Trains.com

Could have free-enterprise freight railroads survived without dieselization?

9962 views
188 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Northern New York
  • 25,022 posts
Posted by tree68 on Wednesday, January 13, 2016 10:55 AM

The anti-union stuff makes a great red herring, but both manpower and real estate cost money.  Eliminating either represents a savings, and an increase in the bottom line - and that's what business is all about.

The elimination of steam reduced both.  I think that fact is beyond refute.

The fact that labor is represented by unions is more coincidental than a major factor.  If labor had been slaves, those which existed to service steam would still have been eliminated, as it still would have represented a cost.

While anti-union sentiment certain existed (as it still does in some quarters), I would opine that said sentiment was a truly insignificant factor in the Dieselization of US railroads.

The idea that GM (or anyone else) might have tried to replace rail with trucks (a la the legend of Pacific Electric) is interesting, but as noted, would not have been able to replace the bulk capacity of rail.  From local experience, a cogen plant here changed over from coal/coke to wood chips.  The coal/coke arrived by rail.  The wood chips arrive by truck, and it's virtually impossible to pass that area without seeing at least a few wood chip trucks coming or going.

LarryWhistling
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...

  • Member since
    November 2003
  • From: Rhode Island
  • 2,289 posts
Posted by carnej1 on Wednesday, January 13, 2016 11:24 AM

Miningman

Murphy Siding- ummm, yah! That could happen, the world can change and turn on a dime. I picture a 6-8-8-6 duplex drive hauling a 120 car double stack along the shores of Lake Erie emitting nothing more than water vapour verses 4 diesels with their carcinogenic particulate exhaust. That is what this thread has been about...could it have happened? Maybe it will yet. One breakthrough is all that is needed. The rest falls into place. 

 

Are you firing your Super Duplex with Uranium because that's the only way you're going to have only Vapor coming out of that stack?

Tier IV compliant diesel electrics emit very little particulate...

"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • 1,486 posts
Posted by Victrola1 on Wednesday, January 13, 2016 12:48 PM

Meanwhile, in the commercial trucking industry, new engine designs with a focus on performance emerged after World War II. Direct-injection turbo-charged diesel engines that became a standard emerged during the 1950s, in large part thanks to the work of Volvo in Sweden. Engine manufacturers such as the U.S. Cummins and British Perkins companies began heavily supplying the market with diesel engines through the 1960s as the trucking industry began its conversion from standard gasoline. 

http://www.historyoftrucks.com/history_of_mac_trucks.html

Who gets nostolgic over motor freight and buses powered using a carburator, distributor and spark plugs? A web search brings up little on heavy trucks converting from gasoline to diesel. 

 

 

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Wednesday, January 13, 2016 5:56 PM

carnej1

 

 
Miningman

Murphy Siding- ummm, yah! That could happen, the world can change and turn on a dime. I picture a 6-8-8-6 duplex drive hauling a 120 car double stack along the shores of Lake Erie emitting nothing more than water vapour verses 4 diesels with their carcinogenic particulate exhaust. That is what this thread has been about...could it have happened? Maybe it will yet. One breakthrough is all that is needed. The rest falls into place. 

 

 

 

Are you firing your Super Duplex with Uranium because that's the only way you're going to have only Vapor coming out of that stack?

Tier IV compliant diesel electrics emit very little particulate...

 

Perhaps Miningman works in the downsizing coal industry?

C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan

  • Member since
    September 2013
  • 6,199 posts
Posted by Miningman on Wednesday, January 13, 2016 6:35 PM

Howdy Schlimm- No don't work in the coal industry..I'm strictly a hard rock mining guy. Drill and blast, make your round, muck it out. Mostly gold and massive sulphides, iron ore mines, some uranium ( that's a bit different kettle of fish).  Have posted a profile, ...I teach Mining Engineering and Geology now that I am, unfortunately, in my later years. Worked with the railroads on developing and proper engineering with ore haulage from our mines. Have wrote extensively on this thread and thought perhaps it needed to be revived, brought back to life a little. Mostly the posts were serious ....so I repeat, surely greater minds than mine can figure out a way to boil water without using fossil fuels. One breakthrough away, that all its takes. By the way, love the Chicago and NorthWestern. Those "zeppelins" coming out of the shops after WWII were something. A great road with a great logo and a stellar history. Spent much time in Chicago and area in the 70's and 80's and got to witness a lot of what was around. Great memories. 

