Why did diesel go to passenger first?

[gabe]

Recognizing that I am not exactly a Randy Stall when it comes to my knowledge of locomotives work and why one is better than another, it seems to me that the way diesel took over from steam got it backwards.

Almost universally, diesels were first introduced on passenger trains and steam was able to hold out much longer for freight runs. In fact there is a famous ALCO poster that more or less contends that, though diesel may have taken over for passenger haul, steam is still king on freight hauls.

This seems backwards to me. One of the prime advantages of diesel is the fact that it can apply all of its horsepower at lower speeds than Steam. Whereas Steam's prime operating power is at higher speeds. With this in mind, wouldn't it have made more sense if steam lasted longer on passenger service than freight?

Gabe

[eolafan]

To me the answer is simply that back in the 1930's when diesel power was first being introduced, passenger trains were the prime symbol of the railroads and they ALWAYS put their best technology and "sexiest" and newest equipment on the crack passenger runs because they (the passenger trains) garnered the railroads the most attention. At the same time the lonesome freight train was simply a way to make money but not to draw attention to the road and so dirty old steam was good enough. Today we have the fast intermodal trains as the "queens of the road" like the BNSF "Z" trains and THEY now get the latest in power. Anybody have any conflicting thoughts to offer?

[Randy Stahl]

Actually the first internal combustion locomotives were switch engines, like the Ingersoll rand machines etc. I think the Winton powered SC proceeded any of the road locomotives. Keep in mind also that the first diesels were pretty low powered machines. The building block principle had not yet been invented . for example the CB&Q Zepher, was a stand alone trainset, very low horsepower not suited for freight service for sure. Remember that the good old steam engine was a stand alone machine that could pull 100 cars. No contemporary diesel could do that . EMD , with the FT used multiple low HP machines with semi permanent drawbars and called them ONE locomotive.
Randy

[TH&B]

Good question! It seems complete oppasite to me too. Even back then some inter urban electrics could pull ten cars with very little hp, a deisel electric was realy an inter urban trolly car with a prime mover. Heavy electrics like MSP&P bipolars could uotpull a huge steam engine. But one large Pacific steamer had a lot of hp and deisels had to be in multipal to mach the power.

It must have been non technical reasons for sure.

[Randy Stahl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by 440cuin

Good question! It seems complete oppasite to me too. Even back then some inter urban electrics could pull ten cars with very little hp, a deisel electric was realy an inter urban trolly car with a prime mover. Heavy electrics like MSP&P bipolars could uotpull a huge steam engine. But one large Pacific steamer had a lot of hp and deisels had to be in multipal to mach the power.

It must have been non technical reasons for sure.

With electrics you have an entire power grid to draw your kilowatts from.

[greyhounds]

Actually, a railroad that got it right was the SP. They did a study and concluded that the greatest benifits from diesels were on heavy freight trains (no doubleheading with two crews, etc.) So they concentrated on buying freight diesels and left the GS-4s to work the passenger runs;

They also came to the conclusion that there passenger business was hopeless sooner than most other railroads and they weren't in a hurry to spend big bucks buying E7s to loose money.

[tree68]

Consider, too, passenger rail's arch-nemesis, the car. Pure engineering made moving people come before moving heavy freight - the poor roads notwithstanding. The equipment took a while to get where it could handle the freight.

IMHO, switchers worked as internal combustion early on because they could put what limited horsepower they had into moving heavy stuff slowly. Speed takes horsepower.

Once the F's and E's (as well as their cousins from other manufacturers) hit the road, it was off to the races. Technology and engineering were able to progress fairly quickly.

Don't forget that motive power, whatever its form, represents an investment. Even today the railroads don't go out and buy motive power because the ashtray is full. They use what they have until it's not economically effective to maintain and operate, vs buying a new unit.

[kevarc]

It was also a matter of numbers - it took less to dieselize passenger trains than freight.

"with the FT used multiple low HP machines with semi permanent drawbars and called them ONE locomotive."

This was done out of fear that the crews would demand to be paid for EACH unit. It it had 3 units, the pay would be 3 times, etc. That is one reason why they had a single road number followed by a letter.

