CSSHEGEWISCH Bucky's anti-union rant seems to disregard the fact that a lot of shopcraft labor related to the maintenance of steam locomotives was laid off in the 1950's.
Bucky's anti-union rant seems to disregard the fact that a lot of shopcraft labor related to the maintenance of steam locomotives was laid off in the 1950's.
I have also read that the skills needed for steam maintenance were becoming more and more scarce. Partly this is because of the lack of standardization and need to hand craft replacement components from scratch. Couple that with some good points made by another poster about how labor intensive steam was (changing driver tires, replacing steam drive components vs swapping out a prime mover in diesel. But the motivation about cutting maintenance costs went way beyond getting rid of union labor, since obviously diesel maintenance labor was also union. Bucky simply cannot resist getting in one of his obsessive 'anti' rants, whether it be anti-union, anti-government or anti-reality.
So many of the changes on the rails post-war were painful adjustments to economic and technological changes, far beyond the dislocations attributed to over-regulation.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
How does what I said about unions and steam mainentance disregard the fact that shop labor was laid off in the 1950? That does not conflict with what I said. It confirms it.
Miningman If diesels were so much cheaper to run then why did steam hang on into the seventies, eighties and nineties in Eastern Europe, even Germany, India, China and much of the third world? Because those countries had lots of cheap labor and coal reserves... Steam has been acknowledged as easier to maintain. I Can't let that go unchallenged: Prove it...
If diesels were so much cheaper to run then why did steam hang on into the seventies, eighties and nineties in Eastern Europe, even Germany, India, China and much of the third world?
Because those countries had lots of cheap labor and coal reserves...
Steam has been acknowledged as easier to maintain.
I Can't let that go unchallenged: Prove it...
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
tree68 Labor agreements notwithstanding, it takes X people to do Y function. If the railroad can get rid of function Y, they can get rid of X people...
Labor agreements notwithstanding, it takes X people to do Y function. If the railroad can get rid of function Y, they can get rid of X people...
As Norris said, the logistics of providing fuel and water for steam power--and disposing of the residue of combustion would be almost overwhelming. How much fuel can be carried in a tender? Some roads, such as the N&W used "canteens" to reduce the number of water stops; others had the locomotives pick water up from between the tracks (and spread water on the right of way). It may have been that multiple control of steam engines would have been developed, just as multiple control of diesel engines was developed. These matters, as well as the matter of maintaining the shops would have had to be considered.
Johnny
I can't imagine how modern technologycould improve some aspects of operating steam locomotives. You'd still have to haul the coal from the mine to the yard and store it. You'd have to transfer the coal to the locomotive. You'd have to remove the ashes from the locomotive and haul them off somewhere for disposal. You'd still have to haul with and deal with water. You'd still have to do the maintenance to keep the locomotive operating. What would a 10,000 ton train hauled by steam locomotives look like? Perhaps like five 2,000 ton trains hauled by steam locomotives. There's a reason that steam was replaced by diesel. Steam was near the end of its development. Diesel was at the beginning of its development. It the same reason that F-14 Tomcats aren't powered by Merlin engines with a 4 blade prop. Time marches on. I'm sure the coming of the railroads sent a fair amount of perfectly good horses and oxen prematurely to the auction barn as well.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
One need only look at the time and money required to overhaul steam locomotives in the modern day - which is usually measured in years and hundreds of thousands of dollars - to understand the amount of labor required to go through just one locomotive, much less hundreds.
I don't believe the shops weren't governed by the same constraints as operating crews (ie, state laws, etc), so a comparison there is moot. Labor agreements notwithstanding, it takes X people to do Y function. If the railroad can get rid of function Y, they can get rid of X people...
One can also look at the real estate needed to maintain steam vs Diesel. There is a significant difference, and you can bet that if the railroads had figured out how to reduce that, they would have.
Short of finding another way to transfer energy to the wheels (and we know turbines didn't do a good job), about the only improvements that could physically be made to steam locomotives are pretty much limited to improving heat transfer efficiency and using materials that would require less maintenance.
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...
At least some of the newer steam locomotives using newer technologies (PRR, C&O, N&W) had very high maintenance costs and concurrent high out-of-service rates compared to diesel or even older steamers. To assume steam's high labor costs would have disappeared is yet another example of wishful thinking.
