If this thread is strictly about GM not taking up diesel-locomotive design starting in 1930, and not a prospective parallel about GM building up markets for their trucks via the same methods they did for buses, then some other factors apply.
In particular, there were a number of railroads that ran happily and profitably with steam, the Nickel Plate and N&W being two reasonably good examples. There is also Brown's paper (from 1961, comparatively 'late in the game' and well after the period of increased labor costs and loss of much of the inherent 'discipline' that provided low-wage labor for unskilled and unpleasant work, which found much of the logic behind contemporary dieselization relatively uncompelling.
I think a case can be made for a fairly widespread continuation of both development and use of steam locomotives if the sources for proprietary components and services, particularly patent auxiliaries for which there could be no effective 'railroad-built' substitutes, had not been eliminated so quickly.
I do not think any of the prospective forms of 'new steam' would actually have succeeded, particularly steam turbine-electrics, but I do think that, for tax reasons, there would have been a greatly enhanced rebuilding of older and smaller locomotives (for example, along the lines of Frisco 1351/2) and this would have gone hand in hand with greater adoption of 'best practices' for steam servicing and maintenance and perhaps with better fuel and water quality.
On the other hand, I think there is very little chance that reciprocating steam would long survive passage of the Clean Air Act (which I think it is fair to say would have come about in some form about when it did, in the late '60s or early '70s.) I suspect that by that time, locomotive manufacturers would have been up to 'second-generation' horsepower levels per unit even without competitive pressure from EMD, so the 'second wave' of dieselization (that wiped out the remaining bastions of steam at the end of the '50s) would likely have occurred only about a decade delayed.
Now, the greater question is how many railroads dieselizing with 'non-EMD' power would have survived the lean years up to deregulation -- I'd argue there would be more problems, and more failures and forced mergers, but I couldn't even begin to say what they would have been specifically. It would be interesting to me to see what the effect of railroads' attempts to maintain investment in steam would have been on the legislation and subsequent enforcement of what became the EPA -- here again, we pass more into speculative fiction than anything deterministic.
The one thing that might be substantially different today would be an increased possibility that the use of steam in niches for which it is best suited might survive, for example in heavy bridge traffic or even long container consists (like the one 3985 famously handled). This use would be concentrated in particular lanes, with a minimization both of required servicing facilities and specialized people. It is possible both that examples of these services would be dieselized and that, when that happened, the displaced equipment might be put to work on other services (either as helpers or in actual 'reverse dieselization' where tax consequences optimized recapitalization or acquisition of the equipment profitably).
Picking up on your ideas, I wonder if any reader has information on how much labor was saved by the kind of run-through servicing at Roanoke that N&W instituted, markedly different than servicing steam on other railroads.
Fascinating discussion for one, me, who is an old goat but still too young to remember much about steam. It makes me remember, without special fondness, the days on here of Michael Sol, who "proved" in his lawyerly way the economic superiority of steam over diesel. (In the same manner he proved the Milwaukee Road was kicking the butts of the Hill Lines out West and was done in only by a conspiracy of its directors.)
This gentleman does a nice job showing some "might-have-beens", paricularly on New York Central but also on quite a few other roads.
http://www.railarchive.net/fantasysteam/
dakotafredt makes me remember, without special fondness, the days on here of Michael Sol, who "proved" in his lawyerly way the economic superiority of steam over diesel. (In the same manner he proved the Milwaukee Road was kicking the butts of the Hill Lines out West and was done in only by a conspiracy of its directors.)
I "missed out" on M. Sol. Given how dull the forum has become in the past year, with a few exceptions, maybe he chould be resurrected?
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
kgbw49 This gentleman does a nice job showing some "might-have-beens", paricularly on New York Central but also on quite a few other roads. http://www.railarchive.net/fantasysteam/
With all due respects to the creator of that web page, some of those locomotives, especially the PRR Garratt from a T-1 and the Erie Quadruplex, are engineering impracticalities.
dakotafred Fascinating discussion for one, me, who is an old goat but still too young to remember much about steam. It makes me remember, without special fondness, the days on here of Michael Sol, who "proved" in his lawyerly way the economic superiority of steam over diesel. (In the same manner he proved the Milwaukee Road was kicking the butts of the Hill Lines out West and was done in only by a conspiracy of its directors.)
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Euclid "There sure was never a dull moment when Michael Sole started a thread." It’s too bad we don’t have a search function on the forum, so we could review Michael’s analysis of why dieselization was a mistake.