"To me the answer is simply that back in the 1930's when diesel power was first being introduced, passenger trains were the prime symbol of the railroads and they ALWAYS put their best technology and "sexiest" and newest equipment on the crack passenger runs"

Yep. The named trains came first and as more became available they trickled down to the mail and locals, etc.

Another reason steam lasted in some areas was also because the Cooper ratings of some bridges were not high enough to handle the heavier diesels.

[bobwilcox]

Speed was important on the best trains because of business travel but only the NYC and PRR had track pans. The other railroads had to make frequent water stops that lengthened there schedules.

[Anonymous]

Diesel didn't have the horsepower until 1939 when EMD FT's entered production. At 1350 hp per unit a single unit couldn't match steam but FT's introduced multi-unit operation, almost all were sold in A-B unit pairs as 2700 hp. 3 or 4 units were needed to match big steam.

[RudyRockvilleMD]

I agree the switch engines got diesels first, but many of the early units were experimental. Also some of the so called gas electric cars were powered by diesels, and the passenger trains such as the Union Pacific's early city series and the Burlington's Zephyrs were logical follow ons.

In fact the New Haven got diesel switchers before it got its first dual use diesels. The New Haven used its DL 109's to haul freight at night.

However, when WW II broke out the War Production board only allowed freight diesels, switchers, and road switchers to be built; after WW II disels took over in a big way, and in some cases diesel locomotives were assigned to certain districts of a railroad, and they were bought for whatever service was most needed in that district.

[M636C]

Another consideration is speed. While the steam locomotives with 84" drivers could make 100mph and more, these followed the early diesels and were built to meet the challenge. Remember that air conditioning was not universal in the 1930s, and the cleaner exhaust of diesels was a help in keeping the cars cleaner inside.The ability of diesels to run long distances without coal and water and the time required for servicing helped shorten schedules and meet road and air competition. This was important for AT&SF particularly, with long stretches of running through areas with little water. I think the railroads that went for diesel passenger units early were justified in doing so from their improved receipts at the time. Certainly, by the end of WW II all the railroads (except for those committed to coal traffic) bought diesel passenger units and new streamlined cars. While some of this was following a fashion, there must have been an indication that financial returns were better with the new equipment.

Peter

[arbfbe]

Diesels excelled in unit availability. Compared to steam engines, their turn around times were just remarkable. Since passenger service was mostly scheduled you could arrange the unit to cover more trains in a given time than a steam engine could do. It was just the same as the yard jobs, a few diesels could eliminate a large number of steam engines in the same service.

The low horsepower ratings of the early diesels meant they were most useful in low horsepower applications. Yards where speeds were low and passenger trains where loads were light. I am sure acceleration when departing terminals sufferred with diesels but the low speed capabilities of the electric tractiion motors eliminated helpers in many passenger runs. When MU capabilities became fully understood then there was no trains diesels could not excell in unless there was four or more inches of water over the rail.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Randy Stahl

Actually the first internal combustion locomotives were switch engines, like the Ingersoll rand machines etc. I think the Winton powered SC proceeded any of the road locomotives. Keep in mind also that the first diesels were pretty low powered machines. The building block principle had not yet been invented . for example the CB&Q Zepher, was a stand alone trainset, very low horsepower not suited for freight service for sure. Remember that the good old steam engine was a stand alone machine that could pull 100 cars. No contemporary diesel could do that . EMD , with the FT used multiple low HP machines with semi permanent drawbars and called them ONE locomotive.
Randy

Actually, the first gas electrics were self propelled passenger cars. Randy, a really good book on the history of dieselization is Garmany's "Southern Pacific Dieselization."

Jim

[martin.knoepfel]

It was not only a question of keeping passenger-cars clean. Diesel engines meant more comfort for passengers (i.e. customers) in pre-air-condition-days, because of the exhaust of the then-steam-engines. If the windows do not close well or were not shut, running through a tunnel was a very unpleasant experience, if you had a steam-engine in front.

The gas-electrics and the DMU's are another story. For decades, the railroads were looking for rolling-stock to economically serve light-density branches. The diesel-rail-cars of the various designs were the first to live up to this challenge.