Even in western Europe, the trend was to move away from steam for the same reasons.
Many railroads stayed with steam during WW2 because they didn't have much of a choice due to WPB restrictions. It's fairly well known that the WPB restricted steam locomotive purchases to existing designs and also slapped restrictions on diesel production. The military demand for diesel engines (especially the Navy) went a long way in helping to advance diesel designs.
Steam design was a mature technology by the 1940's and design advances were reaching the point of diminishing returns. Be honest, how many major advances received widespread acceptance after the development of superheating?
BaltACD- one cannot compare 1940 maintenance and practices to today...please read last post buy Euclid. The N&W had streamlined practices that were cutting edge....the Milwaukee Road had tremedous monthly mileage with near continuous running Of their steam. Best practices with steam certainly would be very advanced and unrecognizable today And not at a 1940's level. It is what it is, this thread asked a specific question and I'm certain its goal was not to pit steam heads vs diesel heads. Many claims against the diesel were overlooked and swept away, many claims can be made for steam efficiency today but that evolution stopped some time ago, whether unfairly or not. I still think good old American know how would have developed an incredible and advanced and efficient line of steam given a different set of circumstances and a more sceptical eye. The Railroads were sold a bill of goods that for the most part did little to offset financial the disasters that were to befall them. Much has changed for better or worse but the railroads performed magnificently during the war when called upon and they made a ton of dough doing so, mostly under steam.
Balt, great book, and one I would recommend.
FWIW, many railroads kept steam on the roster for seasonal surges after regular use ended. UP was famous for using Big Boys on late summer perishables until the late 1950s.
The fact that the railroads that stayed with steam (N&W, NKP) transitioned a decade or so later than others gave them time to thoroughly examine the effects dieselization had on other roads. Clearly, there was enough economic impetus to change.
The DMIR famously purchased enough extra appliances to keep their 2-8-8-4s running until 1970 when parts supply began to become an issue-only to dump steam for diesels before 1960.
The economics are inarguable. The fact that so many railroads with so many different conditions dieselized at approximately the same time indicates that there was no great conspiracy that killed steam.
I have a book in my 'library', "Decade Of The Trains the 1940's" by Don Ball Jr and Rogers E.M. Whitaker. Chapter 2 - The Home Front, has a number of pictures highlighting all the shop crafts and skilled manpower necessary to keep steam operating, the degree that engines had to be disassembled to comply with required inspections. If these actions were only happening at one or two major shop per railroad, there are a tremendous number of 'shop' people required - but the major carriers had multiple major shops and secondary shops in number of employees required would be larger than most any of today's major diesel shops.
The manpower required to keep steam operating was tremendous - more than many steam lovers would like to think about.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
blue streak 1 Posts in this thread point out that....... RRs should have kept their steam locos until a major maintenance item occurred sidelining a loco. Not so much rush to judgement of retiring steam with life left. Then they would have had much better information on which diesels would last. The point that PRR had many worn out locos is well taken. Removal of steam gradually first on divisions that had either coal supply or more importantly quality water would have been called for. Some RRs such as UP, N&W, SOU sent train loads of completely operable steam locos to the scrappers.
Posts in this thread point out that.......
RRs should have kept their steam locos until a major maintenance item occurred sidelining a loco. Not so much rush to judgement of retiring steam with life left. Then they would have had much better information on which diesels would last. The point that PRR had many worn out locos is well taken.
Removal of steam gradually first on divisions that had either coal supply or more importantly quality water would have been called for.
Some RRs such as UP, N&W, SOU sent train loads of completely operable steam locos to the scrappers.
Dakotafred/ blue streak 1.....The Southern Pacific, under Russell's leadership, " retained steam for years after other roads becuase Russell thought it unwise to have costly new diesels sitting in storage during traffic downturns" reference Fall 2015 Classic Trains pg 52. He is quoted as saying " I would rather have fully depreciated steam locomotives standing around than new diesels we are paying interest on". Hundreds of steam locomotives were stored serviceable in Houston and other locations. Russell led the Southern Pacific to greatness to the point where David P. Morgan called it the "new standard railroad of the world.