To Part 1 of Euclid's statement: A hearty shoiut from the 'AMEN CORNER!" When joined in battle wirh 'Futuremodal' there were some pretty good points to be made; until the conversation got down into the mud with ad hominem attacks. At which point the Moderators called the pitched battle to a halt, and sent the combatantants packing--til the next time...
To Euclid's Part Two.... The Forum techies gained some 'Memory', and the reference material was deep-sixed into the Historical Dust Bin...
Euclid A lack of search function speaks volumes.
A search function does exist - you just have to know where to look for it.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Where is it?
Oh I found it. Nevermind.
Another question is how well steam might have adapted to other technological developments of the time - specifically electronics. Could a steam engine be "flown by wire," as modern Diesels are?
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
Murphy Siding dakotafred Fascinating discussion for one, me, who is an old goat but still too young to remember much about steam. It makes me remember, without special fondness, the days on here of Michael Sol, who "proved" in his lawyerly way the economic superiority of steam over diesel. (In the same manner he proved the Milwaukee Road was kicking the butts of the Hill Lines out West and was done in only by a conspiracy of its directors.) ...and proved that the grass is blue and the sky is green and anybody who disagrees with him is obviously wrong...
...and proved that the grass is blue and the sky is green and anybody who disagrees with him is obviously wrong...
I feel like stirring the pot, if anyone cares.
I think M Sol may have been right in some respects. I think the MILW made more off traffic that was transcontinental. That for a while they were, if not eating completely, eating out of BN's picnic basket. This from the opening of MILW access to new traffic.
What I think is that the increase of business came too late to save the PCE. That the increase actually hurt because the line wasn't in shape to handle the business. Not being able to finance the rehab of the line, the increase just hastened it's falling apart. The business than goes away and the decline worsens.
I don't remember, but was Sol comparing steam to diesel or the MILW electrification to diesel? The electrification suffered sort of the same problem as the tracks itself, no money to modernize. By the early 70's the system was obsolete. GE proposed a modernization, including new locomotives, but MILW didn't have the money.
If MILW management's finger prints are on the knife in the MILW's back, it's due to the policy of deferred maintenance early on that snowballed until it became too much. That problem wasn't just something that happened to them back then. Other railroads had the same problem.
With the upheavel in coal and other easy and lucrative freight, could we see a return to deferred maintenance and outright abandonment of railroad trackage?
Jeff
kgbw49 It would have been something to see steam developed even for another 10 years, to 1955 or so. There were some interesting locomotives on the drawing boards that never made it to production. Four that come to mind are the N-W Y7 fast freight 2-8-8-2, the Great Northern fast freight 2-6-6-4 with 73 inch drivers, the UP "Super 800s", and perhaps on C&O and SP some Lima-designed 4-8-6 passenger locomotives. (Could you imagine a Daylight 4-8-6?) I am sure there are others out there. With another 10-15 years of steam development and good old American ingenuity, there would have been some magnificent machines coming out of Schenectady, Eddystone, Lima, Roanoke, Altoona, and Hillyard Shops in Spokane.
It would have been something to see steam developed even for another 10 years, to 1955 or so. There were some interesting locomotives on the drawing boards that never made it to production. Four that come to mind are the N-W Y7 fast freight 2-8-8-2, the Great Northern fast freight 2-6-6-4 with 73 inch drivers, the UP "Super 800s", and perhaps on C&O and SP some Lima-designed 4-8-6 passenger locomotives. (Could you imagine a Daylight 4-8-6?) I am sure there are others out there. With another 10-15 years of steam development and good old American ingenuity, there would have been some magnificent machines coming out of Schenectady, Eddystone, Lima, Roanoke, Altoona, and Hillyard Shops in Spokane.
Was the Y-7 really a fast freight design?
My understanding was that the reason N&W worked on the Simplex 2-8-8-2 concept was that the ICC abolished it's previous rule limiting the total number of cars in a freight train and the road wanted to run these longer trains without as many helpers and pushers. "Longer train" in this case makes me believe they were thinking of coal gondolas.
However, the locomotive would have used 63" drivers rather then the Y6b's 57" wheels (and not the high speed A class 2-6-6-4 70" drivers) so they probably were looking for a mid-speed articulated that would do well both in Drag and Merchandise service.
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
Euclid There sure was never a dull moment when Michael Sole started a thread. It’s too bad we don’t have a search function on the forum, so we could review Michael’s analysis of why dieselization was a mistake.