[Modelcar]

...Passenger schedules of the era we're relating to simply were held in higher priority and of course got the newer technology first...even though their money making ability probably was not as great as freight operations...Passenger trains of that era simply were first....For what ever reason. The railroads status and PR movements.

[passengerfan]

Remember duriing WW II only diesel freight units and switchers were allowed to be built. No passenger units were built during the war. But railroads like the Santa Fe and Great Northern both acquired large numbers of FT's in A-B-B-A sets. The Santa Fe found them ideal for the poor water districts and following the war they operated several A-B-B-A sets in passenger service between Chicago and Los Angeles. The GN on the other hand did not have water problems but found the FTS great for hauling freight and broke two sets into A-B units for passenger service between the Twin Cities and Twin Ports. This led to both roads deserting the E-unit fold for passenger F units. The GN had thirteen E-7 units and never purchased another all were purchased following WW II and only lasted a short while in Empire Builder service before being replaced by F3 diesels. Remeber the first successful Diesel passenger power was the 9900 Pioneer Zephyr on display at the Chicago Museum of Science and Industry. If you ever get the chance its worth seeing. This little 600 hp diesel powered pioneer was the beginning of diesel road power for the railroads. The only other diesels around when this train made its debut were numerous switchers and two boxcab road units that were operated successfully in Canada pulling heavyweight passenger trains.

[daveklepper]

First, the first practical diesel locomotives were switchers, not road passenger locomotives/
Second, although some railroads did b passenger diesels early, they were mostly considered a purchase as part of a complete streamline train, even when the train was not an articulated unit. Examples include the Rockets, Zephyrs, Chiefs, the Florida trains, and the Southerner and Tennesean. This is all covered beautifully in Classic Trains special Streamliner issue. Mass road locomotive dieselization started with freight, started with the Electro Motive FT and even earlier, the New Haven's DL-109. Remember, that the New Haven bought the fleet of DL-109's because its most modern steam power, the I-5 4-6-4, could not do a good job on freight, but the Alco DL-109 (and the PA) could serve as road freight locomotive, hauling the frequent Boston - New Haven passenger trains by day and the freight at night. It would be interesting to speculate how much the DL-109's success was noted in Electro-Motive's management and engineering offices and at GM Board Rooms.

[Anonymous]

Dear Gabe
By the time diesels came along, railroads had steam down to a science. By the time steam ended in the US, the N&W could service, fuel, water, sand, and get a steam locomotive back on the road in one hour. When the Santa Fe had hundreds of passenger steamers, finding one to pull a train was not a problem--the railroads could cover for the decreased availability of the steam locomotive; they had to. So when someone from some place called La Grange waltzes into the mighty UP/AT&SF/NYC/PRR/SP/CB&Q/C&NW/CMSt.P&P/______ offices trying to sell diesels, this is my surmising of the thought process involved:
"Hello, my name is _____, I'm a representative of the Electro-Motive division of General Motors."
"______[President's name]; nice to meet you."
"With the EMD F-unit, you can replace the coal guzzling, 4% efficient ______ [passenger steamer] hauling The [railroad's steam-era flagship train] with a shiny new locomotive which will cut servicing times, greatly reduce your infrastructure, allow you to move more in less time, and eliminate water service, as well as enable you to use the diesel's dynamic braking capability. We can offer you very attractive financing options, and you can start reducing costs immediately."
"You said it was shiny?"
"Uh, yeah, the F-unit is, I guess."
"We'll take 400 of them."

Please note that the selling statements are those of the imaginary EMD representative, not my pro-steam self. What made the difference was the modern appearance of the diesel in the head-to-head passenger market. With four railroads' first-rate trains daily between Seattle and Chicago, image was important. Though it is true that the diesel started first in switching, the diesel was but a small percentage of the switching fleet in the pre-WWII era. It was passenger service where the diesel made its first siege of steam. Sure, the diesel was good for switching because of the long periods between assignments which had been a money-loss with steam, but the railroads did not NEED diesels.

