
Lets see....today's locomotives (ES44 A/DC or SD70Ace's) have a nominal 5000 gallon fuel tank. For the most part with a full tank, they are rated for approximately 1000 to 1100 miles before needing their next fill up....How many tons of coal would have to be available for a Steam locomotive, with the highest level of current steam technology to go 1000 miles.
If I recall correctly, the UP's Big Boys consumed 25 tons of coal in 50 miles slogging up Sherman Hill and needed 25K gallons of water by the time half the coal was consumed. While I am certain state of the art steam technology would be much better than the technology of 60 years ago but is steam technology sufficient to really compete economically with diesel?
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.