Here's the longest thread in all it's ragged glory....
http://cs.trains.com/trn/f/111/t/121073.aspx?PageIndex=44&page=1
In my Extremely Humble opinion Mr. Sol's earlier contention the N&W (and some of the other coal hauling RR's) had dieselized too rapidly was compelling but his later argument that the Class 1's circa-2006 needed to scrap their motive power fleets and buy new built Y6B's (or Q2s, ACE3000s etc..) didn't seem to be much more than fantasy..
carnej1Was the Y-7 really a fast freight design? My understanding was that the reason N&W worked on the Simplex 2-8-8-2 concept was that the ICC abolished it's previous rule limiting the total number of cars in a freight train and the road wanted to run these longer trains without as many helpers and pushers. "Longer train" in this case makes me believe they were thinking of coal gondolas.
I think you have this backward -- the development of the simple 2-8-8-2 was shelved because of a proposed limitation on the length of freight trains (at least according to Ed King).
The practical limitation on speed of the later compound Y classes was limited much more by water rate and inertial mass in the running gear than by driver diameter -- in my opinion, the development of the 'booster valve' (which increased the thermodynamic efficiency of the LP engine essentially by reheating the steam rather than increasing pressure) made up for some of the 'advantage' of the Y7, and a better version (that equalized effective torque between HP and LP at speed, similar to what Chapelon proposed with IP injection) would most probably have allowed road speed up to what the locomotive chassis would permit, while retaining the fundamental efficiency of compounding at slow speeds and heavy loads.
In my opinion, N&W had no need for a heavy intermediate-speed freight engine; the A class (especially with the lightweight rodwork) was as good a time-freight engine as needed. Further indication of this is that the Y7 was not produced, even though many of the drawings for it were made, after the proposed train-length restriction was given up ... or during wartime. (Someone tell me, because I find I don't know, whether N&W was 'bound' by the WPB restrictions on new-design construction... even though they owned their own shops)
I have had the impression that the use of steel for non-military purposes was greatly restricted. The Y7 may not have been considered essential to the war effort?
Johnny
DeggestyThe Y7 may not have been considered essential to the war effort?
There is another thing that might be considered. The Y7 was impossibly large to run on many Eastern railroads, and most Western railroads that needed large articulated power already had 'Western prototypes' like the Challengers that were perhaps better suited to conditions out there as built.
This came up when comparing the dimensions of N&W 611 with the T1, particularly in discussing why the testing wasn't done either east of Pittsburgh or all the way into Chicago. If anything the Y7 would have required even more clearance addressing -- the adapted PRR J1s had some 'contact trouble' with each other even as it was, and those were designed to fit the more restricted loading gauge...
The Y7 drawing looked a lot more like a Great Northern R-2 from the line drawings I have seen. The fire box was more substantial as evidenced by the longer Delta trailing truck, and it was proposed to have the same pilot as the A-J-K, all employed as passenger power in their careers. The Y6 class was used on manifest on occasion - it is likely the Y7 would have seen similar use. Knowing the prowess of the engineers at Roanoke, the Y7 would likely not have disappointed in its performance.
"Don't let it be forgot, that once there was a spot, for one brief shining moment that was known as....Camelot"
The question really is not could railroads have existed without diselization; it is could the world have gotten to what exists today, without the technology of diesel electric locomotives (and all the underlying technologies) having been commercially viable at the time it was. There was a whole technological revolution taking place at the time diesel became commercially viable, a revolution that expanded with the technologies required to be invented and developed during the course of WW II.
A better question is what would the world look like if Hitler had not come to power in Germany? Would there have been a WW II? History is! It can't be rewritten.
carnej1 In my Extremely Humble opinion Mr. Sol's earlier contention the N&W (and some of the other coal hauling RR's) had dieselized too rapidly was compelling but his later argument that the Class 1's circa-2006 needed to scrap their motive power fleets and buy new built Y6B's (or Q2s, ACE3000s etc..) didn't seem to be much more than fantasy..
2006 was before the frac'ing revolution took off, with many people believing that US oil production was headed for an inexorable decline. Under those circumstances the idea of building new steam locomotives wasn't quite as absurd as it is now. I do think it would have made more sense to burn coal in stationary power plants and deliver the energy via a wire.
Getting back to Dave Klepper's original question, not having GM in the diesel locomotive market would only have slowed down dieselization for a bit, might have given Alco, Baldwin and FM a bit more time to get their houses in order. OTOH, I'd wonder what would have happened to GM if the oil shortages projected in the early 1920's had turned out to be accurate rather than wildly off (much the way that predictions of US oil production were far off the mark in 2006).