They WANTED diesels, and they wanted them to look cool where people would see--passenger.

Sincerely,
Daniel Parks

[siberianmo]

No single answer to this question, is there? Of course not. One would need to be in those board rooms of the day in order to listen in on what was being said and why.

Seems to me that marketing had a huge part in this decision to dieselize the passenger railroads. The streamline era - the "jazzed up" look given to some steamers - should illustrate that marketing was a significant factor.

Now, before anyone decides to jump down my stack - let me continue. What has been posted thus far is all very informative and perhaps right on the money - I'm not in opposition to your points of view. Simply advocating for another to fill in the pieces leading to the answer to the posted question.

Lots of money went into ensuring that the passenger consists "matched," so why not the motive power? Hardly possible with the steamers all.

I remember the thick black smoke and ash getting all over everything and everyone now and then. I also remember some of the awful smells eminating from those early diesels ....... but weren't those passenger consists "pretty"?

Love 'em all.

See ya! [;)] [tup]

[tree68]

QUOTE: Originally posted by tomtrain
Were the "coal" railroads less enthusiastic about changing over to diesel?

Most assuredly! The last steamers were built well into the diesel era, mostly by the "coal" roads.

QUOTE: Originally posted by siberianmo
Lots of money went into ensuring that the passenger consists "matched," so why not the motive power? Hardly possible with the steamers all.

But some of the efforts were very successful. The SP Daylights and the Hiawathas come to mind immediately. There were many more. The problem with steam engines and streamlining was less that it couldn't be done (or even that it cost money), but that a lot of the streamlining hindered maintenance on the maintenance intensive steamers.

[Paul Milenkovic]

Talking about maintenance intensive, I read that the first generation of Diesel streamliners (just prior to the standardized E's and F's -- I am thinking the Zephyr power cars and some of the early one-of predecessors to the E's on the SantaFe) required a lot of tinkering to keep the Diesels going and that they had mechanics or EMC/EMD factory reps in the engine rooms. I guess these would be the 201 Diesels -- the 567's were a big step up in allowing unattended operation under railroad conditions.

I am supposing that the rail locomotive style Diesel got its start in the engine rooms of WW-II era subs, and the story is that on a sub, you had an engine room staff looking over it to keep it going. Someone needs to enlighten me on what could break on a Diesel that an engine room mechanic could fix underway, either in a sub or in one of those Santa Fe EA/EB's or CB&Q Zephyr power cars. Would it be accessories of various sorts? Electricals? Injection pumps? What could you repair or adjust that wouldn't require stopping the Diesel let alone taking it apart with a crane?

[passengerfan]

It was possible for the traveling diesel maintainers to even isolate a cylinder and change it out while underway. The diesel maintainesr hired by the Santa Fe were probably some of the most dedicated personel the railroads ever hired and they literally kept those early E1A and B units as well as the boxcabs in one piece as they raced across the country. Someday I hope a book is wriitten about these true heros of the rails and the efforst they exerted to keep the early diesels operating and the many hours and days of sleep they lost. I have read several stories but the effort is really worth a book I hope a would be author can gather the information and put it together in a book because some of the things they accomplished should be recorded for all.

[SSW9389]

That would be an excellent topic for a book. You get glimpses of what the Santa Fe men did in John McCall's Early Diesel Daze, but not the whole story. [8D]

QUOTE: Originally posted by passengerfan

It was possible for the traveling diesel maintainers to even isolate a cylinder and change it out while underway. The diesel maintainesr hired by the Santa Fe were probably some of the most dedicated personel the railroads ever hired and they literally kept those early E1A and B units as well as the boxcabs in one piece as they raced across the country. Someday I hope a book is wriitten about these true heros of the rails and the efforst they exerted to keep the early diesels operating and the many hours and days of sleep they lost. I have read several stories but the effort is really worth a book I hope a would be author can gather the information and put it together in a book because some of the things they accomplished should be recorded for all.