Euclid- thanks for coming to my aid with the references to M. Sol. I only ask that people have an open mind and read what he had to say. We shall see what the future yet brings.
I can't buy this argument, Streak, except insofar as a road wanted or could afford to maintain a double fleet. If the future was diesel, why not get on with it to the extent of your financial ability?
Sure, there is some life left in a lot of obsolete technologies. The old adding machine still works, the calculator be damned. So does carbon paper, if you don't like the copy machine. (I think I'm showing my age by even evoking the copy machine, itself a thing of the past.)
But, if you don't go modern, the competition will, and set the pace. And you lose.
(I'm not saying I like the results all the time. But you have to go with them, unless you prefer some kind of command economy.)
Electric installation ? Thank goodness it did not happen. DEG points out to double stack plate "H" had not been planned for except maybe ERIE's RR?.. Raising CAT would have then be costly and hurt the roads in the early 1990s. + higher tunnel clearances for the present NS and CSX clearance work. What CAT raising Amtrak has done has been expensive in both time and cost.
Anyone know if the IC, South Shore and Milwaukee CAT was of sufficient plate "H" dimensions ?
You would need to fire a new steam locomotive on wood pellets - the only, um, "acceptable" fuel source to certain folks concerned with that sort of thing since the theory is it is only returning "recently captured" carbon back in to the atmosphere (there are millions of tons of wood pellets shipped every year to power plants in Europe based on that theory).
I believe the folks trying to acquire ATSF Hudson 3463 to make a run at 130 MPH were going to use a form of wood pellet fuel - more like wood "disks".
While it would be extremely cool for us lovers of all things large and powerful to see a modern steam-equipped line constructed somewhere, the odds of it happening are probably even smaller than the odds of one winning the $1.3 billion Powerball jackpot.
Modern materials may well be able to conquer some of the physical issues with steam locomotives, but many of the limitations - chiefly manpower - would still be in the forefront.
As noted before, it took (and still does) a lot of just plain people to keep a steam locomotive on the road. Getting a cold steamer up to an operating state takes hours. And it's not the road crew that makes that preparation.
In addition, unless there is a reliable means of electronically/mechanically replacing the fireman, you've just increased the necessary crew by 50%, which is another cost.
Further, DPU becomes a little more complicating, now requring at least an attendant on each locomotive, even if the engineer and fireman can be replaced by electronics. Do we want an unattended 250PSI teakettle running through town, unattended?
Simply put, economics is probably the major reason steam locomotives are now curiosities rather than every day sights on our railroads.
When I say the case for dieselization was made on the basis of engineering, I meant to include economics. Also included would be maintenance, manpower, etc. I only meant "engineering" in contrast to emotional terms such as moderizing the image, and the opportunity to paint locomotives something other than black.
Certainly economics mattered, and could be said to be the ultimate cause, but the economics flowed from the engineering. In any case, a basis on the terms of engineering alone would be meaningless without the economics that resulted.
And the economics would have been impossible without the engineering. Neither one trumps the other.
The reason decisions were never made on pure engineering terms is because economic terms always trump engineering terms.
Of course, dieselization wasn't made strictly on engineering terms, economics had a lot to do with it, too. Consider that Alco ads in the 1930's and early 1940's were already promoting diesels for yard service.
When is a decision EVER made on pure engineering terms? Let's be realistic here. Diesels had that certain sexiness the old steamers just lacked.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
Even the title of this thread can lead to argument. "Could have free-enterprise freight railroads survived without dieselization?."
I would like to think that events in a time line are normally not independent of each other. The railroads dieselized due to events leading up to that decision. So, if railroads never dieselized, then can we not assume those events that led up to said decision are also altered? Then if so, how can we make any conclusion whether the railroads would have survived or not? We would be looking at an alternate time line without knowing all the other events that would happen before and, more importantly, after the question to dieselize became relevant. Unless are we assuming diesel technology never would have even existed at all in this alternate time line?
I love when shows tackle time-travelling plotlines. Such a concept can seem so simple - yet be so complex. (Steins;Gate FTW)
schlimm It is fruitless to argue with half-baked theorists, as facts and logic are irrelevant.
It is fruitless to argue with half-baked
theorists, as facts and logic are irrelevant.
FTFY.
Norm
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.