- Erik
This has been a great thread to read through and sure gets one thinking about what could, or maybe should have been. It always remained a mystery to me how technologically advanced steam locomotives build right up to 1950 could disappear so quickly with some barely starting their service lives. If the onset of dieselization was delayed a decade or so a natural progression in steam from the builders at Alco, Baldwin and Lima would not have been so severely and completly terminated. Advances would have continued especially in more complete combustion resulting in less smoke and more simple water vapour exhaust, perhaps a revolutionary new firebox altogether. I'm quite familiar with all the other reasons diesel was displacing steam but the steam builders were going in the right direction and it's quite possible that a delayed entry could have resulted in a far less impact than what actually occured. If deregulation came much earlier, say as far back as 1950 when the railroad brass could see the writing on the wall, that coupled with a GM diversion resulting in no barnstorming the FT and the steam builders moving on to the next giant leap then I would say steam sticks around for a long time. Maybe in some parallel universe it happened.
Part of the problem lay with the steam builders, who were hedging their bets by building diesel locomotives while continuing to research improvements to the steam locomotive. Many of their proposals seemed to be overly complicated, attempting to make several advances with one proposal.
Another part of the problem was the inherent conservatism of many railroad mechanical departments, who often did not learn how to properly maintain or operate more advanced steam designs.
I'm thinking that another possible extension to this question might be "Could the freight railroads have survived by going directly to electrification from steam traction for mainline service".
I realize that the expense makes it unlikely now but would it have been more feasible during the transition era?
The other thing I've always wonderered is what form Steam locomotive development would have taken had the Great Depression not occured (or at least been "only" a recession).
carnej1 I'm thinking that another possible extension to this question might be "Could the freight railroads have survived by going directly to electrification from steam traction for mainline service". I realize that the expense makes it unlikely now but would it have been more feasible during the transition era? The other thing I've always wonderered is what form Steam locomotive development would have taken had the Great Depression not occured (or at least been "only" a recession).
Electrification requires massive investment before you ever get near turning a wheel with it. Railroads were not in position to make such a investment in the 30's, the War bespoke the 40's .
carnej1I realize that the expense makes it unlikely now but would it have been more feasible during the transition era?
I found out yesterday, quite by accident, that the Southern considered electrifying the Rathole (CNO&TP) seriously enough to build a number of new tunnels with 30' height. I have not seen this discussed here or in anything else I have read. Who has the details on what they were considering, how it would operate, etc.?
I would think this might be a good place to utilize those 'dual-mode' adaptations that Conrail was looking at in the early '80s, basically something that would allow the diesel engines to be cut back or perhaps shut down with the train in tunnels but not taking 'full advantage' of much higher horsepower per unit of straight electric power to run longer trains. Admittedly the Rathole is a very special case, but there are other places a dual-mode engine might be valuable, most notably where 'electric boost' on grades would supplement the constant power from the engines and thereby reduce or eliminate the need for helpers, strategic train-factor reduction, or having to 'double'.
The Pennsylvania electrification was made possible with a federal loan (repaid) in 1934 of $77 million. Of course that would be worth a lot more now, but it was also in the depths of our worst depression. Perhaps the price tag for that today is not realistic since most other countries seem to be capable of doing so.
daveklepper Suppose GM's policy toward street railroads and interurban lines have been paralleled by a similar policy to favor trucking over freight railroads. (There were tendencies in that direction, but that is a subject for a different posting.) They would probably have not been the leader in streamlined passenger train power and probably would not have barnstormed the FT and done the research that made road freight locomotives possible. And Alco and Baldwin and Lima probably would have been more than content to continue supplying steam locomotives. What would have happened? I have some ideas, but I would like to learn yours before presenting (and possibly modifying) mine.
Suppose GM's policy toward street railroads and interurban lines have been paralleled by a similar policy to favor trucking over freight railroads. (There were tendencies in that direction, but that is a subject for a different posting.) They would probably have not been the leader in streamlined passenger train power and probably would not have barnstormed the FT and done the research that made road freight locomotives possible. And Alco and Baldwin and Lima probably would have been more than content to continue supplying steam locomotives. What would have happened?
I have some ideas, but I would like to learn yours before presenting (and possibly modifying) mine.
IFthe original question was meant to mean, could railroads today being operating steam engines TODAY in revenue service as their main means of locomotion. The answer is a resounding NO; they would be out of business today. The clean air movement, begining in the 60's and continuing to today would have put them out of business had not diesels been invented and commercially successful.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.