[Anonymous]

The first diesel locomotives were switchers and were mandated by law. New York City enacted a law about 1920 banning steam locomotives from New York City and any adjoining city. This was meant to force electrification but was interpreted to permit the substitution of diesel electrics. Thus CNJ 300 was born, along with many of the other Ingersol Rand electrics. Not to mention the tri powered and bi powered hybrids. This also was the reason the Westinghouse "Mike and Ike" twins appeared on the Long Island, along with a few other Westinghouses. And the reason a Brill manufactured diesel electric, lettered for the Long Island, tested on the Philadelphia docks for months before being refused by the Long Island's parent, the PRR.

Chicago enacted a similar law which pushed the IC into electrification, and NYC and IC to purchase IR-GE-Alco locomotives. And Santa Fe to purchase the very first commercially sold Baldwin Diesel Electric locomotive. Chicago backed off because of the Great Depression and no other railroads there were forced to change by fiat.

The first diesel passenger locomotive did not appear until years later. It was an ALCO-GE-M&S locomotive that was used for passenger service on New York Central's Putnam Division. The entire Putnam Division was covered by the New York City statute but had low enough traffic that New York Central did not think electrification was justified. The locomotive was reasonably successful, but the complexity of its air injection engine, not to mention fiscal problems due to the Great Depression that followed its construction caused it to not be repeated.

[daveklepper]

The New York Statute covered only Manhattan and not the Putnam Divison which continued to operate 4-6-0's on both freight and passenger until quite late. But the Put was used for experiments. When one Alco road-switcher showed up after WWII, we thought the NYC was going to dieselize the Put. But the 4-6-0's continued and the fleet of road-switchers went elsewhere on the system until later the Put was dieselized and then went freight-only and then abandoned in part. A few pieces are still in use.

The outlying boroughs, Staten Island (B&O Camelbacks), Queens and Brooklyn (lots of LIRR/Pennsy steam, K-4's, G-5's, B-6's, H-10's, and a few E-6's), and The Bronx (the Van Ness NYNH&H 0-6-0T shop switcher possibly the last steamer in The Bronx) all had steam for some 50 years after Manhattan was all electric and "oil-electric."

[gabe]

I appreciate the response my topic is getting, but I am not really sure about some of the responses.

As far as "matching sets" being the allure of diesels, didn't the N&W J's, the Milwaukee's Hiawathas, and the SP's Daylights match? You could also make the argument that so did the Pennsy's T-1's, the NYC's Hudson-Mohawks, and the UP's 800s. I should probably say something about the Deleware and Hudson as well.

I understand the argument that streamlining gets in the way of maintenance but weren't the J's known for their exceptional ease in operation?

And, yes, I knew about the switchers proceeding passenger in some instances. But, I think artificial external reasons--like city regulation--was largely the reason for that.

I still do not quite understand why the diesel's higher tractive effort at lower speeds and steam's efficiency at high speed didn't make passenger service the last place steam fell.

Gabe

P.S. Greyhounds, thanks for the information on the GS-4s.

[tree68]

QUOTE: Originally posted by gabe
I understand the argument that streamlining gets in the way of maintenance but weren't the J's known for their exceptional ease in operation?
Gabe

Some streamlining was easier to maintain than others. The running gear on the J's is pretty much in the clear. Some streamlined locomotives had skirting that covered a lot of the important stuff. A lot of the streamlining was added "later," often to an older locomotive, and they just covered everything up...

[Leon Silverman]

Small drivered steam (freight) engines could drag their trains along at ten mph all day. The DC traction motors cannot sustain maximum power input below about 10 or 15 mph. If the train was going to operate continuously at these speeds, the low horsepower diesels could not operate a full power. This made them much more reliable in higher (passenger)speed service.
Besides, we had the same problem then that we do today regarding switching alternative fuels such as hydrogen or LPG, namely the necessity of creating a new infrastructure to service these new machines.
The railroads had a large invetory of steam engines, steam servicing facilities and steam trained personnel on hand. These assets were already paid for. New diesels were very expensive. No railroad could afford to switch its' entire motive power invetory at once . It had to come in stages. Passenger trains were first.

[spbed]

To make them look sleeker hoping more people would ride them. [:o)]

Originally posted by gabe
[

Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR  Austin TX Sub

• Reply