  • Member since
    January 2014
  • 8,221 posts
Posted by Euclid on Wednesday, January 13, 2016 6:53 PM
Murphy Siding
 
Euclid
 
The railroads have demonstrated that it is not always easy to get rid of the people after getting rid of the function.  Diesel “firemen” was a great example.  Cabooses, crew size, telegraphers and operators, and depots are other examples.  With union labor, getting rid of people is fought by the unions whether the labor is needed for a function or not.  
So it is not necessarily true that if the railroads could have figured out ways to reduce labor in steam maintenance and repair, they would have done so.  Where is the motivation to do it if the unions won’t let you get rid of the labor that is no longer needed after reducing steam maintenance?  
Not only would be hard to get rid of steam labor it if were not needed, but also due to the same dynamic, labor may have been allowed to expand beyond actual need as the steam age progressed.  
I suggest that getting rid of steam may have been an extreme decision for the purpose of getting rid of the steam labor that could not have been reduced otherwise simply by reducing the need for maintenance and repair.
It would be hardest for the unions to argue that steam labor is needed when you have no steam.  Although they did argue that in the case of the steam firemen. 
 

 

 

   Then there are those folks who are so indecisive in their views, but still need to defend those views as being... *right*... no matter what.  That need goes so far as to constantly reinterpret those views to fit whatever they're supposed to mean today.

 

 

Oh yes, I could not agree more.  I see that all the time here on the forum. 
  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Wednesday, January 13, 2016 9:11 PM

Miningman
By the way, love the Chicago and NorthWestern. Those "zeppelins" coming out of the shops after WWII were something. A great road with a great logo and a stellar history. Spent much time in Chicago and area in the 70's and 80's and got to witness a lot of what was around. Great memories. 

We all get old, unfortunately. Staying healthy and in good enough shape to enjoy (semi)retirement's time is the key.  Many good memories in the area from the 50's to present.

C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan

  • Member since
    December 2007
  • From: Southeast Michigan
  • 2,983 posts
Posted by Norm48327 on Thursday, January 14, 2016 12:27 PM

Euclid
 
Murphy Siding
 
Euclid
 
The railroads have demonstrated that it is not always easy to get rid of the people after getting rid of the function.  Diesel “firemen” was a great example.  Cabooses, crew size, telegraphers and operators, and depots are other examples.  With union labor, getting rid of people is fought by the unions whether the labor is needed for a function or not.  
So it is not necessarily true that if the railroads could have figured out ways to reduce labor in steam maintenance and repair, they would have done so.  Where is the motivation to do it if the unions won’t let you get rid of the labor that is no longer needed after reducing steam maintenance?  
Not only would be hard to get rid of steam labor it if were not needed, but also due to the same dynamic, labor may have been allowed to expand beyond actual need as the steam age progressed.  
I suggest that getting rid of steam may have been an extreme decision for the purpose of getting rid of the steam labor that could not have been reduced otherwise simply by reducing the need for maintenance and repair.
It would be hardest for the unions to argue that steam labor is needed when you have no steam.  Although they did argue that in the case of the steam firemen. 
 

 

 

   Then there are those folks who are so indecisive in their views, but still need to defend those views as being... *right*... no matter what.  That need goes so far as to constantly reinterpret those views to fit whatever they're supposed to mean today.

 

 

 

Oh yes, I could not agree more.  I see that all the time here on the forum. 
 

Pot, meet Kettle. Bang Head

Norm


  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Thursday, January 14, 2016 6:14 PM

Norm48327
 
Euclid
Oh yes, I could not agree more.  I see that all the time here on the forum.
 

Pot, meet Kettle.

And they both come from the same place.

C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy